IPFNA_Final_Sept_06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

contributions for the value of those contributions. It is recommended that credits be provided for these types of improvements in much the same way as credits for fair s Post-Ordinance Reimbursements For fair share contributions and pre-ordinance c ontributions, credits that run with the land are recommended rather than developer reimbursements. So it may make sense to use the same approach when dealing with new developer exactions that occur after the impact fee ordinance is in place. However, an alternative approach is at least worthy of consideration, since the fair share credits affect a limited number of parcels and will expire in a certain number The alternative approach is to reimburse developers who make eligible improvements with impact fees collected for the same type of facility from other de velopers who do not. This approach was pioneered by Raleigh, North Carolina when it established road and park impact fees in 1987, and although it has not been widely emulated by other jurisdictions, it has much to recommend it . Raleigh enters into a reimbursement agreement with each developer who ma kes an impact fee-eligible improvement. If the improvement is an expensive one, the reimbursement is scheduled subject to available funding. The City also categor izes each developer contribution as Priority I or Priority II. Priority I projects include dedication of land or right-of-way and projects in the City's five-year capital improvements plan. Each year, th e City sets aside a percentage of impact fees collected in each benefit zone (20 percent of park fees and 27 percent of road fees) into reimbursement accounts. If the reimbursement account has sufficient funds to pay all rei developers with outstanding reimbursements for that year receive insufficient to reimburse all developers, developers with Priority I improvements are reimbursed first. If funds are still insufficient, each Priority I devel oper receives a pro rata share of his reimbursement amount, with the unpaid amount rolled over to the next year. The reimbursement approach used by Raleigh is considerably simpl approach, and it also has the advantage that a predi ctable percentage of impact fee revenue is available to the local government to program for priority improvements. T pronounced for HawaiÓi County for the first few year s, since staff would need to track fair share contribution credits for a number of years. Howev er, those credits would affect a limited number of properties and would disappear after a few years. After that, the collection of fees at the building counter would be automatic for all permits, with no need to check to see if cred its are available to offset the fees. The second advantage would also be somewhat attenuate share credits would reduce the amount of fees collected, but the County would be guaranteed that subsequent developer contributions would not consume more than a impact fee revenues. It is recommended that the County consider using a reimbursement approach similar to Raleigh's for post-ordinance developer contributions. Phase-In Period Following the adoption of the impact fee ordinance by the County Council, there needs to be a period of time before the impact fees actually go into e ffect (the Ñeffective dateÒ). This lapse of time is a common approach used by other jurisdictions when implementing impact fee programs. Some delay may be desired to give development projects alre ady underway adequate time to apply for building H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 20 AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY