CRA hears proposal for tax-increment rebate tied to proposed Silver Springs hotel; board asks staff to continue review

The Marion County Community Redevelopment Agency discussed a proposal for a tax-increment rebate grant program that a property owner’s attorney said could support a new hotel in the Silver Springs CRA. The board did not vote on the proposal but indicated by consensus that staff should continue working with the applicant to develop details.

Jimmy Gooding, representing a developer identified in meeting materials as Navro, presented the concept to the CRA. Gooding said the program would rebate a portion of the tax increment generated by improvements to a specific property to the developer under a redevelopment agreement. “They don’t decrease taxes,” Gooding said, describing TIF rebates to the board. “They’re funded solely by the increased property values caused by a project.” Gooding asked staff to work with the developer on a draft agreement; he said the developer did not want to disclose a requested rebate amount until staff and the CRA had provided input.

Gooding showed project renderings and market material for a proposed Home2Suites by Hilton: an extended-stay, upper midscale product the presentation listed at about 106 rooms, compared with the existing Holiday Inn Express (described in the presentation as a 75-room property). He described an illustrative pro forma and spreadsheet prepared with input from the property-appraiser’s TIF staff: his examples assumed a vacant parcel currently paying roughly $7,500 in annual taxes and estimated scenarios in which the project’s taxable value and resulting annual increment could generate total rebates in the low six-figure range over the life of the CRA. Gooding told the board a 0% annual increase example produced about $389,000 in total TIF payments in his spreadsheet, while a 5% increase example produced about $649,000; he said the payments can be capped and the agreement could stop when a developer has received a predetermined dollar amount.

Commissioners pressed for details and raised policy concerns. One commissioner said a 90% rebate of the CRA increment (a percentage Gooding used as a spreadsheet example) would be unacceptable; others asked whether the program would apply only to new construction (Gooding said most jurisdictions limit such rebates to new projects) and whether the project would provide community amenities beyond rooms. Staff and Gooding clarified that the rebate Gooding described would come from the CRA portion of the increment tied to that property and would not make the county liable for future shortfalls. Gooding also noted the proposal could be layered with other grants and that the developer intends to apply for other funding where eligible.

After extended discussion of policy goals in the CRA master plan, redevelopment versus greenfield development, and what thresholds should trigger a rebate, the board did not adopt any incentive at the meeting. The chair summarized discussion and the board asked staff to continue conversations with the developer and to return with more details and analysis at a future meeting.