Citizen Portal
Sign In

Supporters say TIF monetization bill will speed projects; municipal league urges caution

Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development · February 11, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Proponents testified HB2737 would allow municipalities and developers to monetize tax‑increment revenue by using third‑party financing and voluntary taxpayer agreements while proponents said the developer — not the city — would bear repayment risk; the League of Kansas Municipalities urged more study of lien/enforcement and downstream consequences.

House Bill 2737 would allow the transfer or monetization of tax increment financing (TIF) revenue to third‑party financers so developers can access more capital up front, proponents told the committee.

Blaine Finch of Hageman Capital said the measure is intended as an optional financing tool that does not expand TIF districts, raise taxes or create public debt; it is designed to allow private capital to be used as a conduit so projects can be built sooner. Shao Yuan (Hageman) said the structure typically uses a voluntary taxpayer agreement and a bond trustee so repayment responsibility remains with the developer: "If the TIF revenue is lower than expected, the developer covers the shortfalls, and the municipality is not required to cover any deficiencies on repayment," he said.

The League of Kansas Municipalities (Nathan Eberlaine) testified as a neutral conferee, acknowledging the value of additional economic development tools while urging caution. The League warned HB2737 creates a new financing mechanism that gives private developers obligations with tax‑lien parity and could alter local public‑review processes, lien and enforcement priorities, and revenue distribution among taxing entities. "HB 27 37 creates ... a new financing mechanism called the taxpayer grama," Eberlaine said, and cities requested more time to evaluate downstream consequences.

Proponents said the structure is voluntary and that municipalities can decline participation. Committee members asked technical questions about bonding mechanics, conduit issuance and whether cities can still require surety and performance bonds; proponents and conferees said those protections remain in place and that the tool is meant to reduce administrative burden when used.

The hearing closed with neutral testimony and no listed opponents during this session.