Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium

[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.

[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. 655.305â€"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 noteâ€" Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1, amended the Code by, in effect, repealing former Pt. 3, §§ 655.301â€"655.309, and adding a new Pt. 3, §§ 655.301â€"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"

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

That sounds about right Ennis.  The requests to extend the moratorium would continue regardless.  We have reached the point in Jacksonville politics that even the most short sighted legislation is given serious consideration by some and readily accepted by others because someone in power want's to impress or payback someone else.  We are again facing down this idea of entitlement that leads an industry, in this case builder/developers to believe that the entire city should support their views and plans, even when what they are insisting upon can be shown to not only not work but to have also opened doors to other bad practices.  The difference this time around is that those in opposition are informed, educated and active in response to a piece of legislation that should not be passed.

The information in the email exposes yet more flaws in the story being presented by those in support of this bill.  This discussion has already begun to percolate in media and in so doing into the consciousness of taxpayers and the response is already a "hell no" to extending the moratorium.  This is a bad bill presented under the guise of a jobs bill that has been "glitter bombed" by cronies and lobbyists to make it oh so sparkly and attractive to some of the members on this council.  Problem is, the glitter wears off real soon.

[thelakelander]

I'm digging into more data and adding numbers up.  Did you all know that 7-11, Waffle House, Dollar General & Family Dollar combined, adds up to 43% of the $4.77 million already given away in mobility fee waivers?  This number should go up because the recently announced Waffle House on Merrill Road applied for +$53,000 in waivers.  If I add Wendy's, McDonalds, and a few more gas stations to the list, I'm sure I'll hit 50%.

What's pretty crazy is that four 7-11 gas stations account for 36% or $1,727,680 of the waivers given away so far.  If this is about jobs as Daniel Davis suggests, can we at least start pinpointing what jobs would have come to town regardless of if we had a mobility fee, fair share, or nothing at all?  Since 7-11 announced before the first moratorium was implemented that they were planning to open 80 stores here by 2015, these are definitely low paying jobs that were coming anyway.

[Cheshire Cat]

Ennis, I was honestly not aware of the specific numbers and now that I see them I am actually shocked to see the amount of money that four entities have waltzed away with in fee waivers. It really irks me (and I am sure will greatly bother others) to know that exemptions were handed out to a company that had announced their intentions before the moratorium was in place.  This all going on during a period where this city is in financial straights.

It is also clear that this is not about jobs.  It's about wrapping up a package in a veneer of rhetoric that makes this legislation an easier sell to legislators.  It reminds me of the old fairy tale of the hustler who sold a king a set of invisible clothes claiming they were of the finest materials in the land but the garments did not exist.  However the king still decided to parade around the public square in these oh so fine robes.  The people of the kingdom, saw he was naked but pretended that he was in fact dressed in glory until a small boy finally exclaimed that "The king has no clothes". 

This bill and what it pretends to do is about as valid as those "imaginary" garments and the royalty being fooled just happen to sit on our city council.  I hope most of them will be as smart as the child in the fairy tale and realize that this bill is a facade to a promise that has not been made real in the past and will not become golden through another extension.

[thelakelander]

Give me a minute.  I'll upload the list of specific projects for everyone to see.

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen, do you happen to have an updated media email list?

[thelakelander]

[Cheshire Cat]

Bank drive thru lanes, an ATM, a doctors office, an addition to a doctors office, a warehouse addition to name a few items added to the high paying job creating entities of McDonalds and Wendy's.  Seriously?  Someones office and warehouse and another dollar store with a huge chunk of money going to 7/11 stores who announced before the moratorium?  Wow!

I am now interested to see how these zones match up to council districts and who the people behind the businesses are that were on the receiving end of these fee waivers.  I think that may shed a bit of light on things.