Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium

[thelakelander]

I've been away from the computer for most of the day.  I just wanted to share an email (I have a ton of emails to still go through) that was sent to me this morning on this issue.  I'm glad people are doing their homework!

Okay, here is what I know today that I didn't know yesterday.
 
The Property Appraiser's Office provided me a summary of an inquiry they were requested to generate last week by someone else. It is the number of vacant residential parcels in all of Duval County:
 
·         Lots 2 to 20 acres (typically RR and AGR)..............1,699

·         Lots between 1 and 2 acres.......................................1,433

·         Lots 1 acre or less (typically subdivision lots)...........17,572

Total, inventory of entitled residential lots            20,714

 The annual absorption of lots, (ie: issued building permits for new construction) between 2002 and 2006 was 6,659. After the bubble burst, from 2007 through 2012, the annual absorption of vacant lots was 2,090. For the past four years the annual absorption of that inventory was 1408.

Given above statistical facts from the City of Jacksonville's own records, and the assumption that single-family homeowner finance realities will not significantly change for some time to come,  it is a safe bet to state that we have enough entitled inventory of single family residential lots in Duval County to handle the anticipated demand for new construction for the next ten years and possibly longer. If the market recovered to the levels of new building activity of, say, 2004, then we would have to adjust to the possibility that we would face an inventory shortage in three years. A very long-shot bet.

 These numbers do not reflect any adjustment for the rising number of empty nesters moving to multi-family living, or single family tear-down and build-backs.

I assume you knew all this already, but I had to run the exercise myself to be convinced that this moratorium really just benefits one narrow group of land development players who are looking to hedge their bets on cheap land and a (continued) free ride on roads.

[Cheshire Cat]

Bingo!   Facts, facts and more facts in the face of noise!  This is the exact type of information that council and the citizens need to be made aware of.   I would suspect their are similar numbers for retail as well.

[fsujax]

I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?

[Cheshire Cat]

FSU, it's an old tactic used oh so many times to discredit the views and voices of others.  It's one of those "listen to me, cause I am the cool in the know guy as opposed to the rabble who don't know you and the facts like I do "Wink, wink!"  The comment did one thing in my view which was to make Daniel look petty and self absorbed.

[dougskiles]

Jeffrey do you have a list of those on council who originally passed the Mobility Fee?  Who specifically voted yes and who opposed.  This can be very useful information.  If they passed it to begin with, what has the moratorium on it done to change their original views?  What are the facts that show this dang thing worked?  Take the discussion directly to those people.

It passed unanimously on September 13, 2011:

62.    2011-536   AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 655 (CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM), PART 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), PART 2 (JACKSONVILLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGULATIONS) AND PART 3 (FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES); AND STRIKING PART 5 (INDUSTRIAL USES) AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PART 5 (MOBILITY FEE), ORDINANCE CODE, TO CREATE A MOBILITY SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY AND FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT CONTRACT SYSTEM, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONCURRENCY STATUTE, SECTION 163.3180, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.; 8/9/2011 -  Introduced: TEU,LUZ; 8/23/2011 - PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; TEU, LUZ

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY & UTILITIES: September 06, 2011

 

Recommend to AMEND and  APPROVE.

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS - Anderson, Daniels, Gaffney, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 6 )

 

 

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & ZONING: September 07, 2011

 

Recommend to AMEND and  APPROVE.

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS - Boyer, Brown, Carter, Holt, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 7 )

 

REPORT OF COUNCIL: September 13, 2011

 

The Floor Leader moved the AMENDMENT(S). 

 

The motion CARRIED. 

 

Roll Call was ordered.

 

The Chair declared the File APPROVED as  AMENDED.

 

AYES - Anderson, Bishop, Boyer, Brown, Carter, Clark, Crescimbeni, Daniels, Gaffney, Gulliford, Holt, Jones, Joost, Lee, Love, Lumb, Redman, Schellenberg, Yarborough, ( 19 )

[strider]

If I understand this right, the first moratorium was passed within a month or two of the Mobility passing?  So the question that comes to my mind is:  was there a reason the fair share laws could not be just suspended (a moratorium on them) and it was easier to pass the new one and then pass the moratorium?  I guess I was assuming that the same people who voted no on the mobility fee to start with just got a few more people on their side to get the moratorium passed.  It is a bit suspicious that it passed unanimously and then got put on the shelf.

[stephendare]

By the way, Arash, (and everyone) thank you so much for the excellent job live blogging last night.  You guys did such a service keeping a record of the meeting for everyone who couldnt attend.

This is my first time being on the other side of the liveblog experience locally, and it was really fantastic!

[JeffreyS]

By the way, Arash, (and everyone) thank you so much for the excellent job live blogging last night.  You guys did such a service keeping a record of the meeting for everyone who couldnt attend.

This is my first time being on the other side of the liveblog experience locally, and it was really fantastic!

Agree 100%

I bumped into Ennis for a second today and mentioned to him that I was able to keep up during after my son's baseball last night on the live blog.

[Bridges]

If I understand this right, the first moratorium was passed within a month or two of the Mobility passing?  So the question that comes to my mind is:  was there a reason the fair share laws could not be just suspended (a moratorium on them) and it was easier to pass the new one and then pass the moratorium?  I guess I was assuming that the same people who voted no on the mobility fee to start with just got a few more people on their side to get the moratorium passed.  It is a bit suspicious that it passed unanimously and then got put on the shelf.

I've been wondering this myself.  Considering we saw the state studies on mobility fees and impact fees about 4-5 years ago.  Now we're seeing the move to halt these fees at ever increasing time frames with dangerous implications for our future.

I don't think that the plan all along was to move to the mobility fee then strip it.  Rather developers seemed to love the predictability and application of the mobility fee. It was, after all, way better than the previous fees.

This is from the state legislature in 2009 http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/wp-content/themes/1000freinds/formpop/download.php?file=pops/joint-report/MobilityFee.pdf

.  The State of Florida has operated under transportation concurrency for nearly a quarter century. A significant benefit has been coordinating the timing of development with the availability of transportation facilities and services. The concurrency system also provides guidance for land use decisions and infrastructure priorities and has allowed private developer contributions to support needed transportation improvements. During this time however, new development and background growth in traffic has consumed and often exceeded available capacity in the system. Public and private investment in transportation has not been sufficient to achieve desired level of service standards.

As our urban centers have become more congested, the cost of mitigating for transportation impacts has escalated. Meanwhile, suburban and rural areas with available roadway capacity have little or no mitigation costs for transportation impacts. When combined with the lower costs of land, concurrency is often seen as a factor in promoting suburban sprawl and discouraging infill, redevelopment and transit supportive communities.   

[Cheshire Cat]

It appears the moratorium bill was 2012-023, however the complete document is not in the online files.  It is listed as omitted.  I wonder if anyone can access the legislation as well as find out who voted it up or down.  Looks to me like the moratorium legislation in 2011 was then followed immediately in 2012 with the moratorium.

Below is the entire bill from2011-536 which Doug was kind enough to give us the number for.

Sec. 655.301. - Existing valid fair share contracts.permanent link to this piece of content

The Council declares as a matter of public policy that the implementation of F.S. § 163.3180(11), is a public necessity and is important in the protection and enhancement of the quality of life in the City of Jacksonville and State of Florida.

(a)

The adoption of the 2030 Mobility Plan and Part 5 of this Chapter does not abridge or modify any rights or any duties or obligations set forth in any validly existing fair share assessment contract or any other contract relating to a valid fair share contract. The development authorized by a fair share assessment contract may be completed in reliance upon and pursuant to the terms of the fair share assessment contract unless the developer or landowner has requested to terminate the fair share assessment contract or a portion of the rights set forth in the fair share contract as set forth in subsection (b) below. Any proposed change to a development which is governed by a fair share assessment contract and 1) increases the trip generation of the development, or 2) changes the trip distribution of the development shall be governed by the requirements of Part 5 of this Chapter.

(b)

If requested by the developer or landowner, the fair share assessment contract or a portion of the rights set forth in a fair share contract shall be administratively terminated by the Director of the Planning and Development Department upon a showing that all required payments or other mitigation related to the amount of development that has commenced on or before the date of termination has been paid or mitigation completed. In order to terminate a fair share contract or a portion of the rights under a fair share contract under this Section, the developer or landowner shall submit a notarized affidavit to the Director of Planning and Development acknowledging that no outstanding rights to be terminated have been transferred to other parties. Additionally, the developer or landowner shall at least 30 days prior to termination provide written notice of all owners of real property within that portion of the fair share contract proposed to be terminated. Evidence of the written notice shall also be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development. If the fair share contract is terminated or portion of rights in any fair share contract are terminated, any future development subject to the termination would be governed by Part 5 of this Chapter.

(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)

Sec. 655.302. - Extension of fair share assessment contracts.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

In the event a developer or landowner wishes to extend the duration of a fair share assessment contract, the developer or landowner shall submit such request on the form available with the CMMSO and pay an application fee of $500.

(b)

For those fair share assessment contracts that were approved through the administrative approval process and for which such extension does not cause the contract to be longer than a total of five years, such extension request may be approved by the Director per the criteria set forth in subsection (d) below. If a request for an extension is approved, the CMMSO shall then forward the fair share assessment contract extension to the Office of General Counsel and the Council Auditor's Office for review and approval, with notice thereof to the district council member and members of the committee of reference, prior to execution by the Director. Such determination may be appealed pursuant to Section 655.114, Ordinance Code.

(c)

For those fair share assessment contracts that were approved by the Council or for those contracts that were approved through the administrative approval process, but would be longer than five years total, such extension request may be approved by the Council per the criteria set forth in subsection (d) below.

(d)

Fair share assessment contracts may be extended based upon the following criteria:

(1)

The extent to which the developer or landowner has complied with the performance schedule set forth in the fair share assessment contract.

(2)

Demonstration of the developer or landowner's good faith efforts at compliance with the performance schedule set forth in the fair share assessment contract.

(3)

Delays in obtaining permits necessary for compliance with the performance schedule, including permits required from regional, state, or federal agencies. Such delays may serve as a basis for an extension when the delays are not attributable to inaction by the developer or landowner, such as unreasonable delays in responding to agency requests for additional information.

(4)

The quantity or type of proposed development and duration (term) of the fair share assessment contract, as originally approved, for example, large scale or mixed use developments.

(5)

Unusual and widely reported nationwide or statewide conditions in the economy or in the market demand for the uses proposed.

(6)

The extent to which a developer or landowner has invested in construction services or infrastructure for development not yet commenced.

(e)

No fair share assessment contract may be extended for more than five years in a single application or for a total duration of longer than twenty total years.

(f)

In the event a fair share assessment contract is extended, the developer or landowner, will be required to pay five percent of the total assessment including the annual inflation adjustment to the CMMSO on each anniversary date of the extension of the fair share assessment contract. Such annual fee will only be applied to a future fair share assessment payment made by the developer or landowner. The developer or landowner is not required to pay the annual fee in the event the contract includes a developer proposed improvement that has been delayed by the City or other governmental agency, unless such delay is attributable to the developer's actions or inactions.

(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)

Sec. 655.303. - Transportation facilities and/or transportation projects constructed by a landowner or developer.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

Applicability. A landowner or developer may construct, or cause to be constructed, transportation facilities and/or transportation projects to offset the transportation impacts of development set forth in a fair share contract.

(b)

Credit against Fair Share Assessment. A landowner or developer who constructs, or causes to be constructed, transportation facilities and/or transportation projects authorized in subsection (a) shall receive credit against fair share assessments as provided in this section for the design, permitting, and construction of roadway and/or intersection improvements meeting the written criteria that has been adopted by the Planning and Development Department and approved by the Office of the City Council Auditor. Such credit may be transferred to other landowners or developers and applied to any fair share assessments for proposed developments which have transportation impacts that would be offset by the constructed facilities and/or projects.

(c)

Calculation of Credit. The credit authorized in subsection (b) shall be calculated using the cost estimates in the most recent issue of the Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Policy Planning, Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation publication entitled Transportation Costs. The cost estimates for facilities and/or projects not identified in Transportation Costs shall be determined by the Public Works Department, prior to the approval of any credit.

(d)

Construction costs, security, and review.

(i)

If the actual cost of construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is less than the estimated cost of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects, the landowner or developer shall receive credit for such difference.

(ii)

If the cost estimate of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is less than the total fair share assessment for which the developer or landowner is responsible, the developer or landowner shall be responsible for paying the difference between the cost estimate of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects and the total fair share assessment to the City.

(iii)

The costs shall be deemed incurred and credit shall be provided pursuant to this section when a contract for the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is awarded, and a payment and performance bond, or other form of security approved by the Office of General Counsel, is provided to the City to guarantee the funding of the facilities and/or projects. The City shall be a co-obligee under the bond or other form of security.

(iv)

All transportation facilities and/or transportation projects shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to, and after construction to verify completion and fulfillment of any fair share assessment requirements.

(e)

Credit against Mobility Fee. Unless the fair share contract or fair share contract amendment contains a contrary provision, the credit authorized in this Section may be applied toward the payment of a mobility fee owed to the City for development within the same Mobility Zone as the transportation facilities and/or transportation project. Unless the fair share contract or fair share contract amendment contains a contrary provision, credit may also be transferred to other landowners or developers for payment of a mobility fee owed to the City for development within the same Mobility Zone as the transportation facilities and/or transportation project.

(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)

Sec. 655.304. - Deposit of fair share assessments; appropriation of funds.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

Funds received pursuant to fair share assessment contracts shall be deposited into the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvements Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.530, the Fair Share Specific Projects Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.535, or other Special Revenue Funds or accounts. The funds deposited into the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvement Special Revenue Fund shall be assigned to the appropriate account for the affected sector. When the proposed development lies in or affects more than one sector, the Director and the Director of Public Works shall, in their sole discretion, determine whether to deposit the funds in the account of one sector or to allocate the funds between or among the accounts for the other affected sectors. The funds deposited into the Fair Share Specific Projects Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.535, or other Special Revenue Funds created by the City, shall be assigned as described therein.

