October 2026 - Hageman Capital

Four to twelve months, depending on your state and on whether your project area has already been declared eligible.

I want to give you that number first because I know it’s why you’re here. But I also want to tell you something that surprised me when I started reading these statutes side by side: almost none of that time is required by law. The statutory clock — the notices, the waiting periods, the hearings — runs about six to ten weeks in most states. Everything else is us.

That gap between what the statute demands and what actually happens is the most useful thing I can tell you about TIF timing.

The statutory clock is shorter than you think

Here’s what the law actually requires before you can hold your hearing.

Mississippi wants notice published at least once, no fewer than ten and no more than twenty days before the hearing. Nebraska wants publication two weeks out, with mailed notice to affected taxing bodies and neighborhood associations ten days prior. A Tennessee industrial development board needs two weeks of published notice; a housing authority needs it once a week for three consecutive weeks, with the plan available for public review five days ahead. Kansas is the longest at thirty to seventy days on the project plan.

Some states even build in escape valves. Tennessee’s Comptroller and Commissioner have thirty days to act on private-improvement requests, and if they don’t respond, the request is deemed approved — same rule for allocation periods beyond the statutory maximum. Nebraska’s planning commission gets thirty days to recommend, and if it stays silent you may proceed without it.

Add it up and the pure legal floor is a couple of months. Nobody closes a TIF in a couple of months. So what’s eating the rest of the year?

The deadlines that don’t care how fast you move

Some of it is calendar, not process, and this is the category that produces the ugliest surprises.

Nebraska’s is the one I’d tattoo on the inside of every city administrator’s wrist. The Notice to Divide Tax has to reach the county assessor on or before July 1 of the year the tax division takes effect. Miss that date and the taxes stay undivided for the entire tax year. That’s not a three-week delay you explain to your developer. That’s twelve months.

Then there’s meeting cadence, which is mundane and merciless. County boards and planning commissions often meet monthly. Every agenda you miss is thirty days, and no amount of urgency compresses it. Kansas requires two separate hearing cycles — one to establish the district, another to adopt the project plan — so a single missed agenda there can cascade.

The clock nobody budgets for

Everything above is knowable in advance. What actually makes projects late is the negotiating.

Procuring and completing the feasibility study. Drafting and papering the redevelopment agreement, which is the document that carries the developer’s shortfall obligations and takes as long as two sets of lawyers need it to take. And in Kansas, assembling a two-thirds supermajority on the project plan ordinance — which is not a scheduling problem, it’s a vote-counting problem, and it does not respond to a Gantt chart.

There’s one item in this category I’d flag hard, because it sits entirely outside your control. Kansas requires written consent from every holder of an existing recorded mortgage or deed of trust on the property, confirming that entering a taxpayer agreement isn’t an event of default under their loan. You are now waiting on a third-party lender with no interest whatsoever in your timeline.

Tennessee went the other direction and solved this by statute: a provision accelerating payment solely because the owner entered a taxpayer agreement is simply unenforceable. Same underlying friction, two completely different legislative answers, and a meaningful difference in how long your closing takes.

Stop counting days. Count approval bodies.

If you want a fast estimate, don’t add up notice periods. Count how many separate entities have to say yes.

Mississippi is leanest — your governing body, plus the county board of supervisors if county increment is in the deal. Tennessee stacks up more: the TIF agency, the creating city or county, every other taxing authority whose revenue is being allocated, and the state if an IDB is funding private improvements. Though Tennessee also hands you a real accelerator, since the Uniformity Act lets councils and commissions approve by resolution at a single reading regardless of what your charter says about multiple readings.

Nebraska adds the planning commission, a possible second round of hearings if blight hasn’t been declared yet, and thirty days’ written notice to the governing body before the redevelopment authority accepts a contract proposal. Kansas has the most gates of the group.

More gates means more calendars to synchronize, and synchronizing calendars — not satisfying statutes — is what determines whether you’re closing this year or next.

What I’d actually tell you to do

Work backward from the constraint, not forward from today. Find your state’s hard calendar deadline, count your approval bodies, get their meeting schedules in a single document, and start the redevelopment agreement negotiation in parallel with the plan rather than after it. The cities that move fastest aren’t cutting corners on notice. They’re just refusing to run sequentially what could have run at the same time.

