To date numerous local governments have enacted mobility fee programs based on multimodal mobility plans. The Florida League of Cities (2021) indicates that since the 2013 law was enacted, 30 cities and 18 counties have adopted or are in the process of adopting a mobility plan or fee. Hillsborough County is among the jurisdictions that has enacted a multimodal mobility fee to ensure that each development mitigates its proportionate share of the costs of offsite transportation facilities. The fee applies to “mobility facilities” defined as bicycle/pedestrian facilities, roadway facilities, or transit facilities on the mobility network. The legalities of impact fees have been litigated over many years. A recent legal analysis for the City of Port St. Lucie extends this analysis to multimodal mobility fees. The study indicates that mobility fees must be both proportional and reasonably connected to the need for new multimodal transportation projects and the mobility benefits provided to those who pay the fee (s.163.31801(4)(f-h), F.S.). As stated in the report (Paul, August 2021): “The “dual rational nexus test” requires a local government to demonstrate that there is a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the “Need” for additional (new) capital facilities (improvements and projects) to accommodate the increase in demand from new development (growth), and the “Benefit” that the new development receives from the payment and expenditure of fees to construct the new capital improvements….The calculation of the City’s Mobility Fee based on person travel demand documents and quantifies the connection between the provision of multimodal person capacity and the person travel demand generated by new development travel, in accordance with dual rational nexus and rough proportionality test.” A 2016 study of the application of mobility fees in Florida found no evidence of case law challenging their specific features (Renaissance Planning, 2016). Concern over the potential for litigation, particularly given the widespread variation in these fee systems, led the Florida League of Cities to issue a 2021 legislative brief on mobility plans. The brief called for legislation to provide guidance for the creation and adoption of alternative transportation mitigation systems like mobility plans and fees noting “absent legislative guidance, city ordinances on mobility plans and mobility fees are open to attack over differing legal interpretations of the current state statute.” Nonetheless, in determining the validity of local regulatory actions, courts will review whether the action is consistent with and based upon a local comprehensive plan. Local governments that have designed mobility plans and fees with careful attention to statutory requirements and with the dual rational nexus and rough proportionality tests in mind appear to be on strong legal footing. Additional Florida Caselaw Palm Beach County v. Wright (1993) solidified local corridor management authority in Florida and established clear guidelines for a legally defensible local corridor preservation program. Since that time, only a handful of cases were identified in Florida that challenged a local government corridor preservation action. These are discussed in this section, along with a 1990 case on frontage roads. Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, 2019 WL 580259 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2019) This case involved a challenge to Pasco County, Florida’s actions regarding its right-of-way preservation ordinance. The ordinance, adopted in 2005, requires dedication of right of way shown on officially adopted maps and tables to secure a development permit and allows applicants to appeal to the
16
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog