Commissioner Murman quoted in this Tampa Tribune article on mobility fees:

POLITICS

Workshop Thursday on how much developers should pay for roads

By Mike Salinero | Tribune Staff

Published: March 22, 2016

Updated: March 22, 2016 at 05:58 PM

TAMPA — Hillsborough County officials are being pulled in two directions as they try to develop a new fee structure so developers pay their share for road improvements around new residential and commercial projects.

Commercial developers say the new “mobility fees” proposed by the county’s consultants, AECOM/Tindale-Oliver, are excessive and will choke the revival of an industry knocked flat by the Great Recession.

On the other side, citizen activists are warning the county against letting developers off the hook and leaving taxpayers to pay for the county’s estimated $8 billion transportation deficit.

County commissioners will hear both sides in a mobility fee workshop 2 p.m. Thursday at the Frederick B. Karl County Center, 601 E. Kennedy Blvd. The public is invited to speak.

County officials are eager to settle the issue before deciding whether to put a half-cent-per-dollar sales tax on the Nov. 8 ballot and asking everyone to kick in more for transportation. The tax increase would produce about $117 million a year for roads, bridges, sidewalks and mass transit.

Commissioners are expected to vote on the referendum in April.

Much of the opposition to the proposed mobility fees is coming from commercial developers who could see their fees increase from 665 percent to 937 percent, according to Steve Cona III, president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Florida Gulf Coast Chapter. Cona said those fees will fall on churches, doctor’s offices and other small projects as well as larger commercial projects.

“Our biggest concern is that, from a construction standpoint, we’re coming out of the recession with projects that are permitted but have yet to break ground,” Cona said. “There is some momentum and I would hate that momentum to stop.”

County Commissioner Sandy Murman sounded the same concerns at a March 9 mobility fee workshop. Raising fees too high, especially on commercial projects, could hurt Hillsborough’s ability to compete with surrounding counties for big shopping malls and office parks that boost property tax collections and create jobs.

“I’m very concerned about the commercial side of this,” Murman said then, “and we’ve got to keep creating jobs if we’re going to keep up and grow and be the best community we want to be.”

On the other side are citizen activists who say that failing to fully charge developers for their transportation impacts puts the burden on taxpayers.

Activist George Niemann said he has attended most of the county mobility fee meetings held for non-builder residents and he’s not happy. Niemann said he was told the fees will cover just 30 percent to 50 percent of the true costs for roadwork to serve new building projects.

“The county is not going to implement any changes that will cost developers any more money,” Niemann said.

County officials say that’s not true. The fees as proposed by the consultants are meant to cover the full cost of new development. The impacts are measured by the number of trips a project generates, the average length of the trips, and the cost of new roads and other improvements to handle additional traffic.

Current fees do not begin to cover construction costs for new highway capacity. Impact fees first levied in 1985 have not risen since 1989. That means current fees pay just $635,000 per lane mile of construction when the true cost is closer to $5 million per mile.

Failing for years to address the gap has been blamed for an $8 billion backlog in road, bridge and other transportation infrastructure projects.

“It’s the recognizing that there hasn’t been an increase in the fees, so we’re increasing them and making up and charging them everything we didn’t charge them,” said Lucia Garsys, the county’s chief infrastructure and development administrator.

At the same time, however, county officials recognize the new fees will be a “quantum leap” for developers, Garsys said. That’s why the county has been meeting with people in the industry and listening to their concerns for months.

“We want to make sure we don’t shut down development,” Garsys said, “but we also want to make sure our taxpayers are getting the benefit of developers’ contributions. It’s really trying to find a balance here.”

That’s one reason the county is honoring credits given years ago for roads and other work done for projects that were never built. Also, development agreements already granted under the existing fee structure will be grandfathered in.

County Administrator Mike Merrill suggested cutting off the grandfathering if projects are not started in seven years but Commissioner Stacy White said that might be too long. At the March 9 meeting, White urged Merrill and other officials to negotiate harder on behalf of taxpayers. The longer the grandfather status stays in place, the less money comes from mobility fees for roadwork.

“I just want to make sure the county doesn’t give away the farm in negotiations and that we leverage our position,” White said in an interview. “I don’t think we have to completely give up ground in both of these areas — the credits and grandfathering of the credits.”

Also monitoring the mobility fee process are members of the Sierra Club. Kent Bailey, chairman of the club’s Tampa Bay Group, said he thinks the new mobility fees “are moving in the right direction,” though he doubts the final product will fully cover the impacts from development.

“We need to think of development fees in terms of what they really cost the taxpayer,” Bailey said.

Just as important, the Sierra Club wants the fees to be tailored in such a way that they encourage growth closer to urban centers. County officials say the proposed mobility fee structure does provide those incentives.

“We’re looking at mobility fees and we’re seeing an opportunity to redirect growth away from the open areas of the country and toward in-fill, which reduces the need for roads, reduces the miles traveled so there’s less stress on the transportation system,” Bailey said.

“Smart development is more cost effective for everybody from the homeowner to the developer.”