Follow Us

Friday, April 25, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

What lost mobility fee funds could have paid for

So far the City of Jacksonville has lost $4.8 million in the form of waived mobility fees since October 2011, with no solid proof that we'll ever see our return on that "investment." Assuming additional eligible projects move forward, that number could possibly increase to nearly $28 million. While this amount of cash may not immediately fund the construction of the Hoover Dam, it was more than enough to significantly impact the city's poor bicycle and pedestrian network and stimulate additional job creation through their implementation. Here is a brief look, by mobility zone, at sample projects that could have been funded by dollars already lost from last year's moratorium. Is Jacksonville really in position to sacrifice more via council approving a longer mobility fee moratorium?

Published February 22, 2013 in Transit      51 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article

feature

General Information



Video clip from ActionNewsJax.com about lost mobility fee funding, due to last year's one year moratorium.  Depsite Jacksonville being the 3rd most deadly city in the country for pedestrians, and funding for capital improvement projects dwindling, the Jacksonville City Council is considering giving up millions more through the approval of a three year mobility fee moratorium.



City council district map that also illustrates the location of each mobility zone.



At-Large city council district map that also illustrates the location of each mobility zone.


1. Mobility Fees waived to date is $4,768,881 for 38 projects;
 
2. Last day for an eligible Mobility Fee Certificate holder to apply for the fee waiver is April 19, 2013 (Note:  The eligibility period for a mobility fee certificate holder is 6-months from its issuance date;
 
3. Amount of Mobility Fees collected prior to the moratorium:  $60,760.00 for one (1) project.  Note:  The moratorium was implemented approximately one (1) month after the Mobility Fee Ordinance was enacted on September 19, 2011;
 
4. Total Mobility Fees collected since the expiration of the mobility fee waiver ordinance (2011-516) on October 19, 2011(the last day to submit a mobility fee application):  $10,182.00 for three (3) projects;
 
5. Amount of Fair Share Assessment Fees collected for the 12 month period preceding the implementation of the mobility fee ordinance (September 19, 2010 thru September 19, 2011):  $3,779,906.00 for eleven (11) projects;
 
6. Amount of Fair Share Assessment Fees collected to date during the waiver period:
$185,204 for four (4) projects.

source: City of Jacksonville

Next Page: Mobility Fees waived (lost) by zone and what they could have funded.




 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT 






Share this article   digg   delicious   reddit   myspace   technorati   google   newsvine  

51 Comments

vicupstate

February 22, 2013, 06:01:12 AM
Top notch research Ennis.  My concern is that 95% of Jax residents don't consider themselves pedestrians or bicyclists and therefore don't care if those projects get funded, and in fact most probably oppose the projects themselves. 

Bill Hoff

February 22, 2013, 06:53:13 AM
Explaining the benefits sans any bicycle related items will be important. Ie, growth guidelines which produce environments that pay for themselves, rather than environments that drain tax payer dollars in a city with already stressed financials.

JeffreyS

February 22, 2013, 06:53:58 AM
Those projects would be nice but the City Council was able to help some GOB developers afford some better vacations with their projects that would have happened with or without the fee.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 07:20:31 AM
Top notch research Ennis.  My concern is that 95% of Jax residents don't consider themselves pedestrians or bicyclists and therefore don't care if those projects get funded, and in fact most probably oppose the projects themselves. 
Most probably don't care about bike/ped specifically but let the fee work for a few years and they'll have funding for roads and transit. Even without any of that, most people don't like the idea of themselves financially subsidizing new development at the expense of what they already own. I can't imagine someone with an underwater house or vacant commercial property paying to help the next guy make their situation worse.

FSBA

February 22, 2013, 08:20:36 AM
I see alot of broken windows and not much else

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC9FI1nAqs

Jason

February 22, 2013, 08:53:49 AM
Fantastic article!  The impacts after just one year are are huge.  The list of posibilites after a three year moratorium would be exponentially greater.  Come on COJ, lets make sure this Mobility Plan is working in our favor.

Jason

February 22, 2013, 08:54:33 AM
Ennis, what area is the main image from?

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 09:07:48 AM
Southside Blvd at Square Lake Blvd, just north of Avenues Mall. You have a mix of housing within walking distance of Target, Home Depot, Bank of America offices, etc. and no sidewalks or crosswalks to get across the street.

toi

February 22, 2013, 09:09:46 AM
Ennis - maybe you don't know but under the current mobility fee, no more than 11% of the funds collected (about $44M) can go towards sidewalk and bike improvements, and they can only be spent on a cash flow basis, i.e., you can't take the first million collected in a zone and spend it all on sidewalks.  I argued that you should be able to front end sidewalk and bike improvements and lost.  So this article is fundamentally flawed and misleading.  Nonetheless, you are wrong that the City turned away money.  For evidence of that, compare the amount of waived fees to the amount collected since October - around $10,000.  That is pretty striking even considering that there are projects that are proceeding forward now under the waiver.  The marketplace is responding to what it is the government wants them to do.  The fee is sending a clear message -- we don't want you here, all platitudes aside.

If sidewalk and bike improvements ought to be a funding priority for the City, and I agree that they should be, why not argue for that instead of arguing essentially that the mobility fee as currently structured is perfect, and that new developments should pay for fixing the sidewalk-less but already developed areas of our City, and oh by the way, spend most of the road dollars on six laning three road links, including one on the proposed commuter rail and BRT corridor.  Why should Goozlepipe and Guttyworks on King Street pay about $193,000 in mobility fees to build infill when the infrastructure as it is on Park and King is already there.  Just as important, is that the message we want to send to people about doing infill and density in the city?  Who is going to invest here with those sorts of fees??  Surely you agree that price matters and that there are other communities that are also nice places to live or run a business with fees lower than that.   Redevelopment in the form of reusing existing square feet (and getting a pass on mobility fees in some instances) does not move the needle enough to make efficient use of infrastructure and reduce vehicle miles traveled.     

Really doing something for bike and ped improvements requires a broader funding base and just as important, political will to want bike and ped improvements.  First sell the need for the improvements.  Be specific as to where and what it is you want.  For example, I think there is a great opportunity to improve connectivity between Riverside and downtown by improving the sidewalk between the Riverwalk and Memorial Park - make it wider and attractive, more like the riverwalk.  Then, when you have support, figure out to how to pay for the improvements.  The JTA gas tax is a logical place to start with the latter.   As you know, compared to new interchanges and such, bike and ped improvements are inexpensive.

Tom Ingram

tufsu1

February 22, 2013, 09:20:24 AM
Great research and awesome summary Ennis!

on a related note....in a misguided effort to combat Jacksonville's pedestrian safety problem, JSO has announced they will begin ticketing pedestrians who cross streets illegally (jay-walking).

As to Tom Ingram's points above, the six-laning of Philips Highway will yield a better corridor with sidewalks, bike lanes, improved medians, and better flow for BRT.....and as for the Riverside mention, projects can obtain mobility fee reductions through urban design...I'm sure the folks on King Street would have qualified for a reduced fee.

Ocklawaha

February 22, 2013, 09:51:46 AM
Why should Goozlepipe and Guttyworks on King Street pay about $193,000 in mobility fees to build infill when the infrastructure as it is on Park and King is already there.  Just as important, is that the message we want to send to people about doing infill and density in the city?  Who is going to invest here with those sorts of fees?? 

So are you suggesting that the good citizens of Jacksonville should pay for improved access to various King Street businesses while Goozlepipe and Guttyworks or any other project/developer gets a free ride on the taxpayers back? Your contention that the $193,000 would be used to 'build infill' is erroneous, the money is for mobility improvements one of which would bring a downtown - King Street streetcar line nearly to the door of said restaurant. The message we are sending with the mobility fee is twofold, one, would you like to live in a city that takes better care of it's citizens then the one listed as the 3rd most deadly? Two, it nudges development more toward urban infill projects where the fee is considerably less, thus creating the density that keeps business humming in cities much larger then Jacksonville. 

JeffreyS

February 22, 2013, 09:54:43 AM
Tom I would say the best thing about the mobility fee isn't the projects it will fund but the direction of development it will influence. Build where there is already infrastructure.

As for the Fee stating we don't want you here.  If we are talking about new sprawl development housing supply commercial supply devaluing the sprawl housing supply commercial supply we already have here then yes we don't want it.

tufsu1

February 22, 2013, 10:14:56 AM
As for the Fee stating we don't want you here.  If we are talking about new sprawl development housing supply commercial supply devaluing the sprawl housing supply commercial supply we already have here then yes we don't want it.

I wouldn't say "we don't want it"...we just want it to pay for its true impacts to our community

fsujax

February 22, 2013, 10:19:26 AM
well, fees sure aren't stopping developers from building in St Johns County!

fsquid

February 22, 2013, 10:25:55 AM
well, fees sure aren't stopping developers from building in St Johns County!

nope and they've used it to build one new school and two more are now underway.

Ocklawaha

February 22, 2013, 10:36:33 AM
No kidding, down here in WGV we have (and I'm NOT kidding) 100 homes being developed within a mile of my house. 75 in one neighborhood alone and they are going up at warp speed. Up in the Cascades, there are another 20+ homes going up as WGV pushes out toward SR 210. In the village proper we have a sea of new condos being opened. In Murabella the shops are now 99% full, a new Dollar General is going up and a Mickey D's opened recently, and now I see more survey markers. The County is busy building a sidewalk the entire length from St. Augustine to the Outlet Malls on the south side of SR-16. Rivertown really is busting out they've completed the traffic circle in SR 13 and appear to have cleared the entire north sector of the property. Retail is booming all along SR210 with a new nursery, donut shop, bank and a large dental complex being finished up. Bass Pro is on the way so I sort of expect a St. Johns version of the River City Marketplace.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 10:49:50 AM
Ennis - maybe you don't know but under the current mobility fee, no more than 11% of the funds collected (about $44M) can go towards sidewalk and bike improvements, and they can only be spent on a cash flow basis, i.e., you can't take the first million collected in a zone and spend it all on sidewalks.  I argued that you should be able to front end sidewalk and bike improvements and lost.  So this article is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

Thanks for the reply Tom.  However, as you already know, I was a part of the consulting team that developed the data behind the fee.  So I'll try and provide some internal perspective on what you claim is flawed and misleading.  When we developed the project list, all road based projects were planned to be complete street or context sensitive street oriented.  In other words, where there was a road improvement, money for bicycle and pedestrian improvements were included in the capital cost.  You won't find this data in the executive summary or tables but if you dig into the hundreds of pages of detailed tables, you'll find capital cost breakouts and corresponding maps.  So the 11% you mention, is actually in addition the bike/ped projects included as a part of the road improvement project list.


