IPFNA_Final_Sept_06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Through focus group discussions, the community has ex pressed a desire for multiple benefit districts for the purposes of collecting and spending the impact fee revenue. Based on that input and discus with local staff, four regional benefit districts th at conform with existing judicial boundaries are recommended, as illustrated in Figu re 2. Under the proposal, the districts would be composed as follows: District 1, North and South Kohala; District 2, Hamakua Puna and Kau; and District 4, North and South Kona . These same benefit districts could be used for most of the proposed impact fees. An exception is wastewater, where th e fees should be earmarked and spent to improve the system to which the new customer has connec Another suggestion from the focus groups was to a llow some of the revenue collected in each benefit district to be used for projects with regional or isla nd-wide benefit. To fac ilitate projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that the County allow up to 20 percent of the road, park, fire and police impact fees collected in any district to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that significant benefit will be provided to new developm ent in the district in which the fees were collected. Up to 40 percent of solid waste fees could be used for out-of-district improvements, reflecting the larger share of centralized facilities (landfill and vehicles). All wastewater fees would be restricted to be spent on improving the system to which the new customer connects. Pre-Ordinance Credits Some building permits will be issued in projects for which developers have already paid fair share contributions. To prevent double-charging, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer, or to reduce or eliminate the impact fees that are char ged for those building permits. Since it is likely that developers passed along the cost of the fair share c ontribution to the extent possible in the sale of the lots, reimbursing the developers would have the effect of handin alternative might be to reduce or eliminate the impact fees due policy would benefit the builder of the individual dwelling. The following approach could be used to implement th e policy of pre-ordinance credits. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance, Cou nty planning staff would need to identify all parcels or subdivisions for which fair share contributions have been paid, and the amounts paid for each type of facility. If the project is built-out, no credits would be needed. If no development has yet occurred, the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation since the ti me of payment. If building permits have already been issued for a particular subdivision, but some development potential remains, the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation, less what the subdivision would have generated in impact fees had the fee schedule been in place. The resulting cr edit amounts would be ava ilable to offset impact fees otherwise due for building permits issued for the applicable parcels or within the subdivis first-come, first-served basis until the credits ar e exhausted. The amount of the credits would be adjusted annually for inflation, using the same inde x that is used for the impa ct fees. A time limit, such as ten years, could be imposed on the use of the credits. Fair share assessments that were imposed as a condit ion of zoning approval, but have not yet been paid by the effective date of the impact fee ordinan ce (because the property has not been subdivided or site-planned) would be replaced by the obligation to pay impact Another issue that must be addressed is cred its for developers who made impact fee-eligible contributions prior to the impact fee ordinance, bu t who did not receive credit against fair share H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 19 AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY