Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County votes to oppose Mount Dora CRA expansion and authorizes legal challenge
Summary
After debate about whether the expanded Mount Dora Northeast Community Redevelopment Area meets statutory 'blight' standards, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted to deny the interlocal agreement and directed the county attorney to pursue dispute resolution and potential litigation.
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted on April 8 to deny an interlocal agreement related to expansion of the Mount Dora Northeast Community Redevelopment Area and directed the county attorney to pursue dispute resolution and, if necessary, litigation challenging the city's designation.
The denial followed several weeks of discussion by county staff and commissioners about whether the property proposed for inclusion meets the statutory definitions of slum or blight used to justify a CRA. County legal counsel told the commission that courts generally give legislative bodies substantial deference on those factual findings, making such challenges difficult to win. Commissioners debated the tradeoffs of accepting the city's proposal, which would have diverted tax-increment revenues into the CRA in exchange for concessions such as returning certain MSTU/EMS funds and road transfers.
Commissioner Smith said he would “vote a hard no” on the expansion, arguing the property was not blighted and criticizing the precedent of adding developing parcels to CRAs. Other commissioners described the city's counteroffers and the potential fiscal impact to the county if the CRA moved forward.
After a board vote to deny the interlocal agreement, commissioners voted to instruct the county attorney's office to file a complaint and pursue the Florida Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Act process as needed to challenge the designation. Staff warned that legal success is uncertain because courts often defer to a municipality's legislative finding of blight, but counsel also said that a court that closely examines the facts could reach a different result.
County staff described that, under the proposed agreement, the city had offered to return certain funds (including an estimated $100,000 a year for ambulance/MSTU monies) while the CRA would capture tax increment revenue; staff estimated the county would forfeit roughly $450,000'$500,000 per year in general fund revenue from the parcel at build-out if the CRA were allowed. Commissioners said they had considered a 50/50 revenue-sharing compromise but that the city had already approved the CRA and was not willing to accept that split.
The board did not adopt any revenue-sharing compromise; instead it denied the agreement on the record and moved forward with the legal challenge. County counsel said the office will file the complaint quickly and will attempt dispute-resolution steps required by state law before seeking judicial resolution.
Why this matters: If left in place, the CRA expansion would divert tax increment revenues away from the county general fund and into the redevelopment area for a period set by state law, potentially reducing funds available for county services. The board framed the vote as both a fiscal and a policy decision about appropriate use of CRA powers.
The county attorney and staff will return to the board with updates as the dispute-resolution or litigation process proceeds.