Quote
Nonetheless, you are wrong that the City turned away money.  For evidence of that, compare the amount of waived fees to the amount collected since October - around $10,000.  That is pretty striking even considering that there are projects that are proceeding forward now under the waiver.  The marketplace is responding to what it is the government wants them to do.

This is an inaccurate statement.  I hope you aren't being taken as an expert on this issue.  It's unfortunate that most of the people involved with the mobility plan and fee's creation are no longer in town, leaving how it works and what it actually does to be butchered by interpretation. The devil is always in the details.  Overall, there's about $28 million in calculations that were done during the failed one year moratorium:



So far, $4.77 million of that total has ended up in actual projects moving forward.  We still have most of this year for additional projects eligible from last year's waiver to move forward.  If you want more detail, I'll post the actual project list for you and everyone here to discuss. Until those are out of the system, it's highly misleading to toss the $10,000 figure out there.

Quote
The fee is sending a clear message -- we don't want you here, all platitudes aside.

Statistical data, naming building permits (pre moratorium, during moratorium and after moratorium), job creation numbers, etc. don't support this claim.  I can post some of this too.  It's pretty damning.  The fee simply guides a certain style of development.  If you ever want to sit down and discuss, let me know. I'll show you what you can do for your clients to help them reduce or eliminate their fees through the mobility fee credit adjustment system.

Quote
If sidewalk and bike improvements ought to be a funding priority for the City, and I agree that they should be, why not argue for that instead of arguing essentially that the mobility fee as currently structured is perfect, and that new developments should pay for fixing the sidewalk-less but already developed areas of our City, and oh by the way, spend most of the road dollars on six laning three road links, including one on the proposed commuter rail and BRT corridor.

The mobility plan and fee isn't the end all to Jacksonville's problems.  It's simply one of many things that should be done.  Before crying about what you may personal see as imperfections, why not give it a trial period to operate, like we previously did with the past failed one year moratorium.  Until you allow it to work as design, crying about it's failures are pure speculation at best.

Quote
Why should Goozlepipe and Guttyworks on King Street pay about $193,000 in mobility fees to build infill when the infrastructure as it is on Park and King is already there.

I'm pretty sure their number would have been lower without that big surface parking lot they were made to build around the corner.  Nevertheless, as you already know, the fee is structured on auto trips generated.  I'm a big infill guy but let's be realistic, there's some significant mobility impact when you replace a house with a 10,000 square foot office/restaurant.  On the bright side, that money would have went to help Riverside's mobility problems.  Now Riverside gets the traffic and no money to alleviate its problems.

Quote
Just as important, is that the message we want to send to people about doing infill and density in the city?  Who is going to invest here with those sorts of fees??

Most likely, the same entities that invested here when we had the fair share agreement in place that would have cost them on average 64% more.  Btw, if you want to promote infill, just take a look at Krispy Kreme, Mellow Mushroom (Avondale), Waffle House (Roosevelt), or LA Fitness' (University Boulevard) mobility fee.  Zero.  Why?  Because they developed on sites that fit within the structure of what it takes to significantly reduce the fee to zero.

Quote
Surely you agree that price matters and that there are other communities that are also nice places to live or run a business with fees lower than that.   Redevelopment in the form of reusing existing square feet (and getting a pass on mobility fees in some instances) does not move the needle enough to make efficient use of infrastructure and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Arguing for going the opposite (a three year moratorium), isn't going to achieve your vision.  You're simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater and damning this community to being worse off than it is today. 

Quote
Really doing something for bike and ped improvements requires a broader funding base and just as important, political will to want bike and ped improvements.  First sell the need for the improvements.  Be specific as to where and what it is you want.  For example, I think there is a great opportunity to improve connectivity between Riverside and downtown by improving the sidewalk between the Riverwalk and Memorial Park - make it wider and attractive, more like the riverwalk.  Then, when you have support, figure out to how to pay for the improvements.

This sounds like starting over from scratch.  Doing this with the mobility fee passed three to four years ago, when all the public meetings, visioning process, etc. was held.  There are projects already identified and a mechanism set up to fund them.  All we have to do is get council to not approve a moratorium, so they can materialize.  With that said, none of this stops you or any of us from working to find additional funding to do more.

Quote
The JTA gas tax is a logical place to start with the latter.   As you know, compared to new interchanges and such, bike and ped improvements are inexpensive.

