02-05-2010, 03:48 AM
Interesting comments.
Maybe someone can tell me why they are against Impact Fees.
This is my reasons why I would support Impact Fees over the current system:
1. It works all over the US. More and more communities are going to Impact Fees because it's fair. Impact fees are a known variable from the start in a project versus potential unknown tax increases over many years. Impact fees, because of that return to the community impacted, does not have the constitutional issues Hawaii County is facing with their other methods.
2. It returns the money used to address the impact a project has on the community right back to that community. So if a project in Puna caused increase roads, required increase police and fire presence, or required capital improvements to water systems to meet the demands of that project, the fees paid goes for that purpose right in the community. Currently, funds collected to deal with infrastructure issues in Puna, can be spend on beautification projects in Kona. Increase police needs in Puna may not occur because the funds are used to provide holiday decorations in Hilo.
3. The current system is a pledge to pay, but only a small percentage is ever paid. The rest goes uncollected forcing the individual taxpayers to make up any shortfall or the improvements never happen due to lack of funds.
4. Every project has an impact. The degree of that impact establishes the amount of the Impact Fee. Individual residential construction in existing areas has a very small impact versus a larger scale residential project. Each pays their proportionate burden on the community. You're paying for it now through debt services. Under Impact Fees, the cost to improve services is being paid during the development phase of a project so there is no long drawn out multi-decade debt service to cover capital cost. Projects can start and be completed as the increase service is needed instead of having to wait until there is enough extra funds to cover the initial cost and on going debt service to pay the total cost.
But, it seems there are some who think it's bad, and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning.
And, I would really love to hear the views of our potential Council candidates.
Maybe someone can tell me why they are against Impact Fees.
This is my reasons why I would support Impact Fees over the current system:
1. It works all over the US. More and more communities are going to Impact Fees because it's fair. Impact fees are a known variable from the start in a project versus potential unknown tax increases over many years. Impact fees, because of that return to the community impacted, does not have the constitutional issues Hawaii County is facing with their other methods.
2. It returns the money used to address the impact a project has on the community right back to that community. So if a project in Puna caused increase roads, required increase police and fire presence, or required capital improvements to water systems to meet the demands of that project, the fees paid goes for that purpose right in the community. Currently, funds collected to deal with infrastructure issues in Puna, can be spend on beautification projects in Kona. Increase police needs in Puna may not occur because the funds are used to provide holiday decorations in Hilo.
3. The current system is a pledge to pay, but only a small percentage is ever paid. The rest goes uncollected forcing the individual taxpayers to make up any shortfall or the improvements never happen due to lack of funds.
4. Every project has an impact. The degree of that impact establishes the amount of the Impact Fee. Individual residential construction in existing areas has a very small impact versus a larger scale residential project. Each pays their proportionate burden on the community. You're paying for it now through debt services. Under Impact Fees, the cost to improve services is being paid during the development phase of a project so there is no long drawn out multi-decade debt service to cover capital cost. Projects can start and be completed as the increase service is needed instead of having to wait until there is enough extra funds to cover the initial cost and on going debt service to pay the total cost.
But, it seems there are some who think it's bad, and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning.
And, I would really love to hear the views of our potential Council candidates.