1 CITY OF
2 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
3 JOINT MOBILITY PLAN
7 Proceedings held on Tuesday, December 14,
8 2010, commencing at 10:15 a.m., City Hall,
10 before Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for
11 the State of
14 JACK WEBB, President, City Council.
RAY HOLT, City Council Member.
15 WILLIAM BISHOP, City Council Member.
JOHNNY GAFFNEY, City Council Member.
16 DICK BROWN, City Council Member.
17 MARC HARDESTY, Planning Commission Member.
NATE DAY, Planning Commission Member.
18 TONY HEMMERLY, Planning Commission Member.
TONY ROBBINS, Planning Commission Member.
19 JERRY FRILEY, Planning Commission Member.
MARY GOLDSMITH, Planning Commission Member.
- - -
1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 T.R. HAINLINE, Chair, Mobility Plan Task Force.
BILL KILLINGSWORTH, Director, Planning Dept.
3 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
4 MARGARET SIDMAN, Office of General Counsel.
JASON GABRIEL, Office of General Counsel.
5 JEFF CLEMENTS, Chief, Research Division.
KIRK SHERMAN, Council Auditor.
6 JANICE BILLY, Council Auditor's Office.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
7 SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 December 14, 2010 10:15 a.m.
3 - - -
4 PRESIDENT WEBB: I apologize for running
5 late. It's 10:15. We're convening the joint
6 meeting of the Planning Commission and the City
7 Council to talk about the mobility fee.
8 The Planning Department representatives are
10 DEPARTMENT MEMBERS: (Indicating.)
11 PRESIDENT WEBB: Come on up. I want you
12 guys at the table, if you would, please, because
13 you guys are really going to coordinate this
14 whole thing. All right?
15 I'm Jack Webb. I'm president of
16 City Council. Let's go around the table here
17 and introduce ourselves, starting with the
18 Honorable Dick Brown.
19 (Cell phone interruption.)
20 PRESIDENT WEBB: Please turn off all cell
22 Thank you very much.
23 MR. BROWN: I'm Dick Brown, City Council.
24 I represent District 13, the Beaches and the
25 Baymeadows area.
1 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.
2 MR. BISHOP: Bill Bishop, District 2, and I
3 was also on the mobility fee committee.
4 PRESIDENT WEBB: Jack Webb, president of
5 City Council, District 6, working on Irish time
6 this morning. I apologize.
7 MR. FRILEY: Jerry Friley with the Planning
9 MR. DAY: Nate Day, Planning Commission.
10 MR. HEMMERLY: Tony Hemmerly, Planning
12 MS. GOLDSMITH: Mary Goldsmith, Planning
14 MR. HARDESTY: Marc Hardesty, Planning
15 Commission chairman.
16 MR. ROBBINS: Tony Robbins, also with the
17 Planning Commission.
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Bill Killingsworth,
19 Planning and Development.
20 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right. Very good.
21 I just talked to the court reporter. This
22 meeting is being recorded. We are taking
23 minutes of the meeting. I would ask that as we
24 conduct the meeting -- I guess we have, I guess,
25 technology issues with this room in that we have
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 microphones in the ceiling, so it's very
2 difficult for the court reporter to get it
3 down. So rather than a lot of -- I know it's a
4 workshop, but let's be mindful of her ability to
5 take accurate notes or record of the meeting.
6 So, having said that, what I'd ask the
7 Planning Department to do is give us a recap and
8 overview of where we are with regard to this
9 mobility fee matter, please, if you would.
10 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: With your indulgence, I
11 have a presentation. It's about 19 slides.
12 PRESIDENT WEBB: Perfect.
13 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I'll jump into that.
14 And, if you don't mind, I'll -- I'll stand
15 up because it just feels more natural to me, and
16 I'll come down this way so Diane can hear me.
17 Last year, in 2009, in July, Senate Bill
18 360 was passed, and this kind of presented a
19 well-timed opportunity for the City. What was
20 going on at that same time frame was that the
21 City was finishing up the first draft of three
22 vision plans, which was the Urban Core,
24 done the North, Northwest, and Southwest. The
25 Transportation Planning Organization was just
1 updating their long-range plan, and that was
2 important for another -- for a number of
3 reasons. One was we could piggyback on their
4 work. They had just validated their model. And
5 the construction of a transportation model for
6 the scale of
7 $2 million deal that takes about two years to
8 put together, so we were able to save quite a
9 bit of money for that.
10 There was a consensus going on that our
11 fair share system just fundamentally wasn't
12 working, and then 360 was adopted and the City
14 Land Area, which required the City to put
15 together a mobility plan, which is why we're
16 here today.
17 (Dr. Gaffney enters the proceedings.)
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Since this time, the
19 department put together a draft plan in July of
20 2010. Sometime around March -- I don't remember
21 the exact date -- we put together a Mobility
22 Task Force, which was made up of representatives
23 from the community. We had two CPAC members on
24 it, we had land use attorneys, we had
25 developers, we had a transportation engineer.
1 And from that time till now, they've been
2 vetting our plan. And they made a series of
3 recommendations to us, and that's what I'm going
4 to present to you-all today.
5 So what the plan intends to do is it
6 intends to put together a fee system to support
7 the mobility of our city. It also uses
8 strategies, both from a land use side and from a
9 transportation side, to support and fund our
10 mobility. And it also -- it does this -- what
11 we have is a mobility plan, and we're going to
12 adopt that plan into the comprehensive plan, but
13 what that plan really is is a series of
14 recommendations of policy changes to the
15 comprehensive plan. So it's kind of circular.
16 We're going to adopt the mobility plan into the
17 comp plan and then we're going to come back --
18 actually, simultaneously, we're going to adopt
19 those recommended policies into our
20 comprehensive plan.
21 One of the things I'm going to talk about,
22 how we want to tie land use and transportation
23 together, but I think one of the things that's
24 important for you all is that the land use piece
25 of it, by and large, we already did when we
1 adopted our new future land use element a couple
2 of months -- actually, it's been about, what,
3 three months ago?
4 So when we started putting this together,
5 there were four major strategies we were trying
6 to hit. We were trying to really, truly connect
7 land use and transportation together because
8 it's kind of a chicken and egg thing. You know,
9 what drives the car? Is it the rooftops or is
10 it something else? So we wanted to really put
11 those together.
12 The other thing we wanted to do is we
13 wanted to have a true multimodal plan for the
14 city. One of the things that happened with the
15 city is, some time ago, the MPO, the
16 Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is
17 what distributes federal and state
18 transportation funds down through to the City,
19 it used to be part of the Planning Department.
20 It was actually our Transportation Planning
21 Division. As their boundaries grew and
22 encapsulated the other counties, there was a
23 sense from the other counties that, because it
24 was part of our department, it was our
25 Transportation Division, that it was too focused
2 independent, and that happened.
3 The net effect of that is for some time we
4 had no Transportation Division because, quite
5 literally, that entire division was picked up
6 and moved across the river and became what is
7 now called the TPO, and -- and we had very
8 little real transportation planning and we had
9 no transportation plan for the city of
11 from the TPO.
12 So we wanted a real transportation plan.
13 We wanted a mechanism to actually fund the
14 plan. And while the goal of the plan in and of
15 itself is not to incentivize growth in any way,
16 we certainly didn't want to disincentivize,
17 and -- and where we could, we would -- we wanted
18 to incentivize it, and these are -- kind of the
19 direction that I'm going to focus the
20 presentation on in terms of the mobility plan.
21 So when we got started, I had two teams. I
22 had a transportation team and I had a land use
23 team, and I kicked them off running in separate
24 directions in the beginning and then later on I
25 tied them together.
1 What I asked the transportation team to do
2 was figure out a way to calculate the average
3 vehicle miles traveled for each traffic analysis
4 zone within the city. What you need to know
5 about a traffic analysis zone is, one, there's
6 about a thousand of them in the city. And what
7 those are is the fundamental unit in which our
8 transportation model works. For each traffic
9 analysis zone, we have socioeconomic data in
10 there that indicates how many trips are produced
11 and -- and because we have that for every zone,
12 the model can tell us not only how many trips
13 are produced but to what other zones those trips
14 go to. And based off that information, we can
15 calculate what the average vehicle mile traveled
16 is. And all that is is the average trip in each
17 one of these zones. For downtown, for instance,
18 the average trip is nine miles. It doesn't mean
19 that every trip is nine miles, but just, on
20 average, the total sum of trips that are
21 generated in any TAZ downtown is about nine
23 And at the same time I had the land use
24 team looking at the urban form of the city and
25 what areas presented the best context in forms
1 of -- in terms of creating the density and the
2 requirements necessary to support transit and
3 other forms of mobility that was not just
4 roadways and highways.
5 They utilized, to a large extent, the
6 vision plans, plans from JTA, and -- and they
7 came up with this map (indicating). And what
8 you'll see there -- you can't really see
9 downtown, but downtown is kind of a light blue.
10 But what we have is the Central Business area.
11 You have that light pink area, which we call the
12 Urban Priority Area, which is quite literally
13 taken out of the vision plans as -- in terms of
14 those areas that the community thought was most
15 supportive of increased intensity and density to
16 support transit.
17 We have the lighter yellow areas, which is
18 what we call the Urban Area, which is kind of
19 that area that represents what we would consider
20 a more urban form. They have a high degree of
21 network -- roadway network connectivity in those
22 areas. The light green area is what we call the
23 Suburban Area, and then the white area is the
24 Rural Area.
25 If you look at these two maps, there was a
1 high correlation between the two. So what I
2 asked staff to do was -- we would go with this
3 map (indicating), kind of let the land use drive
4 the transportation side of it, and we calculated
5 the average vehicle miles traveled for each one
6 of these areas.
7 So that -- that development area map is a
8 fundamental concept to the whole plan. And
9 basically, again, we came up with a Central
10 Business District, an Urban Priority Area, an
11 Urban Area, a Suburban Area, and a Rural Area.
12 And in the FLUE, which you have already adopted,
13 the land use categories adjust based off of
14 these areas. So as you go into areas that are
15 more dense -- that are more urbanized, each land
16 use category allows greater densities and it
17 allows greater intensities. For instance, MDR
18 can go up to 30 units per acre depending upon
19 which level it's in. Transportation-oriented
20 developments, which are on a proposed route from
21 JTA, are allowed by right in any land use
22 category that's nonresidential.
23 So what we did is -- as you get more
24 towards the core, the land use categories become
25 more flexible. So that was one way in which we
1 attempted to compact and -- mass development in
2 the core to support transit. And, again, that
3 piece has been already adopted.
4 So here's what we came up with: Basically,
5 in the Central Business District it's nine
6 miles, and then that -- as you go out to the
7 Rural Area it's about 12-and-a-quarter. So what
8 you see in vehicle miles traveled is a change of
9 about 30 percent, and that becomes important as
10 we go to calculate the mobility fee.
11 So as we were working on our plan, what we
12 did was we identified through traditional
13 measures all of the transportation modes and
14 their deficiencies. So we looked at all the
15 roads that were in the city of
16 looked at their deficiencies over -- up until
17 2030, which is the time horizon of our
18 comprehensive plan.
19 So we looked at all the road failures to
20 2030, we put in the model what our expected
21 population would be in 2030 in our future land
22 use plan, and it generated the traffic patterns
23 in 2030 which allowed us to determine which
24 roadway links would fail at that time.
25 We also looked at bicycle connectivity and
1 what bicycle needs we would need at that time,
2 sidewalks, transit, and put together basically
3 this large needs list of proposed transportation
4 improvements over the 20-year time horizon that
5 we're looking at.
