Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board warns proposed county impact and mobility fee hikes could deter redevelopment on Amelia Island
Summary
Members cautioned that Nassau County’s proposed increases to parks, recreation and mobility impact fees — including large jumps for single‑family units and commercial projects — could shift development patterns, create double fees for city applicants and discourage redevelopment and affordable housing on the island.
Planning Advisory Board member Nick (speaker 10) briefed the board on Nassau County’s proposed updates to impact and mobility fees and warned that the county’s proposed increases could substantially raise costs for projects inside the city. He said the county is pursuing extraordinary‑circumstance findings that would allow fee increases beyond typical cycles and presented examples that showed mobility and parks fees rising to levels that could be prohibitive for local redevelopment.
Nick used examples from the county chart to illustrate the potential impact: a proposed mobility fee of roughly $11,332 for a typical single‑family home in the county and six‑figure mobility charges for some restaurant and hotel developments. He argued those charges could shift new growth east of I‑95, reduce incentives to redevelop existing sites on the island, and amount to double fees for projects that also pay city impact charges.
Clint O'Kramoff, the city project manager, said the city has been in ongoing discussions with the county; any county collection would require a new interlocal agreement. He described the technical basis the county uses — trip generation and capacity calculations — and noted disputes are likely about which improvements count and where fees should be spent.
Board members and public commenters raised concerns that the proposed fees would disproportionately affect island residents and small businesses, potentially freezing redevelopment and harming affordability. Several speakers urged outreach to the county commissioner who represents the city and suggested preparing talking points or a memo for the City Commission. Board counsel and staff cautioned about the advisory board’s limits on sending a formal statement but said staff can serve as a conduit to circulate comments to commissioners.
The board did not adopt an official position but instructed staff and members to work through appropriate channels to notify the City Commission of the board’s concerns and to consider drafting talking points.