Disclosure: Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF bonds from commercial real estate developers, so we have a capital-side interest in these transactions. This article is educational and is not legal or financial advice. Statutory notice and approval requirements change with each legislative session and vary by authorizing agency; confirm your state’s current requirements and timeline with qualified bond counsel before relying on them.

We publish free state-specific TIF guides for municipal officials walking through each approval step in sequence, at hagemancapital.com.

Of all the questions I get from mayors, council members, and finance directors, this one comes up the least — and it should come up the most.

Most of the conversation about tax increment financing happens at the front end. Is the area eligible? Does the project pass the but-for test? Who signed for the risk if the increment falls short? Those are the right questions, and I’ve spent a lot of time on them. But the question that actually decides whether TIF survives politically in your community is the one almost nobody asks in the public hearing: what happens on the last day?

The answer is the strongest argument you have. TIF ends. By statute. On a date certain. And when it ends, every dollar of that property tax revenue — including the increment your city spent twenty years capturing — flows to the county, the schools, and every other taxing body, permanently.

The sunset isn’t a loophole. It’s the whole design.

The most common criticism of TIF is that it’s a tax giveaway. I understand where that comes from. If you don’t know the mechanics, watching a city divert property tax revenue from a new development for two decades looks like a handout with no end.

But there is no version of TIF where the increment is captured forever. State statutes set hard outer limits — commonly fifteen to thirty years depending on the state and which authorizing agency is used. When that clock runs out, the district’s tax division ends and the full assessed value of the property sits on the rolls like any other parcel.

So the honest framing isn’t “we gave away tax revenue.” It’s “we deferred a portion of new revenue, for a fixed term, on property that wasn’t generating that revenue in the first place.” The base value never left. Only the increment was redirected, and only until the obligation was paid.

What your constituents actually inherit

Here’s the part worth putting on a slide at the next town hall.

At sunset, your community doesn’t get back what it had. It gets something materially better than what it had. The vacant lot, the obsolete building, the half-empty corridor — that’s the baseline the district froze. What comes onto the rolls at the end is the finished project at its current assessed value, with whatever ancillary development grew up around it.

Your schools didn’t lose the base. They gain the increment permanently at the end of the term, on an asset that likely wouldn’t exist without the structure. That’s not a rhetorical trick. It’s just how the arithmetic works, and it’s defensible in front of a hostile audience because it’s true.

The other piece worth knowing: in states that have adopted taxpayer agreement statutes, the security interest supporting the bonds is term-limited too. The agreement has a stated term, the lien is tied to that term, and when the obligation is satisfied the lien is released. Nothing perpetual attaches to the property. Confirm the release mechanics in your state with bond counsel, but the principle holds — the protections are as finite as the district itself.

Why it matters who’s holding the paper for twenty years

A defined term only means something if the party on the other side is still there at the end of it.

This is the part of the conversation I’d encourage you to press on with any capital provider. Developer-backed TIF bonds aren’t publicly offered and don’t trade on an open market. Someone buys that bond from the developer and holds a twenty- or thirty-year position tied to your district’s performance. Whether they intend to hold it to maturity or flip it into a secondary market changes who you’ll be dealing with in year twelve when there’s an assessment appeal, a parcel split, or a phasing question.

We hold to maturity. That’s a deliberate choice, and it’s not charity — our interests are aligned with the increment performing, which means they’re aligned with the project performing, which means they’re aligned with your community’s tax base performing. But it also means the entity you negotiate with at closing is the entity you call in year twelve. Ask any capital partner that question directly and see how quickly you get a clean answer.

The durable version of the argument

If you’re a council member trying to defend a TIF vote, you don’t need to win an argument about municipal finance. You need one sentence: this is a fixed-term investment in a property that graduates back onto the tax rolls at a higher value than it started.

That’s not spin. It’s the statute. And it’s the reason TIF has survived in state after state while flashier incentives have not — because when it’s structured correctly, it ends, and everyone can see that it ends.

Disclosure: Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF bonds from commercial real estate developers, so we have a capital-side interest in these transactions. This article is educational and is not legal or financial advice; consult qualified bond counsel and your financial advisor before undertaking any TIF transaction.

