LIVE BLOG: MOBILITY FEE MORATORIUM: Rules&Finance Committee

[thelakelander]

From my understanding, they will also develop some sort of short term solution. That could mean anything from another one year moratorium (which I think proponents were shooting for in the first place) to reduced mobility fees.

[JeffreyS]

So, could we start collecting a fee until a deal is reached?  It seems like analysis could go on over a year.  Is the one year moratorium over?  It would be nice to see some time collecting the fee to prove it does not make a difference. 

The problem is it will make a difference if businesses know some sort of adjustment or moratorium is just around the corner.

[Bridges]

From my understanding, they will also develop some sort of short term solution. That could mean anything from another one year moratorium (which I think proponents were shooting for in the first place) to reduced mobility fees.

If they're looking for a short term solution and we (the large amorphous anti-moratorium crowd) wish to work with them, the best solution would be a case by case review of fees.  With the developer having to explain their reason for fee waiver with facts about trip generation or credits, not hyperbole about jobs or investment returns.

[thelakelander]

To be honest, I think the credit adjustment system should offer higher reductions for better development.  That would actually achieve the goals of the 2030 Mobility Plan and offer an easier avenue for those who want to see their fees reduced.  For those who want to contribute to the worst types of sprawl, no one is stopping them.  They'll just have to pay a higher fee since it creates additional negative impacts on public infrastructure.

[JeffreyS]

Quote from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Feb report.
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

Construction employment increased by 48,000 in February, bringing the current 3-month change to 111,000. This increase represents an acceleration over the 43,000 jobs that were added in the 3 months ending in November 2012.
The February job gain in construction is the largest 1-month increase since March 2007 when 80,000 jobs were added. Since reaching an employment trough in January 2011, the industry has added 349,000 jobs

This is the industry we should be subsidizing now?

[Cheshire Cat]

As the tide started moving against the moratorium proponents on Monday afternoon, they quickly retreated to the jobs and economy arguments, which are their weakest and least demonstrable data. This isn't the only issue that Council has seen where jobs were at the core of the discussion. The difference this time is that the Associated General Contractors, the trades unions, the electricians and framers and plumbers, the people who most benefit from construction-related job creation, were absent from the room. The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

A concerted effort by the community, MJ, Doug Skiles and the people who show up meeting after meeting, has prevailed in getting Council to defy the Sprawl Lobby. Helped immensely,BTW, by the very impressive and thought provoking CM Lori Boyer, who simply refuses to be swayed by rhetoric and continues to lead from the front, as we expect our representatives to do on every issue, all the time.

Exactly!  Bazinga! 

This line is what I hope many of the posters and readers will absorb and understand xplanner.  You could not have been more accurate in your words which follow:

The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

[acme54321]

I was way in the back of the room, but I'm not a land spectulator.  Just a lowly citizen of Jacksonville.

[xplanner]

Thinking strategically as we move ahead, there is a danger that the proponents and their Council supporters could be embarrassed by a thorough analysis of the job creation hype...that an expert in development economics might conclude that Waffle Houses, etc, don't create any more short term economic impact than constructing a small custom home, ie, some site work, about $200,000 in materials and another $200,000 in burdened construction labor. The full-time jobs created are mostly minimum wage at best, or wages+ tips. If/when that knowledge is made public, the CM's can be made to look used by the lobby.

So a few CM's are going to want/need some high ground to retreat to. There needs to be some legitimate concession (other than waiving Mobility Fees) to allow the proponents to save face and do something good (the win-win proposition that is often talked about and rarely achieved in politics).

Furthermore, my observation is that for every hour spent on this debate, more people are "getting it" as relates to the Mobility Fee. It was apparently not universally understood when it was being developed or adopted, but the constant Q&A has been very good in getting the media, the CM's and the public educated on the costs of roadway infrastructure and how a policy of sprawl is bad municipal finance.

There needs to be 100% clarity on the variables that go into the fee calculation...that developers have options to reduce any of those variables that generate the fee. Most important is to take away the Wow-factor of the total worst-case fee. Some of the CM's  still don't get that a convenience store with gas pumps generates as much traffic congestion as a small subdivision. The "ITE Trip Generation Factor" is the root cause of that misunderstanding. We need to call it a Local Congestion Factor or something more descriptive and down to earth. Maybe the Mobility Fee needs to be called a Congestion Mitigation Fee, to be more accurate and palatable.

It's not the pass-by traffic in front of the Waffle House that causes the problem...it's the future turning movements the restaurant creates that ultimately generates congestion and a demand (by the Waffle House in many cases) for a traffic signal/ intersection improvement that costs upwards of $150K, and which further exacerbates roadway deficiencies.

