COM 0729.007 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable J. Yoshimoto, Chair The Honorable Emily Naeole- Beason, Vice Chair Hawaii County Council October 6, 2010 Page 5 of 5 for existing and future growth by bundling the following tools to provide the necessary financing: 1. Increase and /or dedicate a portion of the real property tax revenues to specific infrastructure. 2. The County may issue and sell bonds to provide funds for such improvement districts. Bonds issued to provide funds for such improvements may be either bonds when the only security therefore is the properties benefited or improved or the assessments thereon or bonds payable from taxes or secured by the taxing power of the county. 3. The County has the power to levy and assess a special tax on property located in a district to finance the special improvements (Community Facilities Districts) and to pay the debt service on any bonds issued to finance the special improvements. 4. Tax increment financing (TIF) is a way for governments (usually municipal authorities) to help finance new capital projects by taking advantage of expected property tax returns. A county, for example, may designate as a TIF district a plot of land that is planned to be redeveloped. Then the county can borrow against expected increased tax revenues to build infrastructure such as sewers, roads and transportation services. 5. Impact fees are a municipal assessment against new residential, industrial or commercial development projects to compensate for the added costs of public services generated by new construction. Conclusion. LURF is opposed to simply shifting the burden for securing infrastructure capacity from the County to the applicants for new developments, which will increase the costs of affordable housing. and the additional costs imposed by the Bill will be passed on to new homebuyers and will increase the cost of affordable housing. Bill 215, Draft 2 is inconsistent with the Hawaii County Impact Fee Study. It is also notable that this bill has received negative and unfavorable recommendations from the Hawaii County Planning Department, the Department of Parks and Recreation the Hawaii County Council Committee on Planning, and the Hawaii County Planning Commission (HPC) (October 24, 2008 letter). LURF respectfully recommends that the Council reject Bill 215, Draft 2, and follow the recommendations in the Hawaii County Impact Fee Study: (1) have a more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options for new infrastructure and public facilities; and (2) create an Impact Fee Working Group to explore new and creating funding options and make recommendations; and (3) consider realistic alternatives to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and opposition to Bill 215, Draft 2.