Tag Archives: Impact Fees

The Conservative Forum For Hawaii Doesn’t Get It

The Conservative Forum for Hawaii doesn’t get it. They believe Hawaii County should cut it’s budget to pay for infrastructure improvements instead of floating bonds or imposing impact fees. This isn’t a realistic way to address this issue. The county can only cut the budget so far before it affects essential services.

Impact fees would’ve helped to mitigate this problem. However, the county council failed to pass this legislation yet again. So, the taxpayers are responsible for paying for these improvements.

The island’s mounting infrastructure deficit needs to be addressed. However, the county has limited options, besides floating more bonds, to fix this problem. 11.3% of the Hawaii County budget is allocated for debt service, so the county’s debt will likely increase in the future as a result.

I bet the Conservative Forum for Hawaii never thought of the unintended consequences resulting from the rejection of this proposed legislation.

I strongly encourage all my loyal readers to express your frustration to the Conservative Forum for Hawaii whenever you are stuck in traffic or angry about the poor condition of our roadways.

Oceanic Time Warner Cable recently responded to the DCCA-CATV’s additional information requests concerning their open Hawaii County franchise renewal application.

The Hawaii PUC denied HECO’s Aina Koa Pono biofuel supply contract application on Thursday.

Related item: Hawaiian Electric disappointed by PUC’s biofuels ruling

The ongoing lawsuits involving the Hokuli’a project continue to proceed. I am absolutely
dumbfounded how much the discovery portion of this case may cost? The $800,000 to three million dollars cost is shockingly excessive.

Lastly, the restoration of the Kona Village Resort seems to be moving forward.


The Demise of Impact Fees

(Councilman Pete Hoffmann submitted this commentary)

On 21 September, in a surprising reversal of its Planning Committee recommendation two weeks previous, the County Council voted five to four to defeat the long-anticipated Impact Fee legislation.

Despite the obvious need (expressed by almost everyone even remotely involved on this issue) to revamp the current ineffective ‘fair-share’ system, despite the benefit of continuous support (free of charge by the way) from the experts originally contracted by the County to study an Impact Fee, despite a further three page listing of suggested recommendations from the County’s Planning Director received only on 19 September, despite growing public approval for an Impact Fee proposal, and despite repeated explanations countering the numerous misunderstandings of some opponents, the Council terminated Bill 304 at First Reading.

Disappointment is the prevailing sentiment that characterizes this vote. I’m disappointed that as a Council we are unable to address adequately the difficult issues that have plagued us repeatedly over the years. I’m not necessarily convinced that my proposal is the best, but I do know that impact fees work, they have been adopted by literally thousands of communities that faced the same infrastructure shortfalls as Hawaii County does now, and development has not stopped in any of those communities. If Council members don’t like my idea, then what other alternatives do they suggest? State law has allowed us to adopt impact fees for the past 18 years. How long must residents wait? If not now, when will we be courageous enough to create an effective system to address these shortfalls??

Another irony of the situation is that the Council on many occasions has called for administration recommendations regarding impact fees, urging a partnership to resolve this issue. I recognize that the detailed listing of recommendations received on two occasions recently from the Planning Department did not necessarily represent administration approval of this impact fee proposal, but it would seem to reflect a willingness to work with Council and to discuss a controversial topic. I would have anticipated that the Council would be willing to advance that discussion rather than cut it short.

Impact Fees, if adopted, would not suddenly make the County healthy. It would, however, permit the County to employ a funding mechanism which has proven successful in communities nationwide. Failure to pass this legislation either dooms County residents to continued shortfalls in essential facilities or insures that higher taxes will be the only remedy available to correct those deficiencies. Those taxes affect all residents; rich, poor, and everyone in-between, not just those that cause the increased impact. Simply put, the defeat of the Impact Fee legislation translates into higher taxes for all or inadequate infrastructure. Disappointing to say the least. Our residents deserve better.

A final comment: In the aftermath of this vote, I fear the perception will linger that the Council remains more concerned about potential election results than resolving key issues. Ask yourselves: when will the Council take the lead and make the tough decisions?? I believe we missed a great opportunity on 21 September.


The Conservative Forum for Hawaii’s Opposition Against Impact Fees Likely Killed This Legislation

The Hawaii County Council rejected impact fee legislation yet again. The Conservative Forum for Hawaii‘s opposition likely swayed certain key council (e.g Angel Pilago and Dominic Yagong) members to vote against this proposal.

I criticized their position via e-mail, which I sent on Friday.

Aloha,

Your last e-mail regarding the proposed impact fees legislation didn’t make any sense. Cutting the county budget won’t pay for infrastructure improvements. For example, impact fees would’ve covered the cost of the La’aloa Avenue Extension. However, the county has to float bonds to pay for this roadway instead.

