Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDuncan Presentation Jan_ 17_06 Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Planning Department County of Hawai`i Key Personnel Scott H. Ezer Principal, Helber Hastert & Fee 28 Years Planning and Urban Design Experience Co-Author, Honolulu Land Use & Urban Design Ordinances Master of Urban and Regional Pl anning, University of Hawaii James B. Duncan, FAICP 43 Years Planning and Impact Fee Experience Manager, Nation’s First Mult i-Facility Impact Fee System Co-Author, Nation’s First Impact Fee Enabling Act Master of Urban Planning, University of Oklahoma Clancy J. Mullen, AICP 18 Years Planning and Impact Fee Experience Impact Fee Specialist, Duncan Associates Author of Over 200 Impact Fee Studies Master of Urban Planning, University of Texas Introducing ImpactFees.com Our National Experience Fee Experience By Facility What Is An Impact Fee? One-time fee payment … …by new development … …for off-site capital facilities … …needed by new development. What An Impact Fee Is Not? Barrier for affordable housing Impediment for move-up buyers Local funding panacea Difficult to administer No-growth tool Why Impact Fees are Popular Replace vanishing traditional funding Deter declining levels of service Create level playing field for developers Add certainty to development process Soften anti-growth public sentiment Offset increasing taxes and rates 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 Impact Fee Authority 1992 Hawaii Impact Fee Act Authorizes counties 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 Cannot charge for higher than 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 Collect fee prior to grading or building permit Other available funding options must be examined Only use: 2002 Honolulu road fee for EWA region What Is The Average Impact Fee? Work Plan and Schedule Growth Context Fair Share Assessments Imposed Since Early 1990s Apply to New Residential/Hotel Zoning Based on 1990 Study—Never Adopted Calculated Fees Indexed Annually for Inflation Substantial Fees: $9,991 per Unit Roads, Parks, Fire, Police, Solid Waste Little Revenue: $74 million Assessed, but only $3.6 million Collected + $15.2 million Credits Speculative Zoning Existing Zoning Not Assessed (11,000 Units) Existing Vacant Lots (64,000 Units) Applies only to Residential/Hotel Development Drawback of Fair Share Assessments Major Capital Needs: $439 million for County roads by 2020 Fair Share Assessments: Only $19 million since early 1990s in cash and construction Impact Fee at Building Permit: Would have brought in $103 million since 2000 Lots in Older Subdivisions In 1950s and 1960s, Subdivisions Allowed with Minimal Improvements 40,000 Vacant Substandard Lots in Puna 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 Ownership of Vacant Resid. Lots Ownership # of Lots Percent Big Island-Single Owner 9,123 14.2% Big Island-Multiple Owners 175 0.3% Mixed Big Island/Other Owners 10,747 16.7% No Big Island Owners 44,175 68.8% Total Vacant Residential Lots 64,220 100.0% Note: Lots with residential zoning, excluding lots over 20 acres or with more than $10,000 in yard or outbuilding improvements Recommended Approach Replace Fair Share with True Impact Fees Adopt as Ordinance Comply with Requirements of State Act Apply to All New Development Assess Nonresidential Development Apply to Areas with Existing Zoning County-Wide Fee Calculation Multiple Benefit Districts Progressive Residential Rates Options for Dealing with Existing Lots Allow one dwelling unit per existing lot of record with no fee charged Would exempt most single-fam ily development (about half of potential revenue) Allow grace period (e.g., 1-5 years) for single-family lots of record to be developed with no fee Same effect on revenue in short-term Negligible revenue impact in long-term Alternatives No Change from Fair Share Assessments at Zoning Expand Fair Share to Nonresidential Zoning Collect Impact Fees at Subdivision (i.e., exempt buildable lots) Collect Impact Fees at Building Permit Allow One Dwelling Unit per Existing Lot of Record Allow 1-5 Year Grace Period for Residential Lots of Record No Exemptions or Grace Period Advantages of Impact Fees at Building Permit Greater Revenue Potential County Only Getting About $2 Million Annually Now Nonresidential Road Impact Fees at Current Calculated Levels Would Bring in $12 Million per Year Residential Fees on Half of Bu ilding Permits Issued Would Bring in $10 Million Annually Greater Equity All Development Pays, Not Just Residential that Needs Zoning Larger Homes Pay More Based on Greater Impact More Legally Defensible Comply with State Impact Fee Act Questions? . . .