City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[Dashing Dan]

My understanding of HB 7207 is that if you drop transportation concurrency then something else has to take its place.  A moratorium might be acceptable because it holds out the promise that something else will take its place eventually.  But I expect that this premise could be challenged in court, if an interested party had the means and the inclination to do so.

[Dashing Dan]

Would this moratorium be a violation of FL statute?  Didn't the Mobility Plan replace a previous growth management plan which we are required to have?  If we suspend the fee aren't we suspending our entire plan?

nope...not in any way.

I disagree with tufsu1 on this point.  The moratorium could lead the city into a violation of the current FL statute. 

[tufsu1]

how dashing dan?

many local governments have impact fee mortatoriums...others have reduced the fees...and others have outright eliminated them...to my knowledge none of them have been found to be in violation of FL statutes on the issue.

again...the issue here is whether local governments approve development without mitigating its impacts in some way (and that is defined pretty broadly)....they surely can let the developer off the hook as long as they pick up the bill themselves.

[dougskiles]

But the mobility fee is not an impact fee.  Impact fees were not required but state law whereas the concurrency system was.  The law requiring the concurrency system was changed and that led the way to the mobility plan.  To my knowledge, that law hasn't been changed (even though the agency that pushed for it has been eliminated).  That may be why Mike Herzberg was in the meeting minutes as having said that Mike Weinstein was in the process of introducing state legislation that would make this legal.  So, apparently a moratorium may not be legal ... Yet.

[tufsu1]

concurrency workd the same way....all the state cared about is that SOMEONE mitigated the impacts of development...if a local government chose to reduce a develeoper's impacts (which was done often) that was their perogative....in the end, the onus shifted to the local government.

so perhaps the issue here is that Jax. doesn't want to take on the ultimate responsibility of mitigating development impacts.....of course very few local governments ever followed through with that committment anyway...which is partly whey we are where we are these days....local and state governments minimized required mitigation from development (for a multitude of reasons) and then backfilled.

[JeffreyS]

A thoughtful letter to the editor by Janet L. Stanko, chairwoman, Sierra Club Northeast Florida

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-10-09/story/letters-readers-paying-roads

PAYING FOR ROADS

No time for breaks

I am appalled at the City Council proposal (ordinance 2011-617) to delay the mobility fee which would assess developers for new road construction related to new development.

Until passage of the Mobility Fee, Jacksonville collected a fair share fee that has provided $15.9 million for roads.

Not assessing the fee on developers will place the burden on taxpayers.

The rationale for rollback of the fees is to stimulate development in Jacksonville.

Developers already get a great deal by only having to pay an impact fee for roads. Many local governments, including St. Johns, require impact fees that cover schools, roads, buildings, safety services, fire rescue, parks and waste management.

Their impact fees are much higher. It is only fair to require developers to at least pay for traffic concurrency. Don't foist more road costs on to taxpayers.

We taxpayers already pay gas taxes that go for roads, we are paying a half-cent in sales tax under the Better Jacksonville Plan.

Did you know - Jacksonville's residential vacancy rate is 11.38 percent?

Our home values have declined 10 percent in the last year and 31 percent since 2006.

We have vacant shopping centers and office buildings aplenty. Additional development will cause further property value decreases and more vacancy of existing structures.

A 2010 study by James T. Nicholas of the University of Florida found that development is unaffected by reductions in impact fees. Developers base development decisions on other factors.

Please tell your council member that new growth and development in Jacksonville must pay for itself.

Janet L. Stanko, chairwoman,

Sierra Club Northeast Florida

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-10-09/story/letters-readers-paying-roads#ixzz1aI1ulprC

[JeffreyS]

I wish she had mentioned the corrupting figures whose hands are all over this.

[Dashing Dan]

concurrency workd the same way....all the state cared about is that SOMEONE mitigated the impacts of development...if a local government chose to reduce a develeoper's impacts (which was done often) that was their perogative....in the end, the onus shifted to the local government.

so perhaps the issue here is that Jax. doesn't want to take on the ultimate responsibility of mitigating development impacts.....of course very few local governments ever followed through with that committment anyway...which is partly whey we are where we are these days....local and state governments minimized required mitigation development (for a multitude of reasons) and then backfilled.

There is a means test.   If a government can't afford to implement the plan, then the unaffordable parts of the plan don't count towards meeting the level of service requirement that is still a part of the legislation.

As Lakelander has noted, the mobility plan provides the same needed additional capacity at a far lower cost. 

[Ralph W]

One simple fix for the added costs of development billed to the taxpayer is to deny permits for any development that does not include, at builder cost, the entire infrastructure associated with creating that new development. Sprawl would come to a complete halt.

[thelakelander]

The problem with that solution is most city leaders still believe sprawl based growth is good.  They don't want sprawl to come to a halt, which is why ideas and projects like mobility fee moratoriums, Outer Beltways and SR 9Bs keep coming online.

[John P]

Jim Loves response:


 "Thanks for your comments. This one involves a tough decision, especially right now. With commercial, industrial, and residential building in a severe slump, I support this temporary moratorium on the Mobility Fee. The growth of the economy and job creation are intertwined, and by stimulating development and construction, we will increase jobs, payrolls, and ultimately the tax base (without raising tax rates).  Also - the increase in infrastructure use, which  the Mobility Fee addresses, has already been somewhat offset by the slight decrease in useage due to the poor economy.

   I do support the Mobility Plan which will be an important tool in developing adesirable multimodal transportation system and preventing unsustainable sprawl. The Mobility Fee is only one part of it.  I am only in support of a temporary 1 yearmoratorium on this fee.

   Once again,I really appreciate your comments and and your desire to make Jacksonville a great city! If you have any more thoughts or information that you would like to pass to us, Please don't hesitate to contact me or my assistant, Kevin Kuzel at (904) 630-1677.

Sincerely,

Jim Love
Jacksonville City Councilman
District 14
904-630-1390"

[Dashing Dan]

One simple fix for the added costs of development billed to the taxpayer is to deny permits for any development that does not include, at builder cost, the entire infrastructure associated with creating that new development. Sprawl would come to a complete halt.

This is a very accurate description of the principle behind concurrency management.  But the practice of concurrency management has eroded to the point where we don't even recognize the principle behind it.

[tufsu1]

If you don't want to pay money, build where there is already density.  There are zones where there is practically no fee at all

actually right now that isn't the case....the mobility fee ranges from about $9 per trip per mile in the urban core to $13 per trip per mile in the far flung edges of Duval County....the additional density credits you are referring to aren't in place yet.

[thelakelander]

One thing I find troubling is council's position that a moratorium will spur economic development and put people back to work.  Its spoken in these responses like its an absolute truth.  In reality, there's no statistical data to back that assumption (there's a lot to say that it won't result in their desired wish).  Instead, we're hoping that eliminating what could be 1% of total building costs will be enough to overcome banks not lending money and an overbuilt market.

[Dashing Dan]

Why do dumb ideas sound so truthful?