Jonathan Paul, the consultant, presented the comprehensive Mobility plan, which encompasses roadway and intersection projects, pathways, and sidewalks with the goal of zero deaths. It is set to replace current transportation concurrency, proportionate share, and impact fees. The plan also introduces a Mobility fee to fund multimodal projects, which would be a one-time payment by new developments to mitigate their transportation impact. The fee includes considerations for extraordinary circumstances under Florida statute, requiring an additional $35,000 to finalize the process, including work sessions before adoption.

The Mobility fee’s calculation was based on a larger study area to replace the county fee, potentially funding projects even outside city limits in collaboration with the county. The fees for residential units were discussed, with a focus on affordable housing, multifamily residential units, and the basis for assessing fees, which could consider square footage and a cap based on property size. The discussion also covered the potential increase in fees for mobile home parks by 97%, reflecting changes in the trip generation manual. Community-serving facilities, long-term care facilities, and private education could see fee increases of 45%, 24%, and 14%, respectively.

The potential inclusion of fees for charging stations associated with retail businesses sparked a debate, with the need for further clarification on their assessment. Phasing in the new fees over two to four years was presented as an option, considering the percentage increase. Council members inquired about the rationale behind the fee changes, the impact on specific business models, and the assessment of fees for modifications to existing commercial structures.

The concept of extraordinary circumstances was a focal point, discussing the potential adoption of the full fee at once, instead of phasing it in. The potential impact of this decision and the process involved were debated, including legislation that could affect city and county negotiations and the need for public workshops to review the findings and the fee itself. The discussion touched on the need to follow the same public notice process as for any code revision and the inclusion of affordable housing, small business retail, and mixed-use development within the fee structure.

Negotiations with the county regarding an interlocal agreement for sharing mobility fees were also discussed. The council’s study suggested a 25% fee share with the county, but the county was adamant about receiving the entire fee. The need for an interlocal agreement to address this was stressed, and a discussion on the notice requirement for opting out of the county ordinance ensued. The criteria for providing discounts for mixed-use developments were debated, with different views on whether to designate specific geographic areas or to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, the logistics of scheduling public workshops to present the plan and the ordinance were discussed, as well as the possibility of canceling the council meeting scheduled during spring break due to members’ unavailability. There were contrasting opinions on whether to proceed with the meeting if there was an agenda.