First, order of magnitude on the dollars involved. A Bathroom Group (hotel or motel) is 8 fixture units x $295/FU = $2360 per units. Say Jacobs has scraped 300 units and the number is $708,000, probably closer to $1M withe managers offices and the specific conditions of the properties.
Sewer Connection Fees are assets that have been purchased and should remain attached to the property they were purchased for in perpetuity in my book. The 2011 Code Amendments is a "taking" that I don't think would stand up to legal scrutiny, but no one has bothered to challenge it because it is just so unimportant in the real world. TMWA doesn't cancel the water rights on a parcel simply because they aren't being used currently, why should sewer be different? So I am good with the sewer connection fees running with the land.
What I'm not good with is moving those credits off the parcels they are appurtenant to, like Jacobs is proposing. - that is just a cost of development. And I cannot support such an action only on parcels with "Development Agreements" with the few who can afford that process. Council should reject this one for now.
As an aside, wouldn't an at least schematic development plan be appropriate from Jacobs at this point?
Thank you for all your work and analysis. I agree with Mike below. The connection fees stay with the parcel. The city is negligent when it changes code on a promise from a developer. Jacobs has had five years...now he is trying to wear the city down. The city needs to be a tougher partner in development.
It all flows downhill, doesn't it!
First, order of magnitude on the dollars involved. A Bathroom Group (hotel or motel) is 8 fixture units x $295/FU = $2360 per units. Say Jacobs has scraped 300 units and the number is $708,000, probably closer to $1M withe managers offices and the specific conditions of the properties.
Sewer Connection Fees are assets that have been purchased and should remain attached to the property they were purchased for in perpetuity in my book. The 2011 Code Amendments is a "taking" that I don't think would stand up to legal scrutiny, but no one has bothered to challenge it because it is just so unimportant in the real world. TMWA doesn't cancel the water rights on a parcel simply because they aren't being used currently, why should sewer be different? So I am good with the sewer connection fees running with the land.
What I'm not good with is moving those credits off the parcels they are appurtenant to, like Jacobs is proposing. - that is just a cost of development. And I cannot support such an action only on parcels with "Development Agreements" with the few who can afford that process. Council should reject this one for now.
As an aside, wouldn't an at least schematic development plan be appropriate from Jacobs at this point?
Thank you for all your work and analysis. I agree with Mike below. The connection fees stay with the parcel. The city is negligent when it changes code on a promise from a developer. Jacobs has had five years...now he is trying to wear the city down. The city needs to be a tougher partner in development.