1 CITY OF
2 TEU AND LUZ JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING
3 MOBILITY PLAN
4
5
6 Proceedings held on Monday, January 3,
7 2011, commencing at 5:10 p.m., City Hall, Council
8 Chambers, 1st Floor,
9 Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State
10 of
11
12 PRESENT:
13 TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY UTILITIES & SAFETY:
14 BILL BISHOP, Joint Meeting Chair.
STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
15 KEVIN HYDE, Committee Member.
JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Committee Member.
16
LAND USE AND ZONING:
17
JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.
18 BILL BISHOP, Committee Member.
DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
19 STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
2
1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 WARREN JONES, City Council Member.
BILL KILLINGSWORTH, Director, Planning Dept.
3 JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
4 HEATHER NORSWORTHY, Council Auditor's Office.
JEFF CLEMENTS, Research Division.
5 MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
6 - - -
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 January 3, 2011 5:10 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, everyone.
5 We'll go ahead and get this road show on
6 the road, now that we have most of our
7 colleagues up here today.
8 I want to thank everyone for being here
9 this evening.
10 As you all may know, this special joint
11 committee meeting between TEU and LUZ is being
12 done at the request of our president,
13 President Webb, because of the importance of
14 this particular piece of legislation as it
15 portends to be a game changer in how we fund
16 transportation in this city, at least I think
17 that's what we hope will happen.
18 So before we get started, let's go around
19 and introduce ourselves so we all know who we
20 are, and we'll start on the -- my left with
21 Ms. Norsworthy.
22 MS. NORSWORTHY: Heather Norsworthy,
23 Council Auditor's Office.
24 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold with the
25 Office of the General Counsel.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
4
1 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4,
2 councilman.
3 MR. CRESCIMBENI: John Crescimbeni,
4 City Council, at-large, Group 2.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Bill Bishop, TEU Chair,
6 District 2.
7 MR. JOOST: Stephen Joost, Group 3,
8 at-large.
9 MR. HYDE: Kevin Hyde, Group 4, at-large.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Great.
11 The format for tonight will be fairly
12 simple. I think we -- it should be fairly
13 efficiently run. We'll start out with --
14 Mr. Killingsworth will do a presentation on what
15 the mobility fee is. He may have some other
16 folks that he would like to come up and
17 elaborate on some things.
18 This is intended to be a workshop as well,
19 so anyone who wishes to speak, ask questions, or
20 whatnot, we have blue cards down there for those
21 to fill out if you'd like to make comments about
22 it.
23 And, with that, we will go ahead and get
24 started, and I'll turn the floor over to Bill.
25 (Mr. Killingsworth approaches the podium.)
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
5
1 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Good evening and
2 Happy New Year.
3 I am Bill Killingsworth, the director of
4 Planning and Development, and I'm here today to
5 try to condense these documents (indicating),
6 which is our Mobility Plan, and the background
7 data, and one other, which you've already
8 approved, which is the revision of our
9
10 that in about 20 minutes' worth of verbiage that
11 at the end I hope you understand generally what
12 it is we were doing.
13 When the requirement for us to do a
14 Mobility Plan came up, it actually turned out
15 that it was a well-timed opportunity for the
16 City. The City was just completing the first
17 draft of three vision plans, which was the
18 Urban Core,
19 had previously done vision plans for the North,
20 the Northwest, and the Southwest, so we already
21 had a lot of public input.
22 The TPO, which is our Transportation
23 Planning Organization -- they're the people who
24 allocate funding from the Feds and the State for
25 transportation improvements -- had just finished
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
6
1 updating the model for their long-range
2 transportation plan. That's important because
3 the cost and the effort in putting together a
4 long-range transportation plan is about a
5 two-year effort and it can be well over a
6 million dollars to do. Because they had just
7 fished that, we were able to capture that and
8 not, A, consume that time; and, B, the financial
9 resources to do it.
10 Additionally, there was a consensus brewing
11 that our existing fair share system was neither
12 fair nor efficient or effective at what it was
13 doing, and I'll come back to that later.
14 And then in July, the legislature
15 designated -- or passed Senate Bill 360, and one
16 of the things that did was designate
17
18 requirement to being a
19 that you have to do a Mobility Plan, which is
20 what this document is about.
21 So when we got together in July of 2009 and
22 was looking at how we would craft this Mobility
23 Plan -- and the legislature gave us two years to
24 get this done, so we have to adopt by July of
25 2011 -- there were four basic goals we wanted to
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
7
1 achieve. One was we needed to come up with a
2 mobility fee system. The other was we wanted to
3 be able to truly link our land use and
4 transportation strategies together, and we
5 wanted to do this through our comprehensive plan
6 goals, policies, and objectives.
7 So, again, just to kind of reiterate, we
8 wanted to connect land use and transportation,
9 we wanted to have a true multimodal plan.
10 Some of you may know or may not know
11 that -- I guess it was maybe six years ago. I
12 don't know the exact time frame, but it used to
13 be that the Metropolitan Planning Organization,
14 which is what it was called at that time, and
15 the City's Transportation Planning Division were
16 one and the same organization.
17 As the boundaries of that organization
18 grew, the surrounding counties felt that it was
19 unfair for the City's Planning Department to be
20 the staff that represented the entire MPO
21 boundary, so they became an independent
22 organization. One of the things that that did
23 was it literally ripped our entire
24 Transportation Planning Division out of the
25 department, and we set up this independent
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
8
1 Transportation Planning Organization. So for a
2 number of years we actually did not have any
3 Transportation Planning staff, so -- and, as a
4 result, we had no true transportation plan.
5 So as result -- one of the things we wanted
6 to achieve was to have a real meaningful
7 multimodal plan. We wanted to come up with a
8 mechanism to fund it.
9 And the last thing that we wanted to do was
10 we wanted to, where we could, use this as a tool
11 to actually incentivize what we felt was quality
12 growth and development. And so using this as
13 kind of a framework, I'll go through what we
14 did.
15 The first thing I did was I put together
16 two teams. One was a transportation team, the
17 other was a land use team. I asked the
18 transportation team to calculate the average
19 vehicle miles traveled by traffic analysis
20 zone.
