Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the RED TIF Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board continues review of RED retail TIF application, asks for fuller analysis
Summary
After staff and consultant presentations, the board voted to continue the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) application for the Reno Experience District retail build-out and asked staff/consultant to provide additional analysis that includes how the retail fits within the broader catalyst project.
The Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board voted May 4 to continue consideration of a TIF application for the Reno Experience District (RED) retail build-out and asked staff and consultant SB Friedman to provide additional analysis showing how the retail fits in with the broader catalyst project.
Staff summarized SB Friedman's gap analysis and said the retail-only build-out produced limited projected increment — roughly $836,000 through 2035 — because the upper-story buildings were already constructed and assessed, leaving only recovered increment rather than new increment. "Under NRS 279.486, whenever the agency is expending public resources, there are two required findings: the project benefits the redevelopment area, and there are no other reasonable means of financing available," staff said when describing the board's role in evaluating a 'but-for' test.
Garrett Gordon, the applicant representing Lion Living, asked that SB Friedman re-run its analysis to include the performance of the hotel and apartment buildings that contain the retail, saying those components affect the project's overall viability and equity-raising prospects. "We're not asking for any money today... But at least we should analyze it," Gordon said, urging the board to see the fuller financial picture before making a recommendation.
SB Friedman partner Lance Dorn said the firm understood the developer's request but concluded the upper-story components were fully financed and complete, and therefore did not meet the but-for standard for additional public assistance; SB Friedman focused its analysis on the retail portion.
Multiple board members — including Nadia Liberio and Colin Robertson — said the retail-alone proposal did not meet the but-for test as presented and asked for either a continuation with additional analysis or a fuller showing of the overall catalyst project. The board voted to continue the item so staff and the consultant could return with clarifying information and a fuller project scope.
Why it matters: the outcome will determine whether agency tax increment can be applied to retail build-outs in the RED and whether previously built components can be considered when evaluating future assistance. The board scheduled a return to the item after staff and the consultant provide the requested analysis.
