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.
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.
Connect with Whitney Peterson to discuss the deals in your pipeline.
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.
Nebraska’s Community Development Law provides one of the most established TIF frameworks in the Midwest. For Economic Development Directors managing developer relationships and project pipelines, this overview covers how the framework works and how proposed legislation (LB 1168) would expand your structuring options.
Nebraska TIF: The Framework
TIF in Nebraska captures only ad valorem real property tax increment — no sales tax or franchise fees. The tax division period runs 15 years for standard projects or 20 years for projects in areas declared extremely blighted. The Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) — or the city acting as the authority — is the entity that prepares redevelopment plans, issues TIF bonds, and enters into redevelopment contracts with developers. A substandard and blighted declaration is required before any redevelopment plan can be adopted, and a cost-benefit analysis demonstrating the but-for test is mandatory for every project.
The process follows a defined sequence: blight study, planning commission review (30-day window), public hearing with published and mailed notice, governing body approval, redevelopment contract negotiation, and bond issuance. The Notice to Divide Tax must be filed with the county assessor by July 1 of the calendar year in which the tax division becomes effective — a hard deadline that, if missed, delays the entire project by a full year.
What LB 1168 Would Add to Your Toolkit
Proposed legislation (LB 1168) would introduce two significant new tools. First, conduit revenue bonds — a new category of TIF bond payable solely from specifically pledged revenues rather than being a general obligation of the CRA. This would more clearly insulate the CRA’s other activities and assets from the risk of any single project. Second, taxpayer agreements — contracts where the developer guarantees any shortfall in tax increment revenue and can agree to limit their right to challenge property assessments. Taxpayer agreement liens would carry parity with property tax liens and take priority over existing and subsequent mortgages on the property.
For ED Directors, the practical implication is significant: you could offer developers a structure with enforceable guarantees and super-priority lien security, while presenting your governing body with a deal that clearly insulates the CRA from project-specific risk. This combination makes developer-backed TIF Bonds more attractive to capital providers like Hageman Capital, which translates to better pricing for the developer and stronger projects for your community.
How This Helps You Close Deals
Developer-backed TIF Bonds give developers upfront cash when they sell the bond to a capital provider like Hageman Capital. The developer does not have to wait 15 to 20 years for increment to accumulate — they receive construction capital at closing. For your pipeline, this means you can offer an incentive that is financially compelling to developers, defensible to your governing body, and carries reduced CRA exposure. Nebraska’s established procedural framework — blight studies, planning commission review, public hearings, governing body approval — provides the foundation your elected officials need to approve projects with confidence.
Your role is to navigate this process efficiently: identify qualified project areas, match the right developer with the right opportunity, prepare a thorough cost-benefit analysis, manage the statutory timeline (especially the July 1 deadline), and structure the redevelopment contract to protect the community while keeping the deal competitive. Every deal you close successfully becomes a template for the next one — building your city’s reputation as a place where TIF-supported projects get done.
Eligible Costs and Project Types
TIF-eligible costs in Nebraska include site acquisition, demolition, environmental remediation, streets, water and sewer infrastructure, storm water systems, electrical and gas extensions, street lighting, public parking, landscaping, facade enhancements, and professional fees. The developer bears the cost of constructing private improvements from their own funds. Projects must be located in areas declared substandard and blighted — but the statutory criteria are broad enough to encompass a wide range of aging, underutilized, or deteriorated areas across the state.
Hageman Capital as Your TIF Resource
Hageman Capital works alongside Nebraska ED Directors as a free TIF structuring resource — helping you evaluate project feasibility, navigate the Community Development Law process, and structure developer-backed TIF Bonds that get deals across the finish line. We complement your existing team — never replace it. Connect with Whitney Peterson, our Director – Government Relations, and let’s talk about what is in your pipeline.
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.
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.
Hageman Capital Is Here to Help
Our team works with ED Directors across Tennessee as a free TIF resource — from feasibility evaluation to deal structuring to capital deployment. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson, our Director – Government Relations, and let’s make sure your next deal is structured for success.
Kansas Economic Development Directors now have one of the strongest TIF frameworks in the country. But deploying developer-backed TIF Bonds under HB 2737 effectively requires avoiding several common missteps. Here are the pitfalls Hageman Capital sees most often.
Pitfall 1: Skipping the Feasibility Study Details
Kansas’s feasibility study requirement is detailed — it must address the but-for test, project costs, projected increment, a cost-benefit analysis, and a relocation assistance plan. Treating this as a box-checking exercise rather than a genuine analysis undermines your credibility with the governing body and creates legal risk. Invest in a thorough study and use it as the foundation of your deal presentation.
