Fair share assessments again come under fire

HILO — Two council members expressed frustration Thursday with the county’s fair share system of tapping developers for contributions to roads and other infrastructure during a presentation showing developers would be chipping in only $3 million of a $171.9 million capital improvement budget next fiscal year.

“It’s ridiculous to think that fair share is an adequate revenue source,” said Kohala Councilman Pete Hoffmann. “I just wish the council and the administration would work together to find a reasonable substitution to this broken system.”

Hoffmann, who is term-limited, lost his final chance in September to implement an impact fee system when the council failed it on a 5-4 vote.

The county code requires the annual fair share report be prepared by March 1 each year to help in the budget process.

A fair share assessment is levied against new development to help pay for infrastructure to support the additional population that development brings. Impact fees, in contrast, generally are collected on all building permits, rather than just development permits and rezonings.

The district of Puna, the fastest-growing region in the county, has no fair share funds available in any category of infrastructure. Nor are there any funds available for Ka’u.

North Kona will get the lion’s share of the fair share appropriations this year, with $1.3 million for fire, parks, police, solid waste and roads. South Hilo, with $528,106, gets the second largest share.

The prior year, Hawaii County developers had pledged $105.7 million for infrastructure to accommodate population increases caused by their developments, but only $3 million had been spent, according to the 2010 annual report from the Planning Department. The 2010 fair share report emphasized that the developers’ $105.7 million pledge is not past due, because the developers are required to pay only after the project is built. In addition, the Planning Department adjusts the initial assessments based on the actual number of units and the consumer price index at the time of development.

Unlike previous years, the 2011 report doesn’t sum the assessments or provide a table showing how much each rezoning applicant has pledged and paid. Nor does it break out those assessments by geographical districts, providing percent change over the prior year and specifying whether the assessment is for fire, parks, police, roads or solid waste.

“This is one-half of a report,” said South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford. ”We don’t have a good mesh between this report and what’s really going on in the field.”

Ron Whitmore, with the county Planning Department, said the information was eliminated because it is misleading. What the council really needs, he said, is the amount available for each budget year.

It’s not enough, according to Ford.

“We have buildings falling down,” Ford said, “and the new buildings we should have, we can’t afford.”