Port St. Lucie — The City Council on Sept. 22 discussed a demand letter from the Treasure Coast Builders Association that warned the city against adopting mobility‑fee changes the association says may conflict with Senate Bill 180. The letter said legal action could follow; city attorneys and several council members called the notice premature and asked for more information before deciding whether to join a multi‑party lawsuit challenging SB 180.

City Attorney Barrios told council the letter seeks to invoke SB 180’s procedural provisions and asked the city to respond. He advised caution and recommended the council grant him direction on two items: (1) how to respond to the letter now that no ordinance has been adopted, and (2) whether the city should join a multi‑party litigation effort being coordinated by outside counsel to challenge parts of SB 180 as unconstitutional. Barrios explained the multi‑party filing carries a proposed flat participation fee (reported by staff as $10,000 for initial filing, plus $5,000 for potential appeal to an intermediate appellate level and another $5,000 for possible Supreme Court review) and that outside counsel offered to speak one‑on‑one with council members.

Council members expressed differing views. Several members said the TCBA’s notice was premature because the city has not completed its technical study, has not issued a draft ordinance and is still seeking stakeholder input. They favored further stakeholder outreach and wanted Barrios to arrange private briefings with outside counsel so council members could ask technical and procedural questions. One council member said the city should be cautious about Tallahassee‑driven restrictions on local fees and expressed interest in litigation to defend home rule if necessary; others urged prudence and said they were not ready to decide whether to join litigation.

Barrios will arrange one‑on‑one phone briefings between outside counsel and council members; the council did not make a final decision on joining the multi‑party suit at the Sept. 22 meeting. Barrios also said the city has 14 days under the statute to respond to any formal notice asserting SB 180 violations in order to avoid fee shifting; staff described the letter as premature because the city had not finalized any ordinance.

Council members asked that, if threats of litigation persist as the mobility‑fee process advances, their discussions with developers or builders should occur with legal counsel present. Several members requested that Barrios provide coaching on how to proceed in stakeholder meetings in light of potential legal exposure.