Local Government Impact Fees and Development Permits and Orders :
HB 665 revises Florida law governing local government development permits, impact fees, and the use of local infrastructure surtax proceeds. The bill prohibits counties and municipalities from conditioning the processing or issuance of a development permit or development order on an applicant’s installation of public art, payment for public art, or reimbursement of public-art-related costs. It also declares any conflicting ordinance or regulation void and unenforceable.
The bill substantially tightens the rules for increasing impact fees. It defines “plan-based methodology” and “extraordinary circumstances,” and requires a demonstrated-need study using recent localized data before a local government, school district, or special district may raise an impact fee beyond existing phase-in limits. For nontransportation fees, the study must show at least two specified indicators of extraordinary circumstances; for transportation fees, at least three; and for independent special districts, all listed criteria. The bill also requires at least two publicly noticed workshops and a two-thirds vote of the governing body, and it bars certain increases if the local government has not raised the fee within the prior five years, subject to a hurricane-disaster-area exception.
HB 665 also amends the local government infrastructure surtax statute to update a cross-reference and restate the definition of “infrastructure.” The surtax proceeds may continue to be used for public infrastructure, certain land acquisition, emergency shelter improvements, affordable housing-related land acquisition, instructional technology in classrooms, landfill closure, and limited economic development allocations where authorized. The bill is effective July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact would be to limit local government discretion in both development permitting and impact fee policy, while imposing more detailed evidentiary and procedural hurdles before fees can be increased. It would affect counties, municipalities, school districts, special districts, developers, and property owners by reducing the ability of local governments to require art-related exactions and by making future impact fee increases harder to adopt unless specific growth and cost conditions are documented.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s movement is mixed but leans favorable to the bill’s policy goals in the Legislature, though it ultimately died in the House Commerce Committee. The context notes that a companion measure passed as CS/SB 1080, suggesting the underlying policy had support in the other chamber. No committee transcript or recorded votes are provided, so the principal contention appears to be the bill’s restriction of local revenue tools and development conditions versus supporters’ emphasis on predictability, transparency, and limits on local fee growth.
HB 665 would amend Florida Statutes sections 125.022 and 166.033 to prohibit counties and municipalities from requiring public-art installations, art fees, or reimbursement for art-related costs as a condition of development permit or development order approval, and would void conflicting local ordinances. It would also amend section 163.31801 to impose new definitions, study requirements, public workshop requirements, and supermajority approval thresholds for certain impact fee increases, while updating section 163.3164 with a new definition of “plan-based methodology.” A conforming cross-reference change is made in section 212.055 regarding the local government infrastructure surtax.
The available context suggests the bill was generally supported as a local-government regulatory reform measure, but not enough to advance in the House, where it died in the Commerce Committee. The fact that a companion bill passed in the Senate indicates the policy had meaningful legislative support, even though the House version did not complete the process. Because there are no transcripts or votes included, the record does not show direct debate, but the bill’s structure indicates a pro-development, anti-exaction, and anti-local-fee-increase posture.
The main points of contention are likely to have been local control versus statewide limits on development conditions and impact fee authority. Local governments and other fee-setting entities would be constrained by the bill’s new study, workshop, and supermajority requirements, as well as the five-year limitation on certain fee increases. Developers and property owners would likely favor the bill’s restrictions on art-related permit conditions and tighter limits on fee growth, while local governments may object to the loss of flexibility to fund infrastructure and public amenities through impact fees or permit conditions.