Council and developers want to change the mobility plan again?

[thelakelander]

From my understanding, it has moved on to council.  I'll try and learn more about it today but council could probably vote on it as early as Tuesday night. 

[tufsu1]

^ I think it might be introduced at Council on Tuesday night...basically second reading...with time for public comment...but not sure a vote would happen next week

[Bridges]

On the Agenda tonight for 3rd Readings and it looks like it should have no problem passing. 

2013-761
ORD-MC Amend Chapt 655 (Concurrency & Mobility Mgmt System), Part 5 (Mobility Fee), Secs 655.507 (Transp Improvemt Projs Constructed by a Landowner or Developer) & 655.508 (Mobility Fee Contract), to allow a Landowner or Developer to Construct & Dedicate an entire Transp Improvemt Proj not Identified in the 2030 Mobility Plan as a Prioritized Transp Improvemt that will improve Existing Mobility Efficiencies for the Affected Mobility Zone(s). (Gabriel) (Introduced by CM Bishop)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 12/10/13
1. 11/26/2013 CO  Introduced: TEU,LUZ
   12/2/2013 TEU Read 2nd & Rerefer
   12/3/2013 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 12/10/2013 CO PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; TEU,LUZ
   1/21/2014 TEU Sub/Rerefer 4-0
   1/22/2014 LUZ Sub/Rerefer 7-0

Also, this is on the minutes too.  Introduced tonight.  Not sure what the significance of this is.

2014-57
ORD Apv Proposed 2014B Series Text Amend to the Transp Element & the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comp Plan to allow a Landowner or Developer to Receive a Mobility Fee Credit for the Constrn & Dedication of a Transp Improvemt Proj that is not Identified in the 2030 Mobility Plan if it Maintains or Improves the Adopted City-Wide & Mobility Zone Minimum Mobility Score; Waive Sec 650.404, Ord Code, Requiremt of Conducting Planning & Dev Dept Informational Workshop prior to Dept Written Report & Recommendation. (Gabriel) (Introduced by CM Bishop)

LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO  Introduced: R, LUZ,

[L.P. Hovercraft]

So is there (or should there be) any opposition to this new mobility plan change or is it a fait accompli that it will pass?

[Bridges]

So is there (or should there be) any opposition to this new mobility plan change or is it a fait accompli that it will pass?

Looks like it should receive little to no push back.  It's disheartening.  And it looks actually worse than I thought.

Paul Harden explained his proposed substitute to the original bill, how the substitute would permit a developer to obtain mobility fee credits for building a road that is not on the City's CIP list, and how a developer could sell excess mobility fee credits from a project to another developer for use in the same mobility fee zone. Council Member Bishop agreed with the premise of the substitute and believes it will help to kick-start development activity in the city. Council Member Redman inquired about the effect of the substitute on the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Mr. Harden explained that the substitute will encourage private developers to build new roads themselves which must meet City standards for bike and pedestrian amenities, so more will likely be built that way than through the City accumulating developer contributions in a bike/pedestrian fund. Steven Tocknell representing the First Coast Chapter of the Florida Bicycle Association expressed concern about diversion of mobility fees away from the bike/ pedestrian fund.

From Transportation and Energy committee:

The proposed substitute allows a landowner to donate land for and/or construct a mobility improvement, even if that mobility improvement is not listed in the Mobility Plan, so long as the mobility improvement maintains or improves adopted minimum city-wide and applicable mobility zone mobility scores. It also allows the landowner to receive credit equal to the cost of designing, permitting and constructing the mobility improvement and the value of the land donated for the mobility improvement.


There was a lengthy discussion on this item.  Assistant General Counsel Jason Gabriel explained why a text amendment (to the Comprehensive Plan) was required.  Council  Member Matt Schellenberg asked Attorney Paul Harden if Mr. Harden had any problem with deferring this item.  Mr. Harden indicated that he had no problem with deferring the matter for one cycle but understood that some of the parties, Mike Herzberg, were anxious to move the matter along.

Oh, well, I guess if Sleiman wants to move along with it, we should just move along with it. 
The needs of the few.

[Jumpinjack]

I feel that this is flying so quickly through the committees and so low on the radar that the organized opposition has been unable to respond. Looking back on the bill's history, it seems to have been generated during the holidays to boost it along the path to approval. It is important to have people show up and protest in person at the meetings.