Tom Ingram

I disagree.  We've already started and taking a step back a couple of years and waiting a couple of additional years to address the gas tax is unproductive and economically foolish.  From my view, let the mobility plan and fee move forward now and utilize the gas tax situation as an additional potential revenue source. With all that said, I'm not trying to be disrespectful in my reply.  I'm just open to a good old fashioned debate that features hard statistical data instead of opinions.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 10:57:20 AM
well, fees sure aren't stopping developers from building in St Johns County!

Between 2010 and 1990, our city's population increased by nearly 200,000 residents.  During that time, the fair share system was in place.  On average, those fees were 64% more than mobility fees.  Claiming mobility fees, all of a sudden, kill development is a straw man argument.  Whoever, truly believes that needs to put up some real job creation data to prove it.  Hell, I'd argue that not having some form of impact fees kills optimal job creation. 

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 11:00:39 AM
As for the Fee stating we don't want you here.  If we are talking about new sprawl development housing supply commercial supply devaluing the sprawl housing supply commercial supply we already have here then yes we don't want it.

I wouldn't say "we don't want it"...we just want it to pay for its true impacts to our community

Pretty much. There's no need to subsidize new development at the expense of existing development or taxpayers.  At the end of the day, that's what it really boils down too.  If we're supposed to subsidize, then it needs to be proven beyond a doubt that the return of investment for the taxpayer is much higher.

Bridges

February 22, 2013, 11:07:15 AM
Quote
The fee is sending a clear message -- we don't want you here, all platitudes aside.

Doesn't St. John's county have a fee?  They don't seem to have any problems attracting development.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 11:11:26 AM
Of course they have a fee and most of our peer communities do. You have to pay for your public investments some sort of way and property tax alone isn't getting it down when you're spending billions in building and maintaining public infrastructure to support fiscally unsustainable growth patterns.

Anyone who tells you Jacksonville "is different" from every other place in the US needs to get out of Duval County and travel more.  The main thing we do struggle with is incompetence. We get robbed blind by making poor policy decisions without verifiable hard data to support the moves.

Believe me, a company like 7-11 expanding to our insignificant little burg isn't being stopped by a miniscule impact fee in a second tier Florida city (no knock on the city, just placing our importance in global terms).  That stuff is already a part of a typical development project's proforma.

fsujax

February 22, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
so true Lake. I just can't believe that someone actually thinks our little mobility fee would have kept 7-11 from building stores here. I am calling BS.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 12:15:15 PM
Lol, it would be nice to have a little money to be able to sell the council on the concept of putting taxpayer's ROI and the city's fiscal future first.  The group who wants you to subsidize their profit margins has hired Paul Harden to lobby for them.  This is shaping up to be very interesting.  Average everyday residents vs. deep pockets.  Ultimately, this will probably come down to a short term economic argument.

Ocklawaha

February 22, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
Quote
The fee is sending a clear message -- we don't want you here, all platitudes aside.

Doesn't St. John's county have a fee?  They don't seem to have any problems attracting development.

Yes heavy impact fees and CDD taxes designed as a pay it forward or at least a pay-as-you-go plan. Here in World Golf Village they are adding a whole new section to 'The Cascades' as the Village pushes toward SR210. In the Village proper rumor has it that a new retailer is moving into the former Publix. Otherwise new Condo's are going up in several places within the community. The Shops at Murabella are finally filled up and they're adding a new Dollar General and a recently opened Micky D's. Across the street next to Mill Creek School the Dioceses of St. Augustine has filed a plan to develop that property into a C-Store and boutique shops space. Builders are working at a rapid pace in Murabella proper and the adjoining neighborhoods. In my area they are currently at work building 75 new homes at the corner of SR-13 and SR-16. Back in Heritage Landing buildout is getting closer. Up in Rivertown it appears they have cleared the entire north end of the development and are laying in pipes and utilities, new homes springing up like popcorn. Rivertown recently finished the traffic circle on SR-13 and the entry road from the circle to the Community Center is supposed to be lined with shops - funneling the 'town' traffic through the shops to get at SR-13 will prove a better plan then the dead end retail sites in both Palencia and the Village at WGV. Toss Bass Pro, and your probably looking at another River City Marketplace albeit with a new parkway and a new FREEway. Also all along SR-210 their are new retail, food, bank and professional offices going up.

Oh almost forgot, they are currently using some of those moneys to build a sidewalk from the Outlet Malls all the way into St. Augustine proper. Watch for something to pop along SR-16 soon too - like maybe 4 lanes. Flags are up.

Yeah, those fees have REALLY chased off our developers!

JeffreyS

February 22, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
so true Lake. I just can't believe that someone actually thinks our little mobility fee would have kept 7-11 from building stores here. I am calling BS.

I will second your call.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 02:24:25 PM
Hmm, this is something I haven't paid as much attention to but it could play an impact on Jacksonville's local mobility fee moratorium situation.  For instance, let's assume the three year request was done to "compromise" on something lower.....like another year.

