A major Tax Increment Financing (TIF) request and funding-gap analysis is heading to the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB) on April 21 for consideration, with a recommendation expected before the Reno Redevelopment Agency Board’s vote on May 7. The project? A privately owned 10,000-seat arena and large-scale expansion at the Grand Sierra Resort (GSR).
Here’s a breakdown of the proposal - and what both supporters and critics are saying.
The Deal
GSR is seeking up to $145.8 million in reimbursement from property tax increment to close a funding gap for Phase 1 of its $1 billion redevelopment. This includes the arena, parking garage, and other improvements on the east side of the GSR campus.
Key elements of the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA):
- GSR fronts all project costs and pays all taxes.
- Reimbursement only occurs if the project generates new property tax revenue.
- The agreement expires when Redevelopment Area 2 sunsets in 2035.
- Three TIF structure options are proposed, including two that set aside 10% for public uses like riverfront investment and fire station land conveyance.
📌 The TIF is performance-based. If the project doesn’t generate the projected tax growth, GSR receives less — or nothing.
Support: Hunden Economic Analysis
An independent analysis by Hunden Partners projects the following benefits:
- $68.1 million in new property tax revenue to the city by 2035.
- Up to $294 million in total property tax revenue by 2055.
- More than 370 full-time jobs supported annually. Over 1,700 construction jobs.
- $2.6 billion in new spending and $74 million in net new local tax revenue.
- Reimbursement of $61.3 million to GSR under a 90/10 TIF structure, with $6.8 million retained by the Redevelopment Agency.
Hunden’s report concludes the project would not meet required investment return thresholds “but for” the public assistance - the 'bar' for a TIF subsidy.
“But For” Test – Hunden Findings:
Without TIF, the project’s IRR is 3.0%, below the minimum threshold of 4.5%, making it financially unfeasible. TIF support raises expected returns just above the viability threshold, making public support necessary to proceed.
Estimated $294.1 million in total incremental property tax revenue by 2055, but only $68.1 million by 2035 (when RDA2 ends).
Opposition: Wells Report & Casino Coalition Concerns
A counter-analysis by economist Dr. Dave Wells, commissioned by a coalition of competing casinos (Peppermill, Caesars, Bonanza, and Nugget), argues the public return is overstated and the private benefit underestimated.
He points out:
- The arena may displace events from existing public venues like the Reno Events Center, Ballroom and Lawlor.
- Estimated new economic impact to the city is only $8.8 million annually, versus $700 million in direct benefit to GSR.
- The development is likely financially viable without subsidy — especially given GSR’s own public statement that it is “100% funding” the project. Even without public support, project returns (5.6% in Year 3, 6.8% in Year 10) exceed the minimum investment threshold. Therefore, TIF is not required to proceed—project is feasible as a private investment.
- This would be Nevada’s first known use of TIF to fund a privately owned arena — a major shift from past publicly owned projects like Greater Nevada Field and the Reno Events Center.
📣 “This project could set a precedent where private developers request public support for profit-driven amenities with limited public control,” it states.
TIF Structure Options on the Table
The city is considering three structures for the OPA:
💯 Full 100% reimbursement to GSR.
💰 90/10 split with 10% redirected to riverfront and public safety improvements.
🏙️ 90/10 split with 10% going solely to a new fire station land acquisition.
Each option ends in 2035, regardless of projected gains extending through 2055.
Quick Pros & Cons
🟢 Pros:
- No upfront or ongoing city cost — risk stays with GSR.
- Significant new tax revenue and jobs.
- Public funds only used if new tax revenue is generated.
- Potential river and fire safety improvements under split options.
🔴 Cons:
- Financial feasibility may not require subsidy.
- Economic benefit to city far smaller than to developer.
- Risk of setting a statewide precedent for subsidizing private arenas.
- Could divert events from publicly owned venues.
What’s Next?
The RAAB is set to review the proposal at its April 21 meeting. Public comment is welcome.
This vote could shape not only the east side of GSR’s property - but the future of how redevelopment tools like TIF are used in Reno.
🗓️ Reno Redevelopment Agency Board Vote: May 7
📝 Public documents and economic reports available on the City of Reno website.
Have thoughts on the GSR TIF deal?