For Nebraska municipal financial advisors, structuring a TIF Bond that a capital provider can purchase requires navigating the Community Development Law’s specific characteristics — particularly the ad-valorem-only framework and the CRA’s general obligation bond structure. Here is the technical framework for bonds Hageman Capital can purchase, and how proposed LB 1168 would expand your options.
Bond Structure Requirements
Hageman Capital purchases CRA-issued TIF Bonds structured as private placements to the developer, backed by redevelopment contract guarantees, and supported by conservative ad valorem increment projections. Key parameters include amortization within the 15-year period (20 for extremely blighted), interest rate, and coverage ratio. Under current law, CRA bonds are general obligations of the CRA — under proposed LB 1168, conduit revenue bonds would be payable solely from pledged revenues, providing clearer project-level risk isolation.
Increment Modeling for Ad-Valorem-Only Revenue
Nebraska’s single-revenue-stream framework means your model depends entirely on real property value increases. Project the excess value (current minus base) against debt service, account for construction timeline risk and county assessor lag, and stress-test scenarios where the property is assessed below expectations or the project delivers late. Interest and penalties on delinquent taxes flow to taxing bodies, not the TIF fund — so your projection should use net collections. Under LB 1168, the ability to limit assessment challenges through a taxpayer agreement would reduce a key modeling risk.
The Redevelopment Contract as Security
Under current law, the redevelopment contract is the primary vehicle for developer guarantees. The contract should include explicit shortfall coverage obligations, minimum valuation commitments, construction milestones, financial reporting requirements, and meaningful default remedies. Under LB 1168, the taxpayer agreement would formalize these guarantees with statutory lien priority — but even without the new legislation, a well-drafted redevelopment contract provides substantial security.
Coordinating Documents and Deadlines
Documentation includes the CRA bond resolution, the bond or note, the redevelopment contract, the security agreement, and bond counsel’s opinion. The blight declaration, planning commission recommendation, public hearing, governing body approval, CRA 30-day notice, and July 1 filing must all be sequenced correctly. Bond counsel should verify compliance with the Community Development Law at every stage.
Engage Hageman Capital During Structuring
Having the capital provider at the table during structuring prevents rework after governing body approval. Hageman Capital provides guidance on coverage expectations, ad-valorem-specific modeling, developer guarantee terms, and timing — at no cost to the municipality or CRA. Connect with Whitney Peterson for a technical consultation on the transaction in front of you.
When a TIF redevelopment plan comes before your Nebraska governing body, the structuring details determine whether the deal delivers real community value while protecting public funds. Understanding how TIF Bonds are structured for capital provider purchase helps you evaluate the deal in front of you.
How Developer-Backed TIF Bond Sales Work in Nebraska
The CRA issues a bond to the developer, who sells it to Hageman Capital for upfront construction cash. The bond is repaid from ad valorem increment over 15 years (or 20 for extremely blighted areas). The developer’s redevelopment contract guarantees any shortfall. Under proposed LB 1168, conduit revenue bonds would not be CRA general obligations, and taxpayer agreements would create enforceable super-priority liens. Under current law, the redevelopment contract is the primary vehicle for developer guarantees.
What to Look for Before Your Vote
Focus on several elements: Is the blight study thorough and does it genuinely support the declaration? Does the cost-benefit analysis demonstrate the but-for case convincingly? Does the projected increment cover debt service with a reasonable cushion? Does the redevelopment contract include strong developer guarantees, construction milestones, and default remedies? Has the CRA provided the required 30-day notice? Has a capital provider been identified, confirming the bond is purchasable? You do not need to evaluate the modeling yourself, but confirm that qualified professionals are satisfied.
Why the Capital Provider Matters
When Hageman Capital is willing to purchase the bond, it means an independent third party has validated the financial soundness of the deal. That should give you additional confidence in the structure. The result everyone wants: the developer gets upfront capital, the project gets built, and the community’s tax base grows — with the CRA and city holding no general fund exposure.