21 Now, what a traffic analysis zone is, it's
22 the smallest unit that we model transportation
23 on. And within that unit, we know the
24 socioeconomics there. We know how many people
25 are there, we know how many school-age kids are
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
9
1 there, we know how much employment is there.
2 And using that, we can model how many trips are
3 generated in that zone and where those trips go
4 to. There are approximately a thousand TAZs
5 within the city of
6 So I asked them, by TAZ, to calculate what
7 we call the average vehicle mile traveled. And
8 what that is is the average distance that a
9 single trip from that zone drives. And the end
10 result was the map that I -- I hope you're
11 looking at, which is a green -- it goes from a
12 light green to a red, and basically what we have
13 is from lowest being the light green, to red
14 being the highest, average vehicle miles
15 traveled within the city.
16 And kind of look at that because as I got
17 to the land use team, I tasked the land use team
18 to look at our vision plans and to look at
19 the -- JTA's transit plans, and come up with --
20 from a land use perspective, what would be ideal
21 zones from a transportation perspective, and
22 what they came up with is the map that you're
23 looking at.
24 In discussions -- and briefly, I think
25 there's some delay between -- but I'll go back
Diane M. Tropia,
Inc.,
10
1 to the TAZ map. If you can, again, kind of look
2 at that, and then I'll come back to what we call
3 the development areas map.
4 There is kind of a high degree of
5 correlation between the vehicle miles traveled
6 and these -- what we call development areas, so
7 what we chose to do was -- we took these --
8 based off land use criteria, these areas that we
9 call development areas and we calculated what
10 the average vehicle mile traveled was in each
11 one of these development areas.
12 The other thing that we did, which you've
13 already acted on and has been found in
14 compliance with the State, is we made
15 modifications to our
16 based off of these development areas. So what
17 you'll see here is we have a development area,
18 we have a Central Business District, we have an
19 area that we call the Urban Priority Area, which
20 is basically kind of that first level of
21 suburbanization around downtown. We have the
22 Urban Area, which is more kind of a 1970s
23 development pattern where -- and then we have
24 what we call Suburban and Rural.
25 In our Future Land Use Element, again,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
11
1 which you've already adopted, the Suburban and
2 Rural basically didn't change at all. What you
3 could do there is -- you could do now, just like
4 you could have done a year ago.
5 What has changed, though, particularly is
6 the Urban Priority and the Urban Area. What we
7 did was -- in those areas, we allowed a greater
8 mix of uses. So within the commercial and
9 residential, there's a greater flexibility in
10 mixed uses.
11 The other thing we did was we encouraged
12 greater densities. And one of the ways we did
13 this is -- for instance, in the Urban Priority
14 Area, with a supporting neighborhood plan, LDR
15 can go to, I think, 10 or 15 units per acre.
16 MDR can now go to 30 units per area. So the
17 idea was to kind of increase the density in
18 these areas to support real meaningful transit.
19 So, again, coming back to the idea that I
20 asked them -- I just went through this, so I'll
21 skip through this kind of quick. I asked them
22 to calculate the average vehicle miles traveled
23 by these development areas. So what you'll see
24 is, in the Central Business District, we
25 basically -- the average trip there is basically
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
12
1 nine miles. In the Urban Priority, it's
2 nine-and-a-quarter. We get up to the Rural
3 Area, and it gets up to twelve-and-a-quarter.
4 This is important because these numbers actually
5 play into the calculation of our mobility fee.
6 So now we have --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni has a quick
8 question, if you don't mind.
9 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: No problem.
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Would you prefer those at
11 the end or --
12 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: However you want to do
13 it.
14 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Going back to the
15 previous panel with the numbers on there --
16 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Which -- that one
17 (indicating)?
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: No, that's not it.
19 The one with your numbers, based on the
20 different classifications, going from nine
21 miles --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: The vehicle miles traveled
23 slide.
24 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The vehicle miles
25 traveled?
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
13
1 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Yeah, there we go.
2 So let's take, for example, the Rural Area,
3 12.27 miles. When you say "vehicle miles
4 traveled," can you give me a further definition
5 of that?
6 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Sure.
7 The average trip that is generated in the
8 Rural Area, their destination is
9 12-and-a-half -- or 12-and-a-quarter miles away,
10 on average. So every time somebody in the Rural
11 Area gets in a car and goes somewhere, on
12 average, that trip length is 12-and-a-half -- or
13 12-and-a-quarter. That doesn't mean any
14 particular trip is 12-and-a-quarter, but the
15 total number of trips that are generated in that
16 area --
17 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So the origination of all
18 these are from within the specific area?
19 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Correct.
20 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: So, again, we have that
22 fundamental basis of how we put together the
23 plan.
24 The next thing was we needed to have an
25 actual transportation plan, and so what we did
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
14
1 was we identified what we believed were
2 transportation deficiencies out to 2030, which
3 is the horizon year of our comprehensive plan,
4 and we identified needs for all modes, so they
5 were bicycle, they were roadway, they were
6 transit, as well as pedestrian modes.
7 An example of some of the projects we
8 looked at, we looked at capacity improvements on
9 the roads, which is basically increasing the
10 number of lanes that are on the road. We looked
11 at ITS, which is Intelligent Transportation
12 Systems, and basically on most of our major
13 arterials now what you'll see is -- there are
14 cameras there and there's intelligent
15 controllers that are at the signalization, and
16 those controllers are connected to fiberoptics.
17 And the ultimate plan for all of that is to go
18 back to a central control station. And what
19 they can do for us is, A, they can intelligently
20 control the traffic on the network so that we
21 can maximize flow. And if we have to reroute,
22 say, 95 or something, we can resignalize on the
23 fly to optimize the flow based on us rerouting
24 traffic patterns. We also looked at bus rapid
25 transit out of the JTA, commuter rail,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
15
1 streetcar.
2 One of the things we did was we created a
3 bike lane inventory. We have a policy in the
4 comprehensive plan that requires us to stripe
5 for bike lanes whenever the outside roadway
6 width is sufficient. And when we inventoried
7 the bike lanes that have been done, it became
8 real apparent that it was all very effective
9 because all the roads that were built and
10 resurfaced after the comprehensive plan have
11 bike lanes on it and all the ones that don't do
12 not.
13 But the policy wasn't specific in trying to
14 ensure that there was connectivity, so one of
15 the things we saw there was there was a lack of
16 connectiv- -- we have a lot of bike lanes, but
17 most of them aren't connected to each other, so
18 there's no true bicycle network that could be
19 used for transportation purposes. So this plan
20 looks at those -- where those breakdowns are and
21 proposes projects so that we have a meaningful
22 bicycle network.
23 We also looked at pedestrian improvements
24 in terms of sidewalks. Basically the same kind
25 of thing, where can we input sidewalks that will
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
16
1 create the network for pedestrians so that they
2 can get from point A to point B without having
3 to walk on the shoulder?
4 So we had this list of improvements that we
5 thought we needed to do. We needed a way to
6 prioritize them, so what we did was we kind of
7 used what the TPO uses in terms of their
8 prioritization system and we tweaked it for
9
10 it looks at the individual project, how much
11 deficiency does that project mitigate. It also
12 looks at, in terms of the facility that we're
13 doing an improvement on, how big a deficiency is
14 there. So if it's a little deficiency, then
15 that -- it doesn't get as much weight. If it's
16 a big deficiency, it gets a lot of weight. If
17 the project can improve the capacity there a
18 lot, then it gets more weight. If it's only a
19 small improvement, it gets lesser weight.
20 Whether or not the improvement provides
21 multimodal connectivity and whether or not it
22 accesses transit. So we created a matrix that
23 scores it all out kind of mechanically and gives
24 us a score in terms of prioritization on these
25 projects.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
17
1 So now we have -- we have a list of
2 projects that are prioritized, which kind of
3 makes up the global plan. We needed a mechanism
4 in which we could identify a way of, okay, if we
5 start funding these projects, how do we know
6 when we're done? So we needed some kind of
7 performance standard to go by.
8 The traditional performance standard is a
9 link-by-link analysis or a route-by-route
10 analysis on transit. There is no real
11 traditional for bike or ped, and what we wanted
12 to do was have something that looked at the
13 system as a whole and weighted the components
14 and gave us an opportunity to say that the
15 system as a whole is meeting the performance
16 standard, so we came up with a mechanism in
17 which we graded each of the modes -- road, bike,
18 ped and pedestrian -- and then weighted those
19 based off the urban context or the built
20 environment in which the facility was located.
21 So what we have -- this map is what we call
22 a mobility zone map. It does two things for
23 us. One, these zones are how we measure our
24 performance standard; and two, these are the
25 zones in which the buckets of money we collect
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
18
1 go into. So it's similar to our fair share
2 sectors in the sense of, this is where the money
3 goes. The added thing that's to it is that each
4 one of these has a performance standard on what
5 the transportation system has to achieve there.
6 So what -- again, what I said was, you
7 know, we had a weighted overall score for each
8 zone. One of the things I want you to look at
9 just so you can kind of conceptualize this when
10 I go through it -- what you'll see here is
11 Zone 1 is the southeast corner of the city.
12 Zone 2 is kind of
13 north, and 4 -- so kind of -- it goes --
14 basically, it's a counterclockwise corkscrew
15 with Zone 10 being the downtown/Central Business
16 District.
17 (Mr. Warren Jones enters the proceedings.)
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: So what we did was --
19 if you look at, you know, Zones 1, 2 -- 1 and 2
20 basically, we weighted those more in terms of a
21 suburban model because that's kind of what they
22 are. And so what you'll see on this chart is,
23 is that we weighted the auto/truck mode at
24 60 percent, we weighted transit at 10 percent,
25 and bike mode at 15, and pedestrian mode at 15.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
19
1 For 3, 4, 5, and 6, which is kind of that
2 outlying area, starting on the north going all
3 the way -- it's kind of like Council
4 District 11 -- going all the way around. It's
5 very rural in nature and there's not very much
6 of a roadway network there at all. So we put
7 the greatest weight -- on the roadway side,
8 you'll see that the weight in our -- of our
9 performance standard is at 80 percent in terms
10 of roadway, and then 5, 10, and 5 again on the
11 transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.
12 When you get to 7, 8, and 9, that's kind of
13 that first ring around downtown, and we weighted
14 those equally. So we weighted the road, the
15 bike, the transit, and the pedestrians equally
16 to get our performance score.
17 And then 10, which is downtown, that's the
18 only one in which the roadway gets lesser weight
19 and transit and pedestrian and bicycle actually
20 get higher weights than the roadway side.
21 So the performance standard that we chose
22 was, any one zone had to have a score of 1.5 or
23 higher. Now, it's not directly relatable to our
24 existing concurrency system, but just to compare
25 them slightly, our existing system would be a 1
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
20
1 citywide. And under this system, what we're
2 looking at is a 1.5 for any one zone. But
3 overall the city has to achieve a 2. So the
4 minimum score that we'll accept in any one zone
5 is 1.5, but the city as a whole has to achieve a
6 score of 2. And that was our performance
7 standard.
8 So now what we have is we have a list of
9 projects and we have a performance standard. So
10 basically what we did was we added projects,
11 based off the prioritization list, to the
12 mobility zones until we met the performance
13 standard that we set, and that gave us a cost.
14 So what we have is we have the total
15 vehicle miles traveled for the city and we have
16 a cost to bring the improvements necessary to
17 meet the selected performance standard, and then
18 it's just arithmetic and we can get a cost per
19 vehicle mile traveled. So this is where it
20 comes back into, you know, the downtown is
21 nine vehicle miles traveled, the Rural Area is
22 twelve-and-a-quarter vehicle miles traveled.
23 We have a cost per vehicle mile traveled,
24 which is roughly $24, so the fee -- and this
25 would be a worst-case fee -- is -- it was
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
21
1 complicated getting to this part, but for the
2 end user all they need to know is these three
3 numbers. One of those numbers is fixed, it's
4 $24 and some change. The other number is
5 fixed. They just need to know what area they're
6 in, so that would be the nine through
7 twelve-and-a-quarter.
8 And then the last number is the project
9 daily vehicle trips. We switched to daily trips
10 as opposed to p.m. peak-hour trips, which is
11 what our existing system is. One of the reasons
12 to do that was to more equitably distribute the
13 load, put it, I guess, not -- though one of the
14 things that wanted to be achieved was -- one of
15 the perceptions under our existing system is, if
16 you have a use that generates a whole lot of
17 traffic on the road but that traffic doesn't hit
18 the one hour a day, you may get to go free, but
19 other people are paying even though you're
20 putting a lot of trips on the road. Average
21 daily gets rid of that problem. If you put
22 trips on the road, you put trips on the road,
23 and -- and you pay.
24 So the -- using these three numbers, the
25 cost per vehicle mile traveled, the cost -- the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
22
1 number of vehicle miles in the zone you are
2 times however many trips you generate, that
3 gives you what your mobility fee would be, and
4 that would be a worst-case example.
5 And the trip generation is the same as
6 we've always used it. It takes by -- pass-by
7 capture, internal capture, things like that.
8 That fee is collected and then it goes into the
9 mobility zone fund and then the money would be
10 accumulated until such point as we can do the
11 number one project in that zone, and then we do
12 the project. The next priority project for that
13 zone would then bump down.
14 This is an attempt to ensure that we have a
15 rational relationship between what we're
16 charging and what we're improving.
17 But, furthermore, what -- earlier on I
18 talked about -- one of the things we wanted to
19 do was we wanted to incentivize quality growth
20 and development, and the way we are attempting
21 to do that is through trip adjustments.
22 So, again, the worst-case scenario would be
23 the cost per vehicle miles traveled times the
24 average vehicle mile in the development area
25 times the vehicle -- the average -- times the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
23
1 average vehicle trips. But what we wanted to do
2 was look at the context, and one of the things
3 we found that we liked was --
4
5 that air quality model is largely vehicular
6 driven. And one of the things they asked was,
7 does the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is
8 the manual we use to determine how many trips a
9 particular land use generates, does it
10 adequately represent more urban-style
11 development? And the answer they came back with
12 was no, and the reason for that is -- the trip
13 gen manual is based off trip generation surveys
14 that transportation planners and engineers
15 submit to ITE, and this has gone on for the last
16 20 or 30 years, where, if you look at the
17 development that's taken place in the last 20 or
18 30 years, it's largely suburban development.
19 The figures that you get from the ITE Trip
20 Generation Manual are based on suburban
21 development. So, given that, they instituted a
22 study to determine how would you adjust for a
23 more urban context, and they came up with a
24 series of trip adjustments. And those trip
25 adjustments, they take into things -- into
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
24
1 account the density of the street network, they
2 take into account whether or not there's a
3 bicycle network there, whether or not there's a
4 sidewalk network, the completion level of
5 those.
6 One of the big weighing factors, because it
7 plays heavily into transit, is what the
8 household density is, the number of employees,
9 because the biggest trip most households make is
10 the journey to work and back. It also looks at
11 whether or not there's a supporting mix of
12 retail uses to support households, and it looks
13 at whether or not there's transit service that
14 meets certain headways.
15 If you're familiar with internal capture,
16 which is part of our standard trip generation
17 analysis, what that is is the idea that if you
18 have a site and on that site you have a
19 traditional strip center and you have a bank and
20 you have a restaurant, somebody may make a trip
21 and go to the bank and then go to the
22 restaurant, and then, before they go home, stop
23 at Publix and pick up groceries and go home.
24 That's not counted as three separate trips. The
25 way the trip manual does it is it makes that
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
25
1 three separate trips and then we adjust for what
2 we call internal capture, which converts that to
3 one trip.
4 This is kind of internal capture -- it's
5 kind of like a super internal capture. What we
6 look at is the context a half mile around the
7 site. And so, again, we look at what's the
8 intersection density, how many -- what's the
9 density of the residential units, how much
10 employment is there. And those numbers go into
11 a set of linear equations which gives a
12 reduction from the trip generation manual.
13 So, doing that, we feel we're incentivizing
14 what we believe are quality development goals
15 and objectives.
16 There was some discussion as to whether or
17 not we only allow that within the Urban, Urban
18 Priority Area, and the decision was that we
19 should allow it everywhere because we feel these
20 are good development concepts anyways, design
21 criteria anyways. And even out in the
22
23 least incentive to try to locate near existing
24 development so that you can capture some of that
25 or to design your development in such a way as
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
26
1 to -- that you can maximize these incentives.
2 We've done some analyses across the city,
3 and what we find is, in the Suburban Area, you
4 get maybe a 2 percent reduction off the standard
5 trip generation analysis. And, to be honest, I
6 really think that's just statistical noise. But
7 as you move in and you look at the Urban Area,
8 you get, like, maybe 10 or 12 percent. Urban
9 Priority Area, it jumps up to about 20 percent.
10 We didn't do downtown when we were doing
11 the analysis because at the time there was a
12 thought that downtown would be a separate TCEA.
13 That has since gone away and they are now
14 incorporated into the Mobility Plan as a whole,
15 but my suspicion is that they are 25 percent or
16 better.
17 So what you're looking at is, there was
18 about a 30 percent difference in VMT between the
19 Rural Area and downtown, and then there's a
20 potential for about a 30 percent reduction in
21 trip generation between downtown and the
22 Rural Area. So there could be a significant
23 incentive to do infill and redevelopment.
24 Now, I'm not naive enough to think that
25 everybody would make their choice based off
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
27
1 simply that criteria, but I would point out that
2 when we were in a hot market and things were
3 booming, if we had a use looking for a site,
4 they would come to us or they would come to a
5 transportation engineering firm and they would
6 run prospective concurrency analyses to find a
7 site that was the cheapest in terms of
8 concurrency.
9 Now, clearly, if you have a site that's
10 looking for a use, the site is fixed and so it
11 doesn't make any difference to them. But for
12 those people who are looking for a site, this
13 may be an incentive to do something that we feel
14 is a better style development.
15 Updating the plan. Again, coming back to
16 the TPO, one of the things that was convenient
17 and important to us was that we -- we came right
18 on the heels of them validating their long-term
19 model. So what this allows us to do is -- our
20 plan is to update this Mobility Plan every five
21 years, which would fall in cycle with the TPO,
22 which means we could cost share the development
23 of the model with the TPO. It also means
24 there's a big incentive for us to work with them
25 in terms of densifying the information that is
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
28
1 part of the transportation model. It integrates
2 us more closely with them, so there's a --
3 there's a cost share benefit for the Department
4 and for the City.
5 There are some other things that we want to
6 look at. A lot of things we're doing is new, so
7 there's not a lot of existing data out there, so
8 we want to collect data over the next five years
9 so that we can see whether or not we're actually
10 making a difference.
