Headed to the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board on August 4, 2025, Jacobs Entertainment (JEI) is seeking Tax Increment Financing (TIF) support for a multi-site expansion anchored by two housing projects plus several J Resort–adjacent venues. You can access the packet material here for the details.
“Even with subsidy, the developer’s modeled returns are thin—so the public benefits have to carry the case.”
What’s in the package
Housing
The Breeze (Bonanza Inn rehab): 57 workforce units targeted at ~80% AMI.
465 W. 2nd (RHA partnership): 65 deed-restricted affordable units; after construction, JEI proposes to transfer the site to the Reno Housing Authority in exchange for RHA’s Sarrazin Arms (valued around $5M).
Activation/venues
J Resort North Expansion, Glow Gardens, Festival Grounds, and the Rolling Art Banquet Hall - intended to push year-round programming on the west side of downtown.
Price tag and increment
Roughly $95M in new investment with an estimated $715K/year in new property-tax increment tied to this phase.
How the TIF would work (as proposed)
Ask: $21M in TIF support for the two housing projects
The Breeze: $10M
465 W. 2nd: $11M
Structure: The pro forma assumes the developer receives 80% of the property-tax increment (participation/abatement) until negotiated caps/sunset are reached. (The exact mechanics are still to be negotiated by staff.)
Housing specifics (why these units matter)
Workforce (80% AMI) at The Breeze puts service-sector and downtown workers within walking or biking distance to jobs and transit—helpful for stabilizing the employee pipeline for small businesses.
Deed-restricted affordable units at 465 W. 2nd—paired with the RHA ownership transfer—creates a permanent affordable foothold downtown, leveraging RHA’s long-term stewardship.
The dollars, in plain English (pro forma read)
Without TIF: Project-level IRR is modeled around –1.95% (i.e., it doesn’t pencil).
With TIF: IRR crawls to roughly 1.5%—still thin, which implies limited cushion if construction costs rise or revenue underperforms.
Cross-subsidy: The packet frames housing as partially supported by taxes generated from J Resort and related venues; in other words, housing delivery is linked to the health of JEI’s broader portfolio.
Scope clarity: Some prior/parallel line items (e.g., 245 N. Arlington) still ride in the consolidated table. City should separate “this ask” from previous phases so the public return is measured on what’s actually being subsidized now.
Pros (why to consider it)
New downtown housing: 57 workforce + 65 affordable units near jobs and services.
Permanent affordability: RHA ownership locks down long-term affordability at 465 W. 2nd.
Street-level activation: Year-round programming (Festivals/Glow/Art) could push foot traffic and secondary spending on the west side.
Increment growth: ~$715K/year new property-tax increment from this phase builds the tax base.
Prevailing wage: TIF-funded construction would be subject to Nevada prevailing wage thresholds.
Cons (what to push back on)
Big public participation: $21M in TIF for housing plus an 80% participation assumption on taxes is material - caps and a sunset will matter.
Thin returns even with TIF: A ~1.5% IRR with subsidy signals execution risk (delays/cost hikes).
Workforce vs deepest need: The Breeze’s 80% AMI units help moderate-income workers but don’t reach the lowest incomes; covenant terms for both sites need to be explicit.
Market study gap: The packet lists market study = N/A - independent demand/absorption should be produced before final approval.
Portfolio dependence: Tying housing to resort-generated increment creates concentration risk if visitation softens.
What could be negotiated before approval?
Participation terms: Lock in the share (≤80%), annual cap, and sunset period.
Pay-as-you-go: Favor reimbursement against verified increment rather than upfront funding.
Milestones & clawbacks: Tie reimbursements to Certificate of Occupancies for each building and delivery of the 57/65 units; include affordability drift penalties, just for extra measure and insurance.
Affordability covenants: Nail down term lengths, AMI targets, and monitoring/enforcement for both sites.
Independent market study: Require absorption/rent comps and updated sources & uses reflecting current construction and interest-rate conditions.
Scope separation: Carve out prior phases so public Return on Investment can be tracked to this phase only.
Bottom line
JEI’s pitch marries new housing with a festival-driven activation strategy to grow the west-downtown tax base. There’s a real public upside if the housing and venues land on time and as promised. But with large participation and thin modeled returns, tight participation caps, clear milestones, long-term affordability covenants, independent market validation, and clawbacks should be considered.