At a Port St. Lucie City Council meeting, representatives from residential PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) companies briefed council members on how PACE financing works, consumer protections enacted in Florida’s SB 770, and local options for oversight and contractor enforcement. Presenters said PACE can finance home improvements such as roofs, impact windows and HVAC systems and that repayments are attached to property tax bills.

The presentation came from Chris Peterson of Fortify Financial, Rachel Hobbs of Home Run Financing, Eddie Metzger of Ygrene and Matthew Choi of Renew Financial. Council members asked detailed questions about contractor vetting, price controls and local oversight; the meeting record shows the item was informational and no ordinance or resolution was adopted.

The presenters said PACE covers 100% of upfront costs for eligible, permanently affixed property improvements and is repaid through an assessment on the tax bill. Chris Peterson described typical PACE work as “roofs, impact windows, HVAC systems” and said the program uses a fixed term and fixed interest rate with an amortization schedule. Presenters emphasized that PACE is equity-based and is available only to property owners who meet qualifications, including being current on property taxes and mortgage, not subject to involuntary liens and not in active bankruptcy. They said the maximum funding is 20% of the property’s just value as determined by the property appraiser.

Presenters and council members discussed consumer-protection changes in recent Florida law. The companies said SB 770 (Florida) added requirements they now follow, including a pre-closing confirmation-of-terms phone call and a requirement that PACE-financed projects over $10,000 be advised to obtain two estimates; companies said they typically advise multiple estimates regardless of price. Rachel Hobbs described extra company-level safeguards for “super senior” homeowners (75 and older) and low-to-moderate-income customers, including additional calls to confirm terms beyond what the statute requires.

Contractor quality and third-party marketing were the central concerns raised by council members. Presenters said contractors do not receive payment until the homeowner signs a certificate of completion and permits and that PACE providers run onboarding checks on contractor licenses, insurance, social media and business history. They said companies publish lists of active and terminated contractors on their program websites, will terminate contractors found to be misusing marketing claims or logos, and will work with local governments when specific bad actors surface. Presenters described a “zero tolerance” stance on third-party lead generators and door-to-door sales tactics that have driven past complaints.

Council members pressed how price fairness is enforced. Presenters said SB 770 prohibits charging a PACE-financed customer more than a cash customer for the same work and that providers advise customers to get multiple estimates. Council members said they want staff-level follow-ups to explore what local ordinances or disclosure language the city could add, and how the city might coordinate with St. Lucie County’s emerging PACE program. One council member noted the need to make clear to the public that PACE assessments are voluntary and not a tax.

City staff and presenters told the council the Auditor General is auditing some PACE districts and that program audits are expected to increase oversight. Council members asked staff to meet one-on-one with providers and legal staff to identify options and to return with recommendations; city staff indicated those follow-ups will occur before any ordinance is drafted. No vote or formal adoption of an ordinance occurred at the meeting.

The presentation included data on local interest: one presenter said his company had received “over 400” inquiries from Port St. Lucie ZIP codes. Council members asked for future reporting that would include counts of participants, types of improvements funded, complaints, contractor terminations and other “the good, the bad and the ugly.”

Council members and presenters agreed the city has multiple options: do nothing (residents could possibly opt into a county program), partner with the county, or adopt a city ordinance with additional local requirements that do not conflict with state law. Staff said the council is not obligated to act and that the presentation was intended to inform further one-on-one briefings and potential ordinance drafting.

What’s next: City staff will meet with the PACE providers and the city attorney to explore regulatory language, contractor oversight and reporting cadence. Council members asked staff to return with options and suggested disclosure language that makes clear the city does not endorse a particular provider but can authorize program participation under state statute.