6 Some of these improvements were capacity
7 improvements to the -- for the roadways, which
8 is essentially just adding lanes. Some of them
9 were intelligent transportation systems which
10 allow us to optimize performance on roads. What
11 they are is -- we put cameras on roads so that
12 we can monitor traffic real time. The signals
13 are computerized so that we can -- that they're
14 smart. They can adjust based off traffic
15 loads. There's BRT, which is bus rapid transit,
16 commuter rail, street car, all the different
17 modes are looked at again.
18 So then we had this big list of needs, and
19 we put together a methodology to evaluate the
20 needs as a total package and to prioritize
21 them. And in doing so, we looked at -- at each
22 individual project. They got points for the
23 order of magnitude in which they mitigated
24 deficiencies. So if it -- if it fixed a big
25 problem, it got a lot of points. If it only
1 marginally fixed the problem, it didn't get very
2 many points. It got points based off how big a
3 deficiency the facility was actually under as
4 opposed to how much the improvement fixed it,
5 whether or not it was a multimodal project, a
6 transit project, and whether or not it improved
7 our connectivity, and basically created a
8 prioritization list for this entire list of
9 projects that we determined would be potentially
11 So then we needed some kind of performance
12 measure to determine, okay, how many projects do
13 we need to get the performance measure? This
14 was an item that was discussed quite a bit in
15 the Mobility Task Force, and basically -- I'm
16 not going to go through all of this, but
17 basically what we did is -- let me go to the map
19 These are what we call mobility zones
20 (indicating). They serve a number of purposes,
21 but the purpose for right now is that they
22 identify our performance -- these are areas in
23 which we measure a performance standard, and the
24 performance standard that we adopted is that
25 each one of these areas has to have a combined
1 mobility score of 1.5, which is essentially kind
2 of an E-plus in the old system, but
3 collectively, as a city, that has to have a
4 level of service of 2.0, which is a -- which
5 would be a D, which means we would be -- right
6 now our level of service is an E, which
7 basically means one more trip and the road will
9 The difference, though, is that we're also
10 measuring -- we're no longer measuring on a
11 link-by-link basis. What we're measuring is the
12 system as a whole, and so what we've done is
13 we've identified the capacity in the system for
14 each one of these areas across modes, so, again,
15 that's the roadway -- across modes, rather.
16 That's roads, transit, pedestrians, and bikes.
17 And we came up with a weighted score system. So
18 what you'll see here is the weighted score
19 system that we came up with. And if you can
20 just kind of remember the order here, what
21 you'll see is, mobility zone 1 is number 1 down
22 in the southeast corner and then it kind of goes
23 counterclockwise in a corkscrew with number 10
24 being the Central Business District.
25 So as I run through this, what you'll see
1 is zones 1 and 2, which is basically the
2 Southeast and
3 heavily weighted. It's -- 60 percent of the
4 score goes to the auto mode, 10 percent goes to
5 transit, 15 to bicycle, and 15 to pedestrian,
6 and the projected level of service is at an E,
7 a 1.7.
8 When you look at 3, 4, or 5 and 6, which is
9 basically the outer ring of the city, what
10 you'll see is the -- the road score is much
11 higher. There's just not a roadway network out
12 there, so you'll see it's 80 percent for that
13 outer area of the city in terms of our
14 performance score, 5 percent for transit because
15 there's just not enough density really to
16 support transit out there at this time,
17 10 percent for bicycle, and 5 percent for
19 As you get into 7, 8, and 9, which is kind
20 of that first ring of suburbanization of
21 downtown, you've got kind of the Ortega area,
22 the -- San Marco, Old
23 downtown. What you'll see is the mode shifts.
24 It's basically equivalent there, where the --
25 the weight is 25 percent across the board. And
1 then, again, downtown the truck mode now takes a
2 minor role and it's at 20 percent, transit is at
3 30 percent, the bicycle mode is at 20, and the
4 pedestrian mode is at 30.
5 So the attempt here is to weigh the -- our
6 performance in terms of total mobility within
7 each one of these zones based off the context of
8 that zone. The more urban the zone is, the more
9 we shift the weight to transit and bike/ped.
10 The more rural the zone is, the more the weight
11 gets shifted to the auto side of the equation.
12 And basically what this gave us was some
13 way of measuring whether or not we were meeting
14 a standard, and so what we did then was we took
15 the projects that we had previously evaluated
16 and prioritized and just started plugging them
17 into the model until we reached this performance
18 standard and we reached the goal of meeting the
19 performance standard, and what that did was it
20 gave us a cost to meet the performance standard
21 that the committee recommended.
22 We also had previously looked at, you know,
23 what the vehicle miles traveled was in our base
24 year and what the vehicle miles traveled was in
25 the future year, and so we knew what the
1 difference in vehicle miles traveled was.
2 Well, if you know what the cost of the
3 improvements are and your change in vehicle
4 miles traveled, you can get a cost per vehicle
5 mile, which is the fundamental basis of our
6 mobility fee.
7 So the mobility fee itself, there's a lot
8 of stuff that goes into it in the background,
9 but for the end user, this is all they see
10 (indicating) because it's done once and this is
11 all they see. So it's a simple -- three
12 multiplications. It's the cost per vehicle mile
13 traveled, which is $24 and some change, times
14 the average vehicle miles traveled per
15 development area. And, again, downtown was 9,
16 the rural area was 12-and-a-quarter, so that
17 would be 24 and some change -- if you're
18 downtown, it could be times 9 -- times the
19 number of trips that that project generated.
20 Now, we shifted from -- the current system
21 uses p.m. peak trips. We shifted from p.m. peak
22 trips to average daily trips, and the
23 fundamental reason behind that was we wanted to
24 ensure that everybody ended up paying. One of
25 the complaints with our existing fair share
1 system is some people pay and some people don't
2 pay. And by moving over to an average daily
3 mechanism, we can capture the true impact that
4 everybody puts on the road and everybody is
5 paying basically the same way.
