My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Letter_Yuen_Hoffmann_Sept_08
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
General Planning Department Information
>
IPFNA
>
Impact Fee Correspondences
>
Letter_Yuen_Hoffmann_Sept_08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 8:58:57 AM
Creation date
12/21/2011 1:54:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Honorable Pete Hoffmann <br />Chair and Presiding Officer <br />and Members of the County Council <br />COUNTY T Y COUNCIL <br />Page <br />September 9, 2008 <br />fee revenues will vary greatly, we could not count on impact fees being the sole source of <br />funding for a bond of this magnitude, but this gives an example of the ftmding potential. <br />In compal *son, annual real property tax revenues for the 2008 -2009 fiscal year are <br />projected at $232 million. If impact fees were 11 million/yr., they would equal about <br />5% of real property tax revenues. Or, to put it another way, it would take a % across - <br />the -board increase in real property tax rates to yield this level of impact fee revenues. <br />This analysis assures that impact fees do not significantly reduce the level of <br />development. At the fee lever proposed in Bill 324, this seems a reasonable assumption. <br />2. Impact fees have a sound legal basis. <br />Questions have been raised about the legality of the "fair share" assessment system. <br />Although there was a study to establish the level of assessments in the early 1990'x, the <br />system was never enacted by a comprehensive ordinance. Although there are legal <br />defenses of this practice, and it bas never been directly challenged by someone liable for <br />fair share payments, the impact fee has a more solid legal basis. <br />It should be noted that even if the courts ultimately invalidated "fair share" assessments, <br />the specific improvements required by many of the rezoning ordinances, such as road <br />construction or the dedication of land for pans, would still be valid because they are <br />rationally related to the impact of those projects. In practice, rimy projects, especially <br />the larger ones, have not paid lair share for reads or parks because they are building roads <br />or dedicating parrs which qualify for an offset. <br />3. Impact fees provide funds for new infrastructure in areas experiencing rapid <br />growth. <br />The development of new county facilities has not matched the trends in population <br />growth. Since 1970, most population growth In the island has occurred In Puna (about <br />35% of the island's population growth), forth Kona (about % of the island's <br />population growth), and South Kohala (about 14% of the growth). At the same time, the <br />proportion of the island's population living in the South Hilo district has dropped from <br />3% to less than %. The overall population of the Big Island has almost tripled since <br />1970. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.