IPFNA_Final_Sept_06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

determining Ña proportionate sh are of public facility capital improvem ent costsÒ is the Ñextent to which a developer required to pay impact fees over the next twenty yea contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements throug h user fees, debt service payments, or other payments, and any credits that may accrue to a development because of future payments ...Ò The State act implies that credit may also be due fo r other types of revenues besides those used to pay debt service on existing capital facilities. Section 46-143(d)(2) states that another factor that shall be considered is the Ñavailability of other funding for public facility capital improvements, including but not limited to user charges, taxes, bonds, inter governmental transfers, and special taxation or assessments ...Ò Also, Section 46-141 defines Ñpropor tionate shareÒ to mean Ñthe portion of total public facility capital improvement costs that is reasonably a ttributable to a development, less: (1) Any credits for past or future payments, adjusted to present va lue, for public facility capital improvement costs made or reasonably anticipated to be contributed by a developer in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments...Ò Aside from debt service payments, credit against impact fees may not be re quired for other types of funding that have historically been used for growth -related, capacity-expanding improvements, or which may even be committed to be spent in the future for such purpose contribute toward such funding, so does existing development, and both existing and new development benefit from the higher level of service that the additional fun historical capacity funding patterns must be contin ued after the adoption of impact fees, and that new development is entitled to a credit for its contribution to thos local governments cannot require Ñgrowth to pay for growthÒ unless they have always done so. Local funding that is committed to be used for capacity expansion in t only in cases where there is no reasonable need for or benefit from higher levels of service than the existing level of service embodied in the impact fee calculations. As long as the fees are based on new development paying to maintain existing levels of se rvice that have been paid for in full by existing development, and additional funding can reasonably be used to raise the level of service for existing and new development alike, no additional revenue cred its are warranted. Nevertheless, credit will be provided in this study for dedicated revenue (e.g., motor fuel t improvements) and State and Federal grants. HawaiÓiÔs statute is one of only a ha ndful of state enabling acts that re quire credit for past property tax payments. Section 46-143(d)(5) states that the Ñex tent to which a developer required to pay impact fees has contributed in the previous five years to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements and received no reasonable benefit therefrom, and any cr edits that may be due to a development because of such contributionsÒ shall be taken into consideration in the impact fee calculation. And the defin of Ñproportionate shareÒ cited above makes clear that this refers not just to developer exactions, but also to past property tax payments. Prior to developmen t, the owners of a vacant parcel of land paid property taxes that may have been used, in part, to construct ca impact fees are being assessed. Consequently, it will be necessary to reduce impact fees by the present value of property tax payments over the last five years that were used to construct existing capital facilities of the type for which the fees are being charged. H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 13 AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY