Commissioner Conflict of Interest?

Unless you have been living under a rock (that may be true for some of you), you know that Tuscany Ranch was approved by the BOCC on July 8, 2025. Shortly after that vote, I found a potential conflict of interest with Commissioner Bays.

Check out the video for the full details or read the short summary below!

Summary:
In this video, Curtiss Bryant of The Citrus Insider provides a deep dive into the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners’ (BOCC) controversial 3-2 vote approving the Tuscany Ranch development project. The development, a massive mixed-use project along County Road 491, raises serious concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest involving Commissioner Rebecca Bays.

Bryant begins by outlining the vote tally: Commissioners Davis, Kennard, and Bays voted in favor, while Commissioners Finnegan and Barrick opposed the measure. The controversy centers on Bays’ participation, given that her husband, Mike Bays, co-owns commercial property directly across from the Tuscany Ranch site along CR 491. That property is set to significantly benefit from the development due to increased traffic, planned commercial growth, and the addition of a traffic light at Hampshire Boulevard — an intersection adjacent to the Bays-owned property.

Bryant references Florida Statute 286.012, which generally requires public officials to vote unless a conflict of interest under Chapter 112 exists. He highlights Section 112.3143, which prohibits officials from voting on matters that would result in special gain or loss to themselves or their relatives — including a spouse. Moreover, under quasi-judicial proceedings, officials may abstain from voting to preserve impartiality if there is potential bias — an exemption that applies in this case (also 286.012).

During the regular BOCC meeting, a citizen asked Bays to recuse herself on another matter, prompting Commissioner Davis to incorrectly state that commissioners are legally unable to recuse themselves unless there is a fiduciary conflict. Bryant refutes this interpretation by citing the statutory provisions mentioned above, underscoring that not only could Bays have recused herself — she was required to if her husband's property stood to gain.

Maps and property records presented in the video confirm that Mike Bays co-owns the plaza directly across from Tuscany Ranch, via Alta Terra LLC, and is also opening a tanning salon there. With Tuscany’s approval, the plaza benefits from increased development across the street, a traffic signal at the intersection, and eventual road widening — all of which would likely raise the value of Bays’ commercial property.

Bryant compares this situation to other land acquisitions along CR 491, pointing out that recent land sales have reached $1.8 million per acre in this corridor. He argues that the vote in favor of Tuscany has direct monetary implications for the Bays family, fulfilling the criteria of a voting conflict.

He outlines four potential paths for addressing this conflict:

1. Filing an ethics complaint with the state.
2. The County Administrator majority could appeal the decision.
3. A private citizen with legal standing (e.g., a nearby landowner) could sue to challenge the vote.
4. A commissioner in the majority could motion to revoke the vote and call for a new hearing — though Bryant deems this unlikely.

Ultimately, Bryant argues the vote should be challenged on ethical and legal grounds due to the clear appearance of conflict and potential financial gain to a sitting commissioner’s immediate family.