IPFNA_Policy Analysis Memo_Jan_06

Home

this is understandable, it is important to understand that impact fees are not the solutio service inadequacies. Other funding sources must be found to in The principle to keep in mind is that you canÔt char ge new development for a higher level of service than you provide to existing development. For example, that assume a community has five acres of park land per 1,000 residents, but it wants to have ten acres/1,000. If th e community charges new development for ten acres/1000, and does not spend any other m oney on parks, then the level of service gradually increases over time, but it never g ets to ten acres/1,000. So new de velopment does not get the level of service it is paying for, and existing development gets a windfall. If on the other hand, the community passes a bond issue that will pay for the extra acres needed to serve ex isting development at the desired standard of ten acres/1,000, new development is helping to pay o a part of existing developmentÔs facilities as well as its own level of servi ce. Consequently, the fees would need to be reduced to prevent double-charging. The bottom line is that it is much simpler and more defensible to base the fees on the existing level of service than on a higher, desired le vel of service. Other money that the County gets from grants, t general fund, or other revenue sources can be used to in crease the level of servi ce, so the next time the fees are updated the existing level of service is higher and the fees can be raised accordingly. Administrative Costs An impact fee system should not be significantly more costly to administer than the current fair share assessments. Credits would need to be provided against the impa contributions, but this is also true of the fair sh are assessments. Collection of the fees could occur at the same points in the development process as the fair share fees. The ma jor additional expense may be more frequent updates. Agency and Stakeholder Involvement In order to provide the consultants with the necessary informati an Agency Liaison Team, consisting of representati ves from County and State agencies, was formed to provide data on the following type of infrastructure an d public facilities: transportation, police, fire, solid waste and wastewater. Stakeholder involvement and participation in the stud y process will help to determine the need for and the development of an impact fee or dinance. To date, two initial focus group meetings were held with representatives from key stakeholder organizations in Hilo and Kona. Future meetings will be held to assist in developing the methodology and the impact fee ordinance. The consultants have also held an initial workshop with the County Council on impact fees. The following is a summary of comments that have been made thus far. Additional information on the focus group meetings can be found in Appendix B. 1.Create of a fair system (exemption of existi ng lots does not seem fair nor appropriate). 2.Expand scope to discuss other infrastructure financing options 3.Government should identify their role and infrastructure finan 4.Create an inclusive impact fee program Ï include state highway 5.Look at the strategic issues/questions Ï how much money do we H Ô C \I N A ÐP A M January 5, 2006 , Page 14 AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT OLICY NALYSIS EMORANDUM