Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium

[toi]

Lumb is throwing soft ball questions a the current speaker. Sorry, I missed the name.


Wyatt: for the moratorium. the amount of the fees waived were 3.5 million. The amount of projects completed were worth $85. He says that $3 million that was waived will be paid back in 4 years from the taxes that will come in perpetuity.

That speaker is Toi on the forum.  He gave Councilman Lumb some inaccurate information.  I emailed the Councilman and said I'd be willing to meet with him and answer or explain any questions he may have.  Do you think I'll get a response?  Btw, that 33% on three roadways is off-base too.

Ennis:  table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost.  148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads:  philips hwy, normandy, and southside.   my calculator tells me that is 33 percent. 

i was and am sincere about my comments on funding bike improvements.  i think our collective time would be better spent to convince the council to fund specific bike projects and ped improvements from the general fund, perhaps by convening a subcommittee of teu together with seeking greater staff resources for the bpac.   by and large the bike and ped projects are relatively inexpensive and most if not all of them in the mobility plan list are in areas first developed long ago.  as you know the standard practice of the city and dot for years has been to install bike lanes and sidewalks on new roads - maybe they are not all perfect or even good but they are generally there.  see the mobility plan transportation study, tables 9 and 10 for the lists of bike and ped improvements under the mobility plan.  for example, the "priority 1" bike improvements are on the following streets:  riverplace blvd, laura st, newnan st, and old kings road from the s line to martha st.  together the total cost of these was estimated at about 2.2 m.   compare that to the recent announcement for improving the jtb interchange at a cost of about 78 m or so. 

[Cheshire Cat]

So Toi, is the promise of improvements for bikes going to be the bargaining chip? 

[fieldafm]

So, infrastructure is great... As long as everyone but you pays for it.  Now go outside and play while the adults go create jobs.  Got it! 

Bring on some more gas stations and those heavily taxpayer subsidized $90k annual payrolls!!! 

Thank you Lord for answering our most humble prayers by suppressing all that pesky noise, passing on our costs to others and keeping food on our table paid for by the old lady who lives on the other side of town.   

[Tacachale]

Toi, that's exactly the issue. Under your plan, those improvements would have to come from the general budget (ie, everyone's taxes) because there'd be no contribution from the new developments that cause the greatest strain on the infrastructure. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

[thelakelander]

Ennis:  table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost.  148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads:  philips hwy, normandy, and southside.   my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.

Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.

i was and am sincere about my comments on funding bike improvements.  i think our collective time would be better spent to convince the council to fund specific bike projects and ped improvements from the general fund, perhaps by convening a subcommittee of teu together with seeking greater staff resources for the bpac.   by and large the bike and ped projects are relatively inexpensive and most if not all of them in the mobility plan list are in areas first developed long ago.  as you know the standard practice of the city and dot for years has been to install bike lanes and sidewalks on new roads - maybe they are not all perfect or even good but they are generally there.  see the mobility plan transportation study, tables 9 and 10 for the lists of bike and ped improvements under the mobility plan.  for example, the "priority 1" bike improvements are on the following streets:  riverplace blvd, laura st, newnan st, and old kings road from the s line to martha st.  together the total cost of these was estimated at about 2.2 m.   compare that to the recent announcement for improving the jtb interchange at a cost of about 78 m or so.

To be honest, I'd be happy if we can find dollars in our general fund to turn our street lights back on, properly maintain our parks, and mow the ROW on our streets on a regular basis.  Considering our budget deficits, it's a stretch to say it makes sense to give 7-11, Waffle House, Family Dollar, Wendy's, etc. breaks on a mobility fee that could be partially utilized for these improvements to find money in a pot already struggling to fund our most basic public services. 

I agree with the idea that the mobility plan/fee isn't an end all to all our problems, but it certainly helps the situation. An all out moratorium that gives public subsidies to several low paying developments that would happen anyway does this community no good.  Such a concept to me would get more traction if projects truly "crippled" by a mobility fee were evaluated on an individual basis.

[thelakelander]

Toi, that's exactly the issue. Under your plan, those improvements would have to come from the general budget (ie, everyone's taxes) because there'd be no contribution from the new developments that cause the greatest strain on the infrastructure. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

From my view, it's not a plan because the general fund is a struggling one itself.  If it were the answers to all our needs, our bike/ped death rates wouldn't be so high right now because the issue would have been addressed years ago. 

Nevertheless, that's issue is something I'd refer to as "noise."  Even if 100% of the mobility plan fees went to roads, they should still be paid by new development as opposed to passing that burden on the existing taxpayer. 

[Ocklawaha]

My parting shot tonight was: "At some point this Council is going to have to decide if you are a Council of the people, or, are you a Council of the special interests?"

[xplanner]

Tonight gave both sides a look at the other guy's cards. I hope the MetroJacksonville side is prepared for what happens next. The lobbyists will be going into overdrive for their land development clients this weekend to cook-up some more data and numbers, since, IMO, the simplistic "it's about jobs" argument didn't move anyone. The ploy of having speaker cards filled out by people who didn't want to speak-up for the moratorium also flopped. To those on the dais, that's the same as a no-show.

Having observed City Councils for 35 years in this town I sense this is going to be a close vote and the pro-moratorium side is going to go to the building trades next, to generate a vocal head-count for the Committees. The problem is, those Committees meet in the daytime and most tradespeople who are worth a damn ARE working during the day. Good tradespeople in JAX have a backlog of work in remodeling and additions, as well as general maintenance. The ones complaining about not working are the horizontal land developers because they overloaded their own inventory of suburban lots while believing the Gold Rush would last forever. They probably need to go out and find a new gig.

