Nebraska’s Community Development Law gives mayors a proven TIF framework — but the procedural details and unique characteristics of Nebraska TIF create specific pitfalls to watch for. Hageman Capital works with municipal leaders across the state, and here are the missteps we see most often.
Pitfall 1: Underestimating the Blight Declaration Process
Nebraska TIF requires a substandard and blighted declaration before any redevelopment plan can be adopted. The blight study must be commissioned, submitted to the planning commission for a 30-day review, followed by a public hearing with two weeks of published notice plus mailed notice to affected associations and political subdivisions. This process takes time. Mayors who assume blight can be declared quickly risk missing the July 1 Notice to Divide Tax deadline — delaying the entire project by a year.
Pitfall 2: Missing the July 1 Deadline
The Notice to Divide Tax must be filed with the county assessor on or before July 1 of the calendar year in which the tax division becomes effective. This is a hard deadline — miss it and the taxes remain undivided for the affected year. Build this deadline into your project timeline from day one and work backward to ensure all approvals are complete in time.
Pitfall 3: Poor Communication About Taxing Body Impact
Nebraska requires mailed notice to every county, school district, community college, and political subdivision affected by the TIF plan. These entities will scrutinize the proposal. Be prepared to explain that base value taxes continue flowing as usual, only the excess value is captured, and the cost-benefit analysis demonstrates the project is in the community’s long-term interest. Proactive communication builds support before opposition forms.
Pitfall 4: Not Ensuring the CRA Is Active and Prepared
Many Nebraska cities have CRAs that exist on paper but have not been actively used. If your CRA lacks current board members, operating procedures, or staff capacity, it will slow the TIF process. Ensure your CRA is active, staffed, and ready before a developer brings a project to the table.
Municipal financial advisors are the last line of defense before a TIF bond structure reaches the governing body for approval. Tennessee’s SB 1760 introduces taxpayer agreements and first-priority liens that strengthen the developer-backed TIF framework — but the technical details require careful analysis. Here are the pitfalls Hageman Capital sees financial advisors encounter most frequently, and how to avoid them.
Pitfall 1: Underestimating Development Timeline Risk in Increment Projections
Increment projections are only as reliable as the assumptions behind them. The most common modeling error is projecting increment based on a development timeline that does not account for construction delays, permitting holdups, or phased delivery. Property is not reassessed until improvements are complete, and increment does not flow until the new assessed value exceeds the base. Build conservative timing assumptions into your models and stress-test scenarios where the project delivers six to twelve months late.
Pitfall 2: Failing to Evaluate the Developer’s Financial Capacity
A taxpayer agreement is only as strong as the guarantor behind it. The developer’s commitment to cover increment shortfalls is a binding obligation, but if the developer lacks the financial resources to honor that obligation, the guarantee has limited practical value. Before recommending the structure, evaluate the developer’s balance sheet, track record, existing obligations, and the financial capacity to service the taxpayer agreement guarantee alongside their other commitments.
Pitfall 3: Not Accounting for the Increment Calculation Methodology
Tennessee’s TIF plan should specify whether the increment is calculated on an aggregate basis (all parcels combined) or a parcel-by-parcel basis. For multi-phase projects, the plan may allow allocation periods to begin at different times for different parcels. The methodology you use in your projections must match what the plan specifies — otherwise your revenue estimates may overstate or understate the actual increment available for debt service. Confirm the methodology with bond counsel before building your model.
Pitfall 4: Overlooking the IDB State Approval Requirement
If the TIF agency is an IDB and the proposed use of TIF proceeds includes private property improvements that do not qualify as public infrastructure, the Comptroller and Commissioner must approve the expenditure. If this approval is not obtained — or if the request is submitted late — the project timeline can be significantly delayed. Identify whether state approval is needed early in your analysis and factor the 30-day deemed-approval window into the project schedule.
Pitfall 5: Treating the Taxpayer Agreement as a Formality
The taxpayer agreement authorized by SB 1760 is a powerful instrument, but its effectiveness depends on the specific terms negotiated. Review the agreement for clear definitions of the taxpayer direct payment calculation, the lien recording requirements, the enforcement provisions, and the relationship between the taxpayer agreement and the redevelopment agreement. A well-drafted taxpayer agreement provides enforceable security; a boilerplate version may leave gaps that become problems later.
Hageman Capital as a Technical Partner
We work alongside municipal financial advisors as a specialized TIF resource — not to replace your analysis, but to complement it with experience structuring developer-backed TIF Bonds across multiple state frameworks. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson, our Director – Government Relations, for a no-cost technical consultation on the deal on your desk.
Voting on a TIF resolution is one of the most consequential economic development decisions a Tennessee city council member will face. Developer-backed TIF Bonds under SB 1760 offer strong protections for your municipality, but there are common missteps that council members should be aware of before casting that vote. Hageman Capital works with municipal leaders across the state, and here are the pitfalls we encourage council members to watch for.
Pitfall 1: Voting Without Fully Understanding the Structure
TIF is a complex financial tool, and there is no shame in needing more information before you vote. The pitfall is voting yes — or no — without understanding what you are actually approving. Before the vote, make sure you understand how the increment is calculated, what the taxpayer agreement guarantees, how long the allocation period lasts, and what happens if the project underperforms. If you do not understand something, ask. It is far better to request a briefing than to vote on incomplete information.
Pitfall 2: Confusing TIF With a Tax Giveaway
The most common public misconception about TIF is that it gives away taxpayer money to developers. If you share this misconception, you will either vote against a beneficial project or be unable to defend your yes vote to constituents. TIF does not redirect existing tax revenue. It captures only the new increment — revenue that would not exist without the project. The base amount continues flowing to all taxing jurisdictions. Under developer-backed structures, the municipality carries zero credit risk. Being able to articulate this clearly is essential to your role.
Pitfall 3: Not Reviewing the Taxpayer Agreement Terms
SB 1760 authorizes taxpayer agreements, but the strength of those agreements depends on the specific terms negotiated. As a council member, you should review (or have your financial advisor review) the shortfall guarantee provisions, the lien terms, the enforcement mechanisms, and the developer’s financial capacity to honor the guarantee. A taxpayer agreement that looks good on paper but lacks enforcement teeth does not protect your community.
Pitfall 4: Ignoring Constituent Communication Until It Is Too Late
Public hearings are a statutory requirement, but they should not be the first time your constituents hear about a TIF project. Proactive communication — explaining what TIF is, how it works, and why the specific project benefits the community — builds public support before opposition has a chance to form around misconceptions. Prepare talking points before the hearing, not after.
Pitfall 5: Assuming Someone Else Will Do the Oversight
Once a TIF plan is approved, your oversight role does not end. Annual reporting, construction milestone tracking, and compliance with the redevelopment agreement are ongoing responsibilities. Make sure the TIF agency has systems in place for monitoring and that the governing body receives regular updates on project status and increment performance.
Get the Clarity You Need
Hageman Capital provides free TIF education to Tennessee council members. Our goal is to make sure you have the understanding and confidence to cast an informed vote — and to explain that vote to the people who elected you. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson, our Director – Government Relations, and get your questions answered before the next resolution hits the agenda.
Economic Development Directors in Tennessee are the professionals who source deals, structure incentives, and shepherd projects to completion. With SB 1760 introducing developer-backed TIF Bonds with taxpayer agreements, you have a powerful new tool — but deploying it effectively requires avoiding several common missteps. Hageman Capital works alongside ED Directors across the state, and here are the pitfalls we see most often.
Pitfall 1: Recommending TIF Without a Thorough Feasibility Analysis
The “but-for” test is both a legal requirement and a credibility check. If you recommend TIF for a project that would have proceeded without it, you undermine your position with the governing body and waste incentive capacity on a deal that did not need it. Before recommending TIF, verify the developer’s proforma, confirm the funding gap, and ensure the projected increment can support the proposed bond. An independent feasibility analysis protects both your recommendation and your credibility.
Pitfall 2: Choosing the Wrong TIF Agency Structure
Selecting between a Housing Authority and an IDB has downstream consequences for eligible costs, allocation period, and approval requirements. An IDB may seem simpler, but if the project involves significant private property improvements, you will need state approval from the Comptroller and Commissioner — which adds time. A Housing Authority offers broader cost authority and longer terms but requires a blight determination. Matching the agency to the project’s specific needs early prevents costly course corrections later.
Pitfall 3: Letting Developers Dictate Terms Without Pushback
Your job is to attract investment and close deals — but not at any cost. The redevelopment agreement is the central contract, and it is where you negotiate the protections that keep the deal fair for the municipality. Insist on enforceable construction timelines, clear eligible cost caps, strong taxpayer agreement shortfall guarantees, financial reporting obligations, and meaningful default remedies. A developer who resists reasonable protections may not be the right partner for a publicly supported project.
Pitfall 4: Failing to Prepare the Governing Body
Even a well-structured deal can fail at the council vote if elected officials are surprised by the details. Brief your mayor and council members before the public hearing — not after. Provide clear materials explaining the TIF structure, the risk protections, the projected community benefits, and the answers to the questions constituents will ask. Your role is not just to structure the deal, but to ensure the decision-makers understand and support it.
Pitfall 5: Not Having a Capital Partner Identified Early
A developer-backed TIF Bond only delivers upfront capital if there is a buyer for the bond. Identifying a capital provider like Hageman Capital early in the process gives the developer certainty, strengthens the lender’s confidence, and helps you present a complete deal to the governing body. Waiting until after approvals to figure out the capital side introduces unnecessary risk and delay.
When Old Town Companies set out to develop the North End project in Carmel, Indiana, they faced a challenge familiar to commercial real estate developers everywhere: a mission-driven, mixed-use project that served the community’s needs but required creative financing to be economically feasible. The solution came through Tax Increment Financing — and specifically, through Hageman Capital’s ability to purchase TIF bonds and deliver upfront capital. For Tennessee municipal leaders evaluating the state’s new developer-backed TIF legislation, this case study illustrates exactly how TIF transforms a project from infeasible to operational.
The North End Project: What Was Built
North End is a mixed-use development located north of Smokey Row Road along the Monon Trail in Carmel, Indiana. The project includes 168 high-end apartments, with 40 units dedicated to serving individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), plus office and retail space. Old Town Companies served as the developer, and the City of Carmel provided municipal support through TIF revenues backed by the real estate development.
The project had strong community support — it added housing, office, and retail to an area with limited commercial development, and the IDD-dedicated units addressed a real need. But mission-driven housing is rarely profitable on its own, and the financial gap between what the project cost and what private financing could cover required a public incentive to bridge.
How TIF Made It Work
Old Town was financing the project through a Freddie Mac program with specific requirements: the project needed municipal incentives to qualify, at least 10% of units had to be under 80% Area Median Income, and Freddie’s underwriting standards required multiple iterations of financial and construction budget reviews. The municipal incentive came in the form of TIF — but for the project to close, Old Town needed to monetize that TIF upfront, receiving proceeds at loan closing rather than waiting years for increment revenue to accumulate.
Hageman Capital purchased the TIF bonds from Old Town, providing the upfront equity required to satisfy the lender’s requirements and close the construction loan. Throughout the transaction, Hageman Capital maintained financing flexibility and created solutions that kept the real estate closing as the primary goal. North End officially closed in December 2021, and the project is now complete — delivering housing, commercial space, and long-term tax base growth to the City of Carmel.
What Tennessee Municipal Leaders Should Take Away
The North End project demonstrates several principles that apply directly to Tennessee’s new TIF framework under SB 1760 / HB 1892. First, TIF can make projects feasible that would not otherwise proceed — satisfying the “but-for” test that Tennessee requires for TIF approval. Second, developer-backed TIF bonds shift the financial risk away from the municipality. Carmel did not pledge its general credit; the TIF revenue was supported by the real estate development itself. Third, the ability for a developer to sell their TIF bond to a capital provider like Hageman Capital and receive upfront cash is what transforms TIF from a long-term revenue stream into an immediate project catalyst.
Tennessee’s new taxpayer agreement provisions strengthen this model further. Under SB 1760, the developer can now contractually guarantee any shortfall between actual tax increment revenues and the required debt service — a binding obligation backed by a lien that carries the same priority as property tax liens. This gives both municipalities and capital providers like Hageman Capital greater confidence in the transaction, which ultimately means more projects get built.
The Types of Projects TIF Can Support in Tennessee
Tennessee’s TIF framework is broad enough to support a wide range of project types. Housing Authority TIFs can fund redevelopment of blighted areas including site acquisition, infrastructure installation, and public improvements. IDB TIFs can support commercial, industrial, retail, and mixed-use projects — with TIF proceeds funding public infrastructure directly, and private improvements with state approval. The North End model — a mixed-use development combining market-rate housing, affordable units, and commercial space — is precisely the kind of transformative project Tennessee municipalities can now greenlight with even stronger financial protections.
