- Home
- Fair Fees
|
What’s Happening
-
On October 1, 2025, the Flagler Home Builders Association filed suit against the City of Palm Coast.
-
The City approved three ordinances—2025-10 (Fire, June 17), 2025-11 (Parks & Rec, June 17), and 2025-12 (Transportation, July 1)—that more than doubled impact fees on new homes.
-
Florida law caps increases at 50% unless a city proves extraordinary circumstances—and Palm Coast’s case doesn’t meet that high bar.
-
Faulty studies gave the City bad information - right down to the basic math.
-
Florida Supreme Court Case Law is clear and these fees are unconstitutional for the citizens of Palm Coast.
What the City DidHere’s how fees changed for a typical 2,000 sq. ft. home:  | |
We support growth paying its way— lawfully, transparently, and with up-to-date data.
Why We’re Suing
| Faulty Studies:
Who Pays the Price: Families, renters, and small businesses. Every $1,000 added to a home prices families out of the market. It's not just the new buyers: EVERYONE pays for overbuilt road capacity, more parks than people, or otherwise miscalculated fees - we pay in taxes - for our portion of building the infrastructure and then we pay forever in upkeep, also called "legacy costs". |
Our Complaint Highlights
| What We’re Asking the Court To Do
We want the same thing any reasonable person would want from their City - transparency, accountability & legal responsibility. |
FAQ
Q: What’s an impact fee?
A one-time charge on new development to help pay for growth-related infrastructure (like roads). It must be proportionate and legally justified.
Q: Are we anti-infrastructure?
No. We want lawful, transparent funding—so growth pays its fair share without illegal spikes that raise housing costs.
Q: Will fees go to zero?
No. We’re asking for lawful fees based on current, defensible data, not to eliminate growth contributions.
Q: Who benefits from this lawsuit?
Homebuyers, renters, and the broader community—because fair fees keep housing attainable and growth orderly.
A Closer Look |
 The table above is from the traffic study with the percentage column added. The proposed improvements place a 70% burden on future roadway expansion with no new roads. The study did not identify any unique benefit to the fee payor, nor did they use the most recent, localized data - like the City of Palm Coast Citywide Traffic Count which is performed every two years. A transportation fee is not inherently wrong - this one is calculated incorrectly and in our opinion, illegally. |
|
 Instead of charging the cost of new personnel ($563,723) times the additional personnel needed through 2035 (33) as shown on line 8, the fee consultant added the existing personnel (74) to the additional personnel (33) for a total of 107 personnel. This is a clear violation of the law because this is double charging for the existing personnel that have already been paid for. Red circle added for emphasis. |
The above table is from the Parks & Recreation Study. The miscalculation of the fee here is from calculating the existing investment per person and adding that to the planned future investment. The existing investment is derived from the parks & rec that already exist and are paid for. This is a clear violation of the law because it is double charging for capital expenses that have already been paid for. Highlight added for emphasis. |
Source Materials
Below you can view all of the pertinent case materials, including the suit: