Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDuncan Presentation_Aug_1516_06 Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Planning Department County of Hawai`i August 16, 2006 Introducing ImpactFees.com The Rational Nexus Test Must create need for new facilities Must receive benefit from new facilities Must only pay fair share of new facilities State Impact Fee Authority 1992 Hawaii Impact Fee Act Authorizes Counties to adopt impact fees Based on established legal constitutional standards Eligible facilities are those specific ally identified in comprehensive plan or facility needs assessment study. Specify service level stan dards for each facility Can not be charged for higher than existing service levels Funds and interest earned earmarked by facility Past property tax payments must be credited Spend on planning, des ign and construction Spend within seven years or refund Collected prior to issuance of grading or building permit Other available funding op tions must be examined Only use has been 2002 Honolu lu road fee for EWA region Island Growth Current Fair Share Assessments Current assessment based on 1990 study Current assessment = $9,761 per dwelling unit Roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste Subject to assessments: Residential uses requiring rezonings Hotels requiring rezonings Not subject to assessments: Existing zoned lots (11,000) Existing subdivided lots (53,000) Non-residential uses Performance record: $74.0 million assessed $3.6 million collected $15.2 million in credits Public Outreach Effort November 18, 2005 - Hilo Focus Group November 20, 2005 - Kona Focus Group November 21, 2005 - County Council January 17, 2006 - Video Conference March 8, 2006 - Kona Workshop March 9, 2006 - Pl anning Commission March 10, 2006 - Hilo Workshop What We Heard from Stakeholders! Impact fees should be adopted by Hawai’i County Impact fees should be part of larger funding plan Impact fees should not be waived for existing lots Impact fees should be paid at building permit Impact fees should be countywide and uniform Impact fees should vary by size of dwelling unit County should pay fees for affordable housing County should give one year fee grace period Infrastructure and Public Facilities Roads Parks Fire/EMS Police Solid Waste Wastewater POLICY ISSUES Treatment of Existing Lots OPTIONS: 1. Fee waiver for first dwelling 2. County grant for first dwelling 3. Transition exemption for first dwelling 4. Exclude selected areas 5. Everyone pays Affordable Housing County assists: first-time homebuyers earning less than 140 percent median income purchasing less than median-priced home using home as primary residence Type of assistance: zero interest loan for amount of fee payable when home sold or rented Progressive Residential Fees Residents by Unit Size Impact Fees by Unit Size Time of Collection Fair share assessments assessed at zoning collected at subdivision for single-family collected at site pl an for multi-family or non-residential Impact fees collected at building permit Fee assessment could be at su bdivision, but that would permanently exempt all existing lots Assessment and Benefit Districts Recommend county-wide assessment district for all facilities Recommend four benefit districts for all facilities – Kona Kohalo Hilo/Hamakua Kau/Puna Pre-Ordinance Credits Fair share fees assessed but not paid would be replaced with obligation to pay impact fees Fair share fees paid could be reimbursed to developer or credited to lot owner Recommendation: Credit to lot owner to offset fees No reimbursement of any excess credit Rationale: Avoids developer windfall Post-Ordinance Reimbursements Developers often make improvements or dedicate ROW to county roads as condition of development approval Value of improvements or ROW could be reimbursed to developer or credited to lot owner Recommendation: Reimburse developer directly Rationale: Administrative simplicity Phase-In Period Effective date: Fees go into effect one year after adoption Give public/developers/hom ebuilders adequate notice Allow staff time to estab lish implementation measures No additional phase-in: Developers already paying substantial fair share fees Phase-in would provide a windfall Maximum Allowable Impact Fees Maximum fees likely higher than current fair share Ultimate fees could be less than 100% of maximum Maximum Allowable Impact Fees Impact Fee Advantages Greater Revenue Potential County now annually receives only about $2 million total Nonresidential road impact fees would alone return $12 million Just half of all new residentia l permits would return $10 Million Greater Equity All development pays, not just re sidential that needs rezoning Larger homes pay more based on greater impact Greater Legal Defensibility Complies with State Impact Fee Act Lessons Learned! Impact fees alone will not solv e the County’s infrastructure problems. They are only one source of partial financing. The County needs to take a more comp rehensive look at financing infrastructure , share that vision with the public and encourage creative public and private collaborate efforts. There are no easy answers on how to address the effect of impact fees on affordable housin g. Fees can not be waived, but they can be paid from other sources. Should a fee be implemented, cu rrent administrative procedures will need to be retooled an d staff resources reallocated. Fees may imposed at less th an 100 percent the maximum allowable amount. Fees may be tailored to reflect the unique personality of Hawaii County (i.e., specific fees can be excluded from ce rtain districts). Questions? . . .