Quote
Growth Management:
There are less than 2 weeks remaining before the 2013 Legislative Session begins on March 5th.    The pre-session committee meetings ended this week and, while there is a general feeling that there will be no major changes to growth management this year, several bills have been filed that propose changes to the comprehensive planning process.  Discussed in more detail below, proposed changes would:

1. Prohibit application of transportation concurrency, school concurrency, proportionate share contributions or impact fees until July 1, 2016 unless authorized by a 2/3rds vote (HB 321)

2. Amend language in s.163.3167 dealing with referendum and initiatives (HB 537 & SB 528)

3. Require that local governments that have adopted  mobility plans/fees or other alternative transportation systems must give developer option to pay for impacts of development (HB 319 & SB 972)

4. Create a new pilot program, in certain areas of the state, in which there is no state review of proposed amendments and third parties are the only group that can challenge (SB 786)

5. Prohibit local governments from imposing or requiring certain exactions on or against private property (HB 673 & SB 772)

HB 321 (Representative LaRosa) would prohibit a local government from applying transportation or school concurrency within its jurisdiction or requiring a proportionate share contribution or construction for new development before July 1, 2016 unless authorized by a vote of two-thirds of the local government’s governing authority. This prohibition would not apply to proportionate share contribution or construction assessed prior to July 1, 2013. The new development must receive a certificate of occupancy by July 1, 2017 to maintain this exemption. Additionally the new development must consist of 10,000 square feet or less of nonresidential; 50 dwelling units or less multifamily; or 30 dwelling units or less of single family. The bill proposes a similar moratorium on any new or existing impact fee or any new or existing fee associated with the mitigation of transportation impacts on new development unless authorized by a 2/3rds vote. Additionally, any governing authority of a local government imposing an impact fee in existence on July 1, 2012, must reauthorize the imposition of the fee pursuant to this new paragraph.  The bill is now in its first committee of reference, House Economic Development & Tourism Subcommittee.  As of this date, there is no companion bill in the Senate.

HB 319 (Representative Ray) proposes a number of changes to Chapter 163 relative to mobility plans and mobility fees. It proposes a statutory definition for “mobility plan”, including a requirement that any mobility fee adopted as part of said plan must include standards for transportation impacts for bicycles, pedestrian and transit mobility and may not include transportation deficiency costs. The bill also proposes that the criteria that local governments who implement transportation concurrency must follow in section 163.3180(5) (h) would also apply to those local governments who implement transportation mobility plans, level-of-service-standards or schedules for public facility construction. Local governments would not be allowed to prohibit or delay a project due to failure of an LOS standards or the adopted schedule and plan for public facility construction if the applicant has provided full payment for measurable transportation impacts. Additional language would prohibit proportionate share calculations from considering non-capital improvement costs, including costs associated with mass transit operation or maintenance. HB 319 also includes language which would allow transportation projects in designated deficiency areas to include ones outside the area to relieve identified deficiencies. Finally it amends Section 190.006(3) (a) (Board of supervisors for Community Development Districts) to include transit-oriented development pursuant to s. 163.3164(46) exceeding 25 acres in area.  This bill is in the House Economic Development and Tourism Subcommittee.

A similar bill, SB 972 (Senator Hukill),  does not include the mobility plan definition from the above bill. This bill adds development agreement applicants to the list that, in local governments that implement concurrency, can satisfy concurrency through proportionate share.  Applicants would only have to agree to enter into a binding agreement to pay their proportionate share rather than actually enter into the agreement as required under existing language.  A local government may accept contributions from multiple applicants for a planned improvement if the local government maintains contributions in a separate account designated for that purpose.    Additionally a local government that repeals transportation concurrency may not use the adoption of an alternative transportation system as a basis for denial of a development if the developer offers to enter into an agreement to pay for existing or projected impacts of the proposed development. The local government’s alternative transportation system must provide for a mechanism to assess potential impacts of the proposed development and to avoid imposing on new development the responsibility of funding existing transportation deficiencies.   The bill does include language dealing with transportation deficiency areas and community development districts similar to that in HB 319.  This bill was just filed on February 18th and has not been assigned to any committees of reference yet.

John P

February 22, 2013, 02:47:50 PM
I hope all you jerks who bitch and complain and make suggestions about everything online can muster up enough energy to call their own city council reps and send ALL our council reps an email. People with access need to use it and everyone needs to show up to city council this tuesday.

spuwho

February 22, 2013, 02:59:44 PM
I hope all you jerks who bitch and complain and make suggestions about everything online can muster up enough energy to call their own city council reps and send ALL our council reps an email. People with access need to use it and everyone needs to show up to city council this tuesday.

Well, that certainly will motivate them... ;)

Ocklawaha

February 22, 2013, 03:04:04 PM
I hope all you jerks who bitch and complain and make suggestions about everything online can muster up enough energy to call their own city council reps and send ALL our council reps an email. People with access need to use it and everyone needs to show up to city council this tuesday.


Your point is well taken, however most of our posters ARE at the Council Meeting. Looks like we shoot for a 2/3rds victory Lake!

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 03:16:09 PM
You basically lobby your council representatives to do the right thing for what is in the benefit of the entire community, short and long term, and leave it at that. 

fsujax

February 22, 2013, 04:07:45 PM
There was a poll about the moratorium in the Business Journal today. 82% of the 506 who responded said the Council should NOT approve a moratorium.

thelakelander

February 22, 2013, 04:28:39 PM
I noticed that.  I wonder how much that would really weigh in on the council's decision though.