And, speaking of roadway capacity, CM's seem to want to treat "excess capacity" like new found money..."give it to someone, quick..." They need to be further educated on what capacity really is, and how it fluctuates over time with the economy, gas prices and new development. And how maybe, just possibly, folks who use that road today would like to enjoy some of that pre-paid excess capacity.

This next Task Force is going to have to educate more people on how the Mobility Fee REALLY works and demonstrate how industry can profit in the world of legitimate developer fees.


I was heartened to see that some lowly, noisy, citizens were back there, keeping the rest of the crowd in check.

[Ocklawaha]

Back in my land development days, I was doing land planning work for several D.R. Horton single-family and multifamily communities throughout Northeast Florida.  Around 2008, when the market was clearly going up in flames, they mentioned they were going to build their way out of it.  That didn't turn out to well for them either.

Damn Ennis, I guess that explains my house!

[Ocklawaha]

Anyone have a copy of the statement the Mayor submitted?

I'd like to read that too.  I thought he was saying he was in support of the initial moratorium, but was not in support of this

This is my last note from the mayor:

Thank you for taking the time to make some well-researched points on the mobility issue. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to absorb pros and cons. You are very right that transit plays a big role in cities and I support having the best system possible (with the big question always being what’s the best, most cost-effective way to get there?).

Please feel free to write in the future, and have a great weekend.

Best,
Alvin Brown

I don't think he supports the moratorium because he DOES support many of the funded projects within the MP.

[xplanner]

I think no matter what happens next, any period of moratorium at all, with the prospect that it will permanently terminate thereafter, will cause some developers and builders to "jump" into a premature commitment of land and resources required to achieve grandfathering for their property. Clearly the future cost to taxpayers for road improvements will be kicked down the road by that action and response.

Ultimately, I would like to see a companion Jobs Incentive Bill, with a schedule of job creation credits offered on a site by site, project by project basis, as a credit towards the Mobility Fee, but certainly not a full elimination of the fee for any period of time. Everyone should have to pay something, especially if they are locating on a constrained road.

But even that credit would have to have a period-certain with an expiration date. In that model, the size of the site and the amount of enclosed space to be constructed or remodeled could be used to create a job production factor that the developer would have to commit to undertaking within a certain timeframe. He would also have to commit to using local suppliers and local constructors, since we shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing jobs in some pre-fab factory in Little Rock, or paying the hourly wages of work crews from Alabama who show up in town for a few weeks to erect a pre-fab building (like a Waffle House, 7-11, Family Dollar, Zaxby's, etc.) In short, treat this form of job creation just like we do in any other incentive package, on a case by case basis. The developers will complain that this is more bureaucracy and an expensive time-consuming layer of government that strings-out their deal. If so, they have options:

1.Find a site user that has a lower impact on the roads;

2.Take their deal to a new site and land-bank the expensive site until the roads get better...possibly with a local tax-credit for the period the property is in that land-bank;

3.Pay the full fee for the deal they want to happen right now.

Finally, as to net job creation, I think we need to take the analysis down to the level of "how many local jobs or businesses does this new project displace?" No one has brought up the fact that a number of Mom and Pop independents have closed the doors of their diners and breakfast houses as these new eateries come on line. No one has addressed the employees that Waffle House and 7-11 have recruited away from independent local competitors without ever creating a new job.

[thelakelander]

^Another option would be to further incentivize better development by adjusting the credit adjustment system.  The original URBEMIS model that the mobility fee's credit adjustment system is based off, provides more credit for positive growth than our current set up does (I believe 15% off is as high as you can get off the mobility fee).  We also don't give any credit for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.


http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf

What this means if you build this:



or this:



instead of this:



or this:



You'll completed eliminate or significantly reduce your mobility fee.

[John P]

Isn't Lumb supposed to be a Tea Party ultra conservative guy? How does his base feel about him trying to raise taxes on the public by shifting developers fees to us? Whoever his opponent is in the next council race needs to hammer him on that.

[jcjohnpaint]

Wasn't there an article on MJ that addressed how building more dense is more profitable for developers?  I couldn't seem to find it, but remember from about a year ago. 

[dougskiles]

Wasn't there an article on MJ that addressed how building more dense is more profitable for developers?  I couldn't seem to find it, but remember from about a year ago.

Yes, but only as the market will support it.  There is a sweet spot they all try to hit with the maximum density and the maximum profit per unit.  Not unlike any other business.  More production doesn't always mean greater overall profit if there isn't a demand for your product.

So the question I have been looking for an answer to is - why would they want to be ahead of the demand and lower the profit potential?