Hageman Capital provides free educational support to Nebraska governing body members. Connect with Whitney Peterson for a no-obligation conversation before your next vote.
For Nebraska ED Directors, structuring a TIF Bond that a capital provider can purchase is where your expertise delivers the most value. Here is how to structure bonds under the Community Development Law that Hageman Capital can purchase — and how proposed LB 1168 would expand your options.
Structural Requirements
The bond should be issued by the CRA to the developer as a private placement, backed by the redevelopment contract with developer guarantees, and supported by ad valorem increment projections demonstrating adequate coverage. The blight declaration, redevelopment plan, cost-benefit analysis, and July 1 filing must all be complete. The developer needs financial capacity to support the guarantee. Under LB 1168, conduit revenue bonds would provide clearer statutory insulation for the CRA, and taxpayer agreements would add enforceable lien security.
Building the Redevelopment Contract
The redevelopment contract should include clear TIF-eligible cost identification, enforceable construction milestones, developer shortfall guarantees, financial reporting obligations, and default remedies. Remember the CRA must give the governing body 30 days’ notice before accepting the contract. The developer bears the cost of private improvements — TIF covers site acquisition, demolition, infrastructure, and public improvements. Structure the eligible cost allocation to match what the increment can realistically support.
Engage Hageman Capital During Structuring
Having the capital provider involved during negotiation ensures the bond is structured to meet purchase criteria from the start. Hageman Capital provides guidance on coverage ratios, amortization within the 15-to-20-year period, developer guarantee terms, and ad-valorem-specific modeling considerations — at no cost.
For Nebraska mayors championing TIF-supported development, the ultimate goal is a completed project that grows the tax base while protecting the CRA and the city. Whether the TIF Bond is structured so a capital provider like Hageman Capital can purchase it determines whether the developer gets upfront capital and the project moves forward efficiently.
What Makes a Nebraska TIF Bond Purchasable
Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF Bonds that are issued by the CRA to the developer, backed by a strong redevelopment contract with developer guarantees, and supported by conservative ad valorem increment projections showing adequate debt service coverage. The developer must have the financial capacity to support the guarantee, and the blight declaration, redevelopment plan, and cost-benefit analysis must all be complete and legally sound. Under proposed LB 1168, conduit revenue bonds with taxpayer agreements would provide even stronger statutory authority for this structure.
Your Role in Getting It Right
You will not draft bond documents — your CRA, financial advisors, and bond counsel handle the technical work. Your role is to ensure the CRA is active and prepared, the blight study is thorough, the governing body approves the plan after a genuine cost-benefit analysis, and the July 1 filing deadline is met. When Hageman Capital is identified early as the capital provider, it gives the developer certainty and the governing body confidence that the deal has been vetted by professionals.
The Outcome
When structured correctly: the developer sells the bond to Hageman Capital and receives upfront cash, the CRA’s broader obligations are protected, the project gets built, and the tax base grows. When the 15-to-20-year TIF period ends, all revenue flows permanently to every taxing body at the new, higher assessed value.
Hageman Capital helps Nebraska mayors ensure their TIF projects achieve this outcome — at no cost. Connect with Whitney Peterson to get the structure right.
Nebraska’s Community Development Law creates a defined TIF framework with unique characteristics that shape your financial analysis. Here are the pitfalls Hageman Capital sees financial advisors encounter most frequently.
Pitfall 1: Not Accounting for the Ad-Valorem-Only Framework
Unlike multi-revenue-stream states, Nebraska TIF captures only real property taxes. Your increment projection depends entirely on assessed value growth — making accurate property valuation estimates and conservative development timeline assumptions critical. There is no sales tax or franchise fee cushion to offset underperformance in property assessments.
Pitfall 2: Underestimating Assessment Risk
Under current law, a property owner within a TIF district can challenge their property assessment. A successful appeal reduces the excess value and the increment available for debt service. This is one of the key risks LB 1168 would address — taxpayer agreements could contractually limit assessment challenges. Until that legislation is enacted, factor assessment appeal risk into your models with conservative assumptions.
Pitfall 3: Confusing CRA Bonds With City Debt
CRA bonds are general obligations of the CRA, not the city. However, they do expose the CRA’s broader revenue base to bondholder claims. If the CRA is involved in multiple projects, assess the cumulative exposure. Under proposed LB 1168, conduit revenue bonds would isolate project-specific risk — but until that legislation passes, current law applies.
Pitfall 4: Missing the July 1 Filing Deadline
The Notice to Divide Tax must be filed by July 1 on the prescribed form. Missing this deadline means the taxes remain undivided for the entire tax year — a costly delay. Verify the filing is complete and timely as part of your closing checklist.
Pitfall 5: Weak Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost-benefit analysis must evaluate tax shifts, infrastructure impacts, employment effects, and other factors. A superficial analysis that does not genuinely demonstrate the but-for case creates legal risk and undermines your recommendation. Build a thorough analysis that withstands public scrutiny.
Nebraska’s governing body members vote on two critical TIF decisions: the substandard and blighted declaration and the redevelopment plan approval. Here are common pitfalls to watch for before casting those votes.
Pitfall 1: Voting Without Understanding the Blight Findings
The substandard and blighted declaration is the legal foundation for TIF in Nebraska. Before voting, review the blight study and understand which statutory factors are present. If the study’s findings are marginal, the declaration may be vulnerable to challenge — and without it, the TIF cannot proceed. Ask questions and ensure the study genuinely supports the declaration.
Pitfall 2: Confusing TIF With a Tax Diversion From Schools
The most common misconception: TIF takes money from schools and services. In Nebraska, the base value of property taxes continues flowing to every taxing body as usual. Only the excess value — revenue generated by the new development that would not exist without the project — is captured for the TIF period. Interest and penalties on delinquent taxes go to the taxing bodies, not the TIF fund. When the TIF period ends, all revenue flows permanently to every jurisdiction at the new, higher assessed value.
Pitfall 3: Not Reviewing the Cost-Benefit Analysis
Nebraska requires a cost-benefit analysis evaluating tax shifts, infrastructure impacts, employment effects, and whether the project is in the community’s long-term interest. This is your primary analytical tool — if it does not convincingly demonstrate the but-for case, that is a red flag regardless of how attractive the project appears.
Pitfall 4: Not Holding the CRA Accountable for the 30-Day Notice
The CRA must give the governing body 30 days’ written notice before accepting a redevelopment contract. This is your window to review the deal terms. If the CRA attempts to bypass this requirement, insist on compliance — it is your statutory right and exists to protect the public interest.
Pitfall 5: No Ongoing Oversight
After approval, ensure the CRA monitors construction progress, increment performance, and contract compliance. Your oversight role continues beyond the vote.
Hageman Capital provides free TIF education to Nebraska governing body members. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson for clarity before your next TIF vote.
Nebraska ED Directors working within the Community Development Law have a proven TIF framework — but Nebraska’s unique procedural requirements create specific pitfalls. Here are the missteps Hageman Capital sees most often.
Pitfall 1: Not Planning Around the July 1 Deadline
The Notice to Divide Tax must be filed by July 1. Working backward from that deadline, you need the governing body to approve the redevelopment plan, the planning commission to complete its 30-day review, the public hearing to be held with proper notice, and the blight declaration to be in place. ED Directors who start the process in spring for a July 1 filing are already behind. Build a 6-to-9-month timeline and start early.
Pitfall 2: Weak Blight Study Findings
The substandard and blighted declaration must be supported by a genuine study analyzing conditions in the proposed area. If the study is thin or the findings are marginal, the declaration is vulnerable to challenge — and without it, the entire TIF structure fails. Invest in a thorough blight study that clearly documents the statutory factors present in the area.
Pitfall 3: Overlooking the CRA’s 30-Day Notice Requirement
The CRA must provide the governing body with at least 30 days’ written notice before accepting a redevelopment contract proposal. Factor this into your timeline — it is a statutory requirement that cannot be waived, and failure to comply creates legal risk for the entire transaction.
Pitfall 4: Ignoring the Ad-Valorem-Only Limitation
Nebraska TIF captures only real property taxes — no sales tax, no franchise fees. This means the increment is entirely dependent on assessed value growth. If the project type generates significant sales tax but modest property value increases, TIF may not be the right tool. Match the incentive to the project’s revenue characteristics.
Pitfall 5: Structuring Without a Capital Partner
Identify Hageman Capital as the bond purchaser early in the process for structuring guidance and capital certainty. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson to discuss your pipeline.
Under current Nebraska law, TIF bonds issued by a CRA are general obligations of the CRA. Proposed legislation (LB 1168) would create conduit revenue bonds — a fundamentally different structure that shifts project-specific risk from the CRA to the developer. Here is why this distinction matters and why developer-backed structures are the right choice for most projects.
CRA General Obligation Bonds: Current Law
Under current law, TIF bonds are payable from the CRA’s revenue, income, receipts, and proceeds. While not a debt of the city, they expose the CRA’s broader asset base to bondholder claims. If a specific project underperforms, bondholders can look to the CRA’s other resources for repayment. This creates risk concentration when the CRA is involved in multiple TIF projects simultaneously.
Conduit Revenue Bonds: What LB 1168 Would Enable
LB 1168 would create conduit revenue bonds payable solely from specifically pledged revenues — isolating project-specific risk from the CRA’s other activities. The developer’s taxpayer agreement would guarantee any shortfall, with liens carrying parity with property tax liens and priority over existing and subsequent mortgages. The developer could also agree to limit their right to challenge property assessments, providing greater revenue certainty for bondholders.
The Developer Gets the Same Proceeds Either Way
The bond’s value is determined by the projected ad valorem increment — which is the same regardless of whether the bond is a CRA general obligation or a conduit revenue bond. What changes is the risk allocation. Developer-backed conduit revenue bonds give the developer competitive proceeds when selling to Hageman Capital, insulate the CRA from project-specific risk, and deliver the same economic development outcomes for the community. Municipal leaders get what they want, developers get what they want, and the CRA’s broader obligations remain protected.
What You Can Do Now
Even under current law, developer-backed TIF bonds with strong redevelopment contract guarantees can shift meaningful risk to the developer. LB 1168 would formalize this with statutory authority. Regardless of the legislation’s status, Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF Bonds and works with Nebraska municipal leaders and CRAs at no cost. Connect with our team to evaluate the right structure for your community.
For Tennessee mayors championing TIF-supported development, the ultimate goal is a completed project that grows the tax base without exposing your city to financial risk. Achieving that goal depends on how the TIF Bond is structured — and specifically, whether it is structured in a way that allows a capital provider like Hageman Capital to purchase it from the developer. Here is what that structuring process looks like and what it means for your role.
What Makes a TIF Bond Purchasable
Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF Bonds — but not every TIF Bond meets the criteria for purchase. The bonds that work are structured as private placements issued by the TIF agency directly to the developer, non-recourse to the municipality, secured by the tax increment revenue and a taxpayer agreement under SB 1760. The projected increment must be sufficient to support the debt service with a reasonable coverage cushion, and the developer must have the financial capacity to honor the taxpayer agreement guarantee.
For mayors, this means the structuring decisions made during the redevelopment agreement negotiation directly affect whether the developer can monetize the bond and receive upfront capital. A well-structured deal attracts capital. A poorly structured deal leaves the developer without a buyer — and the project without a clear financing path.
The Taxpayer Agreement Is the Key
SB 1760’s taxpayer agreement creates the enforceable security that capital providers require. The developer’s contractual guarantee of any shortfall between actual increment and required debt service, backed by a first-priority lien on the property, is what transforms a TIF Bond from a speculative revenue instrument into a purchasable asset. Without a strong taxpayer agreement, the bond carries too much uncertainty for a capital provider to price it favorably. With one, the developer receives competitive proceeds at closing.
