HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0522.001 2004-2006 Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Needs Assessment
Planning Department
County of Hawai' i
q,,,.... ~ ~ g-
_
_ ,
Ni
s {
is
-.,xx. -
_4:.
~ !
ti0
~ €a, } g
duncan
N
Key Personnel
~~oo~f H:- Ze
~z
Principal, Helber Hastert & Fee
T em ,
28 Years Planning and Urban Design Experience
o Co-Author, Honolulu Land Use & Urban Design Ordinances
Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii
amesB. uD
ncan, FAT~~
z= n~ ~ 43 Years Planning and Impact Fee Experience
a Manager, Nation's First Multi-Facility Impact Fee System
Co-Author, Nation's First Impact Fee Enabling Act
va ~ Master of Urban Planning, University of Oklahoma
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
i+
18 Years Planning and Impact Fee Experience
o Impact Fee Specialist, Duncan Associates
o Author of Over 200 Impact Fee Studies
Master of Urban Planning, University of Texas
Introducing ImpactFees.com
rY YJI w. =ew br Ix• 1tt
s. . .
.;y`t}S . ~4n„A..r, wa4o ^nv v i.ny ~
r • f~aSfCQETI : 1 ,
horns...
i~
y.
~i~ w~a~ ~ C++'~'
i }
,
`mow, '..a • _ _ _ _ _ _
1 y~dt•1 ¢ L t"Wa.4WraaVr I. Urr Iuuw:x xV>t w,W
~Iwl c'a^ wirtUU, w. Yn P (?f f.uw.
~a1,Y~+~ M mart `waa, itYi xahtYc ii (vr...M- sr a ~.ifi,- saris fir^•n^ x<iviarw< ^:m N^•n
'arr~~s fea~fn. -'+pbN t?4 rc-~!WW's+9 tm;
1 u': r' U:: :wac avc•irl u' WI:. fl4:x: fora lw.: bsx-Ins a' nWJ+f us'. o Ivat V-a:uw rn.
nf-arUUCtwc fnvss av. K .n aY3p-rw d 7.c rc:acted c.;,1i:n Srlt' [F,:'r: el ir.. rr la-J
:w!•xnn, R^arfieai har=:+vu rcntw to r•rarranr'a-rxn=rh In aa.~l%1 MU IVr'lic sanka~^+.u
arrt !!u.^w,Tla Yn:+unp M7v+,9 Rw•auas ^than "Iw IM•acw"9^+.~'m-t0 cw> a!'++'n aa'r'
I? '•r pc'. 3 tr.• r-aUv al ovcalru tl V
~rvat `a=- aar a n r~-ny'v u uld Yu. e-:.. hvf f rt :pYxuce v : ~ c Wr aliewl cxv,c b: tl.c
n -A Mr.x as :aA-zl mrnaarf't_ar tn.-^a!~, vb •rl M uN= •d v:->~rhrt l.riihr^.. +SY
••w Mdv,a +t Re:ara. z +15tra ~arrc M kra ys>arnrowr^c vA nµ acunarn N •'w am.ra:
'i~idvOn Ir L"t Alt =i i Oi.:nw' Ui"a w~3 Vept'dt::: M*iiJl n:nytiedY ti::Y=btf, i.C' ii 16ctl5,
yaG aN x• uv'a, ll <v. nv. w
UI Un :YBi`s. twrarn~, Ua: r wyt•.c fara %rU:rr Lrr,v wf •nndY
.ud I:r z ava:ef star pP rw^icpw: Rsoke:, su:h ~ it e, o:Ys,vr, tyrr rc
/,17a'agra<•f e'rM r?tas n=ryrS fif'fnP aMltJah sai;:aia: •".wN leia°~wMMS rxlt IOana,
rnpitt Nws W=UIIY lprVttl 7110fi1f0+[ :M rapOg-.rowrt:rry fwWp[ anG h<K,"lc0u^ry' Y+K[
Tlaav wras w8zto.ah ast b':: _"a'"+sUwdraru.a" Jmttpn,'r'as': nu4;xiwt. naVrdaUW;
"ad avJp lu r:¢ dIWli'v Uf 11pSi1 f;Q6 ildlC kK'aS IJ') In S~Y°.. tPYJS iiOplC9 YK f rLC aap%tt
'wa sznhinc :7 ainm+fiaa, nrn' h%Y d ai a=xx -asw aa3ryct n..fi a7s r, raa cM rrnm.,a s
`au• alxsc garx•aYp wa'p[ araxr •wac o•M• hrraf ruw alA'nmi rx Pr=:M acs. M IQ=A ^w
N7!'cin %N'na'=y:ssi.c abL+ GW niw: TV r,y; wt'arKarKlcw r.YC<h::n W iCW lyliv trro
:rw,uv n nsa~:> wl Uw nWSA 6r alnwu rll?I Ilu .ow 4r_a a aun l lanw.z :r>4>r:m
thr. a:h;rx c d:di:aia::: ax*aral kuaar cori:a rama:un; of rtd.-a da.Y. >ve tuiroaras
nanny; hM Aw Mµ hdhNransrlhw<AC as Ynrt flyro Mdr., in 1lµ waM. fG`1a, N^w'lwf:nadr
I ,9 r=;.~~t-~ fret= duncan
,
Our National Experience
~
f ~ ~ , a
_
- ~ ~ , ,
t
it e. k
i 1 ~ G
. Y} -~.~.,,,jj
11 # ~ -
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ # j
M_. ~e ~
~
: ' F ~
CA'r:e: ~ ~
# 6?~,~~.~F~meri Creyu.aii.'ns /
# rfi•~~ a*-~=e €i~urr.i~ a.-~1
r?1
# ~.~uial nay~me~is „
Fee Experience By Facility
Library
Pubiic i3idgs Total Fees: 236
Schools
Drainage
Sewer
Water
Police
Fire/EMS
Parks
Roads
4 14 24 34 40 54 64
ry ~ duncan
i F{'gika'.{~ l..EeE''Sk§.:i@'4 ~'E'(',
.~ti
Does Growth Pay For Itself?
Cost Recovery by ~Facilit~= , r.:,- w ~c:;~~ r
,
z4ro , ~ - ~ t per Single Family Unit
1 so ~ ~ . , ~ COS
a..~ b.o - -
lao~~ sxs,ooo ~
~ }
~ zo~r ~ ~szo,ooo
,h
~
xo r..? ~ $isoaia - ~ - - -
btl i ~ .q , - ~ - { ~ - ~ ~ ,
i f ~ro,ooo ' ~ - -
2 u - ~
y L `y 1. C `Si ~ ~'o+~
i" 3 J h ~
~ ~ ~ p~
--`p -„t~' p Location: Dawniowrn Urbaa~ Suburban F~urb:m
` `t ~ Urban Ro~tin; Compact ; Con[ignous Linear Leapfrog
M' ~x4'~ aG' _Miles.}rtC RII .„r,.. ~-:sr~~,~=w ? 12 lz
i
~ duncan
What Is An Impact Fee?
One-time fee payment
by new development
for off-site capital facilities
...needed by new development.
I Can't Believe
Taxes!
,,,,«.~,~~~,.~.t~~~<...~~.,,~
d~~.,,..,ti ~;.a~~~-:
What An Impact Fee Is Not?
¦ Barrier for affordable housing
¦ Impediment for move-up buyers
¦ Local funding panacea
¦ Difficult to administer e....
6000 ~ •~r
¦ N o-growth too I 5000 OrowardCounry T ~
' i Dade County ~ _
4,000
3,000 -
2,000
1,000
0 lane Oec. c. lone Dec
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997'
'VaMiee a d hme 30,1997.
} ,r ~a~z~ duncan
Why Impact Fees are Popular
¦ Replace vanishing traditional funding
¦ Deter declining levels of service
¦ Ereate fievel-_p a
iy ng fiefid for deveropers
¦ Add certainty to development process
¦ Soften anti-growth public sentiment
¦ Offset increasing taxes and rates
~-~;~~;l~~r-t ~ I~~,c• duncan
,i
US Supreme Court Cases
- _ ¦ NoII~n-v. Califo~-nla -Coastal-Commission (US/198.7)
¦ Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (US/1992)
¦ Dolan v. City of Tigard (US/1994)
¦ Suitum v. Tahoe Regional (US/1996)
- -¦--City of -Monterey-v: D~1~/I~n~e Banes -(US/1999)
¦ San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco (US/2005)
¦ Lingle v. Chevron USA (US/2005)
¦ Kelo v. City of New London (US/2005)
duncan
Significant State Case Law
¦ Ayers v. City of Los Angeles (CA/1949)
¦ Pioneer Trust v. City of Mount Prospect (IL/1961)
¦ Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls (IL/1966)
¦ Contractors and Builders v. City of Dunedin (FL/1976)
¦ Banberry v. South Jordan City (UT/1981)
¦ Hollywood Inc. v. Broward County (FL/1982)
Russ Building Partnership v:-eity o#-S~n F7ancisco (CA/1-987)-
¦ Key West v. RJLS Corporation (FL/1989)
¦ Volusia v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach (FL/1999)
¦ New Castle v. City of LaCenter (WA/1999)
¦ Sundance Homes v. DuPage County (IL/2000)
¦ Home Builders of Northern California v. Napa ((CA/2000)
¦ North Las Vegas v. Pardee Construction (NV/2001)
¦ Rodgers Machinery v. City of Tigard (OR/2002)
¦ James v. Kitsap County (WA/2005)
¦ Home Builders of Metro Orlando v. Osceola County (FL/2005)
i> duncan
What Is The Legal Basis For Fees?
