development moratoria exemplified in Joint Ventures v. FDOT litigation and suggests the viability of long reservation periods based on long range planning horizons or even build-out plans. However, caselaw suggests that the longer the horizon for preserving future right-of-way, the more tenuous the balance in enforcing preservation policies. Advance acquisition programs may be beneficial in this regard. The legal context for corridor management in Florida is further defined by an increasing emphasis on multimodal transportation planning in Florida planning law. The 2011 Community Planning Act required local governments in Florida to develop multimodal plans coordinated with future land use plans, removed transportation concurrency as a requirement, and encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility funding systems. Many have enacted mobility plans and fees or concurrency based multimodal mitigation fees to help ensure that developments pay their proportionate share of the cost of transportation facilities. 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.” An internet search and 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 in light of 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. A multimodal approach to corridor management is essential to the ability of local governments to plan for future growth. An important consideration is internal consistency of the vision expressed in the multimodal plan, quality of service and design criteria, and the corresponding mitigation program. These factors demonstrate public purpose and need for new facilities, benefits received by new development, and how the mitigation is related and proportionate to the impacts of new development.
2
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog