OLD BUSINESS  1.

COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM

HISTORY:

State of Florida Framework

The Florida Legislature has enacted a number of changes over the last several years that impact Growth Management and local government’s ability to require that new development mitigate its impact to the transportation system. The State of Florida passed the Growth Management Act of 1985 that required all local governments in Florida to adopt Comprehensive Plans to guide future development. The Act mandated that adequate public facilities must be provided “concurrent” with the impacts of new development. State mandated “concurrency” was adopted to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the public. The introduction of “transportation concurrency” focused on accommodating the travel demand from new development by adding roadway capacity through construction of new roads and the widening of existing roads. Transportation concurrency, while well intended, had the unintended consequence of driving development away from urban areas, where road capacity was unavailable or cost prohibitive to provide, to suburban and rural areas where road capacity was readily available or cheaper to construct. The State enacted several programs in the following decades to address these unintended consequences.

House Bill 319, otherwise known as the “Community Planning Act,” was adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2013 and is the State's most recent approach to providing transportation facilities for new development. Among many other changes, the Community Planning Act established mobility fees, based on an adopted transportation mobility plan, as an alternative means by which local governments may allow development consistent with an adopted Comprehensive Plan to equitably mitigate its transportation impact. The intent of mobility fees is to eliminate transportation concurrency, proportionate share and impact fees and enact a streamlined, simplified mitigation mechanism whereby a development can mitigate its impact through a one-time payment.

In general, the foundations of a mobility fee are the mobility policies and projects integrated into a municipality's Comprehensive Plan. The mobility policies will need to include the establishment of a horizon year, mobility district(s) and, where applicable, multimodal quality of service standards for a multi-modal transportation system and policies that articulate how those standards will be achieved. The standards are for planning purposes, not for regulating the timing or approval of development. A Mobility Plan or projects identified in a municipality's adopted Transportation Plan or in its Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the types of mobility projects to be provided within a municipality.

Miami Beach Transportation Mitigation Overview: 1999 Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP)

In 2000, the City adopted a Concurrency Fee Ordinance to assess and mitigate the transportation impacts of private developments on the City's roadway network. At that time, the Concurrency Fee Ordinance was premised on the City's Adopted 1999 MMP.

The City's Concurrency Fee is in essence a fee based on the cost of all capacity improvements recommended in the 1999 MMP divided by the number of additional vehicular trips that could be accommodated by the recommended capacity improvements in the MMP, if implemented. Proposed development is required to pay the City a concurrency fee calculated as the product of the City's established cost per trip and the number of trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. Concurrency Fee revenues are then used by the City to fund new capacity improvement projects to mitigate the transportation impacts of new developments.

It is important to note that the City's Concurrency Fee was and still is based on a vehicular-trip methodology as opposed to a multimodal or person-trip methodology.  Also, the existing Concurrency Fee Ordinance does not provide for CPI increases to the fee to adjust for inflation over time. Further, the vast majority of projects recommended in the 1999 MMP Project Bank (found feasible) have been implemented over the past 18 years.

Recent History:  2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

In April 2016, the City Commission took a bold step by adopting the City's 2016 TMP. The City's TMP Project Bank is based on the City's Adopted Modal Prioritization Strategy consisting of: pedestrians first; bicycles, transit, and freight second; and private vehicles third. As such, the City's TMP recommends over 150 multimodal projects intended to transition the City from a vehicular-based transportation system to a multimodal transportation system that focuses on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips to maximize the capacity of the roadway network and, ultimately, person through-put. The TMP is based on a 20-year horizon.  Since the current TMP focuses on multimodal solutions, a traditional automobile/vehicle based concurrency system is NOT the best solution. A mobility fee is more representative of all forms of transportation.

State law allows counties and municipalities to charge and collect a concurrency fee to mitigate the transportation impacts of new developments; however, state law requires that there be a rational nexus between the concurrency fee being charged, the impacts of the new developments on the roadway network, and the implementation of improvements to mitigate the transportation impacts of the additional trips generated by new developments.

In order to continue charging a Concurrency Fee and prove rational nexus as required by State law, the City would need to update its existing concurrency fee to one that is based on the Adopted 2016 TMP.

More progressive cities have implemented or are moving towards a new transportation concurrency approach that assesses transportation impacts of vehicular trips generated by proposed developments based on both the length of the trips (i.e. vehicle miles traveled) and, hence, type of trip (local vs regional) rather than only on the number of vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by a development. This more progressive approach to transportation concurrency is referred to as a Mobility Fee Program, and several local governments in Florida have already adopted these types of programs.  This includes but is not limited to: Broward County Hillsborough County, Gainesville, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa,  and Sarasota.  Locally, Miami Lakes has adopted a Mobility Fee.  Miami-Dade County is also considering moving in this direction.

On September 14, 2018, the Administration presented the proposed Mobility Fee Program to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC).  After some discussion, the Committee requested that the Administration complete the following tasks and return to the FCWPC for further discussion and direction:

1. Reach out to the business community regarding the proposed Mobility Fee.

2.  Provide a range of scenarios showing how the proposed Mobility Fee would impact various land uses.

3.  Consider a discounted fee for North Beach.

At the November 30, 2018 FCWPC meeting, the Committee supported the Mobility Fee model.  A comparison of Miami Beach impact fees with other municipalities was requested.  A potential fee waiver for targeted areas of Miami Beach was also discussed.  Lastly, the Committee recommended close coordination between TMP projects and G.O. Bond Program projects.

ANALYSIS:

An overview of the process and approach to developing the proposed mobility fee for Miami Beach is described below, and also included in the attached presentation (Attachment A).

Mobility Fee Development Approach

Transportation in the City of Miami Beach has unique characteristics compared to other cities in Florida. Travel in Miami Beach is characterized by a high percentage of tourists, shorter trips, convenient public transportation, shuttle services, high availability of taxis, carpools, and ride share vehicles, higher propensity for biking and walking, availability of a robust bike sharing program, and limited to no free public parking - all factors that reduce the dependency on the private automobile and promote alternative modes of travel. Furthermore, City policies regarding prioritizing non-vehicular modes, creating pedestrian priority zones, and investing in greenways, shared-use paths, and protected bike lanes will help further reduce the reliance on the private vehicle for short trips.

Given the factors listed above, the proposed Mobility Fee Program was tailored to Miami Beach. First, travel demand growth was estimated using person-trips rather than only private vehicle trips. Second, the Mobility Fee share for each project listed in the TMP Project Bank was estimated based on whether the project is located on a state, county, or local roadway and the potential for other funding sources. Finally, a Mobility Fee Schedule was proposed for each land use category.

It is important to note that through the proposed Mobility Fee structure, neighborhood-supportive land uses generally associated with localized trips are incentivized, while land uses that induce regional trips, generally associated with large scale commercial developments, are disincentivized.  Since large scale developments typically result in longer trips and greater impact to the transportation network, the assessment for regional trips is larger than that assessed for local trips.  For example, trips to a restaurant tend to come from a greater distance than trips to a retail establishment.  Therefore, restaurant fees are higher than retail fees.

Proposed Mobility Fee Schedule

A table of the proposed Mobility Fee Schedule for each land use category is included in page 8 of the attached presentation. As shown in the table, the fees would apply citywide. The developed mobility fees were reviewed for reasonableness in the context of the existing concurrency fee schedule.

A table comparing the existing Concurrency Fee charges with the proposed Mobility Fee charges is included in page 9 of the attached presenation. This table also calculated what the Concurrency Fee would be at the present time, if adjusted by the CPI.  Similar to the existing Concurrency Fee Program, Mobility Fees would be charged for new developments and changes of use. In the case of changes of use, credits would be applied for the existing uses.

