Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
On Big Island Video 10-13-10, Pete Hoffman's plan to levy impact fees for new construction will be coming up at the next Council meeting on 10-19-10.
Briefly, he is proposing an impact fee of more than $6,000 per single family structure, with comparable fees for multi-unit residential, commercial and hotel construction. (Bill 304)
Also doubling the cost of use fees from $250 to $500 (Bill 306).
With the construction industry in the doldrums, he proposes increasing the cost of building! Someone needs to ask Mr. Hoffman what logic is behind this proposal? Madness reigns in the Council, with Billy paying $5,000 per month for his ego driven TV show on public access cable, justified by saying 'the money comes out of the Mayor's Fund and has no impact on the taxpayer'.
OK Billy, where does the money in the Mayor's Fund come from?
It's time to make ourselves heard and demand that the Council cut the pork and clear away all the expensive frills before coming to the public to support their excessive spending.
Here's a link to the Agenda for the October 19 meeting:
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink/0...Page1.aspx
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
It would be nice to read the language of the proposal. If you can find it let us know where. There is a long history here of developers creating thousands of lots and the county letting them off the hook for infrastructure. Look at Puna.
I am not sure yet that the fees you highlight apply to every individual owner/builder or more likely to developer subdivisions. We do need to find out. The roads, parks, police and fire services have to come from somewhere. Most all developers in the nation pencil in the infrastructure costs as they plan.... except Hawaii County.
In Mayor Kenoi's current budget (page 3) he showed the projected income from developers for infrastructure at $1,900. That is not a typo. One thousand nine hundred dollars. Might be able to do one fire hydrant with that but probably not. Meanwhile there are thousands of house lots under proposal.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
It’s available on the County website as Bill 304. Section 36-12 will provide the breakdown of pre-calculated assessments by land use types.
It will cover most new single family homes as well as major remodeling.
The old formula assessed against developers did not work because it was illegal. Developers would agree to it, but later refuse to pay citing the illegal nature of Fair Share.
Since Impact Fees in Hawaii County are levied on the impact of a project, not on who’s behind the project, they could not outright exempt single family residences from impact fees otherwise a legal challenge most likely would prevent imposing them on any development. Catch 22. You want developers to pay for the impact their project has on a community but all development including SFR has an impact and must be included under law.
So much was made about developers getting away with not paying Fair Share assessments. The County was made to look like they were ignoring the assessment, when in fact, it was declared illegal under Hawaii law. Since the push was to get the County to collect money from the evil developers, they were forced to impose the only legally allowed option of Impact Fees. Unfortunately, those Impact Fees require everyone to pay. The County had no choice. To do what the people demanded, they have to use the only legally allowed option that included single family residences.
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
Just a thought: If impact fees are charged in places like HPP where the owners pay for all of the infrastructure directly, except for police and fire, will there be a discount for services not provide, OR will the county be required to take over the infrastructure?
If the latter is true, I'll pay retroactively and willingly, thus eliminating the incompetence of the HOA in dealing with road costs!
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
Let me see... our economy sucks, construction is suffering already.... and now additional taxing.... just my 2 cents.
oh and our county is not very responsible about spending now - i.e. $35,000 curbs. Why do we think they will be more responsible with more money?
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
The question I'd like to pose is this. How should we pay for infrastructure improvements (i.e roads, parks,etc) if impact fees
are not acceptable.
The taxpayers of this county are currently on the hook to pay for these improvements.
Please read this link for commentary on this issue:
http://bit.ly/hGPSr
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron S
The question I'd like to pose is this. How should we pay for infrastructure improvements (i.e roads, parks,etc) if impact fees
are not acceptable.
The taxpayers of this county are currently on the hook to pay for these improvements.
That’s the most important point. Right now, all new projects have to be funded from County coffers. If a resort opens in Kona, you have to pay for the County to improve services in Kona because of the impact of that resort.
Another very important item with Impact Fees is it's not a "General Fund". It's to mitigate the impact of development on community and County. The Bill requires that at minimum 80% of the impact fee must be used in the District where collected. Any money spent out of the District where collected must be based on the impact that development has on the other District. What that means is Hilo may get a few dollars because new residents of Puna may impact service in Hilo when they go there to shop, and Kona may get a buck because people do travel there for whatever reason. But on the flip side, a resort development in Kona may return thousands to Puna because tourist going to see the lava would have a bigger impact on services in Puna.
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.
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
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.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by mikewj
Just a thought: If impact fees are charged in places like HPP where the owners pay for all of the infrastructure directly, except for police and fire, will there be a discount for services not provide, OR will the county be required to take over the infrastructure?
If the latter is true, I'll pay retroactively and willingly, thus eliminating the incompetence of the HOA in dealing with road costs!
Impact Fees are for NEW purposes not to rebuild, renovate or maintain existing. They can't use Impact Fees to improve Highway 130, but they can use Impact Fee's for the PMAR. But since the streets in HPP are private streets, it may be possible for Impact Fees to be used to acquire private property (private road) through eminent domain and build a County road. They can't do it for every street as there just isn’t going to be enough money for that and it has to have a defined public use.
However, the PMAR requires the County to fund a portion out of County money which is funded by all taxpayers. That portion can come out of Impact Fees, freeing up the money they would have used for other purposes.
Basically, new development is paying for the needed new services, not the current tax payers paying for the increase services required by new development.
|