If your community is evaluating a developer-backed TIF structure and you’d like a plain-language walkthrough of how the term, the security interest, and the sunset actually work, we publish free state-specific guides for municipal officials at hagemancapital.com.

A council member told us that she’d voted yes on a TIF and spent the following eight months regretting how she’d explained it. Not the vote. The explanation. A resident at a town hall asked why the city was writing a check to a developer, and she gave an answer that was technically correct, ran ninety seconds, and convinced nobody.

That’s the part of this job I think gets underestimated. The vote takes a minute. Defending it takes two years. And the difference between a vote you can defend and one you can’t is mostly decided before the packet is final, not after.

So here’s what I’d want in front of me if I were sitting in that seat.

The Objection You’ll Actually Hear

It won’t be a technical question. It’ll be some version of: you gave our tax money to a developer.

The most useful thing to know is that the premise is wrong, and you can say so plainly. TIF doesn’t create a new tax or raise anyone’s rate. It doesn’t redirect a dollar of revenue the city is currently collecting. The property’s existing assessed value — the base — keeps flowing to the city, the county, the schools, everyone, exactly as it does today.

What gets pledged is the increment: the additional taxes generated by value that doesn’t exist yet and won’t exist unless the project gets built.

That’s a sentence worth memorizing. We are not redirecting existing revenue. We are pledging revenue the project itself creates.

The Follow-Up: “What If It Fails?”

This is the harder one, and the honest answer depends entirely on how your bonds are structured. Which is why you need to know the answer before the vote rather than at the town hall.

If the bonds are general obligations backed by the city’s full faith, credit, and taxing power, then a shortfall is a general fund problem, and you should say so.

If the bonds are developer-backed and non-recourse — payable solely from pledged increment — the answer is different and much better. The city isn’t pledging its credit or taxing power. The obligation doesn’t count against your constitutional or statutory debt limits. If the increment underperforms, the developer and its lender absorb it, because that’s the risk they priced for.

Then there’s the piece that’s newest and least understood. Legislation in a number of states now lets the developer sign a taxpayer agreement: a binding commitment to cover any shortfall between actual increment and scheduled debt service, recorded against the property and enforced in the same manner as delinquent property taxes.

The distinction matters more than it sounds. Most redevelopment agreements already contain some developer backstop. But an unsecured promise is worth whatever the developer’s balance sheet is worth on the day you need to collect — and if the project is struggling, that’s the day it’s weakest. A recorded lien is a claim on the land itself.

So ask this before you vote: is the developer’s shortfall obligation a promise, or is it recorded? If you can answer that in one sentence at a town hall, you’ve handled the hardest question you’ll get.

“This Hurts Our Schools”

Expect this one, especially from parents and anyone on the school board.

The base keeps flowing to every taxing body, including the district. Several states go further and protect school levies from capture outright — Kansas, for instance, shields 20 mills for schools and 1.5 for the state. Your state may have a comparable carve-out; find out which before the meeting.

And the counterfactual is worth stating out loud: if the project doesn’t get built, there’s no increment for anyone to share. The school district isn’t losing revenue it would otherwise have received.

“You’re Locking Us In Forever”

You’re not, and the statute says so. TIF allocation periods are capped by state law and typically run somewhere between fifteen and thirty years depending on the state and the type of district. When the period ends, all of it — including what was the increment — flows back to the taxing bodies.

Taxpayer agreements are also voluntary in every state that has adopted them. One state expressly prohibits an agency from conditioning plan approval on a developer signing one. Nobody is being compelled.

Build the Record Before You Need It

Three things I’d push for while the item is still in committee.

Get the but-for analysis in writing. Most states require a feasibility study or cost-benefit analysis showing the project wouldn’t happen without assistance. That document is your best friend eighteen months later. Don’t let it stay a verbal assurance from staff.

Ask your questions in open session. An answer you got in a hallway conversation is worthless when a resident challenges you. An answer in the minutes is a citation.

Ask who holds the risk, out loud, on the record. Not because you doubt the deal, but because your constituents deserve to hear the answer from staff rather than from you secondhand.

What This Comes Down To

You don’t need to become a municipal finance expert to cast this vote well. You need to know three things: that no existing revenue is being redirected, that the increment only exists if the project does, and who is on the hook if the projections miss.

