City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[dougskiles]

True - and have an influence with the people who do run for council.  It really isn't that hard to get to know these ladies and gentlemen.  All of the ones I reached out to this past week have been very respectful and interested to know about my concerns.

[urbaknight]

If some of you guys run, I'd vote for all of you. Would some of you really run? If you thought of it already, please consider it further!

Everywhere I go I try to spread the word about MJ. But many don't seem to care about the issues that are important to us. I truly think that most of it is out of laziness or fear of being branded a radical. Others feel as though they don't have a voice. and so they won't even try.

[Clem1029]

A few (possibly contrarian) points...

First, I somewhat disagree with the characterization that waiving the fee amounts to a tax hike. Rather, it's a tax reallocation. The mobility fee itself is a tax - a focused, localized tax, but a tax nonetheless. Part of the point is to make it more expensive to do business in some areas rather than others (or, at least, level out the comparative costs across the city). So instead of a large tax increase on a tightly focused area, you've got a much smaller one spread out over the entire region. There's at least a logical argument why the latter is preferable in a recession. It may not be convincing, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But referring to this decision as a massive tax increase is a little misleading - the massive tax increase has already occurred, and the moratorium offers a temporary reallocation of where that tax money is coming from.

That said, what's rather pernicious about this decision is the timing. It strikes me that the developers are doubling-down on their bet here, and hoping for an economic turnaround in the next 12 months (which as scary as it is to say, is the worst case scenario for proponents of the Mobility Plan). Any sort of economic turnaround (even a small one) would both increase jobs and general tax revenue. As long as that happens in the next 12 months, you can see the easy argument being made that "hey, look, we increased jobs and revenue without the mobility fee. Let's talk about a permanent moratorium." Opponents of that argument could be pretty easily cast as anti-business since they'll have to hope there's no turnaround. The developer lobby wins across the board - it's a pretty stunning move from a political position.

Finally, the thing that bugs me the most about this decision is that we've seen "incentives" like this over and over the past few years, and they almost universally fail. The two most obvious examples are "Cash for Clunkers" and the First Time Homebuyer credit. In all three scenarios, the theory is the same - offer an incentive to jump start things, and the benefit will multiply out helping the economy. In reality, all Cash for Clunkers and the homebuyer credit did was pull future purchases forward - look at car and home sales after both incentives ended (hint: they were terrible). At best, that's what will happen here - a few projects planned a little longer down the line will be pulled forward by the incentive, leaving a glut of supply without the requisite demand for additional development, thus destroying the following year(s). This is exactly the wrong kind of incentive to spur business.

[dougskiles]

Excellent take on the issue, Clem1029.  One critical part of any analysis we do will be to benchmark state and national averages of development activity.  That way, we can determine if what happened locally is due to the moratorium or a larger recovery.  It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar spike of pulling the future forward as you described with the cash for clunkers incentive, and then a drop-off at the end of the period.  And it won't be just pulling from the future, there will be a delay of projects now waiting until after the moratorium passes.

[thelakelander]

That said, what's rather pernicious about this decision is the timing. It strikes me that the developers are doubling-down on their bet here, and hoping for an economic turnaround in the next 12 months (which as scary as it is to say, is the worst case scenario for proponents of the Mobility Plan). Any sort of economic turnaround (even a small one) would both increase jobs and general tax revenue. As long as that happens in the next 12 months, you can see the easy argument being made that "hey, look, we increased jobs and revenue without the mobility fee. Let's talk about a permanent moratorium." Opponents of that argument could be pretty easily cast as anti-business since they'll have to hope there's no turnaround. The developer lobby wins across the board - it's a pretty stunning move from a political position.

It's not shocking to me.  The economic conditions are irrelevant.  You can argue it from two angles no matter what happens to the economy.  If the economy improves, one could claim it was because of the moratorium, thus the moratorium should continue.  If things still suck, you can argue to extend it as well.  So from this position, they just needed to get their foot in the door, which has now happened.  The one true way to fact check this is to not only log local data but tying the results to economic conditions of the nation, state and region as well.  If Jax's economic growth over the next year is a postive outlier compared to the nation/state/region, etc. then that bolsters the argument that concurrency limits development.  If Jax is consistent, then there's an argument that they don't.  Nevertheless, no of this answers the bull in the china shop, which is if low density sprawl pays for itself.  If it doesn't (which it hasn't in the past), someone has to eventually make up the difference.  If we're putting out private sector projects that don't pay for themselves 100% indirectly, then the taxpayer is getting screwed.

[SunKing]

Yes, yes, yes all great points.  But after all is said and done, how is the Mobility Plan any different from the Fair Share Plan?  Philosophically I understand, but we are talking reality.

To a developer it is purely economic and from what I can tell, the Mobility Plan impacts a non-concurrent development less than the Fair Share. 

What I dont understand and maybe someone can shed some light, does the Mobility Plan require the fees paid to go toward improving the impacted roads or does it go into a general transportation fund to be used as the JTA sees fit?  It seems that if it is the former it defeats the purpose and if it is the latter, all the worse.  But I admit that I dont know the answer there either way.

[thelakelander]

Yes, yes, yes all great points.  But after all is said and done, how is the Mobility Plan any different from the Fair Share Plan?  Philosophically I understand, but we are talking reality.

The mobility plan ties transportation and land use policies together in a manner that integrates with the City's adopted neighborhood vision plans.  Fair Share doesn't.  The mobility fee is also designed to be spread development costs equally.  Fair Share didn't.

To a developer it is purely economic and from what I can tell, the Mobility Plan impacts a non-concurrent development less than the Fair Share.

To a developer, development is all about revenue generation.  Any way to put more money in your pockets at the expense of others is a net plus.