An important distinction to make is that under the City’s existing Concurrency Fee Program, single family homes are exempted.  However, under the proposed Mobility Fee Program, some single family homes would be charged a one-time fee for additions/expansions given that the increase in square footage would have an impact on local trips. Since larger homes tent to generate more traffic due to maintenance and housekeeping staff, as well as larger families. A single family home would not be charged a mobility fee unless the overall square footage of the home, including the expansion, exceeds 3,500 SF. Beyond that, a tiered fee structure would apply wherein fees would be charged for homes that are expanded to exceed 3,500 SF up to 7,000 SF;  and a higher fee would be charged for homes expanded above 7,000 SF. In both tiers, the mobility fee would apply only to the square footage increase of the home (i.e. a credit would be applied to the existing square footage of the single family home).

In total, the new Mobility Fee is estimated to generate approximately $126,878,500 in revenues over a 20-year period. The revenues would be used by the City to implement multimodal projects recommended in the Adopted 2016 Transportation Master Plan over a 20-year horizon. The total cost of all projects in the TMP Project Bank is approximately $902 million, thus, the Plan over a 20-year horizon. The total cost of all projects in the TMP Project Bank is approximately $902 million, thus, the revenues generated by the Mobility Fee over a 20-year period are anticipated to cover approximately 14.1% of the total project costs of all Priority I, II, and III projects in the Transportation Master Plan Project Bank. The balance of the project costs would be funded through federal, state, and/or county sources, grants, and other city sources.

Mobility Fee Uses

The Mobility Fee funds would be used by the City to plan, design, and construct numerous transportation improvement projects, including shared-use paths, bicycle lanes, transit lanes, intermodal facilities, pedestrian safety and connectivity enhancements, neighborhood greenways, pedestrian priority zones, complete streets, traffic signalization improvements, and various intersection/roadway improvements to improve traffic safety and increase capacity.  The concurrency fee funding was tied to the projects in the 1999 MMP.

UPDATE PROVIDED AT THE NOVEMBER 30, 2018 FCWPC MEETING

Pursuant to FCWPC's request, Planning and Transportation Department staff have reached out to the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Miami Beach LGBTQ Advisory Committee, the Miami Beach Latin Chamber of Commerce, and the Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association.  On September 24 and 25, Planning and Transportation staff met with representatives of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce to review the proposed Mobility Fee.  Backup information was provided to the Chamber members to address their questions.  Subsequently, on November 6, Planning and Transportation staff presented to the Board of Directors of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce to provide them with further information on the proposed Mobility Fee.  At the meeting, the Chamber expressed concerns with the City assessing any type of transportation impact fee.  Although it was explained to the Chamber that since 2000, all new developments and changes of use are assessed a transportation concurrency fee by the City, the Chamber advised that it would not support the proposed Mobility Fee Program.

On October 9, 2018, an overview of the proposed Mobility Fee was presented to the Miami Beach LGBTQ Advisory Committee.  Background information regarding the proposed Mobility Fee was also shared with the Miami Beach Latin Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association via telephone and e-mail.  Both the Miami Beach Latin Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association were invited to the November 6 presentation to the Board of Directors of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce.  Most of the organizations understood that the Mobility Fee was the successor to the concurrency program, and that action was needed now that the TMP had been adopted.  The Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce was not supportive of fees for businesses.

Additionally, pursuant to FCWPC's request, staff has provided a range of scenarios to illustrate how the proposed Mobility Fee would impact a wide range of land uses.  Those scenarios are included in the updated Mobility Fee Program presentation (Attachment A).  Based on the limited scenarios prepared, in North Beach, the median increase from the current fee with CPI adjustment would be approximately 61%.  In Middle Beach, the median increase from the current fee with CPI adjustment would be approximately -6%.  In South Beach, the median increase from the current fee with CPI adjustment would be approximately 66%. 

Lastly, pursuant to FCWPC's request, staff has studied and provided options for providing a discounted mobility fee structure intended to promote future redevelopment in North Beach.  These recommendations are included in the Mobility Fee Program presentation for FCWPC's consideration.  One option would be to consider a 60% reduction in the fee for North Beach, which could sunset after a period of time - perhaps 3 or 5 years.  A decrease of 60% is suggested for North Beach because the median increase from the current fee with CPI adjustment would be a comparable 61%.  Another option would be to phase-in the fee for North Beach over time.  For example, North Beach development projects could pay 50% of the fee for the first two years, 75% of the fee for years 3 and 4, and the full fee at year 5.  The impact of the fee reductions for North Beach is that it would result in a decrease of Mobility Fee funding available to fund the implementation of projects recommended in the City's Adopted 2016 Transportation Master Plan.