6 So this gives -- basically, everybody
7 can -- who's in the business, could calculate
8 this outright way before they even come and see
9 me. This would give them their worst-case
10 scenario. The projected data, vehicle trips are
11 done the traditional way, so everybody is quite
12 familiar with doing it.
13 That money then goes into those mobility
14 zones that I talked about, and each one of those
15 zones collects a pot of money. And then the
16 prioritized project for that zone, once the
17 money is there, would be done. And then when
18 that project is done, the next priority project
19 for that zone comes down the queue, we fund the
20 zone again and do the next project.
21 Basically, what that does, by using the
22 zones, is not only do we have the rational nexus
23 for why we're collecting the money, but we have
24 the rational nexus to how we're spending it.
25 If you remember what I said was, that
1 simple A times B times C will give a developer
2 the worst-case scenario. We're actually -- you
3 know, we put together some spreadsheets so that
4 people could just do it without even talking to
6 But we wanted to have a mechanism to
7 incentivize quality growth within the city, and
8 the methodology we chose to do that is
9 basically -- I stole it from
11 air quality model was largely driven off of
12 vehicular traffic. And the question they asked
13 was, does the ITE manual adequately represent
14 trip generation in more urbanized areas? And
15 the answer they came to was no. One of the big
16 reasons the answer is no is, if you understand
17 the way the trip generation manuals work is --
18 they're generated from studies submitted by
19 transportation engineers to the ITE, and those
20 studies are based off developments that have
21 been built.
22 Well, all the developments that have been
23 built -- the vast majority of developments that
24 have been built in the last 20 or 30 years are
25 suburban-based developments. They're not --
1 they're not a more urban-style development. And
2 so there was a belief that they overrepresented
3 the trip generation in a more urbanized area.
4 So they came up with a series of adjustments to
5 traditional ITE trip generation, and those
6 adjustments -- if you're familiar with internal
7 capture, which is kind of the idea that if you
8 have a site and you've got a strip center at
9 that site and there's an outparcel with a bank
10 and there's another outparcel with a restaurant,
11 that somebody may drive to that site, go to the
12 bank, get some money, go over and eat at the
13 restaurant, pick up groceries, and go home.
14 Well, that's not three separate trips; that's
15 one trip, and that site has internally captured
16 the trip.
17 Basically, the way our trip reductions work
18 is it's kind of like a super internal capture.
19 What it does is it looks at a half-mile radius
20 around the site. What we look at is the number
21 of roadway intersections within the half-mile
22 radius, which gives us a measure of roadway
23 connectivity. We look at the number of transit
24 stops that meet certain headway conditions
25 within that half mile. We look at the
1 residential density because that's actually one
2 of the largest contributors to trip generation.
3 We look at whether or not there's local-serving
4 retail and employment, and there's a set of
5 equations and you just plug in the numbers and
6 it gives you a trip reduction off the
7 traditional ITE measure.
8 We did some analyses across the city, and
9 basically in the rural/suburban area you get
10 maybe a 2 percent reduction off the trip count.
11 To be honest, that's probably just statistical
12 noise, but it is what it is so we're
14 As you move into the urban -- the urban
15 area, it moves up to around 12 percent,
16 something like that. The urban priority is
17 about 20.
18 We didn't do the downtown; we probably
19 should. But when we were doing the analyses,
20 the idea at the time was that the downtown will
21 be a separate TCA because at the time the comp
22 plan actually stated such. The Mobility Task
23 Force committee was -- they felt strongly that
24 it should be part of an overall plan. JEDC
25 agreed, and so now it's part of our plan, but my
1 suspicion is -- you know, you're looking at
2 25-plus percent reduction in trip credits
4 So that's how we're looking at
5 incentivizing some design criteria that we think
6 is important.
7 Updating the plan. The plan -- even though
8 the plan has a 20-year horizon, it goes to 2030,
9 the reality is it's a five-year plan. We plan
10 on updating the plan every five years in
11 conjunction with the TPO because that will
12 allows us to cost share with the TPO and the
13 development of the model. It will also allow us
14 to work more closely with them in prioritizing
15 federal and state projects in the city.
16 The other thing is we're treading on some
17 pretty new ground here, so there isn't a whole
18 lot of baseline data for us in terms of whether
19 or not we're meeting goals. And so over the
20 first five years and probably after that, we
21 want to look at what data sets we can collect to
22 see whether or not we're -- we're actually
23 achieving the goal of reducing vehicle miles
25 So what are the policy implications of all
1 of this? The big one is, because, naturally,
2 the price of the mobility fee declines as you
3 get into a more urbanized area, we're
4 incentivizing infill and redevelopment. That's
5 best case. Worst case, we're not
6 disincentivizing it because the way our existing
7 concurrency system works is, if you build in an
8 urbanized area, there's a lot of traffic there,
9 so most likely your concurrency is going to fail
10 so you're going to have to pay your fair share.
11 But if you move out to the hinterlands and the
12 greenspace where there's no people, the roadway
13 capacity is probably there, so you can build for
14 free. So if it doesn't incentivize infill and
15 redevelopment, it at least takes away the
16 disincentivation of our existing system.
17 The trip credits incentivize quality growth
18 by giving credit for more compact, mixed-use
19 types of development. We also apply these for
22 of a highly-graded network street and mix of
23 uses, it -- it's still desirable out there. Not
24 only that, but because what we look at is a
25 half-mile radius, I'm hopeful that it would
1 encourage collocating development as opposed to
2 just a completely isolated island out there.
3 The plan doesn't -- while it is regulatory
4 in nature, we don't -- we don't intend to say,
5 "No, you can't do that." Basically, you can do
6 everything that you can do right now underneath
7 our comprehensive plan, but what we've done is
8 that we've provided incentives for you to do it
10 I'm a big proponent of the carrot versus
11 the stick. I think for the most part people
12 will pursue the carrot and do what they can to
13 avoid the stick, so I'm hopeful that I -- that
14 this will be more effective.