(b)

Appropriated expenditures from the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvement Special Revenue Fund, from any other Special Revenue Funds, or from any other accounts shall be made when there are sufficient funds which, either alone or in conjunction with other funding sources, equal the amount necessary to commence engineering, acquisition of necessary right-of-way or easements or construction of the specific transportation project(s) determined by the Director and the Director of Public Works to be adequate to serve the proposed developments. The Director shall cause the necessary amendments to the CIP and funding appropriation to be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval.

(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)

Secs. 655.305—655.308. - Reserved.permanent link to this piece of content

Sec. 655.309. - Existing CRC and CCAS not subject to a fair share contract.permanent link to this piece of content

Any existing CRC or CCAS that is not the subject of 1) an existing and valid fair share assessment contract, or 2) a pending paid application for a fair share contract as of the effective date of Ordinance 2011-536-E, cannot be converted into a fair share contract in order to reserve traffic circulation and mass transit capacity.

(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)

FOOTNOTE(S):

--- (2) ---

Editor's note— Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1, amended the Code by, in effect, repealing former Pt. 3, §§ 655.301—655.309, and adding a new Pt. 3, §§ 655.301—655.304 and 655.309. Former Pt. 3 pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from Ord. 98-576-E; Ord. 2003-1127-E; Ord. 2004-587-E; Ord. 2004-588-E; Ord. 2005-952-E; Ord. 2006-422-E; Ord. 2006-679-E; Ord. 2007-839-E; Ord. 2008-343-E; Ord. 2008-680-E; and Ord. 2010-695-E. (Back)

[thelakelander]

From my recollection, the back door lobbying for the first moratorium had already started before the mobility plan/fee was officially adopted. IMO, it was all coordinated to play out the way it did.  At the time, I knew, no matter the results, once the precedence was set, these guys would keep coming back.  If we had an uptick in construction, they would ask for an extension to keep it flowing.  If there was no spurt, they'd do what they're doing now and what Dan Davis tried to sell last night.......we see the light at the end of the tunnel. we need a little help in getting us there.  Btw, the statistics keep following into my email account.  Here's the latest:

Council Members suffer from a short look-back because of term limits and oftentimes, selective memory. Recall that starting in late 2008, when housing starts dropped by half, then half again in 2009, there was a "run" on converting residential lands to industrial use. Big land owners who had speculated a few years prior that the housing boom would last forever, had converted tree farms and family lands to residential projects. After the housing bust, they came back to the trough, from 2008 through 2010, and took 12,000 or so residential lots out of the inventory.
 
Council approved the conversion of about 4000 acres of residential zoning to industrial/mixed use in a period of three years...at the bottom of the economic bust. All these rezoning applications stated the same objective: "job creation related to the expanding Port of Jacksonville". Most of those industrial conversions were more than 20 miles from the Port and had no waterfront, rail, or highway access. Instead of multi-modal facilities, these were to be non-modal projects. "Job creators", according to the zoning agents. And, by the way, JAXPORT wasn't really growing at that point, because they were already out of deep waterfront real estate.
 
Had it not been for the permissive zoning attitude of that City Council era, there would be 30,000 residential lots sitting in the available inventory. As it stands today, we have, easily, double the acreage of industrial land in Duval County as the market could hope to absorb in the next decade, in addition to the ten years of capacity we have in residential. It may sound noisy, but the fact is we could shut down the zoning application intake at Planning and Development and not see one blip on the economic development monitor. In my opinion, we could work off the existing inventory of entitled lands until the 2030 Comp Plan is built-out.
 
Therein lies the real objective of this moratorium. A Monopoly game, played in real time with real land and real (public) money but with no value-added to the public side of the ledger.

[Mtn_Biker]

Thanks to all of you who are helping to educate us cyclists and transportation advocates on this complicated issue. I'm not a planner or an economist, just a geologist who rides a bike to work.  I've been to this country's top bike cities so I have a good understanding of just how bad and dangerous Jacksonville is.

[Bridges]

Wow.  That quote from Lake's email is absolutely fascinating.  Perfectly laid out.  The battle never stops for these people, and why should it? We've shown time and time again that we will give in to them at the expense of current and future generations. 

[tufsu1]

I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?

maybe the rumors of Daniel Davis running for Mayor are also only "noise"

[stephendare]

I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?

maybe the rumors of Daniel Davis running for Mayor are also only "noise"

They have been getting fainter for the past couple of months, TUFSU.  There is a lot of private doubt about a successful Brown Challenge from Davis.