Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation Sb180 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasco board lets new fire-rescue impact fee take effect and directs county attorney to defend against challenges related to Senate Bill 180
Summary
After the county attorney warned that Senate Bill 180 contains retroactive language that could bar local land-development regulations adopted since Aug. 1 of last year, the board voted to allow the July 1 fire-rescue impact fee to take effect and to defend its ordinance in court if challenged.
Following a legal briefing on Senate Bill 180 and its potential effect on local ordinances, the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners on July 15 voted to allow the county's recently adopted fire-rescue impact fee to take effect and directed the county attorney to defend the fee and other county regulations if they are challenged under the new statute.
County Attorney David Goldstein briefed the board on the bill's language, explaining that section 28 of Senate Bill 180 appears to apply retroactively to land development regulation amendments adopted after Aug. 1 of the prior year and could bar any new regulation that is "more restrictive or burdensome" until Oct. 1, 2027. Goldstein said the statute is ambiguous about the scope of "more restrictive or burdensome," whether it applies statewide or only within certain hurricane-impacted areas, and how courts will interpret the retroactivity provision.
Goldstein noted the county's fire-rescue impact fee was scheduled to take effect on July 1 and said the fee is closely tied to public safety already: the fee funds fire-rescue vehicles and capital used during hurricanes and other emergencies. He advised the board there is legal risk and uncertainty under the new state law but that the county could make a defensible argument for the fee on public-safety grounds. The statute also includes a provision allowing prevailing parties to recover attorney's fees, which increases litigation risk.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to proceed with option 1 outlined by the county attorney's memo: let the impact fee take effect on the scheduled date and direct the county attorney's office to defend the ordinance if it is challenged. A second supported the motion. Several commissioners said they preferred to continue county business and funding for public safety rather than delay implementation while waiting for legislative or judicial clarification.
The motion passed on a voice vote. County staff and the county attorney said they would notify parties, prepare to defend the ordinance if necessary, and continue to monitor legislative developments that could clarify or change the law's retroactive application.