15 I'm not naive to think that -- well, I am
16 naive, but I'm not naive enough to think that
17 this is the only thing that drives development
18 decisions, because it's not. But in those
19 situations, what we have is a use looking for a
20 site as opposed to a site looking for a use.
21 I can tell you that when the market was
22 hot, we had people coming to us during test
23 fair shares across the city trying to find the
24 cheapest place to do their development because
25 they had a use and they were just looking for a
2 Clearly, if you have a site, you're stuck
3 with your site and it is what it is. But in
4 those cases, when our market gets hotter again
5 and we have uses looking for sites, I think this
6 will help guide them there.
7 The other is it focuses on the future. We
8 have a 20-year transportation plan, plus a land
9 use plan that goes with it, but ultimately --
10 and I -- and to some degree, I think most
11 importantly, is that it's predictable, it's
12 fair, and it's efficient.
13 It's predictable in the fact that basically
14 anybody can calculate what it will be. It's not
15 dependent upon the fact of when you apply, who
16 applied before you, when we assign a roadway
17 contract, which leads right into fair.
18 Our existing system right now, you can have
19 three developers on a road. Developer A comes
20 in, does a development on the left side of the
21 road. There's capacity on the road, so he gets
22 to go free. He consumes all the capacity on the
23 road in his development.
24 Developer B comes in, wants to do a
25 development directly across the street on the
1 right side of the road, the same size, same
2 scale, same development, there's no capacity on
3 the road, so he has to pay a fair share.
4 Between the time that he signs the contract
5 for the fair share and the time the department
6 recognizes that there's a problem there and we
7 get a contract out to improve the road, we sign
8 the contract. The way the system works, as soon
9 as we sign the contract to initiate construction
10 of improvements to the road, that capacity is
11 added to the roadway system.
12 Developer C comes in, locates directly
13 adjacent to B, across the street from A, there's
14 now capacity on the road, he gets to go free.
15 So our existing system is completely
17 And, lastly, it's efficient in the sense
18 that not only are we addressing how we're
19 collecting the money, but we're addressing how
20 the money is spent up front. Right now our
21 existing fair share system, the money goes into
22 a pot, but there's no -- we don't know, until
23 some future point, what that money is going to
24 be spent to. And the reality is, because
25 there's money sitting there that's not actually
1 tied to any project, bits and pieces of it gets
2 pulled out to do smaller projects and we never
3 accumulate enough money to do something that is
4 truly meaningful.
5 I close my comments on just kind of a
6 comparison of the fair share system and the
7 mobility fee in terms of actual cost and scale.
8 We did the analysis where we looked at
9 2009, all the fair shares that we've done in
10 2009, and then we reevaluated them based off of
11 this proposed mobility plan. And basically what
12 we came up with is that the mobility fee, on
13 average -- not in all cases; some cases the
14 mobility fee actually turned out to be more than
15 our existing fair share. But, on average, the
16 mobility fee was about 53 percent the cost of
17 the fair share.
18 Now, there are a number of reasons for
19 that, but I think one of the big reasons is the
20 fact that everybody pays now. So because
21 everybody pays, you don't have anybody who's
22 getting a free ride, which means the guy who's
23 getting the free ride is now going to have to
24 pay where he didn't have to pay before. But as
25 a result of that, everybody gets to go at a
1 lesser cost.
2 And I guess, with that, with the
3 indulgence -- the chair of our Mobility Task
4 Force, T.R. Hainline, would like to make a few
6 PRESIDENT WEBB: Please.
7 Mr. Hainline.
8 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Applause.)
9 MR. HAINLINE: First of all, I wish I had
10 brought hot cocoa to sell, make some money here.
11 I was the chair of the Mobility Fee Task
12 Force, which was formed when the Planning
13 Department first proposed its draft mobility
14 plan. Actually, they first proposed it last
15 December and in January, and the administration
16 formed this Mobility Fee Task Force with input
17 from the council, and just --
18 We have met, since February, every two
19 weeks, so hours and hours and hours have gone
20 into vetting. And what I want to give you, in
21 just a minute or two, is the -- is a concept for
22 how thoroughly this plan and this fee have been
24 And let me just mention the members of our
25 task force. It's Mike Anania, who's from
1 the -- and most of them are here today. Mike
2 Anania, who's from the
3 Councilman Bishop; Brenda Ezell; Mike Getchell,
4 who's from the
5 Hart; Chris Jones; Staci Rewis; Bob Rhodes; and
6 Jim Robinson.
7 And, as I said, we've met every two weeks
8 since March, and the attendance -- we never had
9 a quorum problem. We -- really, almost
10 everybody came to almost all the meetings and we
11 had great attendance at these meetings, and
12 we -- we heard from diverse experts in this
13 area. Obviously, we heard a lot from the
14 Planning Department and its consultant, who
15 prepared the original mobility study that backed
16 up the plan, which is Ghyabi & Associates. We
17 heard from the Office of General Counsel,
18 obviously; FDOT; JTA. JEDC talked to us about
19 downtown and its implications. And we got
20 regular input and attendance from not only the
21 staff but also from the MPO, the Regional
22 Council. And, again, staff from FDOT, JTA, and
23 JEDC were at almost all of our meetings.
24 We thoroughly debated all the aspects that
25 Bill went through. Our debate resulted in
1 revisions in the analysis, the methodology, and
2 the results of the study and, therefore, what
3 the fee actually proposes and says.
4 And, ultimately, at our last meeting in
5 November, we unanimously recommended this plan
6 and this fee to the Planning Commission and to
7 the Council.
8 I would remind everybody, as Bill did, that
9 the status quo is unacceptable, undesirable. We
10 have a fair share system that no one likes.
11 It's wildly unpredictable, both as to when it
12 applies and what the results of that application
13 will be. And, as a result, because of that
14 unpredictablity, it's an enemy of economic
16 This fee represents a more broad-based,
17 more predictable system and a system that is
18 part of an overall plan to improve mobility and
19 provide quality growth. And that's one reason,
20 I think, why everybody, from all aspects on the
21 committee, bought off on it and supports it.