Ocklawaha

February 22, 2013, 04:58:58 PM
It's only a 'business journal' probably read by um, business people, I mean, what do they know? So it probably will have no effect whatsoever on our council.

sheclown

February 22, 2013, 07:16:37 PM
Thanks Ennis.  As always, you speak so that all can hear.

fieldafm

February 22, 2013, 07:47:27 PM
I hope all you jerks who bitch and complain and make suggestions about everything online can muster up enough energy to call their own city council reps and send ALL our council reps an email. People with access need to use it and everyone needs to show up to city council this tuesday.

Well, that certainly will motivate them... ;)

I have no problem with John P's statement.  Several of us have had to make great personal sacrifices to advocate for something we feel benefits our community and have had to deal with the ramifications of back room retribution for doing what's right instead of what's convenient.  This is one of the most important issues in our community, are we going to finally turn the tide and demand a better community?  The choice is yours, now do something about it.. That starts with YOU calling all of City Council and making your thoughts known.  The paid lobbyists are already pumping Counciil full of misinformation advocating to bankrupt our city to line their own pockets.. What do YOU want for our city? 

Spence

February 23, 2013, 11:17:16 AM
at the risk of being redundant:

here
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx
you will find

District 1: Clay Yarborough
Phone: (904) 630-1389
Email: Clay@coj.net
Assistant: BeLinda Peeples

District 2: William Bishop
Phone: (904) 630-1392
Email: WBishop@coj.net
Assistant: Suzanne Warren

District 3: Richard Clark
Phone: (904) 630-1386
Email: RClark@coj.net
Assistant: Sonia Johnson

District 4: Don Redman
Phone: (904) 630-1394
Email: Redman@coj.net
Assistant: Scott A. Wilson

District 5: Lori N. Boyer
Phone: (904) 630-1382
Email: LBoyer@coj.net
Assistant: James Nealis

District 6: Matt Schellenberg
Phone: (904) 630-1388
Email: MattS@coj.net 
Assistant: Audrey Braman

District 7: Dr. Johnny Gaffney
Phone: (904) 630-1384
Email: Gaffney@coj.net
Assistant: Tiffani Dailey

District 8: E. Denise Lee
Phone: (904) 630-1385
Email: EDLee@coj.net
Assistant: Dan Macdonald

District 9: Warren A. Jones
Phone: (904) 630-1395
Email: WAJones@coj.net
Assistant: Rupel Wells

District 10: Reginald L. Brown
Phone: (904) 630-1684
Email: RBrown@coj.net
Assistant: Mercedes Parker

District 11: Ray Holt
Phone: (904) 630-1383
Email: Holt@coj.net
Assistant: Connie Holt

District 12: Doyle Carter
Phone: (904) 630-1380
Email: doylec@coj.net
Assistant: Rebekah Hagan

District 13: Bill Gulliford
Phone: (904) 630-1397
Email: Gulliford@coj.net 
Assistant: Stan Johnson

District 14: Jim Love
Phone: (904) 630-1390
Email: JimLove@coj.net
Assistant: Kevin Kuzel


At-Large Council Members

Group 1: Kimberly Daniels
Phone: (904) 630-1393
Email: KimDaniels@coj.net
Assistant: Ricky Anderson

Group 2: John R. Crescimbeni
Phone: (904) 630-1381
Email: JRC@coj.net
Assistant:  None

Group 3: Stephen C. Joost
Phone: (904) 630-1396
Email: Joost@coj.net
Assistant: Celeste Hicks

Group 4: Greg Anderson
Phone: (904) 630-1398
Email: GAnderson@coj.net
Assistant: Leeann Summerford

Group 5: Robin Lumb
Phone: (904) 630-1387
Email: RLumb@coj.net
Assistant: Donna Barrow

If you are unsure who represents your area of Duval, look here.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/council-district-maps.aspx

or more specifically, here  http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/2007districtmap.aspx




sheclown

February 23, 2013, 11:28:51 AM
Big money paying big lobbyists.

Only many little voices can possibly stand up to this.

<a href="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/YUbvYMweQy0?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/YUbvYMweQy0?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US</a>

thelakelander

February 23, 2013, 01:21:17 PM
If anyone has any specific questions about the plan, fee or the moratorium, feel free to ask me (edavis@metrojacksonville.com).  I helped develop most of it and have pretty intimate knowledge of the reason behind it, how it works, and how the mobility fee credit adjustments work...."moreso than even the paid lobbyists".  I'm even learning how to estimate job creation behind specific projects in it.  Here's two examples:

Project: Edgewood Avenue
Description: Complete streets lane diet between St. Johns & Post Street. Resurfacing to 2 lanes with bicycle lanes added.
Capital cost: $492,689.16
Jobs created: 13 (6 in construction)
Income: $596,550
Output (sales): $1.65 million
Value added (GSP): $837,232
Local/State Tax: $48,314
Internal Return on Investment: 25%
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.6

Project: Southside Boulevard
Description: 12' wide multi-use path added from Philips Highway to Baymeadows Road.
Capital cost: $991,684.90
Jobs created: 20 (10 in construction)
Income: $967,398
Output (sales): $2.67 million
Value added (GSP): $1.36 million
Local/State Tax: $78,348
Internal Return on Investment: 27%
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 4.2

Btw, I'm using the TransValU tool to generate the economic numbers: http://www.cfgis.org/FDOT-Resources/TransValU.aspx

Bridges

February 25, 2013, 08:31:53 AM


So let me get this straight.  The total number of applied for waivers, if all built, would be for $27.44 mil.  But the amount actually waived by completed jobs is $4.76 mil?

