Industrial Development Board reviews Rivergate Mall TIF economic impact plan; Metro Council approval next step

Rivergate Mall redevelopment project proponents and Metro staff presented an economic impact plan and development agreement to the Industrial Development Board, saying the proposal would redevelop the vacant mall site and use tax-increment financing to pay for site infrastructure.

The matter matters because the redevelopment would transform a long-declining shopping center into mixed uses — including housing, retail, senior housing and community green space — and because the financing structure would commit future incremental property-tax revenue for up to 25 years, creating both a public subsidy and a timetable for construction and affordable-housing commitments.

Maris, the prospective master developer, described plans for a mixed-use campus with market-rate and for-sale housing, townhouses, senior housing, hospitality, retail and community green space. Kate Jerosh, director of real estate development for Maris, said the firm sees the project as a “community asset” created from a declining property and stressed the development would include substantial open space and a central “jewel-box” gathering area. Jerosh also disclosed an indirect conflict of interest for the record: her spouse is employed at SNESG Studio.

City staff walked board members through the TIF mechanics. Bob Mendez, chief development officer for Metro, described the TIF as a split of new property-tax revenue between Metro and the developer. Under the proposed structure the developer would have access to up to $42 million in tax-backed funds over 25 years to support capital and debt service; the estimated present value of that revenue stream is about $22.5 million. Mendez said Metro would retain an amount equal to the city’s debt-service share (roughly 13% of the operating budget) and then 25% of any remaining new property tax revenue after the initial five-year period, so Metro would keep approximately one-third of new property tax receipts once the TIF is fully running.

Mendez said the TIF package includes deadlines and performance requirements aimed at ensuring progress: for example, a seven‑year deadline to begin construction on the committed affordable senior housing and additional milestones for installation of common and parcel-specific infrastructure. He said the board and mayor’s office focused the city’s analysis on direct, quantifiable benefits to Metro’s general fund — property-tax shares, the limited general-fund portion of hotel taxes, and construction-related sales-tax receipts — rather than indirect economic impacts. He also described one administrative allowance: the IDB may cover up to $25,000 per year of third‑party administrative expenses required to calculate and distribute incremental tax payments across multiple parcels and owners.

Mendez told the board that, as of the meeting, Metro and the developer had agreed to a last‑minute addition to the contract language requiring the developer to notify the IDB of any appeals of property‑tax appraisals and to provide supporting materials as state law allows. “We think they’re probably gonna be more afraid of their bank than they’re afraid of Metro, and so we just put some deadlines in,” Mendez said, describing why the agreement includes timing milestones.

Board members asked about the project schedule and phasing, the role of neighboring Goodlettsville in a parallel tax‑sharing negotiation, and whether an infrastructure district might be used as an additional financing mechanism. Developers and Metro staff said the project would likely proceed west to east on the site, that multiple financing and municipal approvals remain (including Metro Council review), and that Goodlettsville’s separate tax discussions would not change Metro’s analysis of the proposed TIF. Jerosh and other presenters said the developer plans to move quickly once property acquisition and financing close; they did not announce a council vote outcome at the meeting.

The board did not record a formal vote on the economic impact plan and development agreement during the portion of the transcript provided. Metro staff said the IDB’s approval would be one step in a process that also requires Metropolitan Council action and, later, review of loan documents when the developer seeks bank financing for the TIF-backed loan.

Metro staff emphasized conservative assumptions in its assessment, focusing on direct fiscal returns to Metro rather than broader projected economic multipliers. Mendez said that approach aimed to make the city’s decision testable and defensible in future requests for public participation in private development costs.

Next steps: the proposed economic impact plan and development agreement were scheduled to go to Metro Council for consideration; Metro staff said the IDB would review final loan documents at a later date if the developer proceeds to borrow against the tax increment. The developer and Metro agreed to keep the IDB informed about parcel-level tax appeals and to supply supporting material when permitted by state law.

Board members indicated continued interest and asked for follow-up on timelines, community engagement and how affordable units and community benefits will be secured in practice. No formal board approval of the plan appeared in the provided transcript.