22 On behalf of our whole task force, I
23 definitely want to thank the staff. At many
24 junctures, we asked them to look at things from
25 a different perspective and redo analyses, and
1 they never hesitated, they never -- you know,
2 sometimes people can defend the work that's in
3 it and kind of get stuck. They never did. They
4 responded to every comment and input and request
5 that we gave to them, and so tremendous thanks
6 to the staff for their response to our questions
7 and our requests.
8 Obviously, I thank my task force and also
9 the participants, everybody who attended all of
10 our meetings, for their hard work. And, as I
11 say, I'm here and many of us are here to answer
12 any questions that y'all have, and we thank you
13 for your attendance today.
14 Thank you.
15 PRESIDENT WEBB: Thanks, T.R. Appreciate
16 that. Thank you very much for all your work,
17 and the entire committee and staff and all who
19 I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bishop to
20 lead the discussion or any questions, but -- and
21 I have a couple of questions of my own.
22 First of all, one is more legal,
23 legislative. What council action ultimately is
24 required with adoption of the mobility fee, and
25 is there legislation drafted, and what is the
1 status of all of that? Bill, if you can answer
2 that or General Counsel.
3 MR. BISHOP: We have to pass legislation.
4 Where it is in the process, that I don't know.
5 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: It's being introduced
7 PRESIDENT WEBB: It's being introduced
8 tonight. Okay. Good.
9 MR. HAINLINE: Bill, you might want to
10 explain this as a transmittal.
11 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: This is -- because this
12 is a -- actually an amendment to our
13 comprehensive plan, it's being introduced
14 tonight. What the council is going to recommend
15 is that we transfer it -- transmit it to the
16 State for comments. They will then provide us
18 We'll have about three months to look at
19 those comments and address them, and then we'll
20 react to them and then submit the plan for final
21 adoption. The goal is to be adopted -- the
22 statute requires adoption by July of 2011, and
23 our schedule meets that.
24 MR. BISHOP: Bill, you also want to talk
25 just a little bit about the relationship of this
1 proposed plan with the status of Senate Bill 360
2 that got thrown out and is being tweaked in the
3 next session? How is all this going to mesh in
4 what we're doing? Is it going to mesh in a
5 fashion and a time line that will, in a sense,
6 go into effect or is it going to be sitting in a
7 holding pattern for a while until the
8 legislature gets their act together?
9 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Sure.
10 One of the things that happened shortly
11 after we finished our initial work is that the
12 court determined Senate Bill 360 to be
13 unconstitutional, and what happened shortly
14 thereafter was that the State appealed that
16 Having gone through a number of these
17 situations before, it's my opinion that the
18 appeal process will take longer than it will
19 take for the legislature to fix it.
20 My understanding is that there's already
21 three draft bills out there right now. One of
22 them addresses the separation issue because 360
23 had language in it that covered multiple
24 chapters, and apparently that's
25 unconstitutional, so they separated that out.
1 Another thing was that it was found to be
2 an unfunded mandate, and my suspicion is the
3 simple cure for that is to make it optional --
4 PRESIDENT WEBB: Since when has that been
6 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, you know, the
7 irony is -- seeing how you brought that up, I'll
8 talk about that a minute.
9 The irony of the situation was, they didn't
10 find the fact that we had to do these roadway
11 improvements unconstitu- -- an unfunded
12 mandate. What they found was an unfunded
13 mandate was the cost of the legislative process
14 to adopt the plan, which -- how is not
15 everything, then, an unfunded mandate?
16 But be that as it may, to answer your
17 question, I think we're fine.
18 MR. BISHOP: Okay.
19 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: One, I think the appeal
20 process will go beyond July of 2011. There's a
21 House bill that says if you adopt anything in
22 Senate Bill 360, you're presumed to be cured of
23 the -- of the defects in the law and you can go
24 forward underneath that, so I think we'll be
25 covered by that. I also believe that the
1 legislature, this cycle, will fix the issues
2 with Senate Bill 360.
3 So, you know, we had a discussion as part
4 of the Mobility Task Force, what to do once the
5 news came out that the court found it
6 unconstitutional, and the decision was to drive
7 forward. We'll address whatever issues come up
8 when they come up because, quite frankly, this
9 is just the right thing for the City to do. And
10 if we have to go up and deal with our
11 legislature, we'll do that.
12 MR. BISHOP: There's just a couple of
13 comments I want to make.
14 Number one, Bill, you and your team should
15 be commended for all the work that went into
16 this. And T.R., in particular, should be
17 commended for running the committee. It was
18 very well run. The whole thing took a very
19 complex topic, it made it very understandable.
20 And your presentation this morning also did
21 exactly the same thing. This is not something
22 that's easy to get your hands wrapped around,
23 especially something -- when it's a change in
24 mindset from what we've been dealing with for
25 the last 25 years or so.
1 And to echo your -- this is good for the
2 city. This is good stuff right here, and I
3 think it will do -- it's probably not going to
4 work exactly like we think it will, but I think
5 at the end of the day it's going to work far
6 better than what we have right now.
7 And I guess, Jack, at that point, if
8 there's questions from people about where it is
9 at the moment, what it's about, we have all the
10 right people here that can answer those
12 PRESIDENT WEBB: The mobility fee addresses
13 vehicular transportation, much like fair share;
14 is that correct?
15 MR. BISHOP: Correct.
16 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right. However,
17 the -- the transportation plan, as developed by
18 the Planning Department, is multimodal in focus;
19 is that --
20 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The fee actually
21 applies towards all modes.
22 PRESIDENT WEBB: All modes. So it goes
23 in -- so your mobility fee money goes into a
24 bucket, then it goes into different subbuckets
25 being --
1 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, it doesn't go
2 into different subbuckets.
3 What we have is a wholistic list of all
4 modes and all needs and then we prioritize
5 that. So in some mobility zones the number one
6 priority might be a transit project or it might
7 be a pedestrian-based project or it might be a
8 road improvement.
9 PRESIDENT WEBB: How does that work in
10 conjunction with the JTA and their bus rapid
11 transit and their multimodal discussions as
13 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, that's -- most of
14 what we've done for JTA is -- we addressed in
16 allowing TODs by right on a proposed transit
17 route as long as you're in a nonresidential land
18 use category, so there won't be -- you won't
19 need a land use change, you won't need anything
20 to do that.
21 There are other tools that we stuck in
22 there, but from a funding mechanism -- you know,
23 a lot of how the funding will actually occur I
24 think is going to be addressed in the ordinance
25 because the next part of this -- what we're
1 working on now is the actual local ordinance
2 which implements these comp plan policies, so
3 that will come before you at the same time that
4 we bring the comp plan for adoption.
5 PRESIDENT WEBB: Given the nature of the
6 system, these are capital dollars, not operating
8 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: These are capital
9 dollars, no operating dollars.
10 PRESIDENT WEBB: Bondable?
11 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: No.
12 MR. BISHOP: It's too unpredictable.
13 MR. DAY: I have some questions --
14 PRESIDENT WEBB: Please.
15 MR. DAY: -- if you don't mind.
16 And I agree too, this is definitely better
17 than the fair share system that we currently
18 have for a lot of reasons.
19 What's going to happen with the current
20 fair share agreements that we have in place? I
21 know you analyzed them, but what is going to be
22 sort of allowed in the legislation for current
23 fair share agreements and even current fair
24 share reservations?
25 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The way the system we
1 proposed would work is that, if you had a fair
2 share, then come adoption of the mobility plan
3 you'll have a choice to make once you decide to
4 pull a permit. You can either maintain your
5 existing fair share, because that's a signed
6 contract between the City and the developer, or
7 you can look at that fair share and go, "Wow,
8 I'd be better off going with the mobility plan,"
9 vacate your fair share, and then just come under
10 the new mobility fee.
11 If you have what we call a CRC, which is
12 reserved capacity, because you got it free and
13 you reserved it, then -- those have time limits
14 on them. So you'll be allowed to keep that and
15 then they'll just time out at some point in the
16 future, so you either end up using them or
17 losing them.
18 MR. DAY: Right.
19 So once this goes into effect, you're not
20 going to be reissuing those reservations for the
21 capacity, correct?
22 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, those mechanisms
23 to extend their life, but at some point they do
25 MR. DAY: Right.
1 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yes. And we -- there's
2 no -- there will be no -- this system has no
3 reservation system to it at all, so basically
4 calculate your fee, come in, pay your fee, pull
5 the permit and go. So there's no reservations
6 on our part at all.
7 MR. BISHOP: It creates a baseline for
8 everybody to operate on as opposed to the
9 current system. The analogy that Bill used,
10 that you might -- somebody might come in today,
11 pay nothing, capacity is gone, the next guy pays
12 now with the hypothetical road project, then the
13 third guy comes on and doesn't pay anymore.
14 Everybody is operating on the same baseline.
15 MR. DAY: Right, and I -- I think that's a
16 better method. I was just kind of curious what
17 happened to people that currently have --
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: People who have
19 entitlements now will be allowed to keep those
20 entitlements until they use them or time out.
21 MR. DAY: Okay.
22 MR. HARDESTY: But I heard there was an
23 extension of the --
24 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: There are mechanisms to
25 extend different development entitlements, but
1 they all time out eventually. They can't be
2 extended indefinitely.
3 MR. HARDESTY: Wouldn't it be better,
4 though, to limit that time extender operation in
5 a free pass kind of situation so you would
6 essentially incentivize them to use it right now
7 to get folks working and building now? And then
8 they have the -- then they're basically going
9 into the mobility plan without a --
10 MR. BISHOP: I would argue that's a
11 separate policy decision, independent of the
12 mobility plan itself.
13 PRESIDENT WEBB: I would agree with that.
14 What is the current mechanism for extension
15 of the reservation? That's a council action, is
16 it not?
17 MR. BISHOP: There's some procedural --
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: That's administrative.
19 MR. BISHOP: -- administrative procedures
20 in place, depending on what the entitlements
21 are. There's a half a dozen different
22 entitlement systems out there that various
23 people are operating under. They all have --
24 (Simultaneous speaking.)
25 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: You know, like in terms
1 of fair share, which would have to come back
2 before council -- I don't think the Department
3 would recommend the extension of a fair share
4 after the mobility fee was adopted, but if
5 you -- if you had a ten-year fair share that was
6 a signed contract, right now, it had eight years
7 left on it, then --
8 PRESIDENT WEBB: It is what it is.
9 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: -- it is what it is.
10 MR. BISHOP: It is what it -- it's a
11 contract. So you then decide, does it make
12 sense to you, personally, for your development
13 to keep that contract, or in the case of what
14 Bill is saying, a lot of these mobility fees are
15 going to be less than fair share, so you might
16 say it's not worth it to keep it and just simply
17 start over.
18 MR. DAY: Do you know -- I know you gave
19 a -- you said $24 per average daily trip. Do
20 you have an idea, sort of a -- one of those
21 subdivision -- or suburban areas, what it would
22 cost per house? I mean, it's hard -- I
23 guess --
24 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yeah. Actually, you
25 know, if I -- what I'm going to use is 10 for
1 vehicle miles traveled because it will make the
2 math easy and I can do that in my head. And 10
3 actually kind of represents the --
4 MR. DAY: It's in between that 9 and 12.
5 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yeah, it actually
6 represents kind of a citywide average, is
7 10 vehicle miles traveled.
8 But the average house, in terms of average
9 daily trips, generates 10 trips. So if you are
10 in a zone that is, you know, 10 vehicle miles
11 traveled, it would be 10 times 10. So that's
12 100 times $24 per vehicle mile. That's $2,400
13 per house.