So the original waiver was to "get hammers moving" and "bring jobs", but in actuality a little less than 20% of the waived fees led to physical hammers moving and jobs.  Obviously, that is only so far, but it appears that the waiver isn't even a job starter as described. 
 

fsujax

February 25, 2013, 08:34:03 AM
I sent my email. The only one to respond was Clay Yarborough, Lori Boyer did acknowledge my email to me in person. Pathetic my councilman can't even respond to me.

urbanlibertarian

February 25, 2013, 08:57:25 AM
I sent my email. The only one to respond was Clay Yarborough, Lori Boyer did acknowledge my email to me in person. Pathetic my councilman can't even respond to me.

Just imagine if this was decided in Tally or DC.  What kind of response would your email to a state legislator or congressperson have gotten?

fsujax

February 25, 2013, 09:09:01 AM
probably nothing as well.

Bridges

February 25, 2013, 08:15:47 PM
I have written letters to each council member individually,  but I've also encouraged friends to write them.  The best way to get people, who otherwise would not write in, to write in is to make it as easy as possible for them.  So I sent this to a lot of people.

Step 1: Copy the following email addresses and paste them in an email:

Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, mayorbrown@coj.net

 
Step 2: Paste this in the subject line:

Vote NO on 2013-94

Step 3: Paste this in the body of the email:

Write something short for them to copy and paste. 


thelakelander

February 25, 2013, 08:31:52 PM
I've started sending out my emails as well.  It should be interesting to see how it all plays out.  I'm hoping that at the end of the day, the needs of the city overall will come out on top.

JeffreyS

February 25, 2013, 09:49:54 PM
I just sent another round of emails.

pwhitford

February 26, 2013, 03:04:19 PM
to:    Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, mayorbrown@coj.net
date:    Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM
subject:    Vote NO on 2013-94

I am a resident of District 5.  I just wanted to advise you of my opinion on the proposed Mobility Fee Moratorium. 

I am clearly, strongly and unequivocally opposed to any mobility fee moratorium.  There is no actual evidence in support of any argument that the moratorium has any effect on development here in Jacksonville  let alone a negative one   Meanwhile, the loss of revenue to the City of Jacksonville is inexcusable, especially in light of a) the difficult financial times we find ourselves in, and b) the actual effect of the moratorium   Specifically I refer to the fact that the moratorium benefits only a small class of (Well connected?  Wealthy enough to pay the most effective lobbyists?) citizens, and is only objected to by them because it serves to lessen, to a rather small degree, their ultimate financial return on an investment.  This is  a reckless practice that entices irrational development, without context or sustainability, the negative impacts of which resonate long after any alleged "benefit" from the "spurred" construction has evaporated.  In reality, the moratorium disproportionately and negatively effects the vast majority of "regular" citizens of Jacksonville who end up either paying more in taxes for the developer's folly or must suffer from lower standards of service and less desirable conditions because of the effects of such development and the diversion of their taxes to supplement a developer's irrational dreams of mindless expansion and sprawl.

We must not sacrifice our citizens genuine interests for invisible or non-existent short term "gains" nor for political expedience.  I know you are probably bombarded with various forms of influence wielded by the experienced and cagey agents and supporters of the objecting class, a small but powerful group of local developers. But I urge you to stand strong in opposition to these forces of stagnation and greed.  Vote against the mobility fee moratorium and vote for a better Jacksonville. 

Thank you

stephendare

February 26, 2013, 03:28:27 PM
to:    Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, mayorbrown@coj.net
date:    Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM
subject:    The Developer Proposed Moratorium on Paying For Sensible Infrastructure.

Hello,

I just thought I would send a note of alarm and hope your way before tonight's meeting.

As you probably guessed Im writing about this very self serving attempt on the part of several of the Developers to pass yet another 'moratorium' on the Mobility Fee.

After speaking to many of you after the last Moratorium, I realized that it might not be apparent that there is already an exemption to the Mobility Fee built right into the fee itself.

There are actually a number of them.  If you build downtown, for example.  There is no Mobility Fee.  If you build near established transportation corridors, you get a discount.  If you reuse an existing building, you get abatements.  If you infill you get more credits.

If you build in such a way that uses the infrastructure that we have already built, then the price comes down.

The Fee itself is only fully assessed if your real estate development is in an area that would have to be completely subsidized by the taxpayers in terms building and maintaining infrastructure and public order that low price or medium priced housing is simply not an option.

But no one forces the developer to build there. And no one keeps them from doing it.  It just takes away the financial incentive to build where the taxpayers will always have to foot the bill for their little project by making the financial stakes a little higher.(and therefore demanding higher quality construction in order to attract a market that can afford to it.)

