2011-04-27 Cost of Government Commission Minutes

Home

people actually build. It’s not rezoning the property that triggers somebody paying the fair share. It’s when they actually pull building permits or subdivide the land. And on impact fees you’re not going to collect it any sooner. You’re going to collect it when they pull a building permit. And so that’s one of the myths of the impact fees that you will collect this money in Kona. People look at all of these assessments and say, oh they didn’t pay this, they didn’t pay this. And that’s because the land is still vacant. They haven’t built the road, they haven’t put in a house, they haven’t put in anything. They don’t pay until they pull the building permit. So there is a misperception that passing the impact fee will suddenly collect more money in Kona. You will collect in Puna, you will collect in Ka‘u. I question whether you can expand some of those fees like roads. There aren’t that many county roads in Puna. So if you’re collecting per roads, the only way you could expand it is by working PEMAR. And the entire cost of PEMAR, if you’re going from Nanawale to Hilo is $180 million. I just don’t know that we’re going to have the $180 whether it’s federal or county. I think the best thing you could do is spend money to figure out the alignment and try to prevent development along the alignment. But as to actually getting it built anytime soon, no. But at least if you have an alignment, then you can try and prevent development. I’m just saying that I just don’t think this is the right time for impact fees. MS. O’HARA: Question –the fair share contribution system that we currently have, you said you felt it was legally defensible, one of the drawbacks is that the funds collect to district and can only be expanded in that district. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Well that would be true of impact fees too. You could only use them. You have to have a rational nexus, you have to have a connection between the impact, the exaction you collect and where you expand it. And we had this sole discussion because Council member Yagong wanted to take money we collected in Kona and spend it in Honokaa, and we said, no, you can’t. It’s got to be spent in Kona. I think that that doesn’t change whether it’s impact fee or whether it’s a fair share. MS. O’HARA: Well, the point I was getting to is we’ve had very little fair share contribution development in South Hilo, North Hilo. And although the area isn’t maybe physically growing at a rate it’s going to bring in money, all the surrounding areas are and they demand services from the larger Hilo area. We need more infrastructure and we’re seeing that happen with increased traffic and lots of other things. So, I remember in our discussion you pointed out that what maybe more favorable is to include just a very small percentage on the property tax bill that is islandwide infrastructure fund versus the regional infrastructure fund. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: There are all different ways of looking at it. I think we do the same thing with fuel tax. We take a certain amount and we assign it by district based on the miles of county roads in a district. And then we take some of the money and we do it for islandwide projects recognizing that you live in Hilo but you’re driving through Hamakua and Waimea to get to Kona. And so that some of that fuel tax money that paying at the pump is not just being, the need for improvements is not just where you’re necessarily buying the gas. So, we do that there. I think the problem has always been on the percentage. When we were having that conversation it was just, how do you fund infrastructure? Do you set a certain amount? I think the problem has always been that when we’re in an economic downturn like we are right now, you can see the whole 32