14 MR. DAY: Just to -- that's a little
15 easier, I think, to understand what that, you
16 know, cost is because I know, you know, counties
17 that do impact fees for traffic and, you know,
18 some other mechanisms. It's easier to sort of
19 compare, you know, where is Duval falling in --
20 you know, compared to those.
21 When is the proposed fee supposed to be
22 paid in the legislation? Is it paid --
23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: It's paid --
24 MR. DAY: Is it paid before development?
25 Is it paid when the house is built?
1 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: It's paid at the time
2 the permit is pulled.
3 MR. DAY: Oh, the permit.
4 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: So you can't pull a
5 permit until you pay the fee.
6 MR. DAY: Has there been discussion to have
7 that permit paid when the actual house is built
8 or the improvement is made that is causing that,
9 just as far as helping -- you know, not
10 disincentivize --
11 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: There hasn't.
12 I guess my concern there would be
13 implementation. It's real easy for us to
14 control whether or not you got a permit. But
15 once that house is on the ground, then how do we
16 go back and -- it just opens up a whole --
17 MR. BISHOP: That's pretty reasonable
18 because when you pull a permit, you're -- you
19 don't generally pull permits until you're ready
20 to build.
21 MR. DAY: You're talking about a permit on
22 a house, not the permit on the development?
23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Correct.
24 MR. DAY: Okay. I was thinking a ten-set
25 permit versus a house permit.
1 MR. HAINLINE: If I would just add,
2 remember that what we're talking about now is
3 the transmittal of the plan amendment. The plan
4 amendment will come back. We'll be talking in
5 the spring, in the March, April, May time
6 period, about the adoption of the amendments and
7 then the actual ordinance to be adopted, and the
8 ordinance will spell out the details of --
9 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Questions you're
11 MR. HAINLINE: -- the question that you're
12 asking, which is, do you pay the actual building
13 permit of the house or is the permit for the
14 subdivision, you know, horizontally?
15 And the same vetting process through our
16 task force will occur for that ordinance and
17 those detailed implementing questions, so -- so
18 the question you're asking, which is very, very
19 important, particularly to home builders, is
20 going to be vetted through the same process and
21 we'll analyze that from all different angles,
22 so --
23 MR. DAY: And I had one more question.
24 How are DRIs affected or sort of large
25 developments where part of what they're doing is
1 improving transportation -- I know previously in
2 fair share there was concessions made for -- if
3 you're building this road, it equals, you know,
4 some amount of fair share cost or -- you know,
5 is -- are they still going to be looked at
6 separately or --
7 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: DRIs are basically
8 vested from the mobility plan because they have
9 a development order which requires them. It's
10 essentially and conceptually kind of like a big
11 fair share contract. They have a development
12 order that allows them to do certain
13 developments in exchange for certain
15 So the -- so they're -- the plan actually
16 explicitly vests them. So whatever entitlements
17 they have as a DRI, they have.
18 MR. DAY: And will there be DRIs after this
19 gets implemented or will they go away completely
20 or --
21 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Senate Bill 360
22 eliminated DRIs from
23 MR. HOLT: When did you get your trip
25 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The trip numbers?
1 What's the date on the -- the base year was
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You mean for the model?
4 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yeah.
5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 2008.
6 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: 2008.
7 PRESIDENT WEBB: Any other questions from
8 the Planning Commission?
9 COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 PRESIDENT WEBB: Okay. Bill, anything
12 MR. BISHOP: The only thing --
13 PRESIDENT WEBB: Any other questions from
14 the crowd?
15 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
16 MR. BISHOP: The only other thing I want to
17 add is when this -- and I'm not sure how the
18 Planning Commission is going to do it, but when
19 it gets to TEU, we will also have a presentation
20 of the -- it may be what Bill just did now, it
21 may be a little bit different, but a
22 presentation to summarize what it's all about
23 and have our own public hearing about it
24 because -- since it's just now come out, there
25 may be questions that people think of between
1 now and January when we do -- when it comes up
2 to committee, I want to make sure that everybody
3 has a chance to weigh in on it and -- and get
4 their opinion -- get any questions answered that
5 they have because this is a big deal, a big
7 PRESIDENT WEBB: Bill, I would ask as well
8 that TEU conduct a special meeting on this
9 matter specifically and do it after 5 o'clock,
10 maybe 5:30 in the afternoon --
11 MR. BISHOP: That's a good idea.
12 PRESIDENT WEBB: -- so people have an
13 opportunity to participate.
14 MR. BISHOP: That's a very good idea.
15 We'll do that.
16 PRESIDENT WEBB: Okay.
17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: And if I could just
18 interject. It will be at LUZ as well.
19 PRESIDENT WEBB: Well, why don't you do a
20 joint meeting with LUZ and TEU, like at 5:30 on
21 Wednesday or something.
22 MR. BISHOP: That's a very good idea.
23 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right. Does it go
24 before Rules at all? I think it may.
25 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Where is -- does it go
1 before Rules?
2 MR. REINGOLD: It's my understanding right
3 now that the bill would be going to TEU and to
4 the Land Use and Zoning Committee.
5 PRESIDENT WEBB: That's fine.
7 MR. BISHOP: Okay.
8 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right.
9 MR. BISHOP: Well, we'll get that meeting
10 set up and then make an announcement on when it
11 is, give everybody plenty of time to plan for
13 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right. Anything
15 COUNCIL MEMBERS: (No response.)
16 COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 PRESIDENT WEBB: All right. Thanks,
18 everyone, for being here today. I appreciate
19 you all coming down.
20 And, Bill, thank you for all your work.
21 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
22 11:06 a.m.)
23 - - -
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
6 I, Diane M. Tropia, certify that I was
7 authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
9 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
10 Dated this 21st day of December, 2010.
14 Diane M. Tropia