The third one is the whole ballgame, and it’s answerable in a single sentence if somebody asks the right question early enough.

We work on the capital side of these transactions, so we read a lot of these structures. If it would help to talk through what your documents actually obligate before a vote, we’re glad to. There’s nothing to sign.

The first time I explained lien priority to a city council, I could tell I was losing the room. Somebody finally said what everyone was thinking: “This sounds like it’s for the lender. What does it do for us?”

Fair question, and I’d been answering it badly. The lien does protect the lender. But the reason it matters to a municipality is less obvious and, I’d argue, more important: it’s the mechanism that keeps the city out of the payment chain when a project underperforms.

Here’s how that works.

Start With What the Guarantee Is Without It

Nearly every redevelopment agreement contains some version of a developer backstop. If increment falls short of scheduled debt service, the developer covers the difference. Officials read that clause, feel reassured, and move to the next agenda item.

The problem is that a contractual promise is only as good as the promisor on the day you need to collect. And the day you need to collect is, by definition, the day the project is struggling. If the developer’s balance sheet is thin at that moment, an unsecured guarantee gives you a lawsuit and a place in line behind the construction lender.

That’s the gap the new statutes close. A taxpayer agreement takes the same economic promise and records it against the land as a lien. Same obligation. Completely different enforcement posture.

Priority Is the Whole Point

A lien that sits behind the mortgage isn’t security. It’s a formality.

This is where the states that acted this year diverge, and it’s worth knowing which version your state adopted. Tennessee and Nebraska put the taxpayer agreement lien ahead of any existing or subsequent mortgage or encumbrance. Mississippi took a more measured route, giving the lien parity with ad valorem tax liens and subordinating it only to previously filed tax liens, while still placing it ahead of any subsequent mortgage or judgment. Kansas gets there differently: delinquent payments are enforced with the same priority as delinquent real estate taxes, but the city must first obtain written consent from each existing mortgage holder.

Different drafting, same destination. The obligation to cover a shortfall sits at or near the front of the line rather than the back.

Enforcement Runs on Machinery That Already Exists

The second feature does quieter work. These statutes provide that a delinquent taxpayer agreement payment is enforced and collected in the same manner as delinquent property taxes, including the applicable interest, penalties, and collection costs.

That means no new bureaucracy and no novel litigation posture. The county already knows how to collect delinquent property taxes. The remedy is one your treasurer or trustee administers every year.

There’s a related provision that gets overlooked. In Tennessee, the lien runs with the land, and payments not yet due can’t be wiped out by foreclosure of a property tax lien. The obligation survives a change in ownership. Whoever holds the property holds the commitment. For a twenty- or thirty-year pledge, that durability matters more than it might appear on day one.

What This Actually Protects for the City

Put the pieces together and the municipal benefit comes into focus.

Developer-backed TIF bonds are non-recourse. The city or agency isn’t pledging its faith, credit, or taxing power, and the obligation doesn’t count against constitutional or statutory debt limits. The statutes are explicit that a taxpayer agreement is a voluntary contractual obligation, not a tax, fee, or assessment, and not a pledge of governmental credit.

Non-recourse only holds up if somebody else can actually absorb the shortfall. A secured, enforceable, priority-position claim is what makes the developer that somebody. Without it, “the developer covers it” is an assertion. With it, it’s a collectible claim on real property.

That’s the answer to the question the council member was really asking. The lien protects the lender’s downside, yes. What it protects for the city is the risk allocation everyone agreed to at closing.

It’s Voluntary, and That’s Deliberate

One more point, because it comes up in every public hearing.

These agreements are optional in every state that has adopted them. Mississippi’s statute says outright that nothing requires a municipality to enter into one. Tennessee went further and prohibited a tax increment agency from conditioning plan approval on a developer signing one. Tennessee also made unenforceable any mortgage provision that would accelerate payment solely because the owner entered into a taxpayer agreement, which removes a practical obstacle to using the tool at all.

Nobody is compelled into these. They exist because a developer who genuinely believes in the project has a reason to offer real security, and a city has a reason to want it.

The Question Worth Asking

If your governing body is looking at a TIF proposal this year, ask one thing before the vote: is the developer’s shortfall obligation a promise, or is it recorded?

If the answer is a promise, the next question is what happens if the developer can’t pay. If the answer is recorded, you already know.

We spend most of our time on the capital side of these transactions, which means we read a lot of taxpayer agreement language. If it would help to talk through what your state’s statute does and doesn’t secure, we’re glad to have that conversation. Nothing to sign.

Ask a city council member what worries them most about tax increment financing and you will not hear anything about assessed valuation formulas. You will hear a version of one question: if the increment doesn’t show up, who pays?

For forty years that question had an uncomfortable answer. TIF statutes were written when public credit was the only credit available to a redevelopment deal, so public credit is what they used. A city that issued full faith and credit increment bonds put its own balance sheet behind a private developer’s leasing schedule. A city that issued non-recourse bonds instead protected itself, but handed the lender a revenue stream that existed only on a spreadsheet. Lenders price that uncertainty, often high enough that the project never breaks ground.

Developers tried to solve this privately. Nearly every redevelopment agreement in the country contains a shortfall covenant or a minimum valuation guarantee. The trouble was never the promise. It was the enforcement. A contract claim against a single-purpose entity, standing in line behind a construction lender, is not security. It is a lawsuit you get to file after the money is gone.

Between March and July, four legislatures fixed that, and they did it without spending a dollar.

Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, and Mississippi each adopted some version of the same mechanism. A developer voluntarily agrees that if the increment on its parcel falls short of debt service, it will pay the difference. That obligation is recorded against the land and collected the way delinquent property taxes are collected. It is a modest statutory change with a large consequence: the developer’s promise stops sitting at the bottom of the capital stack and moves to where a tax obligation has always sat, ahead of the mortgage.

Indiana has operated this way for years, which is why Indiana cities have approved substantial TIF projects without putting the general fund behind private performance. What is new is that the model has now been through four more statehouses, four sets of committees, and four sets of local lenders.

The variations are instructive. Tennessee amended its Uniformity in Tax Increment Financing Act to make the taxpayer agreement lien first and prior, running with the land, ahead of existing and subsequent mortgages. It also voided any loan provision that would accelerate a mortgage simply because an owner signed one of these agreements. Nebraska rewrote its Community Development Law to create a conduit revenue bond that is not a general obligation of the redevelopment authority, and let developers contractually limit their right to appeal assessments, which protects the revenue projection the whole deal rests on. Kansas passed its Taxpayer Agreement Act as a supplement to existing law rather than a replacement, and required cities to obtain written consent from every existing mortgage holder first. Mississippi’s new statute is the most explicit about what the city is not doing: not levying a tax, not granting a fee-in-lieu, not pledging credit, not incurring debt for any limitation purpose.

Every one of these statutes is voluntary. Tennessee went further and prohibited an agency from conditioning plan approval on a developer signing one. No city is required to use this, and no developer can be compelled into it.

The most persuasive document in any of the four states was not a press release. It was Tennessee’s fiscal note, which scored the bill as not significant. That is the honest characterization. These bills appropriate nothing, forgive nothing, and levy nothing. They take a private guarantee that already existed and give it the collection mechanics it needed to function as security.

I should say plainly where I sit. Hageman Capital works on the capital side of these transactions, and our firm was involved in developing the language that became these four statutes. We have an interest in seeing the structure work.

What I would tell a legislator drafting this next session is to spend your time on one section. Lien priority is where your state’s answer will be specific to your recording statutes and your existing mortgage market, and it is where the drafting took longest in all four states. The rest is comparatively settled.

The underlying argument is simpler than the statutes make it sound. Increment pays first. If increment falls short, the developer pays under a recorded, tax-priority obligation. If the developer fails outright, the residual sits with the lender who priced it. The city is not in that line, and the base revenue that funds schools and county services never was.

That is an answer a council member can give at a town hall in a single breath. Four states now have it in statute. The rest are one bill away.

Whitney Peterson is Director of Government Affairs at Hageman Capital. This article is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. TIF statutes vary by state and change frequently. Before moving on any TIF transaction, consult experienced bond counsel and a qualified financial advisor.

Here’s the short version of what I’ve been telling municipal officials since the spring: property tax elimination is unlikely to erase your tax increment, but it is very likely to compress it. And whether that compression lands on your general fund or on a developer’s balance sheet was decided the day you approved the bond structure, not the day the legislation passes.