Hageman Capital: Your TIF Partner at No Cost
Old Town Companies has become one of Hageman Capital’s closest partners because the relationship works: Hageman Capital understands its role as a facilitator, not a complication. That same approach extends to our work with municipal leaders. We provide free, expert guidance to Tennessee municipalities looking to understand how developer-backed TIF Bonds work, how to evaluate projects, and how to structure transactions that protect the public interest while delivering real community growth. Connect with our team and see how TIF can transform development in your community.
Municipal leaders across Tennessee are accustomed to fielding inquiries from commercial real estate developers — but understanding what drives those developers, how they evaluate markets, and what makes a project financially viable is essential to deploying TIF effectively. Developer-backed TIF Bonds work best when municipalities understand the developer’s perspective, because that understanding helps you structure an incentive that attracts investment without giving away more than necessary.
How Developers Choose Where to Build
Commercial real estate developers evaluate potential markets across several dimensions simultaneously. They look at population growth trends, employment centers, infrastructure quality, and regulatory environment. They assess whether the local market can support the rents, lease rates, or sale prices their project requires. And they compare the incentive landscape across competing municipalities — because in today’s environment of elevated construction costs and tightening capital markets, the availability and quality of public incentives can determine whether a project lands in your city or a neighboring one.
Tennessee’s business-friendly environment, absence of a state income tax on wages, and growing metro areas in Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga already make the state attractive. But developers making site selection decisions weigh those macro advantages against the specific financial feasibility of each project — and that is where TIF becomes the differentiator.
The Financial Anatomy of a Development Project
Every development project has a capital stack — the combination of equity, debt, and incentives that funds the total project cost. The developer contributes equity (their own money), secures construction and permanent debt from lenders, and looks for additional sources to fill any remaining gap. That gap is the difference between what the project costs and what private capital alone can cover while still generating a return that justifies the risk.
TIF fills that gap. By capturing the incremental property tax revenue generated by the completed development and directing it toward eligible project costs, TIF provides a revenue stream that reduces the developer’s out-of-pocket equity requirement and improves the project’s financial feasibility. When the developer can sell their TIF Bond to a capital provider like Hageman Capital, that future revenue stream becomes upfront cash — reducing contributed equity even further and accelerating the project timeline.
What Makes a Project Ideal for TIF
Not every project needs TIF, and not every project qualifies. The “but-for” test requires the municipality to be satisfied that the project would not proceed without TIF assistance. Projects most suited for developer-backed TIF Bonds typically share several characteristics: significant infrastructure or site preparation costs that public investment can address, a projected assessed value increase large enough to generate meaningful tax increment, a developer with the financial capacity to guarantee bond repayment through a taxpayer agreement, and a clear public benefit such as job creation, blight elimination, or tax base expansion.
Tennessee’s TIF framework supports both public infrastructure improvements (roads, utilities, parking, drainage) and, with state approval for IDB projects, private property improvements. Housing Authority TIFs can fund a broad range of redevelopment costs in blighted areas. Understanding which costs qualify — and which TIF agency structure best fits the project — is where municipal leaders can add real value to the developer relationship.
Positioning Your Municipality as Developer-Friendly
Developers value certainty and speed. A municipality that can clearly communicate its TIF process, identify the right TIF agency, and move efficiently from application to bond issuance will attract more and better projects than one where the process is opaque or unpredictable. This does not mean lowering your standards — it means being prepared.
Key steps to positioning your municipality include having a clear TIF policy or application process in place, identifying which TIF agency (Housing Authority or IDB) is best suited for the types of projects you want to attract, understanding the taxpayer agreement framework under SB 1760 so you can discuss it knowledgeably with developers, and working with experienced TIF advisors who can help you evaluate proposals quickly and structure deals that protect the public interest.
Hageman Capital: Bridging the Gap Between Municipalities and Developers
Hageman Capital sits at the intersection of municipal finance and commercial real estate development. We purchase developer-backed TIF Bonds, providing developers with the upfront capital they need — and we work with municipal leaders at no cost to help them understand developer needs, evaluate TIF proposals, and structure transactions that work for both sides. Understanding your audience — the commercial real estate developer — is the first step toward deploying TIF as the powerful community growth tool it is designed to be. Connect with our team to learn more.
