Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 1329 <br />Bill 324 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Councilmember Jacobson stated that this is a progressive measure that the people have been <br />asking for and that it is a true cost for development. He stated that if we are going to expect our <br />tourist industry to continue coming here, adequate infrastructure must be provided. <br />Councilmember Higa expressed concern whether the current fair share system is truly illegal or <br />not and was informed by Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela that a response would have to <br />be provided during executive session due to liability issues. Mr. Higa also noted another concern <br />that although the impact fee would help with infrastructure, it will hurt the guy who wants to <br />build his first home. Council Chair Hoffmann noted that this Council earlier approved atwo-lot <br />subdivision in which the applicant, who intended to build a home on his newly created second lot <br />was assessed a fair share amount of approximately $11,000 as opposed to an impact fee for a <br />Single Family Residential dwelling which would amount to approximately $6,000. <br />Director Yuen explained that the difference between the current fair share system and the <br />proposed impact fee is that under the fair share system, a fair share amount is assessed as part of <br />a rezoning application but would not be assessed to someone who already owns a lot and just <br />wants to build a home. Mr. Yuen stated that under the impact fee system, anyone who obtains a <br />building permit would be assessed an impact fee. <br />After some discussions regarding in-lieu fair share contributions and impacts upon pending fair <br />share assessments not yet collected in the event of a potential lawsuit, Director Yuen stated that <br />all existing fair share conditions would have to be complied with regazdless. <br />Councilmember Yagong stated he disagrees with the position that this is the best time for and <br />Impact Fee ordinance and that although there is no dispute about the need for infrastructure, the <br />country is in a financial crisis. He adamantly stressed that in the real world people are losing <br />their jobs and businesses are going under in this time of economic crisis, and to add an additional <br />financial burden of $6,000 to the people who aze struggling to make ends meet would be <br />devastating. Mr. Yagong felt that when the economy improves then a measure such as this could <br />be brought before the Council. Council Chair Hoffmann disagreed and stated that the best time <br />to establish an impact fee system is when the economy is down and that there is a need right now <br />to change the way business is done. Mr. Hoffmann also added that the bill also allows the <br />Council flexibility to make adjustments and changes if it decided, and noted there is a one year <br />effective date after adoption. <br />Councilmember Yoshimoto stated he understands that Mr. Hoffmann is doing what he feels is <br />the right thing, however, Mr. Yoshimoto expressed that proper timing was the critical issue for <br />him. He said he understood the need for infrastructure but at the same time felt the need to make <br />sure our people can purchase their homes was more important. Therefore, Mr. Yoshimoto stated <br />he could not support the bill as written. <br />PC Report No. 100 <br />