Attachment B includes the Mobility Fee Technical Analysis report completed by Keith and Schnars.

UPDATE SINCE THE NOVEMBER 30, 2018 FCWPC MEETING

At the November 30, 2018 FCWPC meeting, the FCWPC committee felt that the Mobility Fee model was appropriate for Miami Beach.  However, concerns were raised about the amount of the fee and the impact of the fee on redeveloping areas such as North Beach.

Additionally, an analysis was requested to compare Miami Beach fees with fees of neighboring communities.  The fee analysis prepared by staff is depicted in Attachment C.  In general, the proposed Miami Beach Mobility fees are comparable with that of neighboring communities which include unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Miami Lakes, Miami downtown, and Coral Gables. The analysis includes County Road Impact Fees which are uniformly assessed on new developments countywide, even within incorporated municipalities, and collected by districts.  However, the funds generated by the collection of these fees can only be used by the County  for the purpose of funding roadway capacity improvement projects within the districts in which they were collected.  Transportation enhancement projects such as bicycle lanes, shared-use paths, neighborhood greenways, traffic calming, and pedestrian safety improvements are not eligible to use County road impact fees as these projects do not generally increase the capacity of an existing roadway facility.  

Specifically, the analysis shows that the proposed Mobility Fee, in conjunction with Miami Beach park concurrency fee, is lower than the impact fees for unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Miami Lakes, and Coral Gables. The fee for Miami downtown is only slightly lower than the fee proposed for Miami Beach.   

Finally, the Committee requested that the Administration leverage the G.O. Bond funds allocated for above-ground improvements to fund the implementation of associated TMP Projects.  While the City's initial G.O. Bond funding request for mobility enhancements was approximately $41 million, the approved G.O. Bond Program budget provides for only $7 million of transportation-related improvements as follows:

• Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly Streets (Project No. 42): $2 million. 

• Protected Bicycle Lanes and Shared Bike/Pedestrian Paths (Project No. 43): $5 million

Potentially, on a case-by-case basis, portions of the TMP projects could be included, funded, and implemented as part of above-ground improvements through the G.O. Bond Program.  Specifically, the G.O. Bond Program Budget includes:

• Neighborhood Above Ground Improvements (Project No. 34): $43 million

• Sidewalk Improvement Program (Project No. 37): $13 million

• Street Pavement Program (Project No. 38): $30 million

The Administration will work to maximize opportunities to incorporate multimodal transportation improvements as part of these more comprehensive and funded G.O. Bond projects.  

CONCLUSION:

In addition to meeting the requirements of state law, implementing a new and more progressive Mobility Fee Program to replace the City’s existing Concurrency Fee Program will better assess the transportation impacts of new developments and provide funding for the implementation of the TMP Multimodal Project Bank over a 20-year horizon. Further, it will help the City achieve its future mode share goals of being less car centric and increasing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, thereby improving mobility for all modes of transportation citywide.

The Administration recommends adopting the Citywide Mobility Fee structure as proposed by Keith & Schnars which is anticipated to generate approximately 14.1% of the total cost of all recommended projects in the adopted TMP.

Pursuant to the Committee's request, the Administration is presenting the following option for discussion.  Since North Beach is seeking to incentivize new development, a phased-in option for North Beach is being recommended.  Consistent with the North Beach Town Center Ordinance Public Benefit Fee Incentives, a 50% reduction is recommended until August 24, 2020.   Also consistent with the North Beach Town Center Ordinance Public Benefit Fee Incentives, a 75% reduction is recommended until August 24, 2025. 

Since Middle Beach and North Beach are established areas of the City where development does not need to be incentivized, no fee reductions are proposed for these areas.  

Please keep in mind that state law requires a 90 day enactment period prior to implementing any change to an existing impact fee or adopting new impact fees.  It is also recommended that after FCWPC review, this item be forwarded to the Planning Board and City Commission for consideration.