11 And so what are the policy implications
12 here? We believe these policies incentivize
13 infill and redevelopment, both through the
14 vehicle mile traveled approach and through our
15 trip adjustments through design criteria.
16 The attempt here is to guide the market.
17 Again, looking at what we've already adopted
18 with the future land use, there's not an attempt
19 to change what can be done in the Rural and
20 Suburban Area, but what we are trying to do is
21 provide a carrot to create infill and
22 redevelopment growth within our older parts of
23 the city. So we're using more of a carrot
24 approach as opposed to the stick approach.
25 It also focuses on the future. One of the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
29
1 things is, again, we did not have, as a city, a
2 long-range transportation plan. We relied on
3 the TPO. This will now give us that.
4 And, lastly, coming back to the fair share
5 system, it is not predictable, fair, and
6 efficient, in my view. And the example I want
7 to give you so that you understand -- and most
8 of you probably do already -- is that -- I'm
9 going to give you a scenario where we have three
10 developers and a road. We have three sites.
11 Two of them are adjacent to each other on one
12 side of the road, the third one is directly
13 across the street from those two.
14 Developer A comes in and he develops on the
15 site all by itself. There's capacity on the
16 road. He puts in a development. His
17 development consumes all the capacity on the
18 road. He gets a free ride.
19 Developer B comes in. He's going to build
20 on the site directly across the street. It's
21 the same size site. He's building exactly the
22 same style development, but all the capacity on
23 the road has been consumed, so he now has to pay
24 a fair share.
25 After the contract has been signed and he's
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
30
1 committed to this fair share, you know, some
2 time goes by and we sign a contract to widen the
3 road to improve the capacity there. As soon as
4 we sign that contract, that's when we add the
5 capacity to our model for concurrency.
6 Developer C comes in, locates next to
7 Developer B, across the street from Developer A,
8 there's now capacity on the road, he doesn't
9 have to pay. So of those three people, only one
10 person ended up paying. So I don't see how
11 that's particularly fair.
12 The other thing is from the --
13 MR. JOOST: (Inaudible.)
14 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I didn't say -- if you
15 win at that game, you might like it, but it's
16 not particularly fair.
17 Third, from a -- both the City's standpoint
18 and a developer's standpoint, it's not
19 predictable at all because it's wholly dependent
20 upon when you file your application and who's in
21 front of you in the line. So when you're trying
22 to put together, as a developer, a pro forma,
23 there's no way you can do that until you've gone
24 through the concurrency system, which announces
25 to the world what your development is.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
31
1 And the last thing is it's not particularly
2 efficient. We don't have a transportation plan
3 in which our fair share sector dollars go to.
4 So as dollars accumulate there, what happens is
5 somebody will see a pot of money there and
6 they'll siphon it off to a project, but there
7 was no analysis as to whether or not that
8 project was the -- in the best interest of the
9 city as a whole and how it fit into a total
10 package. And I think with this plan, we've at
11 least attempted to address that.
12 And, with that, what I'd like to do is I'd
13 like to ask T.R. Hainline -- he was the Chair of
14 our Mobility Task Force committee, who, once we
15 had a draft plan, we vetted it through them,
16 they made a series of recommendations for
17 changes and adjustment, we made those
18 recommendations, and that's the plan that I
19 presented to you today.
20 So, with the Chair's indulgence, I'd like
21 to bring up T.R.
22 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: T.R., welcome.
24 MR. HAINLINE: Thank you.
25 T.R. Hainline,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
32
1 I'll be brief.
2 As Bill said, when the Planning Department
3 first presented the Mobility Plan, in order to
4 more thoroughly vet it with citizens, folks who
5 use the system, experts, et cetera, the
6 administration formed a mobility task force,
7 which I chaired, and let me just run through the
8 folks on it. There were CPAC members on it, as
9 well as transportation experts, lawyers,
10 et cetera. But the folks on it were
11 Mike Anania; Councilman Bishop; Brenda Ezell;
12 Mike Getchell, who's with the Northside CPAC;
13 Jim Gilmore; Curtis Hart; Chris Jones; Staci
14 Rewis; Bob Rhodes, and Jim Robinson. And Staci
15 and Bob, I know, are here.
16 This group met every two weeks since March,
17 and we had great attendance, never had a quorum
18 problem, and we basically went through every
19 aspect of this Mobility Plan and the proposed
20 mobility fee. We heard from diverse experts.
21 We heard from, of course, the Planning
22 Department; it's consultant, which is Ghyabi &
23 Associates; Office of the General Counsel --
24 Dylan was at all our meetings -- FDOT; JTA;
25 JEDC, related to downtown development, was
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
33
1 there.
2 We also had regular input and attendance
3 from staff from the MPO; from the Regional
4 Council; and, again, from staff of FDOT, JTA,
5 and JEDC.
6 We thoroughly debated all aspects of it,
7 and our discussions and debate resulted in some
8 changes and some revisions to the methodologies
9 and the results of those methodologies.
10 Ultimately, at our last meeting in
11 November, we unanimously -- our task force
12 unanimously recommended that the council
13 favorably consider this plan and the mobility
14 fee, and our recommendation was both to this
15 council and to the Planning Commission, which
16 has already issued a recommendation to you.
17 As Bill said, the status quo is not
18 acceptable. The fair share system, as you all
19 know, as Bill well knows, no one likes it. It
20 is wildly unpredictable in both its application
21 and its results, and it is an enemy of economic
22 development because just -- precisely because it
23 is unpredictable.
24 This system, this Mobility Plan and the
25 fee, represents a more broad-based and a more
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
34
1 predictable system, and, most importantly, a
2 system which is part of an overall plan to
3 improve mobility and provide quality growth.
4 We would like -- on behalf of the task
5 force, and Bob and Staci being here, we'd like
6 to thank the staff for all of its time and
7 flexibility and listening to us and receiving
8 our input.
