COM 0729.005 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- r Ja ,. 1/4:V1 C The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair The Honorable Guy Enriques, Vice Chair Committee on Planning September 20, 2010 Page 2 Background. LURF participated in the County of Hawaii's previous Impact Fee Study. (http: /Jwww.hawaii- county .comJplanninejipfna /IFFNA%2ofinal%2o9- 14- O6.pdf) Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study, September 2006 (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study). That process has confirmed that funding of infrastructure is primarily dons* through grants, government bonds, aid packages, various sources of tax revenues (i.e. real property tax, vehicle weight tax, fuel tax, etc.) and other fees, and that impact fees sometimes provide another alternative source of funding for basic infrastructure, Through this process, we have found that impact fees need to be viewed as One element in a range of various municipal financing options to fund basic infrastructure. For example, impact fees are generally used to mitigate impacts from a proposed new developments based on the existing level of service of the infrastructure. Impact fees cannot be used to address deficiencies in existing level of service. Existing deficiencies are more appropriately addressed through an improvement district or community facilities district funded by special assessments or tax increment financing. Hawaii County Impact Fee Study recommendations: • A more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options for new infrastructure and public facilities should take place, with the consideration of impact fees in the context of other financing tools. This was an overarching theme that permeated all aspects of public discussion during the Hawaii Impact Fee Study project. (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study, p. 29) • An Impact Fee Working Group should be established to receive an overview and education of the County's present budgetary and planning process for funding new infrastructure and informed of existing financing tools available to government. The Working Group would be tasked with considering and exploring new and creative financing options, including impact fees. A cola orative approach involving developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, local impact fee "experts" and government agencies would provide an opportunity to work on specific infrastructure improvements. The Working Group could also be tasked with identifying specific infrastructure projects with consideration of the General Plan, Community Development Plans and Capital Improvement Project (CIF) budget and proceed to implement a collaborative resolution to the planning, implementation and construction of specific projects. (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study, p. 29) Bill 215, I3raflt 2. Bill 215, Draft 2 proposes additional concurrency requirements for parks, recreational facilities, and firefighting facilities, which is in addition to current concurrency standards for roads and water. The purpose of Bill 215, Draft 2 is rurported to be due to the infrastructure needs because of the recent and expected growth in Puna and Ka' u. As stated in Bill 215, Draft 2 "[t]he rapid population growth in Hawaii County in areas with inadequate infrastructure and public services to accommodate such growth, it is necessary to assess the impacts of new developments ac the time of rezoning... mostly in Puna and Ka' u... these new developments will generate demands for expanded pars and recreational facilities or expanded fire stations, or will generate such