Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 4805 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanford commission repeals 2020 incentive ordinance after owner warns of contract breach claim
Summary
On Oct. 14, Sanford commissioners held a second-reading public hearing on Ordinance No. 4805 to repeal provisions of the city's incentive program and rescind related awards. Owner representative Rebecca Wilson said revocation breaches an agreement that 'runs with the land'; the commission adopted the ordinance on second reading.
The Sanford City Commission on Oct. 14 adopted Ordinance No. 4805 on second reading, revoking earlier city incentive code provisions and directing staff to rescind associated awards.
City staff recommended the revocation, saying the owner failed to notify the city of a change in ownership. At the public hearing Rebecca Wilson, who identified herself as counsel for Railside Loop LLC, told the commission the property sold on May 22, 2024 and urged commissioners to deny the repeal. Wilson said the incentive agreement “runs with the land” and can be amended only in writing by both parties, and warned a revocation would force the owner to seek judicial review. “We respectfully request that you deny the second reading on both legal and equitable grounds,” she said.
Wilson told the commission the project increased the annual taxable value from about $4.8 million to $62 million and estimated ad valorem tax benefits of roughly $8.5 million over 10 years, arguing the city has already received the agreement’s intended benefits. City staff and the city attorney’s office explained the staff recommendation was based on a failure to provide statutorily required notice tied to the repealed code provisions.
After brief questions from commissioners, a commissioner moved to adopt Ordinance 4805 as proposed; the motion was seconded and the commission approved the ordinance on second reading.
The action was procedural: the ordinance repeals the code provisions implementing the supplemental economic or tourism development program, rescinds any implementing agreements tied to the repealed code, and provides for administrative implementing actions and conflict/savings provisions. Wilson told the commission her client believes revocation would be a breach of contract and indicated the owner would seek judicial relief if the repeal were adopted.
The commission’s formal adoption of Ordinance 4805 closes the second‑reading legislative step; any legal challenges raised by the owner would be adjudicated in court.