¦ Must create need for new facilities
¦ Must receive benefit from new facilities
¦ Must only pay fair share of new facilities
f°~ < duncan
Impact Fee Authority
,p ,,,u
t ~ 6
, ng i.
a.,W.
ro
- r.
--v
v
tx ~ :,4
y . ~i ~
xae~
r ~ /
i ~
~.t ~-iPv kit
a:. ~ .
u _s:
~t.e... . ....:~..i.
4 k `
G f,°
ii ~~t3 a':
5..n .....i«xaiiaa:
Y
0 Enabling Acts r
? Home-Rule f.;l
= 5,g „~~~.ti duncan
,
1992 Hawaii Impact Fee Act
ut orizes ounties to adopt impact fees
¦ Based on established legal constitutional standards
¦ Eligible facilities are those specifically identified in comprehensive
plan or facility needs assessment study.
¦ Specify service level standards for each facility
-
an nod be~arged~ hider
fhan existing LOS
¦ Funds and Interest Earned Earmarked by Facility
¦ Past property tax payments must be credited
¦ Spend on planning, design and construction
¦ Spend within 7 years or refund
¦ Collected prior to issuance of grading or building permit
¦ Other available funding options must be examined
¦ Only use has been 2002 Honolulu road fee for EWA region
duncan
' ;~t°; , .
What is The Average Impact Fee?
FACILITY FEE
Water $2,670
Wastewater $2, 519
Roads $2,027
Parks $1,862
Library $362
Fire/EMS $330
Police $300
d~f~{, duncan
Work Plan and Schedule
Mon:hs from Proiett Start
Task ~ 2 3 4 3 6 7 8
Fnase : G`ata and Poiicy
v ~.ta .:c~Ii-. un -
Phase ~m~ac ree Stun>es
~^%se : Mee-:ngs * * *
* _ >7~eetin~ attence~ o`-sate rner~.. e~ ~ o= cs~•7..; .c.rt pair
r .I ra. ~Vn~ii~n
Fair Share Assessments
¦ Imposed-S~~e-Early-1-99-0s- -
¦ Apply to New Residential/Hotel Zoning
¦ Based on 1990 Study-Never Adopted
¦ Calculated Fees Indexed Annually for Inflation
¦ ~ubstarrtialf~es:-$9l-761p~rLtn~-
¦ Little Revenue: $74 million Assessed, but only $3.6
million Collected + $15.2 million Credits
o Speculative Zoning
o Existing Zoning Not Assessed (11,000 Units)
o Existing Substandard Lots (53,000 Units)
Applies only to Residential/Hotel Development
4 i~~~~{ ~ i~~,t~ duncan
Lots in Older Subdivisions
In 1950s and 1960s! subdivisions Allowed-with- Minimal
Improvements
40,000 Vacant Substandard Lots in Puna
0 13,000 Vacant Substandard Lots in Kau
- - - -
37% of 1990s Growth in Older Subdivisions
¦ Concern about Imposing Impact Fees
Many Lots Owned by Long-Time Residents
Source of Affordable Housing
duncan
Recommended Approach
¦ Replace Fair S-hare w/ True Impact Fees
Adopt as Ordinance
Comply with Requirements of State Act
¦ Apply to All New Development _ _ _
o Assess Nonresidential Development
o Apply to Areas with Existing Zoning
¦ Give Consideration to Substandard Lots:
o Allow One Unit per Lot With No Fee; or
Give Grace Period to Existing Lots
¦ County-Wide Fee Calculation
o Multiple Benefit Districts
Y
.rv. { ~si ~ttA'f Y~ 4n~'
~ ~a<~c• duncan
li ~',Ah.kti
Advantages
Greater Revenue-Potential-
o County only Getting About $2 Million Annually Now
o Nonresidential Road Impact Fees at Current Calculated Levels
Would Bring in $12 Million per Year
_-o -Residential-Fees on F#alf of Building-Permits Issued UVould Bring
in $10 Million Annually
¦ Greater Equity
All Development Pays, Not Just Residential that Needs Zoning
¦ More Legally Defensible
a ~,r ~t _ duncan
~..,r . tia
Questions... .
tk
¦
duncan
. t