Pitfall 2: Misunderstanding What TIF Can Pay For
Kansas TIF cannot fund construction of privately owned buildings — the most critical limitation in the statute. TIF is limited to public infrastructure and site preparation: land acquisition, demolition, streets, utilities, parking structures, environmental remediation, and similar costs. If the developer’s TIF-eligible costs are primarily vertical construction, the deal will not work under Kansas law. Confirm eligible costs early and ensure the developer understands this boundary.
Pitfall 3: Not Securing Mortgage Holder Consent Early
HB 2737 requires written consent from each existing mortgage holder before a taxpayer agreement is executed. If this is not addressed until late in the process, it can delay or derail closing. Identify all existing liens on the property and initiate the consent process as soon as the taxpayer agreement is being negotiated.
Pitfall 4: Failing to Prepare the Governing Body for the Supermajority Vote
The two-thirds supermajority requirement means you need broader support than a simple majority. Brief council members individually before the hearing, provide clear materials on the deal structure and community benefits, and prepare answers to the questions constituents will ask. A well-prepared governing body votes confidently; a surprised one does not.
Pitfall 5: Structuring Without a Capital Partner
A developer-backed TIF Bond only delivers upfront capital if a buyer is identified. Engaging Hageman Capital early ensures the bond is structured to meet purchase criteria from the start. Request a meeting with Whitney Peterson and let’s structure your next deal for success.
For Kansas ED Directors, structuring a TIF Bond that a capital provider can purchase is where your deal-making expertise has the most impact. Here is how to structure special obligation TIF Bonds under KSA 12-1774(a) with taxpayer agreements under HB 2737 that Hageman Capital can purchase.
Structural Requirements for Bond Purchase
The bond should be a private placement issued by the city directly to the developer, non-recourse to the city, secured by pledged ad valorem increment, sales tax, franchise fees, and a taxpayer agreement. The feasibility study must demonstrate the but-for case, and the projected multi-stream revenue must provide adequate debt service coverage. The developer needs financial capacity to support the guarantee, and written mortgage holder consent must be obtained per HB 2737.
Building the Redevelopment Agreement
The redevelopment agreement should include clear TIF-eligible cost identification (remembering Kansas prohibits funding private building construction), enforceable construction milestones, a strong taxpayer agreement with explicit shortfall calculations, financial reporting obligations, and default remedies. The planning commission must find the project plan consistent with the comprehensive plan before the governing body votes.
Engage Hageman Capital During Structuring
The most efficient deals have the capital provider at the table from the start. Hageman Capital provides guidance on coverage ratios, amortization structures, taxpayer agreement terms, and multi-revenue-stream pledging during the negotiation phase — preventing costly restructuring after the two-thirds supermajority vote.
The Competitive Advantage
ED Directors who can offer developers a clear, tested path from incentive approval to day-one capital win projects that other cities lose. Hageman Capital is available as a free structuring resource. Connect with Whitney Peterson to discuss your pipeline.
Kansas’s passage of the Taxpayer Agreement Act (HB 2737) has added a significant new capability to the state’s already strong TIF toolkit. For Economic Development Directors managing active developer pipelines, this overview covers the framework and how it fits into your work.
Kansas TIF: The Framework
TIF in Kansas operates under KSA 12-1770 et seq. Cities can capture ad valorem property tax increment, local sales tax increment, and franchise fee revenue to fund eligible public infrastructure costs for up to 20 years. Special obligation bonds under KSA 12-1774(a) are payable solely from pledged revenues — not backed by the city’s general credit. The 20 mills for school districts and 1.5 mills for the state are protected from capture. Eligible areas include blighted areas, conservation areas, buildings 65 years or older, and several specialized categories.
What HB 2737 Adds
The Taxpayer Agreement Act introduces taxpayer agreements (binding developer guarantees enforceable as delinquent real estate taxes), conduit bond authority (city has no obligation to advance funds), and a requirement for written mortgage holder consent before entering a taxpayer agreement. For ED Directors, this means you can offer developers a structure with upfront capital certainty and enforceable security — a combination few competing cities can match.
How This Helps You Close Deals
Developer-backed TIF Bonds with taxpayer agreements give developers upfront cash when they sell the bond to Hageman Capital. Kansas’s multi-revenue-stream framework enhances the bond’s value. The feasibility study requirement, two-thirds supermajority vote, and planning commission review provide the procedural foundation your governing body needs to approve with confidence. Your job is to navigate this process efficiently and present deals that are defensible, competitive, and structured for success.
Hageman Capital as Your Resource
We work alongside Kansas ED Directors as a free TIF structuring resource. Connect with Whitney Peterson to discuss your pipeline.