How the Process Works From the Mayor’s Perspective
As mayor, you will not be drafting the bond documents or negotiating coverage ratios — that is the work of your economic development team, financial advisors, and bond counsel. Your role is to ensure the deal gets structured properly by engaging the right professionals, supporting a thorough feasibility analysis, and guiding the governing body through the approval process. When Hageman Capital is identified as the capital provider early in the process, it gives the developer certainty, the lender confidence, and the governing body assurance that the deal has been vetted by professionals who purchase these instruments for a living.
The Outcome Everyone Wants
When a TIF Bond is structured correctly, the developer sells it to Hageman Capital at closing and receives the upfront cash needed for construction. The municipality issues the bond as a conduit with zero credit exposure. The project gets built, generating assessed value that flows into the TIF fund and services the bond. When the allocation period ends, all tax revenue flows permanently to the taxing jurisdictions. Jobs are created, blight is eliminated, and the community’s tax base is larger than it was before.
For Tennessee Economic Development Directors, structuring a TIF Bond is where theory meets execution. The difference between a deal that closes and one that stalls often comes down to whether the TIF Bond was structured in a way that allows a capital provider to purchase it — giving the developer upfront cash and the project momentum. Here is how to structure TIF Bonds that Hageman Capital can purchase, and what that means for your pipeline.
The Structural Requirements for Bond Purchase
Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF Bonds that meet specific criteria. The bond should be issued as a private placement by the TIF agency directly to the developer. It must be non-recourse to the municipality — payable solely from tax increment revenues and secured by a taxpayer agreement under SB 1760. The projected increment must demonstrate sufficient coverage over the bond’s debt service, and the developer must have the financial capacity and track record to support the taxpayer agreement guarantee. The bond terms — interest rate, maturity, amortization schedule — should reflect market conditions and be negotiated with the capital provider’s requirements in mind.
Choosing the Right TIF Agency for the Deal
The agency choice affects eligible costs, allocation period, and approval complexity — all of which impact bond structuring. IDB structures are typically faster for projects that qualify as public infrastructure, but the 20-year allocation period limits the amortization schedule. Housing Authority structures offer 30 years and broader eligible cost authority but require blight findings. If the project includes significant private property improvements through an IDB, factor in the state approval timeline from the Comptroller and Commissioner. Each of these variables affects the bond’s attractiveness to a capital provider.
Building the Redevelopment Agreement for Capital Certainty
The redevelopment agreement is the foundation document. For a bond that Hageman Capital can purchase, the agreement should include clear identification of TIF-eligible costs and maximum reimbursement caps, enforceable construction milestones with disbursement conditions tied to progress, a strong taxpayer agreement with explicit shortfall guarantee calculations and lien provisions, financial reporting obligations that give the capital provider visibility into project performance, and meaningful default remedies. When these elements are in place, the developer has a bond that is purchasable — and that translates to upfront capital at closing.
Engaging Hageman Capital Early in the Process
The most efficient deals are structured with the capital provider at the table from the beginning. When Hageman Capital is involved during the redevelopment agreement negotiation, we can provide guidance on coverage ratios, amortization structures, taxpayer agreement terms, and lender requirements — ensuring the bond is structured correctly the first time rather than reworked after approvals. This saves time, reduces friction, and gives the developer confidence that the capital will be there at closing.
The Competitive Advantage of a Structured Pipeline
ED Directors who understand how to structure TIF Bonds for capital provider purchase can offer developers something most competing cities cannot: a clear, tested path from incentive approval to day-one capital. That is a powerful differentiator in a competitive market. Hageman Capital is available to Tennessee ED Directors as a free structuring resource — helping you build that capability into your pipeline. Connect with Whitney Peterson and let’s talk about the deals in front of you.