The Conservative Forum for Hawaii was strongly against the 56 million bond float, which funded this roadway project. So, your group’s positions don’t make any sense. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear the Conservative Forum for Hawaii wants the county to:

1. Continue the ineffective (and illegal) fair share system
2. Continue floating bonds for infrastructure projects.

The taxpayers of this county shouldn’t have to absorb the cost of mitigating impacts from these developments. Enacting an impact fee ordinance would’ve leveled the playing field.

Sincerely,

Aaron Stene

The Conservative Forum for Hawaii never directly responded to my e-mail. They only sent me a banner, which thanked the council members who voted against this legislation.

Update: A member of this group replied to my e-mail on Sunday expressing the group’s interest to discuss this issue with me. This same individual e-mailed me this rebuttal later on, which I posted below:

“Aloha Aaron,

I have no issue with your opinion whatsoever. The issue at hand, and the one addressed by the Conservative Forum, is not ‘fair share’. It is the continuing efforts by lawmakers to impinge on the rights of individuals by passing oppressive and odious ordinances and continuing to act, as they have done since statehood and before, to saddle individuals with ridiculous laws – which should not be their job – and to act in completely illegal ways. A prime example is the letting of contracts which are written so that only one of the bidders can qualify.

The County Council is our first line of government. They need to learn that the old ways, and by that I mean by way of favors and bribes, are not appropriate.

Hawaii is already the least user-friendly state for business in the entire country. It is rapidly becoming the least resident-friendly as well. That situation exists because our government pays no attention to referendum issues. You pointed out thecounty charter amendment requiring the county to use 2 percent of property tax revenues to buy land for public access or open space. We voted on that and the county ignored the vote.

The issue at hand is not that the Conservative Forum is in any way promoting any illegal system or suggesting that the county continue to float bonds for infrastructure projects. You suggestion that “It is pretty clear” that the CF ‘wants’ those things is erroneous and, in fact, a cheap shot not based in fact.

The Conservative Forum wants the Council to recognize who they represent and to represent the voters fairly. We intend to strongly disagree with any Council action which further burdens the voters of this county. If it happens that the burden is piggybacked to something that might be a good idea, and this particular measure was NOT a good idea, we shall oppose it for the simple reason that it does not do the ONE THING the Council is supposed to do: Make life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the CITIZENS easier.

The local government on this state has been completely out of control since inception, as you must certainly agree. Our intent is not to keep re-electing people who have the same mind-set as the ‘business-as-usual’ gang. We intend to, and ARE, building a citizen coalition that makes a difference. And that difference has to begin by calling out the Council on their egregious actions and holding them to account.

We no longer have enough money in this county to support the hundreds of employees Billy Kenoi hired when he was the Executive Assistant to Harry Kim. We are not going to stand idly by while the voters are taxed and penalized for excesses which should never been allowed. Hiring companies owned by department heads immediately comes to mind, but so does almost everything else the county does. That needs to stop.

Passing resolutions which do more harm than good does not help. Making accusations about the Conservative Forum that are incorrect and uninformed at best and malicious at worst – especially since you make position statements that are not our position, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The problem is our local government, not the Conservative Forum. Your argument is erroneous. It misses the point entirely.”

 


Musings On The Recent Impact Fee Rejection

I’m very disappointed the Hawaii County Council failed to pass an impact fee ordinance yet again. The current fair share contributions system is ineffective, not codified and unconstitutional.

Ineffective: 108.5 million was pledged by developers to mitigate impacts, but the county has only collected 8.1 million thus far.

Unconstitutional: Judge Ronald Ibarra declared the county’s fair share system is unconstitutional in the 2007 Coupe condemnation ruling

The fair share contributions system isn’t codified into law.

The absence of a impact fee ordinance forces the county to float more bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements. This is not the ideal way to pay for these projects. It erodes the county’s financial flexibility and saddles the taxpayers with more debt.

Therefore, the county will be left holding the bag while developers continue to get a free ride.


Why Did The Hawaii County Council Reject Impact Fees Again?

(Bob Sterne of North Kohala submitted this letter, which criticizes the Hawaii County Council for rejecting impact fees again)

In the 41 years that I have been visiting the Big Island, and in the 11 years that we have lived here full time, I have been continually disappointed with the actions of County Council. The latest rebuff to reality, the rejection of Pete Hoffman’s impact fee bill the takes the cake.

I wonder what caused Councilmen Pilago and Yagong to change their minds on this bill, virtually over night. As WHT has reported, the committee vote was in favor of the bill, but at first reading, it was rejected 5 to 4 by the full council.

In Reed Flickinger’s excellent editorial yesterday, which, if the council members read it (which I doubt) laid out the history of “Fair Share”, and its shortcomings; pledges by developers of $108.5 million, and actual collections of $8.1 million have” found their way into county coffers.”

Our council loves investigations. Why not chase the $100 million dollar prize that these unpaid pledges would add to the general fund, or wherever the money would end up. It would pay for a badly needed program to improve our infrastructure. Based on what WHT reported today, September 22, only $3.6 million has been spent on roads and infrastructure. Why not more?

