Daytona Beach hears proposal to raise impact fees about 45% for single-family homes; staff sets public meetings and warns of state bill

City Manager and staff presented an update May 7 to Daytona Beach City commissioners on proposed increases to municipal impact fees that would raise the total charge for a typical single-family home from $3,527 to $5,128 — roughly a 45% increase — and outlined a timeline for public meetings and ordinance readings. City staff warned that a change in state law could restrict the size and timing of any increase if the city does not adopt an ordinance before Oct. 1.

The presentation, delivered by a consultant working with city staff, said the revisions reflect added cost-escalation assumptions and newly modeled transportation mobility projects. “So, primarily, what we looked at is adding future cost escalation considerations that was not fully factored in before,” the consultant said. The consultant identified higher costs across multiple departments, including police, fire, parks, transportation and utilities.

Why it matters: Impact fees are charged to new development to pay for expanded public facilities and services. The proposed changes would increase the amounts charged to developers and, ultimately, to new homeowners and businesses. Staff said the adjustments are intended to fund planned capital projects, including new substations, fire stations, park projects and water and wastewater upgrades.

Key details from the presentation:

- Police: The consultant noted about $38 million in police-related investments and allowance for two additional substations; fees for a representative single-family home would rise substantially under the new calculations. The consultant said vehicle purchases for new officers can be included in impact fee calculations, while replacement vehicles for existing officers are typically funded through ad valorem or other revenues.

- Fire: The largest percentage increase came in fire-related fees. The consultant cited rising construction and equipment costs and said Station 1 is undergoing a major expansion and the plan includes two additional stations. The presentation compared a past purchase of a fire truck at about $350,000 to a recent purchase near $943,000 to illustrate cost escalation.

- Transportation: Staff added transportation/mobility projects drawn from the city’s capital improvement plan and River to Sea Transportation Planning Organization projects, totaling about $16 million of growth-related projects; the consultant noted a transportation mobility fee adopted recently by St. Cloud as a local comparison.

- Utilities: Water and wastewater capital improvements include multiple large projects, including a roughly $100 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade and nearly $60 million in water-related projects; the consultant estimated utility impact fees would increase approximately 25% compared with the most recent 2020–21 update.

The consultant presented comparisons with other Central Florida communities and said, while the proposed fees are higher than the city’s 2006–07 schedule, they are within the range charged by peer jurisdictions. “You’re kinda going from mid range to upper mid range,” the consultant said.

Timing and next steps: Staff proposed two community meetings during the weeks of May 19 and May 26 (one at Schnebly and one at the Cherry Center), two required public hearings and ordinance readings as early as June. The proposed timeline would allow a first reading June 4 and a second reading June 18, with new fees taking effect 90 days after adoption if the commission moves forward.

Legal risk and deadline: A staff member explained that Senate Bill 1080, if approved by the governor and effective Oct. 1, would prohibit local governments from increasing impact fees beyond certain phase-in limits and would cap increases at 50% where an impact fee has not been increased within the last five years. “Which if, if approved by the governor would take effect on October 1,” the staff member said, and the presenter and staff noted that failing to adopt an ordinance before that date could “drastically change” the upper limit the city could lawfully set.

Commission and public comments: Commissioners expressed support for addressing long periods without fee updates and for bringing the adjustments back for public input. One resident asked why some categories showed triple-digit percentage increases; the consultant and staff cited the age of the 2006 study, large recent cost escalation, and growth that requires new facilities in expanding areas rather than infill.

No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred at the workshop. Staff sought commission feedback and direction to schedule public meetings and proceed with the ordinance timeline; the commission did not take a formal action at the workshop.

The commission is expected to receive public input at the proposed community meetings later in May, after which staff will return with a draft ordinance for readings and public hearings in June.