Gainesville City Commission postpones Mobility Fee ordinance, extends Comprehensive Plan timeline

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the January 22 General Policy Committee meeting, the Gainesville City Commission postponed a Mobility Fee ordinance, extended the timeline for submitting their Comprehensive Plan to the State, and asked staff to look at ways to encourage investment in the area north of West University Avenue between 6th Street and 13th Street.

Mobility Plan will add a Mobility Fee on new development that replaces current TMPA fee

Scott Wright from the Transportation Department updated Commissioners on the effort to update the current Transportation Mobility Program Area (TMPA) system and replace it with a Mobility Plan, with the goal of having one overarching transportation plan. Wright said there was a period of public outreach, followed by approval by the City Plan Board. The City Commission approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that implemented the plan in December 2025, and it has been transmitted to the State for review. 

The Mobility Plan will feature a Mobility Fee for new development projects in the city limits; the fee will replace the current TMPA fee.

Click here to read the draft Mobility Plan and see the Projects Map. 

Jonathan Paul from AICP, a consultant, said the Mobility Plan is focused on widening streets, reconstructing roadways to add sidewalks and bicycle lanes, adding trails and shared-use pathways, redesigning intersections, and adding sidewalks. The Projects Map at the link above shows the locations of the proposed projects. Paul said the “vast majority” of the projects would be funded by either the State of Florida or Alachua County, but the City could add funds for enhancements. As an example, Paul said a new roundabout design provides a way for bicyclists to come off the roadway and use the sidewalk while riding through a roundabout.

Paul said the Mobility Fee is “not a tax” and is not an assessment on existing homeowners or existing businesses; the fee will be paid by the developers of new residential and commercial developments.

Mobility Fee will be more standardized than current model that estimates additional trips

The current TMPA fee is determined by an estimate of the additional trips generated by a new development and is calculated on a case-by-case basis. Paul said, “This sort of takes it to the next level, where it’s based on the Mobility Plan itself.”

Paul said that currently, the campus area, downtown, and East Gainesville are exempt from the TMPA assessment; however, a transit fee is paid by multi-family developments in the UF context area, and those fees will now be incorporated into the Mobility Fee. He said Florida statutes permit exempting affordable housing from the Mobility Fee, and he recommended exempting single-family and accessory dwelling units on existing lots, changes of use that don’t require a site plan, and developments that generate less than 10 trips. 

“Youve got to spend it where you’re collecting it.”

Paul suggested varying the Mobility Fee by district, with the lowest fees in the East district and the highest fees in the Southwest district. He said that money for Mobility projects in each district has to come from the Mobility Fees collected in that district: “You’ve got to spend it where you’re collecting it.”

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut said that since “most of the new development on the east side is for workforce housing and affordable housing, instead of trying to squelch that development,… I think we would want to exempt the east side, because we want to encourage development there, as much as possible.”

Noting that the City Plan Board recommended an exemption in the East district for grocery stores, Commissioner Casey Willits favored an exemption for banks in that district, too. Paul reminded Commissioners that all development on the east side is currently exempt from the fees, but these decisions are policy decisions that can be changed by the Commission.

Paul showed examples of fees for several types of developments in each district (click here for the full presentation), and the proposed fees are 79% to 359% higher than the TMPA fees; however, the Alachua County fees are higher for each type of development. Paul said the new, higher fees could be phased in over several years.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment was rejected because of SB 180 

Commissioner Bryan Eastman mentioned a letter from the Commerce Department that rejected the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Mobility Plan because of SB 180, and he asked whether that changed the timeline for approving the Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee. Paul said the letter looked like “boilerplate” to him, and he suggested responding with information about the existing TMPA fees and explaining that the Amendment is mostly to clean up the language and move the fee to the Land Development Code. He said, however, that the process of going back and forth with the State would add some time. 

Affordable housing exemptions

Willits favored exempting affordable housing from the Mobility Fee at 80% AMI (Area Median Income). 

City Manager Andrew Persons recommended exempting housing developments from the Mobility Fee if they are 100% affordable, but if they’re providing some percentage of affordable units along with market-rate units, he recommended using the existing Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) incentives instead. 

