Advisory board deadlocks on recommendation for $13.8M Palm Riverview TIF request

Palm Riverview Holdings proposed a 279‑unit multifamily development in East Fort Myers and requested a $13.8 million tax‑increment financing (TIF) rebate to bridge the project's financing gap. Applicant representatives said roughly half the units (141) would meet Florida statutory definitions of 'affordable' or 'attainable' rents and outlined a phased affordability schedule tied to area median income (AMI): years 1–5 at 105% AMI, years 6–10 at 110% AMI, years 11–15 at 115% AMI, and thereafter capped at 120% AMI.

The developer's team explained the project faces elevated site costs, including several million dollars of fill to raise the site out of the floodplain, and that HUD D4 financing assumptions and current lending conditions increase required equity and contingency reserves. Owner representative Thomas Rossi said the total project cost is near $79–$80 million and argued the $13.8 million rebate is needed to close the financing gap.

An independent consultant, Joe Gromacki, reviewed the TIF request and ran a conservative ('gray‑sky') scenario that adjusted millage and capture assumptions, the treatment of assessed vs. fair market value, and eligibility. Gromacki concluded the maximum that could realistically be captured under cautious assumptions was about $11.8 million, with a safer feasible range of roughly $7.27 million to $9.1 million if the board sought to preserve residual CRA funds for other projects. He said the project shows valid cost estimates but that HUD D4 financing inflates soft costs; he recommended requiring additional appraisal detail, IRR at reversion disclosure, and policy guardrails to protect CRA funds.

Board members debated multiple options: moving forward with the lower consultant range, approving the developer's requested amount, or approving an intermediate sum with delivery conditions. A printed motion to recommend a rebate in the $7.27M–$9.1M range was read but died for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to recommend $11,850,000 (near the consultant's stated 'maximum feasibility') was made and seconded but failed for lack of the unanimous in‑chamber votes the advisory board requires for recommendation. A later amendment adding an 18‑month construction‑commencement condition to the $11.85M motion also failed. With no motion carrying, the advisory board left the item without a formal recommendation to the City Commission.