Developers for a proposed shopping center on Greenlee Boulevard told the Gallatin City Council on April 22 that site constraints and added city requirements have pushed construction costs above the anchor tenant’s target and asked the city to help offset up to $1,250,000 through an infrastructure recapture agreement.

The request was presented by Mike McGuffin of CHM Development, who said the project — described on the agenda as the Target project on Greenlee — began about 2 1/2 years ago and has completed geotechnical, environmental, hydrology and traffic studies and other due diligence. McGuffin told council, “we're at a point now where the anchor tenant has come back to us and the cost of the project exceed what they're willing to pay in this market,” and asked the city to consider contributing to certain upfront infrastructure costs that the developer would repay from future sales-tax receipts once the center is operating.

Why it matters: Developers said the site’s wetlands, TVA transmission lines, rock and creek crossings have driven up costs, and that recent city requirements — including a greenway, fence, additional sidewalk, a traffic signal at the main entrance, and an electrical loop around the site — add several hundred thousand dollars to the project budget. Developers argued the center would generate recurring property and sales tax revenue and bring jobs to Gallatin but said city review and policy questions must be addressed before they can finalize the deal.

Developers described specific cost items in the packet they gave council. A greenway required in the civil plans was presented as roughly $200,000; a safety fence about $35,000; a sidewalk tied to the greenway about $80,000; a traffic signal at Greenlee Boulevard about $500,000; a Greenlee interchange equity fee about $100,000; and an electrical loop requested by the city about $335,000. McGuffin said those items, together with the site’s physical constraints, had left the anchor tenant unwilling to accept the current total price.

To bridge the gap, the developers proposed an infrastructure recapture agreement rather than a TIF or PILOT. Under the proposal the city would provide upfront assistance (the developers requested up to $1,250,000 in the presentation) and the developers would be repaid from a share of sales tax proceeds after the project opened. McGuffin said, based on projected sales, that the developer could pay back the requested amount in roughly 13–14 months after operations commenced, and that similar arrangements have been used in other Tennessee cities for projects of this size.

Council members pressed for guardrails and comparables. Councilman Chevant asked, “So basically, you're asking us for a loan where you will reimburse us with the revenue we should have on sales tax?” McGuffin and other speakers explained the model is intended to be repaid from realized sales-tax revenue and that the developer assumes construction risk; they also highlighted that other Tennessee cities (Cookeville, Clarksville, Lebanon among those mentioned) had used similar tools. Several council members said the city should set minimum thresholds — for example, minimum job counts or minimum capital investment — before offering any assistance, and asked staff to provide examples of infrastructure agreements used elsewhere.

The developers also told the council an archaeological survey required by the Army Corps of Engineers has paused certain work; McGuffin said the survey was underway and that the team expected to receive a report in roughly 60 days, but cautioned the study could extend the schedule and, depending on findings, push opening from an initial October 2026 estimate to some time in 2027.

Council action: After questions and discussion, a council member moved to place the item on the next work session agenda for additional review so staff could gather more information and comparables; the motion was seconded and the council voted unanimously to schedule the item for the May 13 work session. The mayor’s office asked staff to gather example agreements, job and wage data from comparable projects, and a clearer breakdown of what costs the city could assume (for example, installing the traffic signal through the city’s traffic division versus paying the developer’s contractor).

Developer and local contacts: Mike McGuffin and Hunter Harrison represented CHM Development on behalf of a joint development with Anderson and LA Green. Rosemary Gates, the city’s executive director of economic development, introduced the developers to the council.

Next steps: The council requested staff follow up with examples of infrastructure-recapture agreements used in comparable Tennessee cities, additional labor/wage breakdowns for the projected jobs, clarification from Gallatin Electric on the requested electrical loop, and impact estimates tied to construction and operations. The item was scheduled for the May 13 work session for further consideration.