DIA defends land-swap and $20M cap for LaVilla UF site as commissioners and public press for more transparency

Lori Boyer, chief executive officer of the Downtown Investment Authority, explained the agency’s rationale for negotiating a land exchange and capped completion grant with Gateway LLC (an entity including JWB and other investors) to facilitate University of Florida’s selection of the LaVilla site for a semiconductor institute campus.

Boyer said Gateway owned an office building (referred to in the briefing as the interline/Inner Line Brands building) that the city could acquire via negotiation. She outlined competing site appraisals and constraints on alternative parcels, saying appraisals for available city parcels and physical easements produced an estimated combined value "about $5.07 million," which she contrasted with Gateway’s appraisal of the building. To bridge the gap and avoid a large cash purchase, the DIA proposed a property exchange and a capped financial incentive. She said the developer agreed to a maximum $20,000,000 completion grant payable only at project completion, and to a 2% hotel-room surcharge dedicated to park maintenance and programming.

Boyer told the commission the authority used standard formulas for projecting tax revenue, assuming an initial assessed value at 85% of construction value and an annual 2% growth in property value; using conservative assumptions DIA projected a return of about $1.30 on each dollar of city commitment. She said Gateway committed to a minimum development budget and a hotel component so the city could levy a surcharge that would provide ongoing maintenance funding for new riverfront park space.

A public commenter who identified themselves only as a resident raised extensive objections to Gateway/JWB and the timing of donations, alleging tenant-rights violations and questioning the accuracy and presentation of financial projections published in local media. The commenter noted a November 2024 settlement between JWB and Jacksonville Area Legal Aid over tenant-screening practices and said that settlement and other lawsuits raised concerns about the developer’s suitability for public incentives. The commenter asked for a clearer accounting of projected ad valorem revenue, the discounting method for multi-year revenue streams, and referenced press figures that the commenter described as misleading. Boyer said the DIA provided appraisals and would make supporting workbooks available to council auditors and commissioners and noted that council auditors were reviewing the numbers.

Boyer and commissioners discussed alternatives — including a straight cash purchase of Gateway’s building — and legal constraints: the city cannot use eminent domain to acquire property for private development. She emphasized that Gateway’s proposal included commitments on design, hotel rooms, and a surcharge, and that the DIA viewed the exchange and capped completion grant as a way to obtain land for redevelopment without an upfront cash outlay. She said the proposal would still require underwriting, documented construction costs and council action; the DIA’s board previously approved the disposition package and the legislation had been filed and was pending before city council.

Why it matters: the transaction would move publicly held land, a capped public incentive and long-term revenue streams toward a major UF campus site — decisions that shape downtown development, public park funding and the city’s relationship with private developers. Several commissioners and the public asked for more transparency, workbook-level projections and auditor review before final council action.