|
LEGISLATION SPOTLIGHT: IMPACT FEES
Background: Impact fees are regulatory fees charged by local governments to fund the capital costs of infrastructure necessitated by new growth and development. Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, codifies several minimum requirements for impact fees established through case law precedents. Most importantly, the dual rational nexus test requires that the fee charged must be proportional to the impact of the development, and the benefit received by the development must be proportional to the fee paid. This fundamental requirement guides certain methodology requirements for impact fees studies. For example, impact fees cannot be charged to correct deficits resulting from existing development and must also account for all other revenue sources, such as taxes, utilized for capital improvements so that development is not overcharged for its impact. Impact fees cannot be charged for repair and maintenance. As defined by statute, infrastructure includes costs for roads, utilities, solid waste, drainage, schools, parks, emergency medical, fire and law enforcement, including land acquisition, land improvement, design, engineering, permitting, construction and even certain types of vehicles. Impact fees are charged based on the type of permitted development, utilizing common metrics such as type of dwelling unit, square footage for non-residential and student demand. Mobility fees charged for transportation impact fees are subject to the same requirements as impact fees.
As previously discussed in the Pre-Session Rotunda Report, several bills have been filed this year to reform the method and manner in which impact fees are imposed and collected in Florida:
Impact Fees: SB 548 (Sen. McClain)/HB 1139 (Rep. Gentry) - Both bills have been voted favorably out of their first committee of reference. The legislation revises the process for calculating and collecting impact fees, revises concurrency requirements, and modifies impact fee regulations and procedures in an effort to limit rate increases and expand accountability measures. Specifically:
The legislation defines the term “plan-based methodology” as a study methodology that:
- Uses the most recent, localized data to project growth over a 10-year period;
- Anticipates capacity impacts on relevant systems caused by the projected growth;
- Establishes a list of capital projects that need to be constructed or purchased over a specific period of time to address such impacts as part of the new or updated impact fee study; and
- Requires capital projects and any related interlocal agreements to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements for comprehensive plans and include a plan to provide mitigation funding for extra-jurisdictional impacts to ensure development is not charged twice by different jurisdictions for the same transportation impact.
Relating to transportation concurrency, the bill requires local governments to use a plan-based methodology when executing an interlocal agreement to coordinate the mitigation of their respective transportation capacity impacts. Interlocal agreements in existence on October 1, 2024 may not be extended beyond October 1, 2031.
Relating to impact fees, if a local government, school board, or special district increases their impact fee rate beyond the existing phase-in limitations as currently allowed under law, the bill specifies that they must:
- Use a plan-based methodology in their demonstrated-need study;
- Include the capacity standards used to support the existence of extraordinary circumstances in the adopted impact fee study;
- Explain how and when the proposed impact fee will be used to construct or purchase the improvements necessary to increase capacity; and
- Use specific data to project the anticipated growth or capacity impacts giving rise to the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate the impact fee increase.
The bill defines “extraordinary circumstances” as the measurable effects of development requiring mitigation in excess of the current impact fee rate, plus the increases allowed under current law, in less than four years.
The bill also prohibits a local government, school board, or special district from:
- Increasing the rate beyond the phase-in limitations if the entity has not increased its impact fee within the past five years;
- Using data that is more than four years old to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances;
- Including any previously-authorized deduction in an impact fee increase; and
- Increasing by more than 100 percent divided equally over a four-year period.
Lastly, the bill entitles petitioners to a refund plus interest for overpayments due to improperly assessed impact fees, and attorney fees and costs under certain circumstances.
Restrictions on Local Government Regulations after a Hurricane: HB 1465 (Rep. Andrade; no companion) - Refines the scope of recent legislation relating to statewide restrictions on local government regulations after a hurricane, including a provision that would define the term “burdensome” to mean, among others, an action that has the effect of increasing an impact fee more than 25% over a 2-year period.
Hyperscale Data Centers: HB 1007 (Rep. Griffitts; no companion) - Establishes statewide restrictions and requirements for siting, constructing, and operating Hyperscale Data Centers (HDC), including a prohibition on public utilities collecting impact fees designed to recover capital costs from customers for the construction of an HDC if the customer does not have a similar energy use.
Examples of recently enacted legislation affecting impact fees include:
As previously reported, SB 180 (2025) streamlined the post-storm permitting process by ensuring local governments are prepared to respond after a natural disaster, including preventing a local government, school district, or special district from assessing an impact fee for the reconstruction or replacement of a previously existing structure if the replacement structure is of the same land use as the original structure and does not increase the impact on public facilities beyond that of the original structure.
SB 1080 (2025) created uniform requirements for local governments to process development permits and orders and to ensure that local governments adequately respond to applicants in a timely manner, including:
-
A prohibition on school districts from imposing any fee in lieu of an impact fee, unless an exception applies. The bill amended s. 163.3180, F.S., to provide that a school district may not collect, charge, or impose any alternative fee in lieu of an impact fee to mitigate the impact of development on educational facilities unless such fee meets the dual rational nexus test imposed on all impact fees. In any action challenging a fee for such a reason, the school district has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition and amount of the fee meet the requirements of state legal precedent.
-
Limitations on extraordinary increases to impact fees. An impact fee increase beyond the statutory four-year glidepath due to “extraordinary circumstances” requires a unanimous, rather than two-thirds’ vote, and must be implemented in at least two, but not more than four, equal annual increments. A local government may not increase impact fees using “extraordinary circumstances” methodology if they have not increased the impact fee within the past 5 years, excluding years in which increases were prohibited due to hurricane disaster regulations.
HB 479 (2024) made substantial revisions to impact fees and concurrency provisions, including:
- Defining “mobility fee” and “mobility plan” for use within the Community Planning Act;
- Requiring impact fee calculations to be based on a study using localized data no more than four years old, and no more than one year old if impact fees are increased;
- Requiring local governments to give credit for any contribution identified in the development order or any form of exaction, including monetary contributions;
- Requiring an interlocal agreement if a county and a city both charge developers a road impact fee. If the local governments fail to execute such an agreement, the fee must be based on the impacts apportioned to the respective local governments and is subject to a 10% discount;
- Entitling the holder of any transportation or road impact fee to credit the full benefit of the intensity and density prepaid by the credit balance on the date an alternative transportation system is first established; and
- Specifying that a local government may not prevent an applicant from proceeding after satisfying its proportionate-share contribution or construction responsibilities.
Stearns Weaver Miller will continue to monitor bills affecting impact fees, transportation concurrency and related assessments, as the 2026 Florida Legislative Session continues.
| 
