Live Blog: Revised Mobility Fee Moratorium

[TheCat]

Meeting starts @ 4 PM.

You can watch it live on the link below:

http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil

Bill Summary:


Full Bill:

[TheCat]

Article in the TU by Steve Patterson.

Jacksonville council panels to hear new version of contested 'mobility' fee waiver
Posted: April 6, 2013 - 11:43pm  |  Updated: April 6, 2013 - 11:47pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site

By Steve Patterson
Stalled legislation that would waive some developer fees to help Jacksonville’s construction industry is resurfacing after critics and backers accepted compromises suggested by a City Council member.

Three council committees are scheduled to meet jointly Monday to debate a new version of a bill (2013-94) that had divided people involved in development and groups who want bicycle and pedestrian facilities the fees help pay for.

Councilman Richard Clark had originally proposed a three-year waiver of the city’s “mobility fee,” which charges fees from developers based on how each project is expected to affect roads and other transportation systems in their part of town.

Councilman John Crescimbeni said Friday he plans to offer a substitute version of that bill, which was tabled in March after strong lobbying by backers of the fee system. If it’s approved by the three committees, the new version could be voted on by the full council Tuesday.

Crescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.

After a three-month “ramp-up” period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.

If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.

That scaled-down offer represented a compromise that Crescimbeni said advocates on both sides told him they could live with.

“From where I sit, I think they walk away with something they wanted and didn’t have to surrender to something they didn’t,” he said.

Advocates seemed to appreciate that.

“I think John has come up with a very good idea that both sides can agree. … None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something,” said Curtis Hart, a developer and lobbyist who was part of talks Crescimbeni held to hear out both sides. “I’m hoping it just passes. Since you’ve got a consensus of those for and those against, the council will, I hope, just take up the bill and pass it out.”

Under the substitute version, the fees that aren’t waived would be steered first to accounts that finance bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects listed in a city work plan. If those are fully funded, the rest of the fees collected would go to other transportation projects.

The city set up the fee system in 2011 and quickly waived it in hopes a recession-scarred building industry would regain some strength.

The first 12-month waiver period expired in October.

The city waived $3.2 million worth of fees in that year, but couldn’t be sure what it had truly given up. The fee system includes credits that would have lowered some developer costs, but weren’t calculated since they weren’t going to matter.

To get the waiver, Crescimbeni’s bill would require developers to complete a more complicated fee calculation.

Clark said he hasn’t seen Crescimbeni’s legislation and can’t comment on it but feels he was right to offer the original bill.

“I have every intention of moving on and supporting the construction industry 100 percent,” he said.


Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-06/story/jacksonville-council-panels-hear-new-version-contested-mobility-fee#ixzz2Pu2Pqqnx

[TheCat]

Key message from the FTU article regarding the moratorium.

Crescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.

After a three-month “ramp-up” period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.

If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.

[TheCat]

Meeting is on.

[TheCat]

One of the developers...whose name I continually forget says he loves the bill. Doug Skiles says something like "it's a regrettable but acceptable bill"

Someone who represents the bicyclists says "I don't like it but I'll accept it."

[TheCat]

Crescimbeni explains the bill which Stephendare also broke down below.

[TheCat]

Boyer is speaking:

I think she is scaring the developers by suggesting that they City will have more power over the developers because they are  not paying impact fees so they, the city, will be able to say you can have this approval if you do X, Y, and Z. So, it's not that the city takes up payment but they requires certain road/bike/ped build outs. The attorney wants more time to think about it. I may have missed her point...anyone else catch it?

[thelakelander]

Saying the obvious, but it appears this thing needs more time for everyone to look at instead of pushing it through so quick.  What's the rush? 7-Eleven isn't going anywhere.

[thelakelander]

LOL, Clark.  What for-profit business entity chooses to pay extra impact fees for the hell of it when they don't legally have too? Also sounds like Councilman Clark wants to refund whatever fees have already been collected.

[TheCat]

Gulliford, wants to make sure that we are able to properly administer this legislation since the city is somewhat notorious for passing legislation and not, well, administrating the programs. Gulliford has called a rep from the Mayor's office and the Head of the planning department, Calvin L. Burney, Sr.what they think of the bill. Mayor's office "we're happy to be here." Calvin, we need to look at it a little deeper.

Gulliford wants to know if the bill will break down if it does not have their support.

Clark speaking:

There is an issue of fairness for the people who developed during the moratorium gap. The fee is not going to help rail. And pike/ped has never had advocacy. Bike and Ped are not that expensive and we can start accomplishing them now. As opposed to rail which we might accomplish in 50 years.

[thelakelander]

Clark is off-base on the rail funding comment.  The mobility fee only generates a local match (25%) for commuter rail.  That 25% is then used to leverage federal and state dollars to complete the rest.  Killing your chance to generate the 25% locally kills your chance to get the remaining 75% from other sources.  So Councilman Clark is correct that a rail project like commuter rail may take 40 or 50 years to complete with continued moratoriums.  Having a mobility fee helps you get at least one line operational within a 10 year period.......which was the point of putting them in the mobility plan structure in the first place.

[Ocklawaha]

Clark, 'None of this will help rail.'

Boyer, CAN THEY VOLUNTEER TO PAY THE FEE... ?

[TheCat]

Boyer to Greg Anderson:

Further explaining her initial point... In the past developers would pay a fee and they were no longer responsible for traffic concurrency/standard problems because they paid the fee. Now, if they don't have a system in which they can pay approvers can decide that a certain project does not meet certain traffic standards and decide to not pass it.

[Ocklawaha]

Anderson wants to extend the 3 month ramp up.

[thelakelander]

While we're at it, can we just invest in a money tree?  It's just as realistic as believe subsidizing new development at all costs will result in a financial plus for the city...short or long term.