Clay County debate grows over proposed multimodal mobility fee, consultants propose four‑step phase‑in

Consultants for Clay County laid out the county’s draft multimodal mobility fee study at the Nov. 25 Board of County Commissioners meeting, proposing a district‑based, person‑miles‑traveled methodology and a phased approach that would incrementally raise fees to a legally supported maximum.

Jeanette Burke of GFT, who led the presentation, told the board the team updated the travel model to a 2024 base year and used a 2045 forecast. She said the study ties infrastructure costs to person‑miles so fees reflect multimodal needs — sidewalks, bike lanes, transit hubs and roadways — rather than vehicle miles alone. "We calculate a cost per person‑mile and test a dual rational‑nexus to ensure fees are proportionate to the impacts of new development," Burke said.

Jonathan Slayson of RSG explained how the fee is computed from ITE trip rates, district average trip lengths and conversion factors that account for walking, biking and transit. Slayson told commissioners the consultant team identified approximately $530 million in candidate mobility projects and estimated roughly 3.1 million new person‑miles of travel tied to the forecasted growth, which yields a simple countywide rate equivalent of about $169 per person‑mile before district adjustments, credits and phase‑in rules. He outlined statutory constraints and a consultant recommendation to phase increases in multiple steps so changes remain within Florida law.

Commissioners’ questions focused on distributional fairness. Commissioner Condon pressed the team on why district boundaries largely follow the 2020 study and objected to scenarios where small, long‑standing property owners outside urban service boundaries could face large one‑time fees. Condon cited a constituent who paid roughly $27,000 in combined fees and called for review of how villages such as Agricola and Governors Park were assigned to districts. Slayson and Burke said the socioeconomic forecasts come from the North Florida TPO model and are coordinated with Clay County’s future land‑use maps; staff and consultants agreed to re‑examine specific boundary assignments raised by commissioners and residents.

On credits and implementation, the consultants reiterated that developer‑built projects can earn credits against fee liability (usually within the same district unless a traffic study shows cross‑district benefit). They said credits are flexible under statute and recognized concerns about very old credits being used years later. Richard Smith, county engineer, noted that when developers construct major corridors it can accelerate delivery but also complicate credit accounting.

Consultants and staff also flagged that fee revenue alone will not fund every listed project; some shortfalls would be addressed via local options such as fuel tax revenue and infrastructure surtax, and some large projects would be phased or remain developer obligations.

The presentation was informational; no formal adoption occurred. Staff said the consultants will return with refinements and a recommended approach for public outreach and a January follow‑up; commissioners directed staff to revisit district boundaries in the areas called out during the meeting and to provide clearer documentation on credits, assumed growth, and which projects a particular district would be expected to fund.

What’s next: the consultants plan to return with a revised study in January for further consideration and potential adoption steps, including a public hearing and a phased implementation schedule if the board elects to move forward.