Bottom line for residents: Do not approve the Bimini East TIF deal as it stands. The packet in front of City Hall is incomplete, the forecast is rosy, and the risk of a weak or delayed project is being shifted onto taxpayers. Look at the whole picture — including the Development Agreement that is not attached — and do the math.
Bimini East – Cape Coral (9/16/2026)
Bimini East is a proposed ~$500 million mixed-use project on assembled land in the South Cape CRA (near Cape Coral Parkway, Coronado Parkway, and Tarpon Court). The pitch includes hotels (~250 rooms), about 900 apartments/townhomes, retail and dining, medical/office space, structured parking, a public waterfront promenade, a reimagined Four Freedoms Park, a police substation, and a public-access marina (about 45–50 slips). Crown Development (Bimini Square’s developer) is the lead.
That vision may be attractive. The contract terms are what matter.
What taxpayers have already put in — and what the developer would get
Already spent by the City/CRA
- Roughly $45 million to buy and demolish about 47 parcels and clear the site.
- Additional purchases of leftover private parcels (on the order of ~$11 million) have been discussed, then conveyed toward the developer at appraised value.
What the developer would pay for the land
- About $26.3 million, paid over time, block-by-block before permits — not a cash-at-closing recovery of the city’s $45 million outlay. The city plans to finance the gap with debt and hope future tax growth pays it back.
Proposed public incentives on top of that
- TIF rebate: up to 95% of the project’s new tax increment each year through Sept. 30, 2042, capped at $45.75 million.
- Impact-fee credits: up to $5 million.
- Demolition reimbursements: up to $1.6 million.
- Shared promenade cost: up to $1 million.
City materials call this “self-funding” because the rebate is paid only from increment the project itself creates. That is only half the story. The city already borrowed and spent tens of millions before any increment exists, and the rebate would send almost all of the new tax growth back to the developer for many years.
The problems, in plain English
1. City Hall is being asked to approve a piece, not the deal
This packet looks like the TIF agreement. It is not the full Development Agreement that should lock in what must be built, when, and what happens if it isn’t.
The Non-Binding Term Sheet had more important promises. Those guarantees are not locked into this TIF document. Approving the money mechanism first is like signing the check before the contract.
Resident question: Why approve 16 years of rebates before the project requirements, security, and penalties are attached?
2. The marina can vanish. The rebate cannot.
The marina and waterfront amenities are a big part of the public sales pitch. Yet the TIF language reportedly says: if marina slip credits are not approved and the 50-slip marina is never built, the CRA must still keep making TIF payments.
That moves a major public-benefit risk from the developer to taxpayers.
3. 95% is an unusually rich cut
Taxpayers would keep only about 5% of the project’s new tax increment while the rebate runs. Many incentive deals use 50%–75%.
Resident question: If this site is so valuable and catalytic, why does the public need to give away 95% of the new taxes it creates?
4. Payments start on a low bar — not on real performance
The trigger described is basically:
- a Certificate of Occupancy (or even a temporary CO) on any vertical building, and
- property taxes paid.
After that, payments are largely automatic. Missing from this TIF agreement:
- job-creation targets
- minimum payroll
- affordable housing
- local hiring
- occupancy requirements for hotels, offices, or retail
- economic-output targets
- phase-by-phase milestones and deadlines
Taxpayers would be paying for assessed value going up, not for a living, working district that actually performs.
5. No clawbacks — the biggest missing protection
There is no clear requirement that the developer pay money back if:
- phases get downsized
- stores and offices sit vacant
- the hotel underperforms
- promised amenities are dropped
- jobs never show up
Modern incentive contracts usually have clawbacks. This one, on the TIF side, reads like a revenue-share tied to property value — not a performance contract.
6. The forecast is a best-case story, not a stress test
The financial forecast does not appear to model:
- a recession
- construction delays
- higher interest rates
- developer default
- slower lease-up or hotel occupancy
- inflation
A dollar in 2047 is worth far less than a dollar today (the notes use about 54 cents). The city is committing today’s dollars and debt. Future rebates and land payments will be paid in cheaper dollars. That makes the deal look better on paper than it is in real buying power.
