Supervisors press New Heights on financing, pro formas and TID reliance

Supervisors used the developer presentation to press for more financial detail and to probe project risks. Supervisor Lamer asked whether the proposers had a plan B if loan financing failed and why the proposal used EBITDA rather than net income. "Is there a plan b? And then why did you use EBITDA, rather than the net income for those projections?" Lamer asked; Koval said the EBITDA figures were drawn from their financial documents and that they continue to refine financials with SBDC and the Capital Access Clinic.

Committee members also raised questions about reliance on tax increment financing and how far along conversations with the city and joint review board had progressed. A staff member asked where the project stood on TID work and noted that many TID decisions involve a "but‑for" showing required by state statute, which can affect eligibility. Koval said TID exploration is ongoing but that location certainty is needed before the TID conversation can advance.

Other questions focused on pro forma assumptions. One committee member noted a mismatch between sharp revenue growth and modest operating expense increases and asked for more detail on salary, operating and capital expenditure assumptions; Koval agreed to provide more detailed pro formas and feasibility materials. Supervisors also sought clarity on investor identity and the degree of committed financing; Koval said some investors had expressed interest but declined to name private investors in the meeting materials.