Port St. Lucie City Council voted unanimously on Aug. 4 to approve on first reading Ordinance 25‑42, which adopts a revised public‑buildings impact fee schedule and the accompanying impact fee study. The ordinance would raise the city’s public‑building impact fee for a single‑family dwelling from $516 to $615 per unit and implement phased increases for other land‑use types under state phasing rules.

City staff said the update responds to rising construction and infrastructure costs and higher entitlement activity. “Development activity creates demand for infrastructure, mostly roads, but also parks and public safety and educational infrastructure,” Mary Savage Dunham, city staff, told the council. Staff and consultants emphasized that the fee study must show need, benefit and proportionality and that fees will be reviewed every four years.

The study and staff presentations offered specific figures used to justify the increase: staff reported 28,256 total building permits applied for so far this year versus about 29,422 at the same point last year; single‑family permits applied for this year were reported as about 1,686 compared with about 1,832 the previous year. The consultant’s analysis projects roughly 23,000 additional housing units and about 7.7 million square feet of nonresidential floor area over the next 10 years; staff said the study conservatively projects about 2,200 housing units per year (compared with a four‑ to five‑year average near 4,400 single‑family units). The presentation noted that the city expects to collect roughly $5.9 million from the proposed public‑building fees in the first four years under the no‑extraordinary‑circumstances phasing scenario.

Consultant Ben Griffin and staff described methodology and phasing requirements under current state law: single‑family fee increases under 25 percent are phased in over two years; multifamily and mobile home categories that exceed a 25 percent increase will phase in over four years. Staff showed example project costs to illustrate rising construction prices: 1 mile of sidewalk was presented as about $1.5 million from design through construction (versus roughly $625,000 in 2020), and multi‑phase roadway projects were cited that rose from millions of dollars per phase to much higher current costs.

Bethany Grubbs, city staff, summarized stakeholder questions and the staff responses; she read a requested FAQ item on the single‑family fee change: “The fee for single family homes increases from $516 to $615 per dwelling unit over 2 years.” Staff said some fees are tied to outstanding debt service and that credits for debt are included in the fee calculations.

Council members pressed staff on several points: the effect of slowed building permit activity versus rising entitlement and annexation work, whether existing city buildings could be repurposed to reduce new construction, and how the statutory changes to mobility/road fee collection could affect the total burden on a developer or homebuyer. Vice Mayor Carballo and other members asked staff to clarify the recent change in state law that incentivizes interlocal agreements for fee collection; staff said they would return with a detailed legal briefing on those nuances.

The council approved the ordinance on a motion and second; the vote was recorded as unanimous (5–0). Staff said the second reading is anticipated Aug. 25 and that, if the ordinance is adopted at second reading, the revised fees would take effect on Nov. 1, 2025. Mobility‑plan and fee updates scheduled for discussion were tabled to a later date to allow more stakeholder review.

Why this matters: public‑building impact fees are intended to have new development pay the proportionate share of public facility costs that growth generates; staff and consultants argued the update is necessary to keep pace with rising construction costs and projected development. Council members asked staff to provide more transparent revenue projections (annual and multi‑year collections), the legal implications of state changes on fee collection with the county, and clearer outreach materials for stakeholders.

Next steps: staff will return with a legal briefing on interlocal agreement implications, provide annual/ten‑year revenue collection projections on request, and present the ordinance for a second reading on Aug. 25. The mobility plan and fee schedule discussion was tabled to a future date.