Once the CRA sunsets, the whole city — not a special district — is more exposed to leftover obligations.
7. The forecast hides or skips real costs
Problems called out in the numbers:
- “Net Investment Income” is treated as project revenue. If that is interest on CRA investments, it is not fair to assign the CRA’s whole investment income to this one project.
- Occupant TIF / BIG incentives the Term Sheet allowed are left out, which can understate future public cost.
- The forecast assumes zero future TIF help for any other CRA project through 2047. That would box the city in.
- Only $1 million a year is budgeted for capital improvements in the entire CRA through 2047 — low compared with recent CRA spending.
- About $7.6 million in city co-pays, impact-fee credits, and demolition credits appears missing from the cost side.
- Debt notes mention commercial paper / short-term debt but skip the basics residents should see: interest-rate assumptions, refinancing plan, maturity schedule, and debt-coverage ratios.
If the model only works in a sunny forecast, it is not a decision document. It is a brochure.
8. Guardrails that should be in any deal this size are missing
Not visible in this TIF agreement:
- purchase-agreement terms that protect the city
- security / collateral
- personal or corporate developer guarantees
- default definitions and remedies
- timelines tied to each phase
- what happens if the developer walks, sells, or restructures
Without those, “up to $45.75 million plus land-sale financing” is a large public bet with thin insurance.
Who this deal favors
| Side | How the TIF deal looks |
|---|---|
| Developer | Excellent. Land below the city’s all-in cost, 95% of increment for years, payments after a modest trigger, marina failure does not stop the rebate, few performance tests, no obvious clawback. |
| CRA cash flow (narrowly) | Moderate. Rebate is capped and paid only from actual increment. |
| Taxpayers / citywide | High performance risk. Public already spent ~$45M+, may add more land cost and debt, then rebate most new taxes while amenities and jobs are not locked in. |
The document reads more like sharing future property-tax growth than a traditional “you deliver X jobs, X public amenities, or you don’t get the money” incentive.
That structure can work — if a separate Development Agreement is much tougher. By itself, this TIF agreement is better for the developer than for the taxpayer.
What “do the math” means
Add the real public stack, not just the $45.75 million cap:
- ~$45 million already spent to assemble and clear land
- Possible additional ~$11 million in leftover parcels
- Land recovered at only ~$26.3 million, stretched over years
- Debt and interest on the gap
- Up to $45.75 million TIF
- Impact-fee credits, demo grants, promenade share, and other credits (~$7.6 million called out as missing from the forecast)
- Inflation shrinking the value of future developer payments
- Opportunity cost: CRA increment that cannot be used on other South Cape needs if this project soaks up the forecast
Then subtract what is not guaranteed: marina, full program, jobs, occupancy, other CRA projects, and repayment if the project shrinks.
That is the whole picture. The TIF page alone is not.
Questions residents should take to City Hall
- Where is the binding Development Agreement, and why isn’t it attached to this TIF vote?
- Which Term Sheet promises are legally enforceable — and which disappeared?
- Why 95% instead of 50–75%?
- Why does the rebate survive if the marina (or other public amenities) is never built?
- Where are the clawbacks, collateral, and default remedies?
- Show a recession / delay / default forecast — not only the success case.
- Show inflation-adjusted dollars, interest-rate assumptions, and a full debt schedule.
- Why does the forecast assume almost no other CRA investment through 2047?
- Who pays if the CRA sunsets and obligations remain?
- After ~$45 million already spent, why is the public still taking most of the performance risk?
Recommendation: Do not approve Bimini East at this point.
Demand the full contract package, a conservative financial model, and taxpayer protections that match the size of the subsidy.
A waterfront district can still be a good idea. This TIF agreement, standing alone, is not a good enough deal for the people who already paid to assemble the land.