Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council moves to draft new impact‑fee ordinance after consultant advises phased increases; public safety fee to be folded into a new public‑facilities fee
Summary
A consultant presented an updated impact‑fee study that recommends suspending the existing public‑safety fee, creating a broader public‑facilities fee and phasing residential parks and mobility fee increases over four years. Council directed staff to draft an ordinance and schedule two public hearings.
City consultants recommended broad revisions to Punta Gorda’s development impact fees, and the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance and schedule the required public hearings.
REFTELUS consultant Joe Williams presented the study, saying the city’s existing impact fees (parks, mobility and a public‑safety charge) had not been updated since 2020 and that inflation, new capital needs and recent statutory changes require adjustments. The study recommends suspending the separate public‑safety impact fee and replacing it with a broader “public facilities” fee that covers police, fire, public works, general government facilities and vehicles. That new fee would apply to residential and nonresidential development, the consultant said.
For parks and mobility fees the consultant proposed increases on the order of 40–50 percent, but noted Florida law limits how quickly fees can rise. Because of statutory phasing rules, the consultant proposed spreading increases in some land‑use categories over a four‑year period.
Williams told council the new public‑facilities fee could be implemented at full value immediately because it is new; parks and mobility increases would be phased to comply with state restrictions. He also highlighted that county school impact fees are a large cost in many communities and that Punta Gorda’s lack of a school fee keeps its totals lower than some peers.
Council members asked about SB 250 and whether the update would run afoul of the statute. Staff and the consultant said the study and recommended phasing are designed to follow Florida’s Impact Fee Act and recent statutory changes, but council asked staff to verify SB 250 implications before final adoption. At the meeting council agreed to move forward; staff said they would prepare the ordinance and schedule two public hearings. City staff also flagged that the ordinance must follow the state impact‑fee statute (Fla. Stat. ch. 163 and related rules).
No final fee schedule was adopted at the meeting; staff is preparing ordinance language and a phasing plan, and will return to council with formal hearings and notice requirements under state law.
