What lost mobility fee funds could have paid for

[fsquid]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!