OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CHERYL L. BROWN 117 WEST DUVAL STREET, SUITE 425

DIRECTOR 4^TH FLOOR, CITY HALL

OFFICE (904) 630-1452 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202

FAX (904) 630-2906

E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net

JOINT RULES/FINANCE/TEU COMMITTEE ON

MOBILITY FEE WAIVER BILL 2013-94

MEETING MINUTES

April 8, 2013

4:00 p.m.

Location: City Council Chamber, 1^st floor, City Hall – St. James Building; 117 West Duval Street

In attendance:

Rules Committee: Clay Yarborough (Chair), John Crescimbeni, Lori Boyer (dep. 4:28), Jim Love, Ray Holt, Robin Lumb

Finance Committee: John Crescimbeni (Chair), Greg Anderson, Clay Yarborough, Lori Boyer (dep. 4:28), Bill Gulliford Excused – Johnny Gaffney, Stephen Joost

TEU Committee: Greg Anderson (Chair), Jim Love, Ray Holt, Robin Lumb Excused – Matt Schellenberg

Also: Kirk Sherman, Janice Billy and Heather Reber – Council Auditor’s Office; Peggy Sidman and Dylan Reingold – Office of General Counsel; Michelle Barth – Mayor’s Office; Carol Owens – Legislative Services Division; Jeff Clements – City Council Research Division; Jim Robinson – Public Works Department; Calvin Burney and James Reed – Planning and Development Department; Chris Quinn – Chamber of Commerce; David Chapman – Financial News and Daily Record; Steve Patterson – Florida Times-Union; Kevin Meerschaert – WJCT; Curtis Hart, Wyman Duggan, Mike Herzberg, Doug Skiles, Steven Tocknell, Fred Atwill, Tom Ingram

Meeting Convened: 4:05 p.m.

Finance Committee Chairman John Crescimbeni convened the meeting and described his proposed substitute which would, after an initial 3 month “ramp-up” period, provide a 75% mobility fee reduction for projects permitted in the first 6 months of the reduction period, a 50% reduction for the next 6 months and a 25% reduction for the next 6 months. The substitute also provides that no fee reduction would apply to projects seeking an expedited mobility fee calculation certificate, and provides that all mobility fees collected during the 18 month temporary reduction period would be allocated by the City to bicycle and pedestrian facility projects listed in the Mobility Plan.

Mr. Crescimbeni invited members of the ad hoc group that had negotiated the compromise proposal to make comments about the substitute. Numerous proponents and opponents of the original waiver bill as filed indicated their agreement with the substitute as a generally acceptable compromise position and all thanked Mr. Crescimbeni for his leadership in convening the group and brokering a mutually agreeable solution.

Council Member Boyer posed a question about how the temporary fee reduction might impact on rezoning decisions if the reduction of fees reduces the revenue available to pay for needed road improvement projects which might be needed for a proposed development to meet its required level-of-service standards for transportation. Is it possible that the fee reduction intended to spur development might actually have the opposite effect and prevent projects from going forward if the reduced revenue impacts negatively on the ability to increase roadway capacity and therefore causes a rezoning application to fail because the project would negatively impact transportation level of service in its area? Dylan Reingold requested an opportunity to think through the scenario and consult with the Planning Department about the potential impacts on rezoning cases.

Mrs. Boyer suggested the possibility of exploring whether the City could utilize the same general procedure as is employed with PUD rezonings in which a condition can be added to the rezoning requiring the applicant to make an additional payment for transportation improvements in addition to the usual mobility fee calculation. Council Member Clark noted that the ordinance does not specifically prohibit an applicant from paying a calculated mobility fee, so perhaps a developer facing that specific situation could opt to make the payment if the success of the rezoning request hinged on that factor.

The group discussed the substitute’s proposed three month “ramp-up” waiting period before the fee reduction becomes effective. Mr. Crescimbeni explained that he proposed the delay in the implementation of the fee reduction as a fairness mechanism to allow developers who may have been thinking about a project but who are not “shovel ready” the opportunity to purchase property, complete engineering and design, and otherwise get a project ready to begin in a time frame that qualifies for the fee reduction. He originally proposed 6 months but agreed to 3 months during the negotiation process among the parties. Several council members urged that the intent of the fee reduction is to generate economic activity, felt that that should happen sooner rather than later, and argued for an immediate effective date and no waiting period. Mr. Clark noted that three developers had made mobility fee payments since the introduction of his moratorium bill and suggested that it might be fair to provide some redress for their payment if the fee reduction is adopted.

Motion: to amend the Crescimbeni substitute to eliminate the 3 month initial waiting period (“ramp up”) and provide a 75% fee waiver for 9 months, a 50% waiver for 6 months and a 25% waiver for 6 months (21 months total)

Finance Committee: motion fails 2-2 (Crescimbeni and Gulliford opposed)

TEU Committee: motion approved 4-0

Rules Committee: motion approved 4-1 (Crescimbeni opposed)

Motion: to recommend approval of 2013-94 as substituted, as amended

Rules Committee: approved 4-1 (Crescimbeni opposed)

TEU Committee: approved 4-0

Motion: to recommend approval of 2013-94 as substituted

Finance Committee: approved 4-0

Meeting adjourned: 5:02 p.m.

Minutes: Jeff Clements, Council Research Division

4.9.13 Posted: 12:00 p.m.

Tape: Joint R/F/TEU Committee meeting 4.8.13

Legislative Services Division

Attachments: Crescimbeni Substitute for Ordinance 2013-94; Mobility Fee partial waiver timeline