When a commercial real estate developer secures a TIF Bond in Tennessee, they have options for what to do with it. Each option carries different financial implications for the developer — and understanding these options helps municipal leaders have more informed conversations with the developers proposing projects in their communities. Here is a breakdown of the three primary paths a developer can take with a TIF Bond, and why selling the bond to a capital provider like Hageman Capital typically delivers the most favorable outcome for everyone involved.
Option 1: Hold the Bond and Collect Increment Over Time
A developer can hold the TIF Bond and receive regular payments from the tax increment revenue as it is collected by the municipality each year. This is the simplest approach — the developer waits for the project to generate assessed value, the increment flows into the TIF fund, and the municipality passes through payments on the bond according to the amortization schedule.
The advantage of this approach is that the developer captures the full face value of the bond over time. The drawback is significant: the developer does not receive capital when they need it most — during construction. Development costs are front-loaded, and waiting years for increment to accumulate creates a cash flow gap that must be filled by other sources. For most developers, tying up capital in a long-duration receivable is not financially efficient, especially when construction lenders expect equity contributions at closing.
Option 2: Borrow Against the Bond
A developer can use the TIF Bond as collateral to secure a loan from a bank or other lender. This provides some upfront liquidity, but typically at a discount — lenders will not advance 100% of the bond’s value, and the interest rate on the loan adds cost to the transaction. The developer also retains the ongoing obligation to manage the loan relationship, and the bond’s value is subject to the lender’s assessment of risk, which may not fully account for the taxpayer agreement guarantees now available under Tennessee’s SB 1760.
Borrowing against a TIF Bond can work for certain situations, but it introduces complexity and cost that many developers prefer to avoid — especially when a cleaner alternative exists.
Option 3: Sell the Bond to Hageman Capital
The third option — and the one that Hageman Capital specializes in — is for the developer to sell the TIF Bond outright to a capital provider. Hageman Capital purchases developer-backed TIF Bonds, providing the developer with upfront cash at loan closing. This is the approach that delivers the greatest financial efficiency for the developer and the most certainty for the project.
When a developer sells their TIF Bond to Hageman Capital, they receive immediate capital that can be applied to the construction budget, reducing the equity gap and improving the project’s overall returns. There is no ongoing loan to manage, no interest accruing on borrowed funds, and no uncertainty about future collections. The developer trades a long-duration receivable for day-one cash — and the municipality benefits because the project moves forward faster and with greater financial certainty.
Why This Matters for Municipal Leaders
Understanding a developer’s financing options helps you evaluate TIF proposals more effectively. When a developer tells you they plan to sell their TIF Bond to Hageman Capital, it signals several positive things about the transaction: the developer has a clear capital strategy, the project’s financial structure is sound enough to attract a third-party purchaser, and the TIF Bond will be underwritten by professionals who evaluate these instruments for a living.
It also means the developer will have capital certainty at closing — which reduces the risk that the project stalls during construction. For municipalities, a completed project that generates assessed value and tax increment on schedule is the best possible outcome. The financing path that maximizes the likelihood of that outcome is the one where the developer has upfront capital and the municipality has zero credit exposure.
Tennessee’s Taxpayer Agreements Strengthen Every Option
Under SB 1760, the taxpayer agreement creates a binding developer guarantee with a lien that carries property tax priority. This strengthens the TIF Bond regardless of which financing path the developer chooses — but it is especially valuable when the developer sells the bond to a capital provider, because the taxpayer agreement provides enforceable security that supports the purchase price. The stronger the legal framework, the more capital the developer can unlock and the more confident the municipality can be in the transaction.
Hageman Capital works with both municipalities and developers to structure TIF Bonds that maximize value for all parties. Our team is available as a free resource to Tennessee municipal leaders who want to understand how these financing options work and how to evaluate the proposals developers bring to the table. Connect with our team to start the conversation.
When Tennessee municipal leaders consider using Tax Increment Financing to support a development project, one of the most consequential decisions they face is how the TIF Bond will be structured. The two primary options — municipal-backed and developer-backed — carry fundamentally different risk profiles for your city. With the passage of SB 1760 and HB 1892, Tennessee has created a legal framework that makes developer-backed TIF Bonds not just viable, but preferable for most transactions. Here is why.
