Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by DanielP
You can bet that the impact fees will be charged. As for receiving services, don't hold your breath for any change. Common practice in California.
If the County collects the Impact Fees and don't use it to provide NEW services, they have to refund it. That's something missing in many other regulations on Impact Fees in the US. Government could collect fees for decades and provide nothing in return. They use the Impact Fee fund to generate passive interest income for anything they want. Hawaii restricts Impact Fees to mitigating Impacts. Once again, the main thing is the money collected is restricted for primary use in the District collected.
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts...
The bottom line is people have been complaining that developers are not paying for their impact on the community. This fixes the snafu under Fair Share. Unfortunately, the law does not allow the County to only target certain developments. If it has an impact on services, it has to pay it’s fair share.
I can understand if you submit a subdivision application an impact fee should be a condition of approval based on the number of lots approved and zoning. If zoned for condos which increases the density way more than SFR's - then that impact fee would be the highest. Also include mailbox even RR boxes are as part of the condition just as putting in the water and roads are.
Basing it on a building permit application for a single family residence or major remodeling is a bit like double jeopardy. The lot owners are already paying taxes and some people for many years on a vacant lot where the population density has not increased and they are not using the services. Adding lots (subdividing) is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
But once again, my theory is why give them more money for $35K curbs? If we cut these overcharges, we might have more money to fund other important projects.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Impact Fees are not only on SFR, it's on everything; SFR, MFR, retail commercial, offices, industrial, warehouses, churches, hotels, etc.
A 4,000 sq foot SFR would pay $6,387.00. The same size retail store would pay $19,872. A ten room hotel would pay $42,100. A 500 room resort would pay $2,105,000. A 20 unit condo would pay $94,680. The cost is based on the impact of the project, not on who is building it or why. Ten new houses be it by a developer or each individual is still ten new houses. I fail to see why a new subdivision of 100 homes should be required to pay impact fees and 500 new homes being built on existing lots shouldn't?
Now, on new residential subdivisions, the developer will be required to pay the SFR impact fees upon approval. All others pay when the unit is built. So residential subdivision builders will pay in advance and have to pass that fee onto the buyers in the price at sale. The new homeowners won't have to pay it again, because the lot will have the impact fees paid. The developers won't be escaping the impact fees. But individual lots will pay nothing so long as they don’t build.
I do agree 100% that landowners who have been paying property taxes but don't live there should have their property taxes greatly reduced since we don’t use the services. I am all for that. [  ][ ][ ]
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts...
A 4,000 sq foot SFR would pay $6,387.00.
If I am reading this correctly: to permit the "as-built" portion of the permitted house we are living in (we are in the drafting stage), we would not owe an additional $6387 when we apply for the permit? We are not increasing density (an EDU). Can one of our smarty pants PunaWebbers tell me if I am reading this correctly?
Because if we do - what is it for - For water, that we already have to pay $5500 for a meter here to get one like other subdivisions with private water associations? For no sewer, and already have to put in an aerobic system at double the cost of septic ($12-14K)?. So basically we would be paying for roads, parks, police and solid waste? So what does our property taxes pay for as they will go up when the improvements hit the real property tax office?
Posts: 966
Threads: 61
Joined: Jan 2006
as i read this, under land type, they never mention ag land, which the majority of puna subdivisions are. so would that exempt hawaiian acres, eden roc, fern forest, etc. etc. it makes sense, since there are no water meters, roads, curbs, wastewater connections etc.. anyone else reading land types this way? very unclear i would agree that any further land divisions of this type need rezoning so these type subdivisions cant happen again. (lacking services with no provisions for them in their charters)
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by lquade
as i read this, under land type, they never mention ag land, which the majority of puna subdivisions are. so would that exempt hawaiian acres, eden roc, fern forest, etc. etc. it makes sense, since there are no water meters, roads, curbs, wastewater connections etc.. anyone else reading land types this way?
Normally, land use type refers to the development type, not the "zoning Land Use". So if you are building a "residential" project on AG zoned land it's still a single family or a multi unit residential. Likewise if you are building a warehouse on AG land, it's a warehouse. It is confusing but that appears to be the intended definition.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Kapohocat
If I am reading this correctly: to permit the "as-built" portion of the permitted house we are living in (we are in the drafting stage), we would not owe an additional $6387 when we apply for the permit? We are not increasing density (an EDU).
That's how I read it also.
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
is this thing likly to pass, i need to build a litte place for my mom but cant swing an extra $6000
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Will it pass? Hard to say. Just about everyone is against it.
Developers are against it because it means they have to start paying for the impact their development has on the community. Right now they have a free walk and you pay the price.
Individuals are against it because they also have to pay.
The only ones for it are those who believe development (regardless of who is the developer) needs to start paying their share of impact mitigation.
You will pay for this one way or the other; increase property taxes, increase other taxes, increase whatever, but you will have to pay. Impact Fees spread the major portion of the cost amongst those creating the need and leaves the existing alone. So do you have those causing the mess pay for it? or accept that everyone will pay? Also, Impact Fees by law are primarily designated for the district where collected. All other taxes are general funds types. Even if Puna collects the most property taxes, that money can go to N. Kona. Under Impact Fees, at least 80% must stay in the local community because that’s where the bulk of the impact will need to be mitigated.
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
HPP does not get anything that money can pay for, we dont even touch a county road
|
