A redevelopment agreement to convert the historic Marion Hotel into a 59-room Hilton Tapestry Collection boutique hotel drew extended questions from the Ocala Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Agency Board and was tabled for revision and further analysis on Nov. 4.

Aubrey Hill, Ocala planning director, described the project as a roughly $29 million private investment and outlined the city incentives under discussion: a city grant of about $650,000 to be paid in equal disbursements over five years (about $130,000 per year), a permit-and-impact-fee reimbursement of $79,460, and the potential return of tax-increment financing (TIF) payments subject to standard collection and reimbursement rules. The agreement as drafted also would convey Lot 6 — a 96-space surface parking lot now appraised at $1,254,000 — to the developer with a right of reverter that staff said would allow the city to repurchase the lot if the parking-garage plan moves forward.

"So this is a redevelopment agreement between the City of Ocala and Marion Opportunity Zone 1 LLC," Hill said, outlining the project scope and the incentive structure. The agreement included a cap on city incentives at roughly 10% of the developer's investment, which staff calculated at nearly $2,900,000.

Rob Batsil, representing the applicant, emphasized the preservation value of the plan. "This is an icon of our community," Batsil said. "Taking the old and making it new, but preserving the heritage." He told the board staff had worked through multiple financing approaches and that the team was prepared to answer technical questions.

Board members focused most of their questions on the proposed donation of Lot 6 and mechanics of the right of reverter. Council members asked when the right of reverter would take effect, whether the city should deed the lot now or instead lease parking and wait to buy back the property if needed, and whether alternative parking within two blocks could be guaranteed for the hotel.

"I just cannot personally get behind deeding you that parking lot," one council member said during the discussion, directly objecting to transferring the parcel given uncertainty around building a Parking Garage 3. The council member urged exploring lease arrangements or other short-term parking-credit approaches rather than an immediate deed transfer that could commit the city to a $1.25 million obligation.

Staff and the developer offered alternatives and clarifications. Batsil said the agreement could be revised to remove discretionary language and create a "pure reverter" that would allow the city to exercise repurchase rights within the reversion period; he also said acceptable alternative parking within close proximity could meet the project's short-term needs. Hill noted the CRA currently sunsets in February 2038 and said extending the CRA could create options to spread costs over a longer horizon.

Because several council members said they had not had sufficient time to vet on-the-fly contract edits presented by the applicant, the board rescinded the earlier motions to approve and voted to table the redevelopment agreement to the next meeting so that staff, counsel and the developer could bring back revised language and additional analysis. The motion to table passed by roll call.

What's next: The item was tabled for the next meeting. Staff said it would return with the applicant's clean redline, additional language to address parking assurances (including nearby alternative parking), and any recommended appraisal updates or timeline adjustments for the right of reverter.