Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development And Tif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA approves assignment for 2401 Bay Street "Irving" despite attorney caution on statutory permissibility
Summary
The board voted 4–3 to assign an existing tax-increment rebate agreement for the 2401 Bay Street development (the Irving) to a new development LLC after presentations from the prospective owner and developer. City attorney Cora McIntosh warned that a 2019 statutory change may make the project’s luxury housing purpose non‑permissible under current CRA funding rules; proponents said the project aligns with hotel/convention center support and existing contract rights.
The Fort Myers CRA voted 4–3 to assign an existing tax‑increment rebate agreement for the proposed 2401 Bay Street project (the Irving) to a new development entity after a lengthy presentation and discussion that included a formal caution from the city attorney about statutory permissibility.
Megan Strayhorn, attorney for the applicant, described the project’s history: the parcel has been vacant for decades, the project was revised and upzoned to 98 units, and a $10.5 million tax increment rebate agreement was approved in 2024 under the previously executed terms. Rebecca (owner representative for 2401 Bay Street) and partners said the new developer will carry forward prior commitments including undergrounding utilities where feasible and contributing $50,000 to park improvements.
City Attorney Cora McIntosh put the board on notice that a 2019 amendment to state law (cited in the meeting as section 163.387) narrowed permissible uses of CRA funds and that, in her opinion, the luxury‑oriented residential portion of the project does not fit those permitted purposes. McIntosh said that while the agreement was entered previously, approving an assignment could trigger scrutiny during the required financial audit and could raise compliance questions.
Proponents argued the project includes components (hotel and extended‑stay units operated by a lodging partner) that could be tied to convention‑support uses referenced in the statute and noted that the assignment does not change the monetary terms or duration of the existing agreement. The board debated those legal interpretations and ultimately approved the assignment by a 4–3 roll call vote.
The roll call recorded the following votes as spoken in sequence during the meeting: Vice (recorded as) "Sheerbo Shea" — Yes; Commissioner Geraldo — No; Commissioner Anderson — Yes; Commissioner Watson — Yes; Commissioner Banc — No; Commissioner Berson — Yes; Chair Watkins Brown — No. The motion passed. Attorney McIntosh said the action would be subject to routine audit review under state law.