That’s the part I don’t think is getting enough attention. There’s been plenty of coverage of what elimination means for homeowners and school funding. There’s been almost none on what it means for the twenty-year revenue pledges cities have already made.

I’m not here to argue the policy. Home values have climbed roughly 45% since 2020 while median household income rose about 8%, and legislators responding to that are responding to something real. My interest is narrower: if you have outstanding TIF obligations, there are consequences worth understanding.

Thirteen States, Very Different Machinery

At least thirteen states have taken up proposals to eliminate, phase out, or sharply limit property taxes this cycle. The headline sounds uniform, but the mechanics may vary among these proposals.

Florida has moved furthest. Its November ballot measure raises the homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 for non-school levies, cuts the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and directs the Legislature to build a path to full elimination. Elsewhere it’s a more mixed approach: Texas keeps targeting school levies, North Dakota is weighing a phase-out underwritten by oil reserves, Kansas has floated pairing elimination with repealing sales tax exemptions.

Two patterns hold almost everywhere. Nearly every serious proposal targets homestead property. And most preserve school levies while going after the city, county, and special district portion of the bill.

Both matter, and they cut in opposite directions.

The Reassuring Part

Increment isn’t a tax. It’s a product: assessed value above the frozen base, multiplied by the applicable millage rate.

If elimination proposals aim at owner-occupied residential property, and your district is a retail center, an industrial park, a hotel, or a market-rate apartment community, the property generating your increment is largely outside the target. In Florida, commercial real estate and investment property stay on the rolls. Say that plainly when a resident asks whether elimination blows up the city’s redevelopment financing. In most districts, it doesn’t.

The Part Nobody’s Talking About

Because increment is a product, there are three ways to damage it: shrink the base through exemptions, slow assessed value growth through caps, or cut the millage rate. Only the first looks like “elimination.” All three land the same way on a coverage schedule.

Florida’s cut to the non-homestead assessment cap, 10% down to 5%, has drawn a fraction of the attention the exemption has. For TIF it may matter more. Every twenty-year projection I’ve reviewed assumes some rate of appreciation on the developed property. Halve the maximum annual increase and you don’t eliminate the increment. You flatten its growth curve permanently, on exactly the property class TIF districts are built on.

There’s a second uncomfortable point. Many states already shield school levies from TIF capture. Kansas protects 20 mills for schools and 1.5 for the state; others have comparable carve-outs. So the mills TIF actually captures skew toward city, county, and special district levies, which are precisely the levies most proposals go after. The design choice that reassures superintendents concentrates the impact on the revenue stream TIF depends on.

The Question That Determines Your Exposure

All of that is about how much increment shows up. This is about who covers the gap when less shows up than projected.

If your bonds are general obligations backed by the city’s full faith and credit, a shortfall becomes a general fund problem, in the same budget year your general fund absorbed a cut to its largest revenue source. Two correlated problems, one budget cycle.

If the bonds are special obligation or developer-backed, payable solely from pledged increment and non-recourse to the city, the city isn’t in that conversation. The developer and its lender absorb the revenue risk they priced for.

Same project, same legislation, opposite outcome, determined entirely at closing.

The newer TIF statutes sharpen this further. They authorize a taxpayer agreement, in which the developer contractually commits to cover any shortfall between actual increment and scheduled debt service, recorded against the property and secured by a lien. The statutory language is deliberate: these agreements are expressly not taxes, not fees, not pledges of governmental credit. A contractual obligation doesn’t disappear when a tax is repealed.

Drafting quality matters here. Some statutes measure the obligation by reference to ad valorem taxes and enforce the lien like delinquent property taxes, which is elegant until the state starts dismantling parts of that apparatus. Others define the developer’s payment as the difference between the next-due debt service payment and the increment actually generated. That version is indifferent to why increment came in low. If increment goes to zero, the developer owes the full payment. If you’re a legislator, that’s a choice available to you now. If you’re a city, it’s a question for your bond counsel this month.

Where This Leaves Cities

Elimination is unlikely to destroy tax increment financing. It is likely to make increment smaller, slower-growing, and considerably less predictable than the projections sitting in your files assume. Cities holding that risk on their own balance sheets will feel all of it at the worst point in the budget cycle. Cities that structured non-recourse, with the developer’s shortfall commitment secured by a recorded lien, will feel much less.

That’s not a prediction about legislation. It’s just where the risk was assigned.

We spend most of our time on the capital side of these transactions, which means we read a lot of increment projections and a lot of taxpayer agreement language. If it would help to walk through how a specific structure holds up under compressed assessment growth, we’re glad to have that conversation. Nothing to sign, no engagement required.

This guide is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. TIF statutes vary by state and change frequently. Before moving on any TIF transaction, consult experienced bond counsel and a qualified financial advisor.

Approving a tax increment financing district is a public act. The vote happens in front of cameras, where residents can ask questions on the record.

Deciding who carries the risk is not public in the same way. That happens in a redevelopment agreement, a bond resolution, and a security document, and in most cities no member of the governing body reads all three. Two projects of identical size, with the same developer and the same projections, can allocate risk in opposite directions based on language nobody at the table has seen.

Legislation moving through statehouses over the past two years has widened that gap. Cities now have structures that push project risk onto the developer far more decisively than the traditional model did. But the tools only work if someone knows to ask for them, and the asking has to happen before the council packet is final.

Three questions do most of the work.

The first: if the increment falls short, whose money makes the debt service payment? Some TIF bonds are general obligations, backed by the municipality’s full faith, credit, and taxing power. Others are special obligation or developer-backed bonds, payable solely from pledged increment and non-recourse to the city. Officials often assume all TIF bonds work alike. They do not, and the difference is the entire risk profile of the deal. The answer you want from bond counsel is unhedged: payable solely from pledged revenues, not a general obligation, not counted against any debt limitation. If nobody can say that plainly, the governing body does not know what it is voting on.

The second gets asked least and matters most: is the developer’s shortfall obligation a promise, or a lien? Nearly every redevelopment agreement contains a backstop. Officials read the clause, feel reassured, and move on. But an unsecured guarantee is worth whatever the developer’s balance sheet is worth on the day you need to collect, and if the project is struggling, that is precisely the day it is weakest. The newer statutes record the obligation against the property and secure it with a lien enforced and collected in the same manner as delinquent property taxes. Same economic promise. Entirely different enforcement posture.

Priority treatment varies more than people assume. Some statutes create a first and prior lien ahead of existing and subsequent mortgages. Others grant parity with ad valorem tax liens while remaining subordinate to previously filed ones. At least one requires written consent from existing mortgage holders first. Confirm this against your own statute rather than a neighboring state’s.

The third: does the obligation survive a sale, a default, or a bankruptcy? Contractual guarantees are personal to whoever signed them. Liens are not. A well-drafted taxpayer agreement lien runs with the land, which matters because the scenario where the backstop is needed is often the one where the original developer is gone. Ask whether foreclosure of a tax lien wipes out payments not yet due, whether signing trips an acceleration clause in the developer’s mortgage, and who holds enforcement rights if the city has assigned them. Several newer statutes answer the first two protectively. Silence in your documents is a negotiating item.

Four smaller questions follow. Who prepared the increment projections, and who paid for them? The useful version is not whether they are accurate but what happens at eighty percent of projection; if the deal only works at full performance, the shortfall provisions just became load-bearing. Which taxing bodies are affected, and have they seen the numbers? Diversion is not inherently a problem. A council member who learns of the school district’s objection from the newspaper has one. What must the city do after closing, and who owns each task? In some states a missed annual filing means the taxes are not divided that year, an entire year of increment lost to a calendar. And how does this end: term, statutory maximum, who records the lien release, where surplus increment goes, what happens if the developer walks mid-construction. If nobody can walk through year twenty, the structure is not finished.

None of this is adversarial. Good developers expect these questions and answer them without flinching, because a structure that survives the scrutiny is one that closes and holds up.

What the questions buy is standing. When a resident asks whether the city is handing money to a developer, the official who can explain where the risk sits, who signed for it, and what secures it is in a different position entirely from the one who can only say bond counsel approved it.

I have an interest here worth stating: my firm works on the capital side of these transactions. It is also why I would rather officials ask hard questions early than approve a structure they cannot defend later. Deals that close on a clear record are the ones that hold.

Whitney Peterson is Director of Government Affairs at Hageman Capital. This guide is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. TIF statutes vary by state and change frequently. Before moving on any TIF transaction, consult experienced bond counsel and a qualified financial advisor.

A Number That Means Something Different Here

Ask any conventional CRE lender about a deal priced at 1.0x debt service coverage, and you’ll get a hard no. In traditional lending, DSCR cushion exists because Net Operating Income is variable — market rents move, occupancy fluctuates, expenses creep, and the lender needs a buffer so a bad quarter doesn’t trigger default. That’s why conventional CRE debt is typically underwritten to 1.20x–1.35x or higher, and why revenue bonds in the traditional municipal market often price to 1.25x–1.50x coverage.

So when developer-backed TIF bonds price at roughly 1.0x coverage — effectively no cushion at all — it’s a fair question to ask whether that’s simply more aggressive underwriting. It isn’t. It reflects a fundamentally different risk structure, and understanding why is central to understanding how these bonds work.

Why Coverage Cushion Exists in the First Place

Coverage cushion is a hedge against revenue volatility. In a conventional CRE deal, NOI can genuinely come in below projections — a major tenant vacates, market rents soften, expenses run hot. The lender builds in a buffer specifically because there’s a real, market-driven chance the income won’t match the pro forma. The same logic historically applied to traditional TIF bonds sold in the municipal market: incremental tax revenue depends on assessed values that could move, so purchasers priced in a cushion.

Why the Underlying Revenue Is Different in a Developer-Backed Structure

A developer-backed TIF bond, secured through a minimum taxpayer agreement, changes the equation at its foundation. The agreement establishes that whoever owns the property — and pays the property taxes — is obligated to pay the greater of the actual property taxes due or a contractually defined minimum payment. In the event that the incremental revenue comes in under projection, the shortfall is legally treated like a tax lien against the property itself.

That’s a fundamentally different risk mechanism than “we hope NOI holds up.” It’s not a bet on market performance holding steady — it’s a legally enforceable floor, attached directly to the real estate, that exists independent of how the project actually performs. The revenue purchasers are underwriting isn’t “projected incremental tax revenue if everything goes as planned” — it’s “a contractually guaranteed minimum payment, secured against the property, with tax-lien remedies in a shortfall.”

What This Means for Proceeds

Because that legal backstop replaces the function that a coverage cushion serves in conventional structures, purchasers don’t need to build in the same buffer — and that shows up directly in proceeds. Removing a 1.25x–1.50x coverage requirement, on top of eliminating the debt service reserve fund most traditional TIF bonds require, is a large part of why developer-backed structures can often deliver 25–35% more proceeds for the same increment stream than a traditional capital-markets execution.

This Isn’t “No Risk” — It’s a Different Risk

It’s worth being precise here: pricing at ~1.0x doesn’t mean there’s no risk in the transaction. It means the risk has been reallocated — from “will this revenue stream perform as projected” to “is the taxpayer agreement properly structured and enforceable against the property.” That’s a legal and structural risk, evaluated through diligence on the agreement itself, the lien priority, and the jurisdiction’s tax-lien enforcement mechanics — not a market-performance risk evaluated through a coverage cushion.

For a buyer of these instruments who has done that legal diligence and validated the enforceability, the coverage cushion becomes redundant — it’s protecting against a risk that’s already been structurally addressed elsewhere.

Why This Should Change How You Think About Underwriting Conventions

If you’re used to evaluating capital sources through the lens of conventional CRE debt — where DSCR is a shorthand for “how safe is this” — it’s worth recognizing that shorthand doesn’t translate cleanly to developer-backed TIF structures. A 1.0x coverage ratio here isn’t a red flag. It’s a signal that the deal has been secured through a different, contractually enforceable mechanism instead of a financial buffer.

Where to Go From Here

If TIF is part of your capital stack conversation, it’s worth understanding exactly how the taxpayer agreement would be structured in your jurisdiction, and how that legal mechanism — not a coverage cushion — is what’s actually backing the number you’d be quoted. That’s a conversation worth having with any qualified TIF purchaser, us included. The important thing is understanding the mechanics before you evaluate the price.

Your mayor and your council members are afraid of different things

Pre-brief privately, every time

The five questions, and where the answers live

What to leave out

“I don’t know, and here’s how I’ll find out”