City planning board: County mobility fee hikes would devastate city development/improvements

Estimates of increased costs provided to the Planning Advisory Board

Fernandina Beach’s Planning Advisory Board warned this week that Nassau County’s proposed overhaul of its mobility and impact fee system — one of the most aggressive fee increases the county has considered — could stall redevelopment in the city, discourage new businesses and residential construction, and impose what several board members described as double taxation on city residents.

The discussion comes as Nassau County commissioners consider adopting sharply higher mobility and impact fees under an “extraordinary circumstances” provision of state law. That designation allows counties to raise fees beyond the standard 50 percent cap if they can demonstrate exceptional growth pressures or infrastructure needs.

“For example, a fast-food restaurant of a little over 4,000 square feet would pay $474,000 in mobility fees,” PAB member Nick Gillette said at the meeting. “Do you think they’re going to locate here? No, they’re not.”

County documents show mobility fees for some land uses would more than double or triple, with single-family residential mobility fees increasing from roughly $4,000 per unit to more than $11,000. Fees for restaurants, hotels, medical offices, and retail development would rise substantially based on updated trip-generation and vehicle-miles-traveled calculations.

County staff have said the increases are needed to fund transportation capacity improvements as growth accelerates, particularly east of Interstate 95, and to address rising construction costs. If approved, the new fees would take effect in March 2026 after state review.

But during the Planning Advisory Board meeting Wednesday, members repeatedly questioned both the scale of the increases and how much benefit Fernandina Beach would receive.

Gillette told the board he has been closely following the county’s proposal and said the city would be affected far more severely than in the past.

“If you can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, you can raise them more,” Gillette said. “The county is claiming that — and they’re raising the fees sometimes 100 percent, sometimes tripling it.”

Gillette said the proposed changes threaten redevelopment efforts the city has spent years trying to encourage.

“I think part of that may undermine some of our redevelopment efforts that we’re looking at,” he said.

He noted that under the proposed schedule, the single-family residential mobility fee would increase from about $4,000 to $11,332 per unit, while commercial projects would face dramatically higher charges.

Gillette also cited medical offices, which he said would be charged roughly $41,000 in mobility fees per 1,000 square feet, and hotels, pointing to a recently built 239-room beachfront hotel that would pay about $1.7 million under the new fee structure.

“That’s about $7,800 a unit,” he said. “That’s a big number.”

Beyond mobility fees, board members focused on Nassau County’s proposed increases to regional impact fees for parks, recreation, and administration.

Nick Gillette

Gillette said a 2,500-square-foot home in Fernandina Beach would face $5,177 in county administrative and parks fees alone, on top of roughly $7,500 charged by the city for recreation facilities.

“So we’re going to wind up paying $7,500 to the city and then another $5,000 to the county,” he said. “They’re never going to use the county facilities. We have great recreation facilities. To me, this is double taxation at its finest.”

Board members noted that the city provides significantly more parks and recreation services than the county, yet city residents would be paying county fees without a reciprocal benefit.

Gillette also questioned whether Fernandina Beach would see meaningful transportation improvements funded by the higher mobility fees. He pointed to county planning maps showing only three planned “pipeline” mobility projects that touch the city — two of which are already funded.

“So, what are we paying for if we’re going to get charged and dinged all that?” he asked.

He said most of the county’s failing road segments are outside the city, primarily east of I-95, yet mobility fees collected on Amelia Island could be spent anywhere within the fee zone.

“They’re going to take the money from the island to pay for that,” Gillette said.

Board member Pete Stevenson said the proposed fees could directly affect newly annexed property and future redevelopment sites.

“We voted to annex in about an additional 18 acres,” Stevenson said. “That development would get zipped with these higher fees.”

Member Mark Bennett warned the fee structure undermines urban planning goals meant to reduce driving and encourage compact development.

“If the county’s going to take all the money and we don’t get any of it, again, why would anyone want to develop a higher-density development on Sadler or any of the areas that we designate?” Bennett said.

Member Victoria Robas said the increases could lock the city into its current form for decades.

“This community will freeze with what we have right now,” Robas said. “There will be no incentive for any business to come in. There will be no incentive for residential.”

Robas also raised concerns about affordability.

“Living in Fernandina — and probably living in Nassau County — is so expensive,” she said. “You add these kinds of impacts onto what we have right now makes it even more out of reach for anybody to buy a house and live here on Amelia Island.”

City Project Manager Glenn Akramoff told the board that city staff have been in discussions with Nassau County for months and confirmed that new interlocal agreements would be required for the fees to apply within city limits.

“It does require an interlocal agreement,” Akramoff said. “And it would require a new one, not just updating the old one.”

Akramoff said the county’s justification centers on growth pressures outside the city and the need to add transportation capacity.

“They’re booming,” he said. “They’re going to have a boom on the other side of the bridge. And they need to do these things.”

He noted that mobility fees can only be used to add capacity — not safety improvements — and are based on daily trip generation.

“The key thing here is that it’s all based on how many trips you create,” Akramoff said. “So they created that chart based on how many trips you create from and to your site per day.”

Akramoff said those technical assumptions could be a point of debate, particularly given differences between island and mainland travel patterns.

“I think that’s where you get into some of the debate on the technical side,” he said.

Gillette urged the city to reconsider its interlocal agreements with the county before the ordinance is finalized.

“I think we need to reconsider the interlocal agreement with the county,” he said.

City Attorney Teresa Prince told the board the City Commission is aware of the issue and has been discussing options.

“The city has been aware of it,” Prince said. “We’ve discussed that an interlocal agreement would be required.”

Gillette said he plans to draft a statement outlining the board’s concerns for the City Commission’s consideration ahead of the county’s final hearing later this month, followed by a 90-day state review period.

“I just want everyone to know what’s coming,” he said.