I am curious as to how this would pass the rational nexus test. Providing a break for one group, while not another could result in legal challenges as those who end up paying the fees can argue that they are covering the costs for more than just their impact.
Local governments who offer incentive discounts to their mobility fees for only certain types of development keep it legal by supplementing the lost fees from their capital budgets.
If this passes at the state level, it will take a simple majority (10 votes) of our city council to overrule it. Can we hold them to the "compromise" agreement, in the spirit that we already have a moratorium?
It never ends...
Quote
State could give commercial developers three-year break on road impact fees
A proposal to give commercial developers a three-year break on impact fees for roads when building small projects is advancing in the Legislature over the objections of Florida’s cities and counties.
Lobbyists for the League of Cities and the Association of Counties say the moratorium could hinder efforts to build new roads and expand existing ones needed to keep up with growth.
Sponsors of the legislation (SB 1716, HB 321) argue that the intent is to help “mom-and-pop†developers by waiving the road impact fees for new commercial projects that are building up to 6,000 square feet.
Rep. Mike La Rosa, R-St. Cloud, the sponsor of the House measure, said expanding a medical office in an area currently not zoned for medical use could come to $10,000 per 1,000 square feet for road impact fees in Orange County.
“If you use up to the cap of 6,000 square feet, that’s $60,000,†said La Rosa, a Central Florida real estate developer. “For a business that’s looking to expand, that’s a hurdle I believe that’s pretty constraining.â€
But Eric Poole, the Florida Association of Counties assistant legislative director, said the proposed moratorium would overrule local home-rule principles that were enhanced as part of sweeping 2011 growth management reform laws.
And the proposal comes as overall impact fees across the state are down 75 percent since 2007, Poole said.
“Counties and cities have been issuing waivers and doing self-imposed moratoria for years, and our opinion is counties and cities can and have the authority to decide what is best to spur economic development, and they have,†Poole said.
Florida League of Cities lobbyist David Cruz said some cities also may not have the infrastructure in place to allow the impact fees to be waived.
However, Rep. Travis Hutson, R-Elkton, another sponsor of the House measure, said the proposal has “no handcuffs†as a city or county can overrule the proposal with a simple majority as long as contractual obligations or financing requirements were in place before the moratorium is enacted.
The Senate measure received unanimous support from the chamber’s Community Affairs panel on Tuesday, the first of two scheduled committee appearances. The next stop is the Senate Education Committee.
The House version has received overwhelming support from both the Economic Development and Tourism Subcommittee and Finance and Tax Subcommittee, with the next appearance before the Finance and Tax Subcommittee.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/apr/07/state-could-give-commercial-developers-three-on/ (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/apr/07/state-could-give-commercial-developers-three-on/)
legal folks who have looked at this believe Jacksonville's mobility fee would not be affected by this legislation...perhaps because it technically isn't an impact fee
^I believe this is a different piece of legislation. The one you are talking about (SB972) is the "no more mobility plans" legislation, and yes that one does not apply to us.
I believe this one (SB1716) would.
I've heard that Jax. should be safe in either case
What is a “mom-and-pop†developer and how can you classify the difference between a national chain and a struggling local yokel with a limit of 6,000 square feet? 7-Eleven's revenue last year was $77 billion. Their gas stations are smaller than 6,000 square feet. The same goes with places like McDonalds, other fast food restaurants and drive thrus. Would they be considered "mom-and-pop"?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 14, 2013, 10:02:47 PM
What is a “mom-and-pop†developer and how can you classify the difference between a national chain and a struggling local yokel with a limit of 6,000 square feet? 7-Eleven's revenue last year was $77 billion. Their gas stations are smaller than 6,000 square feet. The same goes with places like McDonalds, other fast food restaurants and drive thrus. Would they be considered "mom-and-pop"?
Very important question. It reminds me of the often used misnomer "small business"! Depending upon how legislation and rules are drafted, more times that not we see big money business use square footage and other small scale building and finance parameters to take advantage of incentives meant for real "mom & pop" businesses, which back in the day meant enterprises so small that in order to survive family worked in them for little or no wages i.e. run by mom and pop. ( This info included for the young readers :) )
Perhaps the incentives need to be targeted based upon the business worth as opposed simply the square footage of any given business or enterprise. Unless someone checks to make sure the parameters of legislation are worded in a fashion to see benefits, breaks and incentives go to the ones who really need them we can be darn sure that those who don't will be working to get their hands on them and enrich themselves. Happens all the time.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 14, 2013, 09:43:21 PM
I've heard that Jax. should be safe in either case
I hope so, but how so? After all the work put forward to obtain a less than satisfying result, I would hate to see this one sneak past us.
I'm not sure it's much we can do about this statewide one. It's drawing opposition from several municipalities and counties throughout the state and they are all being ignored for special interests.
The finest city council and state legislature money can buy/
Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
I'm not sure it's much we can do about this statewide one. It's drawing opposition from several municipalities and counties throughout the state and they are all being ignored for special interests.
There is plenty we can do at the local level. It starts by asking our city council to respect the agreement that was just reached regarding the mobility fees, and over-rule this state bill.
Could we find a sponsor to introduce a resolution opposing (SB1716/HB321)?
Perhaps, CM Crescimbeni? Didn't you all agree to not go back on the alternative Crescimbeni came up with? If so, it seems like he would be the proper CM to sponsor such a bill, since the opposing side also agreed to abide by it.