Municipal-Backed TIF: What It Means for Your City
In a municipal-backed TIF structure, the municipality or its TIF agency issues bonds that may be supported — in whole or in part — by the municipality’s credit, general revenues, or taxing power. If the tax increment generated by the development falls short of the required debt service, the municipality may bear some financial responsibility for covering the gap. The bonds may count against statutory debt limitations, and the municipality’s bond rating could be affected.
Municipal-backed bonds can offer lower interest rates because the lender has the security of the municipality’s credit behind the obligation. In some cases, this structure may be appropriate — particularly for large-scale public infrastructure projects where the municipality is the primary beneficiary and the increment is well-supported by existing development trends. But for individual commercial real estate projects driven by a private developer, pledging municipal credit introduces risk that is unnecessary under Tennessee’s updated TIF framework.
Developer-Backed TIF: Risk Where It Belongs
In a developer-backed TIF structure, the TIF agency issues the bond to the developer, who assigns it to a capital provider in exchange for upfront cash. The bond is repaid solely from the tax increment, and the developer — through a taxpayer agreement under SB 1760 — contractually guarantees any shortfall. The municipality serves as a conduit issuer with no obligation to advance funds, levy additional taxes, or pledge its general credit.
The taxpayer agreement lien runs with the land, carries the same priority as property tax liens, and takes precedence over any existing or subsequent mortgage. Delinquent taxpayer direct payments are enforceable as real property taxes. This means the developer’s guarantee is not just a contractual promise — it is backed by the strongest collection mechanism available under Tennessee law.
The Developer Gets the Same Proceeds Either Way
A common misconception is that developer-backed bonds reduce the capital a developer receives compared to a municipal-backed structure. This is not the case. The TIF Bond’s value is determined by the projected tax increment — the increase in property taxes generated by the completed development. Whether the bond is municipal-backed or developer-backed, the underlying revenue stream is the same. What changes is who bears the risk if that revenue stream falls short.
When a developer sells a developer-backed TIF Bond to Hageman Capital, they receive upfront cash based on the projected increment and the strength of the taxpayer agreement guarantee. The developer gets the capital they need for construction. The municipality gets a completed project that generates long-term tax base growth. And neither party has pledged anything they cannot afford to lose — the developer’s guarantee is tied to the property they are developing, and the municipality’s general fund remains untouched.
When to Choose Developer-Backed
For most individual commercial real estate projects in Tennessee — multifamily developments, mixed-use projects, retail centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities — developer-backed TIF Bonds are the appropriate structure. The developer is the party that benefits most directly from the TIF assistance, the developer has the financial incentive to complete the project and generate the increment, and the developer is best positioned to bear the risk of underperformance.
Municipal-backed structures may still make sense in limited circumstances — large public infrastructure projects, area-wide TIF districts supporting multiple developments, or situations where the municipality has strong budgetary reasons to issue general obligation bonds. But for the single-site, developer-driven projects that make up the majority of TIF transactions, developer-backed is the structure that protects the public interest while delivering the same economic development outcomes.
Hageman Capital Makes Developer-Backed TIF Work
The developer-backed structure works because there is a capital provider willing to purchase the bond. Hageman Capital is that capital provider. We purchase developer-backed TIF Bonds across multiple states, and we work with municipal leaders at no cost to help them understand the difference between these structures and evaluate which approach best fits their community’s needs. Connect with our team and let’s make the right call for your municipality.
If you are a Tennessee mayor who has heard the term “developer-backed TIF Bond” but has not yet had the chance to explore what it means for your community, this overview is for you. SB 1760, signed into law during the 2026 legislative session, introduced new tools that make Tax Increment Financing one of the most powerful and lowest-risk economic development instruments available to your city. Here is what you need to know at a high level.
What TIF Is and What It Is Not
Tax Increment Financing captures the increase in property tax revenue generated by a new development project and directs that increase toward paying for eligible project costs. It does not create new taxes. It does not raise anyone’s tax rate. The base amount of property taxes — everything your city and county were collecting before the project — continues flowing to all taxing jurisdictions as usual. Only the increment, the growth that would not exist without the development, is set aside for a limited period to support the project.