EVEN SO, at the highest tabulation rate, it is still only half of what the same developers were being required to pay only 5 years ago.  THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING A HUGE DISCOUNT.

I hope that you will vote in the interest of the public instead of this handful of wealthy men, many of whom are liberal campaign donors.

I think that the economy needs you to do the right thing for the citizens who elected you.  We all need to work together as a whole instead of to pass off what amounts to cash favors for some wealthy donors.

And I really do think that this is a time where public consciousness of these issues is becoming a deciding factor in any future electability.

People want things to work. They don't want to be taxed so that one or two guys can make off with a barrel of money.  They want them to earn that through the excellence of their work and their product instead.

You will do yourselves a favor in the long run, both politically and simply because you might want your kids to stick around after college in the future City of Jacksonville that your votes are forming even now.

Please.  I know the letter is wordy, but please.  Consider all of our best interests.  Its your future too.  And if you do it right, maybe it will also be the future home of your grandkids.

Sincerely
Stephen Dare
MetroJacksonville.com

--
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

fsujax

February 26, 2013, 03:51:38 PM
Here is the text of my email.

Dear Council members,
 
I am asking that you do not vote to extend the moratorium on collecting the mobility fee. We can longer continue to subsidize suburban sprawl. We need to begin to encourage investment and redevelopment in the urban core and surronding neighborhoods by improving connectivity and mobility. We also can not afford to lose the ability to leverage FEDERAL FUNDING. The competition for project funding on the national level is becoming more and more stiff, the feds are looking to invest in communities that invest in themselves. This mobility fee is a sure way for Jacksonville to be able to match federal dollars with local dollars to help fund major transit or highway projects. If we do not have a sure proof way of setting aside local dollars to match federal dollars Jacksonville will lose out to other cities like Charlotte, Austin, Nashville etc. For the sake and future of the quality of life in this city please do not extend the moratorium.
 
Thank you for your time and consideration in this very important matter.

Cliona

February 26, 2013, 04:13:29 PM
to:    Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, mayorbrown@coj.net
date:    Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM
subject:    Vote NO on 2013-94

I am a resident of District 5.  I just wanted to advise you of my opinion on the proposed Mobility Fee Moratorium. 

I am clearly, strongly and unequivocally opposed to any mobility fee moratorium.  There is no actual evidence in support of any argument that the moratorium has any effect on development here in Jacksonville  let alone a negative one   Meanwhile, the loss of revenue to the City of Jacksonville is inexcusable, especially in light of a) the difficult financial times we find ourselves in, and b) the actual effect of the moratorium   Specifically I refer to the fact that the moratorium benefits only a small class of (Well connected?  Wealthy enough to pay the most effective lobbyists?) citizens, and is only objected to by them because it serves to lessen, to a rather small degree, their ultimate financial return on an investment.  This is  a reckless practice that entices irrational development, without context or sustainability, the negative impacts of which resonate long after any alleged "benefit" from the "spurred" construction has evaporated.  In reality, the moratorium disproportionately and negatively effects the vast majority of "regular" citizens of Jacksonville who end up either paying more in taxes for the developer's folly or must suffer from lower standards of service and less desirable conditions because of the effects of such development and the diversion of their taxes to supplement a developer's irrational dreams of mindless expansion and sprawl.

We must not sacrifice our citizens genuine interests for invisible or non-existent short term "gains" nor for political expedience.  I know you are probably bombarded with various forms of influence wielded by the experienced and cagey agents and supporters of the objecting class, a small but powerful group of local developers. But I urge you to stand strong in opposition to these forces of stagnation and greed.  Vote against the mobility fee moratorium and vote for a better Jacksonville. 

Thank you

Springfield Chicken

February 26, 2013, 04:47:55 PM
to the Mayor and City Council:

http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=1725

I’ve been in real estate for over 20 years.  In Collier County, where I worked up until 2006, we had the largest impact fees in the state.  Not only did the existence of those fees not deter growth, Collier County was one of the fastest growing counties in the state for decades.  So any argument that Mobility Fees will hamper growth is a myth or a story put out by developers who want to enhance their profits.  Developers don’t work on small profit margins.  So the fractional impact a Mobility Fee will have on their profits is minor and will not be the reason they choose to build or not.

In the meantime, Jacksonville has to work on its image and infrastructure if we are going to be a viable location for new business, expanded business, and desirability.  The fees are structured such that growth pays for growth.  There are incentives to build where infrastructure already exists.  The Jacksonville area sprawls over a large area but we have a lot of pockets of available land in areas that could be developed at a lower cost to the developer.

Take a look at the link above.  You can calculate in Collier County the amount of the impact fee for any kind of development down to a single family home, which by the way is currently around $18,000.  Their growth has not stopped but the quality of life they can offer with the infrastructure paid for with developer fees has made it one of the top places to live in the state of Florida.

Jacksonville has so much to offer that South Florida does not – the ocean, rivers, historic areas, etc.  Let’s make sure that our infrastructure adds to that desirability!

tufsu1

February 26, 2013, 05:08:46 PM
sent my letters today
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.