Commissioner Murman mentioned in this Tampa Tribune article on transportation fees:
POLITICS
Transportation fee exemption could set precedent
By Mike Salinero | Tribune Staff
Published: December 2, 2015 | Updated: December 2, 2015 at 08:21 PM
TAMPA — Developers of a proposed 1.5 million-square-foot warehouse-distribution center on Big Bend Road won an exemption Wednesday from transportation fees until 2026, a victory that could spur other developers to ask for similar deals.
Hillsborough County Commissioners voted 5-2 to approve an amendment to the 2007 land use agreement with Duke Realty Limited Partnership. To win the agreement, the company agreed to pay $102,000 toward widening Big Bend Road in anticipation of increased traffic from the warehouse.
That’s three times the $34,000 the company said it is required to pay under current state law. But it’s still much less than the $2 million to $4 million Duke would have had to pay to widen Big Bend Road from U.S. 41 to Waterset Boulevard _ a requirement under the original development agreement.
Duke said it was no longer responsible for widening the south county highway because of a state law passed in 2011. The law said developers are only responsible for the proportion of additional traffic added to a road by a new subdivision or commercial project.
But the company voluntarily increased its contributions after commissioners balked at approving the amended agreement at a Nov. 4 meeting. In return, the company asked that the agreement’s end date be extended from 2020 to 2026.
Until then, the company would be exempt from mobility fees, a new method of charging developers for transportation impacts that the county will likely adopt next year. If Duke were required to pay mobility fees instead of its proportionate share, the company’s transportation impact payment probably would be much higher.
Commissioners Kevin Beckner and Stacy White opposed the move, saying it was a continuation of past policies that left the county with an $8 billion transportation deficit.
“This is the type of thing that’s gotten us into the mess we’re in with respect to transportation issues and gridlock,” White said after the meeting.
White made a motion to keep the agreement’s sunset date at 2020, but it failed by 3-4 vote. Beckner and commission Chairman Les Miller voted with White. Then the amendment passed by a 5-2 vote with Miller, Al Higginbotham, Sandy Murman, Victor Crist and Ken Hagan voting yes.
Beckner said the vote approving the amendment was laying a “quagmire for future boards on funding transportation by exempting all these upcoming mobility fee (waivers) for extended years.”
“And this is the precedent I think you’re going to start seeing moving forward is the rush of all these applications to come forward to get an exemption from our potential mobility fee proposal,” Beckner said.
Mobility fees have been advertised by county planners as a fairer and more equitable way of charging developers for their traffic impacts. The fees will be based on three measurements: the number of vehicle trips generated by a subdivision or commercial development, the average length of the trips, and the cost of new roads or road improvements needed to handle the additional traffic.
Mobility fees will yield higher payments from developers than the current, proportionate share system, but it will not solve the county’s road problems.
One reason is that developers are holding around $100 million in credits given them for road work they paid for on projects that were halted during the recession. Those credits have to be honored before those developments start paying mobility fees.
“When you consider the over $100 million in impact credits that exist and the onslaught of (proportionate) share agreements that are going to come to us in advance of us adopting a mobility fee ordinance, mobility fees are not a revenue panacea,” said Commissioner Ken Hagan.
The county estimates the fees will eventually bring in $20 million to $30 million a year. But because of the backlog of proportionate share agreements and development credits, the new fees will likely raise much less, possibly only $5 million annually.
Lawyers for Duke Reality pointed out that the company will also pay $1.2 million in impact fees, another way allowed under state law for developers to pay for roads around their projects.
Combining the impact fees with increased property taxes generated by the development will fill county coffers with $13.9 million over 10 years, compared to $600,000 over the same period if the property was not developed.