When the TIF period ends (up to 20 years for IDB projects or 30 years for Housing Authority projects), all tax revenue — including what was the increment — flows back to the taxing jurisdictions permanently. The result is a larger tax base generating more revenue for your city, schools, and county than existed before the project was built.
What Changed With SB 1760
The new legislation authorizes taxpayer agreements — binding contracts where the developer guarantees repayment of TIF bond debt. If the actual tax increment falls short of what is needed to cover the bond payment, the developer makes up the difference. The taxpayer agreement lien runs with the land, carries first-priority status over any mortgage, and is enforceable as real property taxes. This means the municipality bears zero financial risk on the bond — the developer is contractually and legally on the hook.
What This Means for Your Role as Mayor
As mayor, you are the public face of economic development in your community. Your role in TIF is to champion projects that serve the community’s interests, work with your economic development team to evaluate proposals, and ensure the governing body has the information needed to make sound decisions. You are not expected to be a TIF expert — that is what professional advisors and resources like Hageman Capital are for.
What you should be able to communicate to your council and constituents is straightforward: TIF does not spend public money, does not redirect existing tax revenue, and under the new taxpayer agreement structure, does not put the city’s credit at risk. It is a tool that turns developer investment into long-term community growth — more jobs, more tax revenue, and better infrastructure.
Getting Started
Hageman Capital provides free TIF education and structuring guidance to Tennessee mayors. Whether you have a specific project in mind or simply want to understand the landscape before a developer comes knocking, our team is available to help. Connect with Whitney Peterson, our Director – Government Relations, to schedule a no-cost consultation and start exploring what developer-backed TIF Bonds can do for your city.
Tennessee’s passage of SB 1760 and HB 1892 has added a significant new capability to the state’s TIF toolkit. For Economic Development Directors managing active developer pipelines, this legislation means you now have a deal-structuring mechanism that competing states are still catching up to. Here is an overview of the framework and how it fits into your work.
TIF in Tennessee: The Framework
Tax Increment Financing in Tennessee operates through two primary agency types. Housing Authorities can allocate increment for up to 30 years and focus on redevelopment of blighted areas. Industrial Development Boards can allocate increment for up to 20 years and have broader project authority, though state approval is required for private property improvements beyond public infrastructure. Both can issue TIF bonds or notes to developers, who then assign those instruments to capital providers in exchange for upfront construction capital.
The increment itself consists of the increase in property taxes above the base amount established when the TIF plan is approved. No existing revenue is redirected — only the new growth generated by the project is captured. When the allocation period ends, all revenue flows back to the taxing jurisdictions permanently.
What SB 1760 Adds to Your Toolkit
The new legislation introduces taxpayer agreements — voluntary, binding contracts where the developer guarantees any shortfall between actual increment and required debt service. The taxpayer agreement lien is recorded with the register of deeds, runs with the land, carries first-priority status over mortgages, and is enforceable as property taxes. For ED Directors, this changes the conversation with developers and lenders alike: the municipality’s credit is completely off the table, and the security structure is stronger than traditional TIF bonds.
How This Helps You Close Deals
When a developer evaluates incentive packages across competing cities, certainty of capital is a major factor. Developer-backed TIF Bonds with taxpayer agreements offer that certainty. The developer can sell the bond to a capital provider like Hageman Capital and receive upfront cash — rather than waiting years for increment to accumulate. For your pipeline, this means you can offer an incentive that is financially compelling to the developer, defensible to your governing body, and carries zero municipal credit exposure. That is a combination few other incentive tools can match.
Choosing Between Housing Authority and IDB
One of the first decisions in any Tennessee TIF transaction is which agency to use. Housing Authorities offer longer allocation periods and broader eligible cost categories for blighted areas, but require a blight determination. IDBs offer more flexibility on project types and do not require blight findings, but have shorter allocation periods and need state approval for private property expenditures. The choice depends on the project’s location, the nature of the costs, and whether the additional time or eligible cost flexibility of a Housing Authority structure adds value.
Hageman Capital as Your TIF Resource
Hageman Capital works alongside ED Directors as a free TIF structuring resource — helping you evaluate project feasibility, navigate the IDB vs. Housing Authority decision, and structure developer-backed TIF Bonds that move deals from conversation to groundbreaking. Connect with Whitney Peterson and let’s discuss your pipeline.