2014-57 seems to say that you can get credit for constructing a mobility project no matter where it is which can be used to boost your project. Probably if you have several thousand acres of timberland near the St. Johns-Duval Co. line and plan to sell it off for small developments you need mobility credits. Then paving a sidewalk on Beaver Street will give you some mobility credit toward your little golf course community.  It seems to be a perversion of the entire idea behind the mobility plan. The city is still on the hook to provide city services to sprawl development at the limits of the county.

[Tacachale]

The roll out on this has been pretty weak. They were clearly counting on pushing it through before the mobility advocates saw it coming. That said I don't think it's such a bad idea in principal. The city would have been responsible for the infrastructure before, and then collected a fee to mitigate it; under this plan it basically just lets developers devote some of their fee to infrastructure they'll be using. So long as the city doesn't just write them a bunch of exemptions for bike/ped I don't think that will suffer all that much. What will probably suffer will be transit and long-range planning, as it doesn't have the advocacy base and developers are more likely to want projects they'll see the immediate benefit from.

[Bridges]

The city would have been responsible for the infrastructure before, and then collected a fee to mitigate it; under this plan it basically just lets developers devote some of their fee to infrastructure they'll be using. So long as the city doesn't just write them a bunch of exemptions for bike/ped I don't think that will suffer all that much.

And I think that's the problem.  It has turned something that shouldn't have been political into something that is now highly political at every decision point.  That just leaves massive wiggle room.  The city was responsible for the development, yes, but only once the fees were accrued enough to trigger the development. 

We've complained and complained about how this city never sees a plan through.  We have meetings, workshops, committees, special committees, task forces, joint committees, plans, new plans, revised plans, whole new ways, whole new visions, new mottos, new signs...and yet we can't see a single thing through cause it starts off great, then the special interests get involved. 

Got to wonder how this all sets up for a real nice "5 year review" where mobility fees may be "re-assessed" entirely.  Actually, I don't have to wonder, I know how that turns out.

[JeffreyS]

I see the problem as it changes the use of the money collected.  Now if they build a road 20 miles from the core nothing comes back to make the core more attractive to development. So maybe the city does not spend anymore but the use the fee was intended to fund is lost without dedicated funding. I guess it would still promote more sustainable growth because you could avoid the fee by building in the mobility zones but it won't help build transit, pedestrian or bike lanes where they are needed just in the sticks where the cheap land for the developers and expensive services for the tax payers are located.

(and guess who will pay to maintain these roads that shouldn't be built but now will be.)

[icarus]

I'm really trying to make heads or tails of this proposal so I am going to try and summarize its impact and please tell me if I am wrong:

1. Suburban developer is now required to provide street and pedestrian access in his new community at his cost and to current code.

2. We are now going to give credit for the money he spent on the roads in his development with the added premise that now he is more likely to build said roadways to the standards already required of him. 

3. To the extent the cost of his roadway exceeds the amount he would have been required to pay in mobility fees, he can sell those additional sums to another developer as credits towards mobility fees .. or .. use it to cover his next development.

In effect, we are giving them credit for something they are already required to do. ?

[Tacachale]

^It seems to me that the main difference is that the developer could tie their fee money to infrastructure associated with their own development, rather than having it be collected later and used for other projects in that zone. They were already getting credits for infill, car trip reduction, etc. under the existing plan. This is why I don't think bike/ped infrastructure would suffer if the city doesn't just bend over and write a bunch of exemptions. However, it also means that more fee funding would be tied to projects individual developers want, and less will go to zone-wide projects individual developers don't, but which would nonetheless be an improvement - namely public transit and long-range planning.

[icarus]

I've seen an exemption like that proposed here which was used to provide multi-modal options. The developer installed bus stops and even purchased buses for the municipality.  I just don't see our developers being that magnanimous.

I totally agree that even if the developers used the moneys appropriately they would be tied to benefiting the area of their new development.  Mass transit and region wide projects would clearly be impacted as more dollars are spent on site specific improvements.

Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction. The problem is that it would promote the same suburban sprawl the mobility fee was intended to counteract.

[Bridges]

Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction.

This has been the excuse at every step of the way with the mobility plan.  And yet, it's not true.  St. Johns County has higher impact fees and they're booming.  This has never truly been about economic development as it has been about profit margins.

[JeffreyS]

+1000 it has never held water.

[icarus]

Well, Paul Harden isn't paid to promote the better good but to make a profit for his clients so not entirely surprising.

I think any proposal proffered by him as to be viewed with a healthy does of skepticism.