What I dont understand and maybe someone can shed some light, does the Mobility Plan require the fees paid to go toward improving the impacted roads or does it go into a general transportation fund to be used as the JTA sees fit?

The best thing about the mobility fee is that the money generated does not go to JTA (unless the city allows it).  Those funds generated would go to a variety of projects that promote mobility choice and enhance Jax's quality-of-life while also supporting the development of a more sustainable and human scaled community.  Those include auto, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.  This is also something that Fair Share did not do.

[thelakelander]

Littlepage: Let’s hope the Jacksonville development fee holiday works

Last week, the City Council put in place a one-year moratorium on the fees the city charges developers to pay for transportation improvements.

The reason was obvious. In this down economy, creating jobs is critical, and the hope is waiving the fees, which developers say make some projects financially unworkable, will get construction rolling again.
One of the area’s bigger developers, Toney Sleiman, has been pushing for a moratorium for more than a year, saying he had a number of projects waiting in the wings.
I talked to him Friday to see if that was still the case.
“Absolutely,” Sleiman said. “I’m going to start them.”
Projects he has in mind include apartment complexes, big box stores, a LA Fitness Club, a convenience store chain and a movie theater.
“It’s going to create jobs,” Sleiman said. “We need jobs.”
I hope Sleiman is right.
Construction jobs are needed, and each project will require permanent employees.
The proof will be what happens over the next several months.
But paying for transportation improvements can’t be ignored forever. The city’s new mobility fee plan is an improvement over the previous fair share system, which didn’t work.
We will have to get back to the mobility plan as the economy improves.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400601/ron-littlepage/2011-10-15/let-s-hope-jacksonville-development-fee-holiday-works

[thelakelander]

Ron don't be so gullible.  Depending on where and how they are built, some of those projects would have never paid a mobility fee in the first place.  Some others cost so much that the little fee they would have had for their negative impacts to public infrastructure has no real impact on the project being feasible or not.  All we're doing is adding to the developer's take home profit for projects that would have been developed anyway.  Let's make sure we track these projects over the next year to compare with peer communities that still have impact fees (St. Johns County being one of them).

[JeffreyS]

+1

[dougskiles]

The companion bill 2011-629 to the mobility fee moratorium is up for vote next Tuesday at full council.  It is a text amendment to the comp plan that makes the moratorium legal.

Is there a chance in the next 5 days to convince half the city council to reverse their position on the issue?  This will be the same night as the Monroe Street closure.

I understand this is done "in order to encourage economic growth".  It would be nice to see an assessment of long term cost of these policies in the ordinance as well.  Similar to several years ago when the state ballot initiatives were required to include the cost associated with implementation.

ORDINANCE 2011-629
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING PROPOSED 2011G SERIES TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE RELATING TO THE WAIVER OF MOBILITY FEES, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Department has initiated certain revisions and modifications to the text in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code to facilitate the appropriate and timely implementation of the plan, and has provided the necessary supporting data and analysis to support and justify the amendments determined to be required and accordingly has proposed certain revisions and modifications which are more particularly set forth in Revised Exhibit 1, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Jacksonville Planning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency, held a public hearing on this proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, with due public notice having been provided, and reviewed and considered all comments received during the public hearing, and made a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee held a public hearing on this proposed amendment pursuant to Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code, having considered all written and oral comments received during the public hearing, has made its recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed amendment with public notice having been provided, pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code, and having considered all written and oral comments received during the public hearing, the recommendations of the Planning and Development Department, the Planning Commission and the LUZ Committee, desires to transmit this proposed amendment through the State’s Expedited State Review Process for amendment review to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (“DEO”), as the State Land Planning Agency, the Northeast Florida Regional Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the  Department of State’s Bureau of Historic Preservation, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; now, therefore
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1.  Approval of Amendment for Transmittal Purposes.  The Council hereby approves the proposed 2011G Series’ text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Revised Exhibit 1, attached hereto, for transmittal to Florida’s various required State Agencies for review.
Section 2.  Effective Date.  This ordinance shall become effective upon the signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor's signature.

Form Approved:

     /s/  Dylan T. Reingold_______
Office of General Counsel
Legislation Prepared by: Dylan T. Reingold

Bill Type and Number:  Ordinance 2011-629

Introducer/Sponsor:  Land Use and Zoning Committee

Date of Introduction:  September 27, 2011

Committee(s) of Reference:  LUZ

Date of Analysis:  September 29, 2011

Type of Action:  Text Amendment Transmittal Approval

Bill Summary:  This bill approves a proposed 2011G Series text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for transmittal to various required state agencies for review.

   NOTE:  The exhibit which sets forth the proposed text amendment appears to contain a scrivener’s error    in the second line of the new language (finite periods “of” time vs. finite periods “or” time).

Background Information:  The proposed amendment adds a new Policy 1.6.9 whereby the City, through enactment of an ordinance, may establish finite periods of time in which the payment of the mobility fee will be waived for all development within the City in order to encourage economic growth.

Policy Impact Area:  Planning and Development; Comprehensive Plan; Mobility Fees; Economic Development; Waivers

Fiscal Impact:  Undetermined

Analyst:  Campbell

[thelakelander]

Is there a chance in the next 5 days to convince half the city council to reverse their position on the issue?

I hate to be a negative Nancy but.......no.

[dougskiles]

If one council member changed their vote, it would be a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure what scares me more - that we will have a one year moratorium, or that we are opening the door in our comp plan for all kinds of moratoriums on fees in the future.

[Jumpinjack]

Okay, once again the taxpayers get a chance to pay for all the infrastructure associated with a project.

When the roads get too crowded or the intersections jammed up, when bicyclists and pedestrians have no safe way to move through an area, we, we the people get to pay and pay. There will be no moratorium for us.  Thanks city council. A finger salute to the builders' association who really run this burg.

[tufsu1]

not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?