9 The last thing I want to do is just provide
10 a bit of context. What y'all are considering
11 right now are comprehensive plan amendments to
12 be transmitted to the Department of Community
13 Affairs. And, of course, the Department of
14 Community Affairs will also receive input from
15 FDOT and other agencies. And then, as with
16 every other comprehensive plan, the DCA will
17 send it back to you with comments for you to
18 consider for adoption in the spring. And, at
19 that time, when you consider it in the spring,
20 the staff also will have prepared an
21 implementing ordinance which will also be
22 reviewed by our task force. So our task force
23 will be coming back to you in the spring with
24 comments and recommendations that are responsive
25 to the DCA's comments and comments and
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
35
1 recommendations on the implementing ordinance.
2 And, with that, I'm happy to answer any
3 questions.
4 Thank you for your time.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: T.R., I want to thank you
6 personally and the whole committee of the whole
7 for all of the fine work that was done on this.
8 This was, for all practical purposes, inventing
9 a new system.
10 And for all of the back and forth,
11 roundabout stuff that went on in those meetings,
12 it was quite interesting and quite complicated,
13 but at the end of the day, you helped turn what
14 was otherwise a very complicated subject into
15 something that I think is very understandable,
16 very logical, and very workable. I want to
17 thank you for all of that work.
18 MR. HAINLINE: Thank you to the staff and
19 to our committee.
20 Thank you.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And, with that, questions?
22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Indicating.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni.
24 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Mr. Hainline, I've got a couple of
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
36
1 questions for you.
2 In addition to the names that you actually
3 mentioned at the podium, you said there were
4 CPAC members and stuff. Were they actually on
5 the committee or were they just -- they just
6 came to the meetings?
7 MR. HAINLINE: Oh, no. The -- I think I
8 understand your question.
9 The people on the committee from the CPACs
10 were Mike Anania and Mike Getchell. And, to be
11 honest with you, I don't know whether Chris
12 Jones was there as a CPAC representative or not,
13 but he's -- he's not like a practitioner in this
14 area or anything.
15 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And do you know how
16 people got placed on the committee?
17 MR. HAINLINE: I assume the administration,
18 with some kind of input from maybe the council
19 president, did. I was contacted by the
20 administration for -- to serve as chair of the
21 committee, so that -- that's the only thing I
22 know.
23 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So your -- as I
24 understand it from Mr. Killingsworth, your
25 committee got some sort of draft plan from the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
37
1 Planning Department and went to work on it,
2 correct?
3 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
4 The Planning Department actually issued a
5 draft Mobility Plan in December of last -- in
6 December of 2009, and that was presented to
7 actually this City Council in January of 2010.
8 What the council did -- and this is the way
9 that Bill had -- the Planning Department had put
10 it to you and the administration had put it to
11 you. What the council did at that point was
12 take the land use element -- the
13 Element portions of that Mobility Plan, and
14 y'all went ahead and adopted that in 2010. You
15 transmitted it, I think, in January. The DCA
16 sent its comments back, and y'all adopted the
17
18 Plan already earlier this year.
19 What was vetted through our committee were
20 the more technical aspects of the Mobility Plan,
21 primarily policies from -- in the Transportation
22 Element and in the Capital Improvements Element
23 of the plan. Those were put through our
24 committee for recommendation.
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And Mr. Killingsworth
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
38
1 said that your committee made several
2 recommendations for change. Were any of them
3 not addressed? For example, were any changes
4 that you sought not made?
5 MR. HAINLINE: No. No, sir.
6 I think that -- I mean, there was obviously
7 back-and-forth discussion. So when Bill felt
8 that our suggestions or -- that our input was
9 somehow not consistent with the policies that
10 the Planning Department had put together or
11 might not be consistent with where DCA or FDOT,
12 what they had in mind in terms of one of these
13 mobility plans and fees, we would listen -- our
14 task force would listen to that, there would be
15 some back-and-forth discussion, and then we'd
16 all head into the same direction.
17 So there's -- there was no, like, minority
18 report or dissenting report. We all were
19 unanimous in every single vote that we
20 ultimately took on the assumptions and
21 methodologies and the changes that the -- that
22 the Planning Department put into the draft.
23 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I just was trying to
24 determine whether there were any outstanding
25 issue that --
Diane M. Tropia,
Inc.,
39
1 MR. HAINLINE: No, sir.
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- you-all addressed.
3 MR. HAINLINE: None that --
4 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And one final question.
5 I assume you-all were all subject to the
6 Sunshine Law and all that stuff, so there's
7 meeting minutes on all your meetings and
8 everything --
9 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
10 There's a website. The minutes were
11 regularly put up on the website. All of the
12 written materials that we received were
13 regularly put up on the website. Our meetings
14 were open to the public and members of the
15 public occasionally spoke, you know, gave us
16 their input as well. And really everything that
17 we looked at, everything that we produced was
18 all put on the website, thanks to the good work
19 of the Planning Department staff.
20 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Thank you, sir, and
21 thanks for your leadership on the committee.
22 MR. HAINLINE: Sure. Thanks to the
23 committee.
24 Thank you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
40
1 committees, comments?
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any blue cards.
4 Anybody from the public want to make any
5 comments or have questions about anything?
6 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Wow, this is going to be
8 easy.
9 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Inaudible.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni.
11 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Inaudible.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go ahead.
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Mr. Killingsworth, would
14 you care to entertain a couple of additional
15 questions?
16 (Mr. Killingsworth approaches the podium.)
17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Sure.
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I know you like to stand
19 up there at the podium, so I've been trying to
20 think of some questions for you.
21 Two things. One, how many other DULAs were
22 designated by the -- by the legislature?
23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I don't know the total
24 number. There were, I think, five counties and
25 then -- the criteria they used is the same
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
41
1 criteria that the census uses for determining a
2 place --
3 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And during this process,
4 was there any monitoring of how the other DULAs
5 were handling their --
6 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: We --
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- development --
8 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The other DULAs, yeah.
9 We did look at what other communities were
10 doing. But to be real frank, we're ahead of
11 most of them. And some -- and I believe a lot
12 of them are actually looking at what we're doing
13 as a model.
14 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay.
15 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Just so you --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: This really is a
17 trail-blazing exercise we're doing here.
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Gosh, when it comes to --
19 what are those -- what's that thing -- LIDs, we
20 ought to charge for our services, we only let
21 them look for a fee. That's what
22 wanted to do to us, right, or something?
23 Okay. So from what you've seen on the
24 other DULAs, are they -- does it look like
25 they're following a similar track?
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
42
1 I could imagine that you could have five
2 completely different concepts when it was all
3 over and done with. I mean, do you see anybody
4 else kind of following suit?
5 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: You can.
6 The ones that I'm familiar with, there's --
7 let me back up a little bit just so you -- one,
8 you can understand the context of how we came
9 about in terms of the direction we chose.
10 FDOT and DCA were tasked to put together a
11 mobility fee recommendation to the legislature,
12 and the recommendation that they came up with
13 was to use a vehicle-mile-traveled-based
14 approach. Their recommendation was to do it
15 regionally; if not regionally, at least
16 countywide.
17 So our model, I believe, best kind of
18 implements their approach. We -- clearly, it's
19 not a regional approach, but we are unique in
20 that the city largely represents the county.
21 Not only that, but I do know that the City
22 of
23 analysis, set up the city of
24 separate development area, used our calculated
25 vehicle miles traveled, and beat us to the punch
Diane M. Tropia,
Inc.,
43
1 and essentially transmitted our plan for their
2 city. And the reason I know that is because in
3 their -- in their plan, they said, "Consistent
4 with the City of
5 called me up and said, "You guys haven't
6 submitted anything." I said, "No, we haven't.
7 It's going through the legislative process."
8 So theirs is on hold until ours gets
9 adopted.
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And what about -- like
11 you cited some -- you cited an example of
12 Developer A, B, and C. This is ultimately going
13 to replace what I used to sometimes refer to as
14 the "unfair share agreements," correct?
15 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Correct.
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And will those -- will
17 there be anything -- will there still be
18 legislative purview on the mobility fees or is
19 that going to be external of this body?
20 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, it's external in
21 the sense of, once you adopt the plan, which
22 establishes the mechanism for the fee, then it
23 becomes an administrative procedure. And every
24 five years we'll update the plan, and it will go
25 through council review again, and then for
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
44
1 another five years it will be administratively
2 administered.
3 MR. CRESCIMBENI: But unlike the fair share
4 agreements, we're not going to have to --
5 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: The only time you'll
6 see something is -- existing fair share
7 agreements -- basically, a developer who has an
8 existing fair share agreement, when the Mobility
9 Plan comes into place, he can choose to continue
10 to pursue his fair share agreement. And if he
11 chooses to make some kind of adjustment to that
12 within the term of the contract, that would have
13 to come back through you. But in terms of a new
14 development initiated after the Mobility Plan,
15 no, that would not come back through you.
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. And getting back
17 to your example that you gave earlier of
18 Developer A, B, and C, in that case or any other
19 cases -- I mean, have you just done any kind of
20 preliminary comparison calculations just with
21 real examples that have gone through your office
22 to see how they wash out --
23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yes, I have.
24 We actually did the analysis for the year
25 of 2009, and what we did was we took all the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
45
1 fair shares that entered into a contract for
2 2009 and we recalculated them based off the
3 mobility fee. And what we saw was the mobility
4 fee, on average, is about 55, 60 percent of what
5 a fair share is.
6 Now, I think that's due to a couple of
7 reasons. One is now everybody pays. So if
8 everybody pays, those people who are getting
9 away free now aren't being subsidized by people
10 who are paying, so their overall cost goes
11 down.
12 But we did look at that --
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So are you saying --
14 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: -- and I can provide
15 you with that spreadsheet if --
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So are you saying, for
17 one year, you ran all the fair share --
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: We ran each fair share
19 contract that had been approved by council.
20 MR. CRESCIMBENI: But what you didn't do is
21 run the calculation for those folks that didn't
22 have to do a fair share?
23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: That's correct, we did
24 not.
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Any idea on that value?
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
46
1 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Not off the top of my
2 head, no.
3 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Have you ever thought
4 about running that calculation?
5 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: We could do that, yes.
6 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Do you think that would
7 be --
8 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I'm not sure how long
9 it would take us to retrieve those out of the
10 system, but we could do that.
11 MR. CRESCIMBENI: All right. Thank you,
12 sir, for all the hard work.
13 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Uh-huh.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
15 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Mr. Killingsworth, do you feel like you got
17 sufficient input from the bicycle community in
18 looking at the plans that you have there?
19 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, I know that
20 they're aware of them.
21 The Mobility Plan, from the bike side,
22 represents a set of improvements. As you're
23 probably aware, Councilman, we haven't had a
24 bicycle plan in quite some time. In putting
25 this together, we kind of put together a new
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
47
1 bike plan, and that bike plan is represented in
2 the Mobility Plan.
3 Whether or not there's sufficient -- I
4 believe there was -- there was at least
5 sufficient opportunity. Like T.R. Hainline
6 said, we met every two weeks for nearly eight
7 months. Those meetings were publicly posted and
8 advertised. The minutes and all the materials
9 are online, so anybody who -- who chose -- who
10 cared and chose to, had an opportunity to
11 comment.
12 MR. REDMAN: Yeah, I read your statement on
13 that -- improve the bicycle network. You know,
14 that's a big problem we have. Like you said, we
15 have a lot of bike lanes, but they don't
16 connect.
17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Right.
18 MR. REDMAN: And I know this has been one
19 of my pet peeves. But every time I've asked the
20 administration or gone to try to push for
21 connection of these, the -- you know, can't do
22 it, road is constructed, and -- and it would be
23 too difficult, so it's --
24 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, our plan actually
25 sets aside, part of the mobility fee,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
48
1 specifically for bike and pedestrian
2 improvements, and the improvements that we
3 recommended are specifically ones that create
4 that connectivity.
5 MR. REDMAN: Okay. Good.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a couple of quick
7 questions for you on this.
8 Going back to determining the mobility fee
9 itself per project, we have the basic
10 calculation that's easy enough to do with the
11 three numbers.
12 The credits are the part that I think still
13 remains to be determined how that is done. Can
14 you give us an update of where that is and what
15 the -- what you envision the process to be to
16 determine that?
17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yeah. In terms of how
18 they're calculated, that -- that is done. We
19 have a spreadsheet that can do that.
20 We're looking at -- I guess worst-case
21 scenario is actually having a web page where you
22 can go on and put in the one number -- you know,
23 the parameters that make up a trip generation,
24 which would be the number of employees or number
25 of square footage, number of units, depending
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
49
1 upon the type of use, and then that would spit
2 out a traditional trip generation number. And
3 at least having the A, B, C online -- we do have
4 a spreadsheet where you can put in the other
5 numbers for the credits.
6 But in terms of procedure -- and, again,
7 this would probably be codified in the local
8 ordinance as opposed to our comp plan in terms
9 of policy, but at this point in time, kind of
10 what I envision is the -- the Mobility Plan only
11 relieves us of transportation concurrency. We
12 still have the six or seven other deadly sisters
13 out there in terms of potable water, school
14 concurrency, and the other things that have to
15 be tested as you come through.
16 The process is already in place where you
17 come in and file for concurrency and then that
18 gets routed out to the testing agencies, of
19 which my transportation group is one of those
20 testing agencies.
21 So what I envision is that process won't
22 change at all. It will come through, we'll test
23 it. And the way it works right now is, when we
24 test it, we give a sheet that says pass/fail and
25 a preliminary fair share number.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
50
1 So what we -- what I envision is we would
2 do a preliminary worksheet that says, this is
3 the mobility fee and these are the trip
4 adjustment credits. And then, you know, we
5 would sign, seal that off, and the developer
6 would have it in his pocket if he chose to, and
7 that's essentially how I kind of see that --
8 that process working, if that makes sense to
9 you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, administratively, it
11 does, and that makes sense. That would be a
12 process to do it, but one of the problems that
13 we've had with fair share all these years is the
14 subjectivity of how the calculations are done.
15 And at least on paper, fair share should
16 not -- should not be subjective, but they tended
17 to get that way when there was questions about
18 how the numbers were generated, and I know I
19 personally have been involved in a number of
20 these things where there was a difference of
21 opinion on both sides as to what that number
22 should be, and in some sense it almost became a
23 negotiating session.
24 In order to keep -- and I think part of the
25 purpose of the mobility fee is to try to take
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
51
1 that subjectivity out of the system and make it
2 cleaner and much more understandable and
3 predictable --
4 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: As much as possible.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and so whenever you get
6 it -- the other concurrency tests don't have
7 that subjectivity associated with credit
8 portions to -- either you meet it or you don't,
9 at least that's how it's been done all of these
10 years, and we don't see questions about whether
11 or not there's adequate park capacity, for
12 example, or adequate school capacity. Those
13 things seem to go through the system.
14 Transportation is the one where we end up
15 having differences of opinions as to what the
16 number is for some reason.
17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: And when you're dealing
19 with -- real quick, when you're dealing with
20 credits, you're talking about reducing a
21 particular number, based on a certain set of
22 factors, and so what are those factors, how are
23 they determined, or is that whole credit system
24 something that we're going to have to deal with
25 when we get into the actual ordinance itself,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
52
1 and it's -- and we're not quite there yet is my
2 question --
3 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, the short answer
4 is, yes, we're not quite there yet, and that
5 will be dealt with in the local ordinance. The
6 longer answer is, one of the reasons you don't
7 see the other testable items come through you is
8 because at this point they haven't failed. And
9 transportation fails, and as you're well aware,
10 some of the numbers are very big. And when the
11 numbers get very big, there's a financial
12 incentive to fight over it.
13 But our existing system -- one, those
14 squabbles, by and large, are few compared to how
15 many we actually process in our concurrency
16 system. The other is that we have a mechanism
17 currently where an applicant can contest our
18 analysis, particularly trip gen numbers, because
19 the trip generation manual is an average across
20 the country, and so we have a mechanism where
21 they can do a local trip generation study and
22 provide us, using ITE standards, a trip gen
23 study that demonstrates that our local trip
24 generation for that land use, for whatever
25 reason, is different than it is nationally. And
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
53
1 then we look at their study and we agree with it
2 or don't. Most of the time we agree with it.
3 And then that does two things. One, they
4 get the benefit of that study; and two, we
5 adjust all future contracts based off that study
6 so that everybody else does.
7 So I envision that same process would stay
8 in place if there was a question about the trip
9 gen study, and as well as with the credit
10 analysis. So if somebody wanted to contest, for
11 instance, the number of intersections within a
12 half-mile radius, they could bring documentation
13 to us and say, "Look, here's one, two, three,
14 four -- five, and you said there were only
15 four," and we would look at it and go, "You're
16 right. There's five," and it would proceed on.
17 My suspicion is there will be some need --
18 and this might get back to Councilman
19 Crescimbeni's question a little bit. If we just
20 totally disagree, there might be some need for
21 some appeal process, and that would be covered
22 under the local ordinance.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you.
24 Any other questions, comments,
25 observations?
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
54
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, thank you very
3 much for that very good presentation. I know
4 for me, personally, it's been a very interesting
5 experience going through this, and I think we
6 have something here that is going to be very
7 workable for us going forward, and I'm looking
8 forward to seeing how it turns out.
9 Procedurally, where we are tonight is --
10 the original intention was that each committee
11 would vote on this tonight. Unfortunately, I
12 found out -- we found out this morning there's a
13 public hearing scheduled in LUZ tomorrow on
14 this, so the LUZ Committee will not be voting
15 until after that public hearing, which is
16 tomorrow, but my intention for TEU is that we
17 vote it tonight so that we can take that up.
18 We have a quorum in TEU, and so, at this
19 point, I will entertain a motion.
20 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.
21 MR. HYDE: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a
23 second on the bill for TEU.
24 Any discussion on that?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
55
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none -- voting
2 procedurally, since everybody is not in their
3 normal positions, we have to vote by paper
4 ballot.
5 And, Merriane, I assumed you've passed one
6 out to everybody on TEU?
7 MS. LAHMEUR: One ballot.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, one ballot. I see.
9 Vote it -- got it. Simple.
10 Then I guess everybody on TEU will then
11 sign it under their name?
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Very good.
14 We have a motion and a second, no other
15 discussion.
16 All in favor on TEU, raise your hand.
17 TEU COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (Indicating.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: We have four in favor, none
19 opposed.
20 And, by your action, you have approved
21 2010-879.
22 And, with that, we will fill this out, sign
23 it. And if there's no other discussion for the
24 evening, we're finished, and thank you all for
25 being here.
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
56
1 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
2 6:07 p.m.)
3 - - -
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
57
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 STATE OF
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
5
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 12th day of January, 2011.
11
12
13
14 Diane M. Tropia
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,