And, BTW, there is not a shred of truth to the jobs argument. The same trades that are needed to build unnecessary subdivisions in the far suburban fringe...to clear trees, dig borrow pits, lay pipe and pave roads...are pretty busy right now in, of all places, the infill neighborhoods!

I will agree however, that we have a serious jobs problem here, as exists throughout the lower southeast US. But that unemployment problem is felt acutely among two main groups...recent high school dropouts and all unskilled laborers. Two groups that have no chance of survival in a competitive marketplace like the one we are in.

If the builders and developers who were represented at City Hall tonight really want to do something about joblessness, they should band together and build a vocational tradeschool by and for the hard core unemployed. Teach them a skill that they can use and then let them compete on a level field. But, build that school on an infill site.

[thelakelander]

For shits and giggles.  Included in the list of projects that applied for mobility fee waivers from the previous moratorium:

3 - 7-Elevens
2 - Family Dollars
4 - Dollar Generals
6 - Waffle Houses

I don't even feel like adding up the percentage of dollars lost by waiving fees for stuff like this and the countless number of gas stations (most of the larger fees waived were for gas stations) on the list.  Those who support a moratorium really need to come up with a true list of projects that would not have been built if a moratorium wasn't in place.  Because stuff like this would fill our suburban arterials even if we had the old Fair Share system still in place.

[thelakelander]

If the builders and developers who were represented at City Hall tonight really want to do something about joblessness, they should band together and build a vocational tradeschool by and for the hard core unemployed. Teach them a skill that they can use and then let them compete on a level field. But, build that school on an infill site.

With the school board talking about closing a few inner city schools, perhaps they can even get one donated via surplus and get some on-the-job training in restoration work.

[toi]

Ennis:  table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost.  148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads:  philips hwy, normandy, and southside.   my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.

Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.


Ennis - table 7 on my copy of your company's study and the table i referenced in the plan are the same list of projects. again, 33 percent, one third. 

[dougskiles]

When listening carefully to the arguments being made for a moratorium, initially, the pitch is that this is a temporary "jobs bill".  But, when it gets specific it sounds more like an argument against the mobility plan entirely, regardless of economic conditions.  They say the fee is too much or the money spent is going toward the wrong use.

These are worthy discussions that would ultimately lead to a better plan, however, we will never address them if we simply put a moratorium on the entire thing.  It seems that some council members may be looking for a compromise.  I hope we can find one that does not result in extending the moratorium.  There are other ways.

If the concern is where the money spent, city council has the authority to adjust the priority projects.  If the concern is the amount or how it is calculated, again, that can be adjusted.

[thelakelander]

Ennis:  table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost.  148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads:  philips hwy, normandy, and southside.   my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.

Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.


Ennis - table 7 on my copy of your company's study and the table i referenced in the plan are the same list of projects. again, 33 percent, one third. 

To be clear and for the record, I'm not employed with that company anymore and the study and plan is the City of Jacksonville's.  I've been gone since July 2012. Feel free to post an image of what you're looking at because I don't think you have the full list.

Nevertheless, this an issue that Dan Davis referred to as "noise." 33% on three needed complete streets roads, 100% on roads, etc. whatever. None of this addresses this still doesn't address the major problem with a full moratorium.  There's still no documentation/data proving that all mobility fee waivers granted were from projects that would have not happened without the moratorium.  I've already listed several examples and when you start adding them up, they really eat into the nearly $5 million that's been given away so far.  How is this in any way, good for the taxpayers?

[thelakelander]

When listening carefully to the arguments being made for a moratorium, initially, the pitch is that this is a temporary "jobs bill".  But, when it gets specific it sounds more like an argument against the mobility plan entirely, regardless of economic conditions.  They say the fee is too much or the money spent is going toward the wrong use.

These are worthy discussions that would ultimately lead to a better plan, however, we will never address them if we simply put a moratorium on the entire thing.  It seems that some council members may be looking for a compromise.  I hope we can find one that does not result in extending the moratorium.  There are other ways.

If the concern is where the money spent, city council has the authority to adjust the priority projects.  If the concern is the amount or how it is calculated, again, that can be adjusted.

Doug, what I've seen over the last few days is a lot of noise from several with their own self interests and agendas.  It can't be just about a "temporary" jobs thing because that can't be proven without a doubt that more temporary jobs are created with a moratorium than without it.  We're clearly giving away subsidies for numerous 7-11s, Family Dollars, Waffle Houses, etc. that were expanding anyway.  The "temporary" thing is also suspect with the grandfather clause that exempts certain projects from paying a mobility fee for eternity.

Now some don't like a few specific projects within the list. So kill it and have zero projects across the entire city is the answer.  Some want a few projects but desire taxpayers to pay for it.  Some simply see the light at the end of the tunnel by piecing together enough council votes to boost their profit margins at the expense of everyone else.  Some last night were clearly advocating for the worst type of sprawl possible at the expense of the financially sustainable growth that the community has kept asking for, for years. I found public comments last night very telling.  Was there anyone, that would not directly profit more personally from a moratorium speak in favor from it?  All I saw were self interests, paid guns, and a stack of cards where no one wanted to speak.  It was pretty weird to see that compared to the diverse amount of community group representatives who shared their concerns last night.

On top of that, the pro moratorium talking points list, is all over the place with erroneous information that completely ignores the reality of what's before taxpayers.  We're being asked to shoulder the cost of negative impacts of new development 100% (without any evidence that last year's moratorium worked), while this same city can't even manage a budget that keeps our street lights on and streets properly maintained.

[sheclown]

At least tonight the insane hypocrisy of the last meeting was gone. 

The developers are talking about jobs...theirs.  Most big projects bring in outside workers.