Pretty sure the Trio is being held hostage...the entire cluster of projects was once only $90M, per Atkins himself.
^Going to move this to a separate topic.
I too was wondering how, even when accounting for high interest rates and inflation, the $45 million Laura Street Trio project floated by Southeast in 2017 quadrupled in price to $175 million in 2023, with public incentives for the project increasing by 11x from $5.8 million to $64 million.
So I went ahead and read through the prior incentives packages at lunchtime over some pancakes at First Watch, and thought I'd share some notes early evening while still fresh in mind.
2017 Proposal & IncentivesTo your point above, the original project was estimated to cost
$90 million, but what I had forgotten was that sum also included the Barnett (now finished) and a planned 550-space garage (never built, VyStar took over, I believe Southeast lost their Barnett incentives as a result).
When the original 2017 incentives deal was given, only
$44.6 million was scoped to transform the historic Laura Street Trio structures into a hotel, restaurant, bodega and rooftop bar. The project would be pure rehab, bringing these beautiful, historic structures back to life as they originally stood. And, to help that happen, the city would pay Southeast a $4 million grant upon completion of the Trio.
When the deal was signed, Southeast reported that construction on the Trio would begin in mid-2018, approximately six months after construction at the Barnett began.
Here are some details of the 2017 scope:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2017/feb/01/time-finally-right-barnett-bank-building-and-laura-street-trio-projects-dia-approves/2021 Proposal & IncentivesThree years after the Laura Street Trio was set to begin construction, Southeast went back to the DIA for a new incentives deal after the previous deal lapsed. In place of the $44.6 million project that was strictly historic rehab came a
$70 million project that would also include the addition of a new 8-story hotel expansion adjacent to the Bisbee Building:

Of the $70 million in project costs, approximately $55 million were estimated to be in support of rehabbing the original Trio, and $14 million were estimated for new construction. The DIA signed off on a $26.7 million incentive deal, the largest in city history, that was almost exclusively cash (historic preservation grants, forgivable loans, etc.).
When the deal was signed, Southeast claimed that construction was imminent and would begin by early 2022.
Here are some details of the 2021 scope:
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/laura-street-trio-restoration-gets-final-approval-for-267-million-incentive-deal/77-98ef3be3-9a5d-4c1b-afd3-ea9c9a295fe62022/2023 Proposal & IncentivesOver the years, Southeast had discussed wanting to add a Phase 2 to the Laura Street Trio project down the line, which would add multifamily housing adjacent to the Florida Life building. At one point, they discussed brokering a somewhat sketchy sounding deal with the Housing Authority, which fell through. And then, in 2022, for whatever reason - economies of scale, viability, etc - Southeast decided that it made more sense to fold Phase 1 and Phase 2 into a single private project.
So, in 2023, they were once again back in front of the DIA.
What was first a $44.6 million historic rehab of the Laura Street Trio buildings, and then a $70 million rehab with new construction of an 8-floor hotel building, has now become a
$175 million rehab + 11-floor hotel + 169-unit multifamily project.You can see the new addition here:

Here's the incentives package that went before the DIA earlier this year, inclusive of an eye-watering
$63 million request for incentives.https://dia.coj.net/getattachment/07ced934-1f88-476d-b54e-3e05797d587b/.aspxAs a quick reminder, the DIA ultimately "bunted" the decision to City Council. At the time, I was critical of the DIA not making a recommendation either way, but looking at the decision in more detail, I think it actually made sense. Southeast had asked the DIA to calculate its incentives based on $27.7 million in equity they planned to ask City Council for in cash. With no City Council approval for those completion grants in hand, the DIA's hands were tied in terms of the incentives they could offer. Further, the DIA (rightfully, in my opinion) worried that it would set a terrible precedent to allow developers to come first through the DIA for max benefits, and then move on next to City Council asking for more. So, they documented everything, and ultimately left it up to City Council.
Anyway, what stands out to me, over the years, is that
the idea of "Saving the Laura Street Trio" seems to have become increasingly conflated with the idea of "Subsidizing Ancillary New Construction for Southeast."Thus, when we look at our limited resources as a city and want to have a frank, earnest discussion about whether we should spend historic boatloads of city money to "save and restore the Laura Street Trio," we kind of need to understand what the ask is from a historic preservation perspective, what the ask is for components that are more or less new construction, and why the project cost keeps creeping.
The knee-jerk reaction when we see the price climb from $45 million to $175 million in six years is to point to increased construction costs, inflation, high cost of borrowing, etc. But if you look at the actual project costs from the agreements and
isolate just the historic rehabilitation elements, you see that really isn't the case. Estimates are up maybe 20% from 2021, but they certainly haven't doubled or tripled.

Instead, we've seen more and more other new construction being tacked on top of "saving the Trio."

Which leads to the obvious question:
I think we can all universally agree that the city should chip in to restore the Trio, whether that be through existing DIA programs or even a rare additional completion grant from City Council if that's what it takes given the importance of these structures, but should we also be subsidizing the $113 million in new construction above and beyond normal levels to "Save the Trio"? That's a tough call without knowing the viability of the project with or without the add-ons.
Anyway, if anyone's interested in specifics of the proposed incentive deal, and what we're actually subsidizing, I'll include some info below.
Hotel & RestaurantCollectively known as the "hospitality" portion of the project, the Hotel and Restaurant component comprises three buildings:
1) The Marble Bank Building (to become a restaurant with basement cellar for the hotel)
2) The Bisbee Building (to become the hotel lobby and 56-62 guest rooms)
3) The new 11-story hotel add-on (to become 71-84 additional hotel rooms)
In the incentives agreement, the Marble Bank Building and Bisbee Building are treating collectively as historic building stock, while the 11-story hotel addition is treated as new construction.
For the Marble Bank Building and Bisbee Building, the stated project cost is $46 million. $24 million would come from Southeast, $16 million would come from the DIA in cash, and $6 million would asked of City Council in the form of a completion grant.
For the new 11-story hotel add-on, estimated to cost $43 million from Southeast, $5.7 million would be refunded in the form of a REV grant from the DIA, and $6 million would be asked of City Council in the form of a completion grant.
Multi-Family ComponentThe Multi-Family component of the project comprises two buildings:
1) The Florida Life Building (to become 18-20 housing units)
2) A new multi-family mid-rise (to become 140-149 housing units)
For the Florida Life building, estimated to cost $16.5 million to rehab, $6 million would come from DIA cash handouts, and an amount not-yet-specified would be asked of City City Council in the form of a completion grant. For whatever reason, Southeast didn't share what they'd ask the city for on the Florida Life building.
For new construction of the multi-family tower, estimated at $69 million (the largest single component of the project), Southeast is asking the DIA for $8.9 million in REV grant, and is asking the city for a staggering $15 million for a completion grant.

Across the full Trio project, here's how the private/public funding would be split for both the historic rehab and the new construction.

Not necessarily advocating for anything at the moment, just trying to better understand the numbers, but a couple of quick knee-jerk reactions:
1. Someone in a previous thread mentioned that it was apples and oranges to compare the Trio incentives package to the Gateway Jax incentives package. I agree with that sentiment for the historic aspects of the project, but I do think it is fair to compare incentives when it comes to the new construction portions. In that regard, I think it's pretty obvious that the proposed Southeast incentives package is pretty wild. Southeast is asking for the public to cover 32% of new construction, 19% with cash. Those percentages are 48% higher than Gateway Jax overall (22% for their project) and 111% higher than Gateway Jax on the cash front (9% of their project cost).
2. The single biggest ask of the entire project, a $15 million completion grant from City Council on top of nearly $9 million in DIA tax incentives, for the new construction of less than 150 housing units, might be the hardest component to justify on its own. This might be the Laura Street Trio equivalent of the Jags' breadbox loan that brought down Lot J. If anyone looks close enough.
3. If the requested incentives are too much for the City to swallow, I wonder if there's an opportunity to decouple the multifamily aspect and move it back to a later Phase 2. And just focus on the Bisbee and Marble Bank hotel and restaurant conversion first as Phase 1? It might be more palatable to go to City Council first for a $12 million completion grant on top of DIA incentives, do a bang-up job on Phase 1, and then go back later to try to get additional incentives for Phase 2?