Mayor Harvey Ward suggested that Commissioners talk one-on-one with staff and then come back and discuss the Mobility Fee again in a public meeting before they vote on the first reading of the resulting ordinance. He added that the Mobility Fee provides a more consistent structure for the fees, so developers can, in many cases, just look up the fees; the new structure would also provide “better funding opportunities to improve mobility, whether those are streets or sidewalks or bus stops.”

Exempt areas cannot use the funds for improvements

Ward also cautioned Commissioners about exempting “half the city… because that means we’re [going to have] less funding to build the things that that particular part of the city desperately needs.” However, he said, they do want to incentivize building in some parts of the city: “We want to be really surgical about how we apply this for downtown… We could apply very specific exemptions to industrial or medical office use, for instance, in the Innovation District corridor.”

Ward said he would like staff to bring this back in April: “That gives us a chance to see what the legislature has fixed or not fixed [in SB 180]… [That will be] another discussion like today, hopefully more specific.”

Motion

Eastman made a motion to direct staff “to take into account the comments raised during today’s discussion and bring a Mobility Fee back to the City Commission for further review in April.” The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Desmon Duncan-Walker and James Ingle absent. 

Discussion of comments on Comprehensive Plan

Commissioners also heard a presentation on the 700+ comments submitted on the draft version of ImagineGNV, the City’s revision of its Comprehensive Plan. Sustainable Development Director Forrest Eddleton said, however, that “the number of different commenters is actually relatively small.”

Eastman pointed out that under the approved timeline (above) for adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the next time the Commission will see the Plan is in March, when they will need to vote on adopting it on first reading before sending it to the State. He asked, “Do we need another chance to have this conversation about all this? I think there’s still a significant amount of work that we need to put into the document to get where I would feel comfortable submitting it to the State and saying this is something that we will live with for… the next 10 years.”

City Manager proposes sending a letter to the State in March instead of submitting the Plan

Persons suggested that staff incorporate the comments, both written and collected from community engagement meetings, and bring the Plan to the Commission in March; he said that in March, the City can send a letter to the State “indicating that we are going to initiate the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) process, which gives us a year. I don’t want to take a year; I think we can achieve everything we’re trying to do with maybe one or two additional months.”

Willits favored that plan, particularly because some people in the community engagement sessions have suggested making “big, big changes to Future Land Use… and yes, this is the time to do it… I’m open to extending it, but if we are opening the can of worms of all this potential future land use, then let’s really reenvision where we live, where we do business, all of that — then I don’t want to only add a couple months; I want to add a full year.”

Commissioner Willits: “Is it undercooked, or do we literally not have the right ingredients in it? Because one of those is — maybe we need a year. One of them is — maybe we need two months.”

Chestnut asked whether Willits was suggesting extending the process beyond May, and he said they need to figure out how close they are: “Are we opening the full thing, or [do we] just need a little more time? Is it undercooked, or do we literally not have the right ingredients in it? Because one of those is — maybe we need a year. One of them is — maybe we need two months.”

Chestnut said the 700 comments indicate that “we probably need to look at the whole — everything… I don’t think we’re going to get this level of feedback again if we rush the process… So I would be for the extension.”

Mayor Ward: “I would prefer to say that we probably should file for the EAR full-year extension.”

Ward said his greatest concern is “what ends up happening with a glitch bill [for SB 180]… So we’ll need to extend at least into July… Then we’re talking about budget season, and our heads need to be on budget… We have a recess in June, and… at the same time, the budget must be accomplished… So I would prefer to say that we probably should file for the EAR full-year extension.” He said he’d like staff to bring back a schedule with “real deadlines that we can agree to, because if we don’t put deadlines on it, we’ll have the same conversation next summer, and we have done that for years.” He suggested setting a “finish line” in the fall.

Persons said he thought most of the work would be done in the next few months, with “ideally, a victory lap” in the fall where “we’re just approving it to send it to the State.” He also said he would “strongly recommend that the Commission not… talk about the Land Use map… That is going to be another level of analysis that we would have to do… Let us finish this process… In terms of touching the map or changing a lot of densities — please don’t.”

Commissioner Eastman: “I was surprised by the ambition of ImagineGNV; I’m not entirely sure where it all came from.”

Eastman said he was “surprised by the ambition of ImagineGNV; I’m not entirely sure where it all came from.” He said many of the comments he submitted were to “break down the ambition of it, in a way” and take some things out. He reminded Commissioners that changes to anything in the Comprehensive Plan will require approval from the State, so he had looked at each program and asked, “Is this a program that we actually want to put in our Comp Plan?… I think [the Plan] is a lot of different things, and I think it should probably do less things, as it relates to the future.”

Eastman said he supports cleaning up language to “get the junk out of old ordinances that don’t make a whole lot of sense,… but I think we need to bring it down at the same time, as it relates to new ideas.”

Commissioner Book: “I’m in favor of essentially eliminating non-required information for the Comp Plan.”

Commissioner Ed Book supported completing the Plan before July, with a discussion in 30 to 60 days because this has been in process since he joined the Commission in 2023, “so if we are unable to get something done that puts it in a standardized form in that amount of time, I don’t think that speaks well for us.” He said he was “in favor of essentially eliminating non-required information for the Comp Plan. The more you put in, the more it has to be evaluated, assessed, and vetted.”

Public comment

During public comment, Kim Tanzer said she was encouraged that they are talking about extending the timeline, and she also supported simplifying the document. Robert Mounts made some specific suggestions about the Plan, and Peggy Carr asked when a revised draft would be available.

No motion needed

In response to a question from Book, Persons said he had taken note of the Commissioners’ comments and did not need a motion. He promised to bring back a revised timeline and a letter to the State for approval. 

Mayor Ward: “We have to keep an eye on… what we want the community to look like. Because if we don’t,… it will just happen anyway, and it will get more expensive.” 

Ward said he had recently reviewed a report that said more than 10,000 people moved to Gainesville between April 2020 and April 2025: “This is not meant in any way to disparage any other community, but that is an increase of more people than actually live in Newberry, which is a thriving community — that’s kind of the scale that we’re working with, and that’s not going to slow down… We have to keep an eye on… what we want the community to look like. Because if we don’t,… it will just happen anyway, and it will get more expensive.” 

Ward said, “I promise you, there wasn’t enough new construction over that five-year period to equal out the folks who moved here. That means supply and demand is not our friend at this point.” He said he would be talking about that a lot “over the next months and years, and I will also continue to talk about economic development… We don’t talk enough about economic development in this room, and that is something I’m intent on changing.”

Commission Comment: Investment on West University Avenue

During Commission Comment, Ward said he was interested in asking staff to bring forward a conversation about encouraging investment on the north side of West University Avenue, between 6th Street and 13th Street: “I think that is a question of considering the historic buffer, not the historic zone itself, but the historic buffer north of University Avenue.” 

Mayor Ward: “While we’ve seen investment, huge investment, on the south side, the only investment we really see on the north side is a liquor store, and that’s not necessarily what we want there.”

Ward added, “While we’ve seen investment, huge investment, on the south side, the only investment we really see on the north side is a liquor store, and that’s not necessarily what we want there.”

Motion

Eastman agreed that the underlying zoning, “particularly on storefront streets or on major thoroughfares like University Avenue,… should prevail over the specific buffers… I think it’s well worth having that conversation.” He made a motion to direct staff “to review the buffer zones along, I guess, University Heights, north and south, and come back with recommendations to support redevelopment in that corridor.” Chestnut seconded the motion. 

Regarding the liquor store, Eastman said, “The issue of stopping businesses that are — things that you don’t necessarily want in your neighborhood, in specific areas… That’s a sticky, sticky thing to tackle… I’m not really sure what tools we have… I’m curious if there’s other cities that have tackled that in some way. I do think it’s worth having a conversation about.” Persons said he would talk to the City Attorney and look into what other cities have done.

The motion passed unanimously, with Duncan-Walker and Ingle absent.