City of Eustis redevelopment board to pay North Central Place developer amid tax‑payment ambiguity

City of Eustis Redevelopment Agency members voted 3‑to‑1 on June 5 to authorize payment under an existing redevelopment agreement to the developer of the North Central Place apartment project, despite ambiguity in the contract about who must pay property taxes after the property was sold.

The board’s vote followed a staff presentation that said the agreement ties reimbursement to incremental property taxes actually received by the agency, but is silent on whether those taxes must be paid by the original developer or by a subsequent property owner. The agency also directed staff to prepare a resolution clarifying how similar agreements will be interpreted going forward.

Sasha, agency attorney, told the board the agreement’s reimbursement language is “tied to incremental property taxes actually received by the CRA,” and said the current contracts are silent on post‑sale eligibility and the identity of the taxpayer that must make payments to trigger reimbursement. Sasha recommended the agency clarify that reimbursement is authorized when the agency receives the incremental tax payments and that future owners seeking exemptions would void reimbursement for the affected year.

Tom, a redevelopment staff member, summarized the background: the developer signed the agreement and completed the five‑story project relying on future tax‑increment reimbursement. The developer later sold the property; the new owner failed to pay property taxes, tax certificates were issued and redeemed by a third party, and the agency ultimately received the tax payments. The developer has asked for the scheduled reimbursement under the original agreement.

Al Adam, the city’s economic development director, told the board finance has documentation showing the developer provided receipts totaling $1,900,000 to satisfy the agreement’s minimum investment requirement. Al said the receipts “did total the 1,900,000.”

Developer Daniel Di Venonzo, who identified himself during public comment, described his upfront costs and market changes during construction, saying he spent about $2,500,000 on the project and that rents rose substantially during the work. Di Venonzo also said the finished building is about 21,000 square feet and that the city currently collects about $65,000 a year in property taxes on the property.

Board members debated whether the reimbursement benefit should remain tied to the original developer, follow the land, or require express CRA approval before assignment. Some members expressed interest in a prospective rule that would require proof of annual tax payment before a reimbursement is paid and a forfeiture or termination for multi‑year delinquencies. Sasha suggested a possible cutoff such as termination after two years of tax delinquency to prevent repeated redemptions at tax certificate sales from producing ongoing payouts.

Board member (unnamed) moved that the board find the developer “followed the letter of the agreement” and authorize payment while directing staff to prepare clearer language for future agreements. Another board member seconded the motion. On roll call, the board recorded: Mister Holland — yes; Mister Asbodie — no; Miss Lee — yes; Vice Chair Ashcraft — yes. The motion carried 3‑to‑1.

Agency staff said they will draft a resolution that would (1) memorialize the board’s interpretation that reimbursement is authorized when the CRA actually receives incremental property tax payments, (2) specify documentation requirements such as proof of tax payment, and (3) propose amendments to future agreement templates to address assignment, exemption requests by future owners, delinquency thresholds, and continued use requirements for the property during the reimbursement period. Staff indicated a resolution addressing the current agreement and four other agreements with similar language will be brought back to the board for adoption.

The board’s action resolves the developer’s request for payment under the existing agreement while initiating work to change contract language for future projects to avoid similar ambiguity.

The Redevelopment Agency adjourned and scheduled a related City Commission meeting to follow at 6:00 p.m.