It is outrageous that there are no plans or actions being taken to collect these pledges. Or are they gone, disappeared into the morass of county government bureaucracy. Taxpayers need answers on this point.

I’m particularly disappointed at the actions of Mr. Yagong and Pilago. I expected the “Hilo Boys” to predictably vote against the bill, but, expected all the West Hawaii representatives to be in favor of it. Once again, the taxpayers of the county will have to pick up the bill, probably in higher property taxes.


“Urban Legends” Surrounding Impact Fees

(Commentary submitted by Councilman Pete Hoffmann)

Bill 304, draft 3, establishing a County-wide Impact Fee, received a favorable recommendation from the County’s Planning Committee on 8 Sep. It will appear on the Council agenda on 21 Sep. and I anticipate the bill will stir considerable discussion. I welcome comments from constituents and interest groups alike, but in my seven years on the Council, I have not seen the creation of as many “urban legends” surrounding any bill as the Impact Fee ordinance generated.

I don’t deny the bill is a complex document and demands close reading to understand its intent and structure. Hopefully, those commenting on the bill will have read it carefully before expressing support/opposition. With this in mind, the following summarizes some of the ‘myths’ that plague reasonable debate on this issue in the expectation that all will arrive at a better understanding of this critical piece of legislation.

IMPACT FEES WILL STOP DEVELOPMENT: Clearly such a statement can’t be supported in light of the rampant development that has occurred in so many communities that already have adopted impact fees as a vehicle for infrastructure funding. In fact, the creation of effective planning, which such an ordinance generates, has increased/enhanced development rather than stopped it.

IMPACT FEES ARE HARMFUL TO CONSTRUCTION JOBS: On the contrary, impact fees paid up front and used as a funding resource for County infrastructure would permit more projects, especially in difficult economic times. Unions in particular have welcomed impact fees in mainland communities. Job creation is increased if impact fee monies are available for County use to promote projects.

ADOPTION OF BILL 304 WILL CAUSE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS TO STOP BUILDING THEIR HOMES: Adoption of the bill could add a cost for all construction. But each home does cause some impact. However, Section 36-10 of the bill specifically allows a qualified lot owner the option to have the County pre-pay the impact fee. The prepayment, interest free, becomes a lien on the property and is repaid only at time of sale of the property or when the home ceases to be the principal residence of the lot owner. For most individual lot owners, no impact fees would be paid at time of construction.

THE IMPACT FEE ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS TOO LARGE: Bill 304 establishes five categories for impact fee assessment based on the square footage of the home. This is not a ‘one size fits all’ program. Further, the proposed bill sets the fee at approximately 50% of the amount currently charged in the so-called ‘fair share program’. That figure can also be adjusted by Council at regular intervals, as is done in all mainland communities with an impact fee ordinance. Finally, the collection of fees is based on infrastructure projects that are approved on the County’s Capital Improvement Project list. If a project is not on the list, impact fees for that category of infrastructure cannot be collected (per State law).

THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE ONLY COLLECTS 50% OF THE CURRENT “FAIR SHARE SYSTEM” The current ‘fair share system’ is certainly not fair. The County collects only a fraction of what is assessed, leaving little to complete any project. Further, ‘fair share’ does not assess commercial or industrial construction, only residential units are assessed. Bill 304 would correct this obvious unfair situation and, without doubt, would increase the County infrastructure funds almost immediately. Finally, if the percentage assessed is considered too low or too high, change it in Council. Nothing prohibits such flexibility.

I’VE PAID PROPERTY TAXES FOR YEARS ON MY VACANT LOT. WHY MUST I NOW PAY AN IMPACT FEE? The impact fee is assessed because the construction of a residence/business has a direct influence on the County’s infrastructure. A vacant lot has no such influence. However, State law (HRS 46-143(d)(5) does allow that property taxes collected over the previous five years can be credited against the impact fee assessment. For example: if an individual lot owner paid $2,500 in property taxes in the previous five years ($500 per year), the impact fee assessment could be reduced by that amount.

WHAT ABOUT PAYING FOR ROADS OR OTHER FACILITIES IN PRIVATE SUBDIVISIONS? No. Impact fees can only be assessed if the facility is listed on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list. No project – no fee!! The County does not approve private roads or other private facilities for funding. These projects cannot appear on the CIP.

IF ADOPTED, DOES BILL 304 MEAN I HAVE TO PAY AN IMPACT FEE IF I WANT TO ADD A LANAI? No. Impact fees are assessed only when new construction to an existing home results in an additional dwelling unit, i.e. bedroom and cooking facility. The addition of a garage, dining area, lanai, dog house, etc. does not trigger impact fees.

ADOPTING AN IMPACT FEE WILL CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION IN COUNTY STAFFING: Simply not true. That hasn’t been the case in other municipalities that have impact fees. Computers do most of the work, and while one or two individuals will likely be charged with periodic work on the implementation of the program, experience shows that no community has had to dramatically expand resources to operate the system. The additional funds obtained more than adequately pays for any increase or software expenditures.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 465 other followers