Laserfiche WebLink
~C~ <br /> s <br /> LAND USE RESEARCH ' <br /> FOUNDATION OF HAWAII <br /> Sou bishop titreet, Ste. t9~8 <br /> Honolulu, Hawaii 968 i3 ~ <br /> Phone 5~i-47~7 <br /> Pax 536-oi3z ~ <br /> April r8, zoos <br /> <br /> The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chair & Presiding Officer <br /> Hawaii County Council <br /> Hawaii County Building <br /> z5 Aupuni Street <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 96~2o By Facsimile: (808) 96i-842 <br /> Dear Chair Graham: <br /> RE: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article z, Division 4, <br /> Hawaii County Code t98g (zoos Edition) By Adding <br /> A New Section Related to Concurrency Conditions <br /> My name is Dave Arakawa, Executive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of <br /> Hawaii ("LURF"), testifying in opposition to Bi113i8, which would add a new section to <br /> the Hawaii County Code related to Concurrency Conditions because this bill would just <br /> simply shifting the burden for securing infrastructure capacity from the County (who is <br /> responsible for pro~~iding such ser~~ices) to the applicants for new developments. We <br /> respectfully urge the City Council to consider other creative and realistic alternatives to <br /> provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future growth. <br /> LURF is a private, non-profit research and trade association whose members include <br /> major Hawaii landowners, developers and a utility company. One of LURF's missions is <br /> to advocate for reasonable and rational land use planning, legislation and <br /> regulations affecting common problems in Hawaii. <br /> LURF participated in the County of Hawaii's Impact Fee Study. That process has <br /> confirmed that funding of infrastructure is primarily done through grants, government <br /> bonds, aide packages, various sources of tax revenues (i.e. real property tax, vehicle <br /> weight tax, fuel tax, etc.) and other fees, and that impact fees sometimes provide another <br /> alternative source of funding for basic infrastructure. <br /> Through this process, we have found that impact fees need to be viewed as one <br /> clement in a range of various municipal financing options to fund basic <br /> infrastructure. For example, impact fees are generally used to mitigate impacts from <br /> a proposed new developments based on the existing level of service of the infrastructure. <br /> Impact fees cannot be used to address deficiencies in existing level of service. Existing <br /> <br />