Palm Beach County鈥檚 lawsuit against Palm Beach Gardens over impact fees is in its fifth year and showing no signs of abating.
Case in point: The county submitted t to the city asking for copies of nearly every building permit the city has issued over the past six years.
The that鈥檚 90,000 documents. It would take an $81-an-hour worker 7.5 years to fulfill the request. The cost would be $1.2 million, payable up front.
The county dropped the request. But the issue didn鈥檛 die and the courtroom drama is only heating up.
READ MORE: Palm Beach County overcharged Avenir developers, judge rules
The lawsuit revolves around how government keeps up with traffic in Palm Beach County. Cities have been pushing to break the county鈥檚 grip over road-building, which dates to growth management measures enacted in the 1980s when growth outpaced roads and traffic jams were constant.
Cities want the freedom to ease local traffic nightmares with alternatives such as mass transit, bike paths and wider sidewalks.
The county resists diluting its revenue, saying developments in cities draw from a wide area, requiring a robust road network crossing city lines that only it can provide.
Palm Beach Gardens has led the cities鈥� fight, enacting its own road impact fee, called a mobility fee, in 2019. Starting in January 2020, the city stopped collecting the county鈥檚 road impact fee for projects in most parts of the city.
In May 2021, .
The county , when Circuit Judge Paige Gillman issued a temporary injunction ordering Palm Beach Gardens to return to its past practice of collecting road impact fees on behalf of the county.
鈥� 鈥� to submit their plans to the county within sixty (60) days 鈥� for assessment of county road impact fees and to collect such fees from those developers and remit them to the county,鈥�
After an appellate court upheld the ruling, to turn over $3.1 million in impact fees collected since 2020. The city resisted, filing a motion with the court to clarify Gillman鈥檚 order.
By that time, Gillman (now Kilbane) had been promoted to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In June, Circuit Judge James Sherman, newly assigned to the case, granted the city a two-hour hearing on the matter, scheduled for Aug. 11.
He also scheduled the full matter for trial in November.
County objects to city鈥檚 new mobility fee
In the intervening years, Gardens officials went to Tallahassee and to shift control over impact fees from counties to cities. , passed in 2024, called for cities and counties to agree to a plan on how to share a single fee by October 2025 or face penalties.
With that law on the books, the city didn鈥檛 let the court鈥檚 injunction stop it from passing a in April and to stop collecting a separate county impact fee.
would go to some county projects but also, such as a recently completed roundabout on Campus Drive, a new sidewalk along Kyoto Gardens Drive and bike paths along Burns Road.
The county objected, saying the city鈥檚 mobility fees violated the court鈥檚 temporary injunction.
鈥淚t is the county position that with the court鈥檚 current injunction in place, prohibits the city from proceeding with its proposed action,鈥� then- to the city in April.
City 鈥榟as the right鈥� to alternative system
The city鈥檚 consultant, , told the City Council on April 3 that the recent change in state law gave that power to the city.
鈥淭here鈥檚 been back and forth with the county for the past five years now,鈥� Paul told the council.
Using a term related to the county鈥檚 collection of fees concurrently with development, he said, 鈥淭he Legislature this past session came out very definitively and said, once again, any local government 鈥� city or county 鈥� has the right to move beyond transportation concurrency and has the right to adopt an alternative transportation system.
鈥淎nd they went even further, and said, 鈥業n addition, there鈥檚 only going to be one fee collected within a municipality, and it鈥檚 to be collected by the entity that issues building permits.鈥�
鈥淎nd lastly, that fee has to be based on a plan of improvements, i.e. a mobility plan.鈥�
The city mobility plan and fees, which he unveiled, 鈥渨ill replace transportation concurrency administered by the county,鈥� he said.
Gardens rips county proposal
After the council approved the mobility fee on second reading in May, the county sent an alternative approach to moving forward under the new state law. It鈥檚 a similar offer that the county is making with all municipalities.
Both sides agree, the county document said, 鈥渢hat the city鈥檚 mobility fees do not account for the impact 鈥� on county transportation facilities鈥� and 鈥渢hat the county road impact fees do not account for the impact 鈥� on city transportation facilities.鈥�
But the approach smacked too much of the old way to Palm Beach Gardens.
Saying he played a role in crafting the new law, City Attorney Max Lohman that County Administrator Baker 鈥渄oes not appear to comprehend the gravamen of the legislation or the proper and legally sufficient means of its implementation.鈥�
The county鈥檚 proposals, Lohman wrote, are 鈥渘othing more than a meager attempt to rebrand the legacy (agreements) that many municipalities previously executed with the county, through which the municipalities were simply either collection agents or ticket takers for county impact fee payment vouchers.鈥�
The proposals ignore provisions requiring the county to share its impact fee proceeds in some instances with cities and to assure developers are not charged twice for the same impact, he wrote.
鈥淗B 479 no longer permits the county to charge and collect (or have the municipalities collect) a county transportation impact fee within the municipalities if the municipality charges its own fee,鈥� Lohman wrote.
The county has not responded to his memo. Officials from both the city and the county would not discuss his interpretation because of ongoing litigation.
Tracking how much money is at stake
But as both sides head toward a courtroom showdown, the county has been trying to get the money it believes the judge ordered the city to pay. It put the amount at $3.1 million as of mid-2023.
To figure out how much the city owes for impact fees collected since 2020, the county wants to see detailed information about city building permits.
After dropping its $1.2 million public records request, the county filed basically the same request in court, as part of discovery.
Wary of paying more to receive printouts of the electronic records, the county added 鈥淧lease do not send the records in paper form with a bill, as we will not pay for your copy charges.鈥�
In a filing by the city鈥檚 outside counsel, Scott Hawkins, the city objected to the document requests, calling them 鈥渧ague,鈥� and 鈥渙verly broad,鈥� and saying the county is seeking irrelevant materials not proportional to the needs of the case.
Instead, Hawkins told the county it could buy a 鈥溾�榬ead-only鈥� InterGov subscription, which would allow the county to review all permits issued by the city.鈥� is a service operated by the AGA, formerly the Association of Government Accountants.
The county has not filed a response with the court.
This story was originally published by , a SA国际传谋 News partner.
