The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0212.001 2000-2002 JAY os M,~ J. CURTIS TYLER Ill `~~''~J Bus: 808 ~ ( ) 3_6-5684 l~ireChau~ F~x:(808).i26-697 District 8 (A~orlh kn+vn) a' ct~~ler'iiinter uc.net '0Ti ns•a~•~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ :HtYW? ~l`I COUNTY COUNCIL kona Courrci! Once •7?-6399 Nalani Street •Suite 104 •kailua-Kona • Haicai'i • 96'd0-8980 VIA FACSIMILE: 961-8912 Pages: 4 May 10, 2001 MEMORANDUM: TO: The Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman Hawaii County Council ~ i~ ~~t FROM: J. Curtis Tyler III ``~`,4 Vice Chair Hawaii County Council SUBJECT: Comm. 212, Bi1157 and Comm. 213, Bill 58 Relating to Sewers Please have the attached communication from Keola Childs numbered, circulated and referred to the May 15t" Finance Committee meeting. The original communication will be forwarded to Hilo by pouch tomorrow. JCT/mm Attachment (1) Arakaki-Ol MAY 10 Cow, No, file No, z_~ ~ _ lief. Toy ~C. lief. __°g... Y _ ~,....,~::,.~.;N. Page 1 of 3 ~ Curtis Tyler AIAIAIIAAlIII1111AlIAAl11111A111111AAX From: "Keola Childs" <kchilds@westhawaii.net> 'I=o: "Curtis Tyler, III" <ctyler@interpac.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:40 PM Subject: Sewer Connection Fee Bill Dear Councilmember Tyler - Noting the Admin's plan to assess sewer connection fees, which is a sensible beginning in a hoped-for evolution into an impact fee approach, I want to make the Councilmembers as well as Admin. staff are fully aware of and in compliance with HRS Sections 4b-141 through 143 (at the least). The Inouye Admin.'s Impact Fee analysis of (1990? 1992?) seems to have met the Legislature's standards stipulated in this 1993 law change; note that the law clearly specifies what the required Needs Assessment Study must analyze and present for public understanding. As I am ignorant of the document package the Admin is surely providing you with the draft bill, I can only hope that the Council is being given final drafts of the Needs Assessment Study for public circulation in advance of your serious review by the Finance Committee, so that the public can consider, validate or contest the N.A.S. assumptions, techniques, and conclusions. I would also like to suggest that the N.A.S. make clear whether or not there may be a present or future need to differentiate "levels of service" for various regional systems to which such connection fee (a.k.a. impact fee) might be applied. For example, is it possible that the passive treatment methodology of the Kona system might allow more - or less -wastewater per household or business, or will all the systems be expected and able to perform at the same levels for each connection class (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial)? Probably so, but this should be made clear in the N.A.S. if it is not now - or at least in the Council Committee Review Minutes - so there is a record of its having been considered. Because the law (and foundational planning-finance theories which supported the legislation) requires (46-142(b)) the improvements to be "specifically identified" in either a comprehensive plan or a N.A.S., and logically so in order to calculate the expected capital cost vs. the number of connections and the flow volumes, your de facto impact fee ordinance will also be locking the county into a specific improvement plan for each region services by the identified county systems; thus, it is very important that your deliberations also - if not first -carefully weigh the geographic paths of expansion and infill to make sure the county is going to be comfortable sticking to that as a "program" for some years ahead. I'm sure Councilmembers will realize that to the extent that the county has validated specified expansion routes and infill zones, with calibrated flow volumes for such, the county is implicitly validating further upzoning and extension of county services subject, of course, to other supporting services being rationalized. But it's an important commitment, and aside from the Water Dept.'s comparable expansion program, it'll be the county's true first infrastructure program commitment, i.e., lock-stepped with dollars, time and applicant demand. 5/10/Ol Page 2 of 3 The success of the Council's careful review will itself be foundational for introducing impact fees to other facilities like roads, parks, etc., so it's vital the approach be understood by all now. Finally, please consider the feasibility of implementing the suggested fee schedule in a two or three step phase-in process, with a specified step up schedule, so that parties connecting with the say, first year after the effective date aren't completely clobbered and caught off-guard. For example, assessing 1/3 of the scheduled fee for the first year, 2/3 the second, and full fee the third (with the county absorbing the connection cost as it has been up to now, out of the property tax base) would be fair and considerate of those who are considering whether or not to build any new housing in the next year or so, and need to have a manageable expectation that they can still sell (or rent) their product for enough to justify even going ahead at all in the next few years; assuming they have paid and invested market value amounts for their project opportunities, a 2 or 3 step phase-in might be vital to keeping our flow of housing going even at it's current, relatively slow pace. For ease of reference, I've pasted in a couple of the mentioned HRS sections below. Sincerely, Keola Childs kchlds(c~westhawaii.net §46-142 Authority to impose impact fees; enactment of ordinances required. (a) The counties are authorized to assess, impose, levy, and collect impact fees for any development within their jurisdictions; provided that no impact fees may be assessed, imposed, or collected under this part unless the county enacts appropriate impact fee ordinances and adopts rules to effectuate the imposition and collection of the fees. (b) Except for any ordinance governing impact fees enacted before July 1, 1993, impact fees may be imposed only for those types of public facility capital improvements specifically identified in a county comprehensive plan or a facility needs assessment study. The plan or study shall specify the service standards for each type of facility subject to an impact fee; provided that the standards shall apply equally to existing and new public facilities. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 1996, c 175, §1] [§46-143] Impact fee calculation. (a) A county council considering the enactment of impact fees shall first approve a needs assessment study that shall identify the kinds of public facilities for which the fees shall be imposed. The study shall be prepared by an engineer, architect, or other qualified professional and shall identify service standard levels, project public facility capital improvement needs, and differentiate between existing and future needs. 5/10/O1 Page 3 of 3 (b) The data sources and methodology upon which needs assessments and impact fees are based shall be set forth in the needs assessment study. (c) The pro rata amount of each impact fee shall be based upon the development and actual capital cost of public facility expansion, or a reasonable estimate thereof, to be incurred by the county. (d) An impact fee shall be substantially related to the needs arising from the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the county in accommodating the development. The following seven factors shall be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facility capital improvement costs: (1) The level of public facility capital improvements required to appropriately serve a development, based on a needs assessment study that identifies: (A) Deficiencies in existing public facilities; (B) The means, other than impact fees, by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time; and (C) Additional demands anticipated to be placed on specified public facilities by a development; (2) The availability of other funding for public facility capital improvements, including, but not limited to, user charges, taxes, bonds, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation or assessments; (3) The cost of existing public facility capital improvements; (4) The methods by which existing public facility capital improvements were financed; (5) The extent 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 credits that may be due to a development because of such contributions; (6) The extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees over the next twenty years may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements through user fees, debt service payments, or other payments, and any credits that may accrue to a development because of future payments; and (7) The extent to which a developer is required to pay impact fees as a condition precedent to the development of non-site related public facility capital improvements, and any offsets payable to a developer because of this provision. (e) The impact fee ordinance shall contain a provision setting forth the process by which a developer may contest the amount of the impact fee assessed. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2] 5/10/O1