HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0927.048 2004-2006
Post Office Box 1101
MOOERS Kamuela, Hawaii 96743
ENTERPRISES LLC Phone (808) 880-1455
7 Fax (808) 880-1456
Land Use Alternatives gmooers@hawaii.rr.com
July 19, 2006
Honorable Stacy Higa, Chair
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Chair Higa:
Subject: Proposed Resolution No. 381-06, To Postpone Council Action on Rezoning
Applications in the Districts of North and South Kona Until the North and South
Kona Community Development Plan is Adopted by Ordinance or until January 1,
2007.
Thank you for allowing me to present testimony in opposition to this Resolution. I am opposed to this
Resolution for four main reasons.
First, it is inappropriate policy to pass a resolution that attempts to circumvent State statutes and County
ordinances. The state Land Use Law, Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 205, is a statute. The Charter is
law as are the ordinances the General Plan and the County Zoning Code, Chapter 25. These laws were
created to serve the public's interests and protect all parties. These laws cannot be ignored by the
adoption of this resolution, for whatever period of time. During the discussion of this resolution it has
been repeatedly stated that a resolution does not have the force of law. If so, then why are you
considering adopting this resolution when it proposes to contravene state and county law which you have
sworn to uphold in your oath of office? This resolution accomplishes nothing. It certainly does not
provide any infrastructure that is desperately needed in our communities.
Secondly, I am opposed to this resolution because it directs attention away from the real issues facing our
community. This resolution creates an illusion that the Council is doing something to address the
problems associated with rapid growth, it does not. Stopping change of zone applications will not build a
single road, will not drill a single well, will not install a single traffic signal and not build a single park.
The real issue we are all facing is the inability of government to fund infrastructure development.
At a time when we have virtual full employment and the County coffers are growing by tens of millions
of dollars each year, we have not adequately funded infrastructure development. What we have done is
increase the size of government each year. I do not care which side of the island you live on, whether it is
Kona, Puna, Waimea or Hilo, the major issue impacting our quality of life is traffic. We may need that
Park Caretaker II position in Naalehu, or an additional planning clerk in Hilo, but what we truly need are
new roads. Yet where is the infrastructure fund? If we set aside the incremental tax revenue growth for
Comm. No. Z 4 Q0 .
Ref. To: ?egZ.* b1
Ref. Date JUL 19 2006
one year and hold the line on spending we would have a source of funding that would adequately address
our infrastructure shortfalls.
Let's see the implementation of infrastructure funding techniques that have been used successfully for
decades in other growing communities through out the country: Community Facilities District Bonds (aka
Mello Roos Bonds), Tax Increment Financing, and a fair and legal Impact Fee Ordinance.
My third reason for opposition is the impact this resolution has had already and will continue to have on
the financing community. Many of the projects moving through the long and involved entitlement
process are in-fill projects that will provide connectivity for roadways, water system improvements and
municipal sewer. Lenders are watching this resolution with great concern. They are unwilling to fund
these long term projects if they sense an opposition to planned growth that could derail this much needed
infrastructure. I am aware of one project that is embarking on the four to five year process of a State
Land Use Boundary Amendment, with EIS and eventually a change of zone. This project, surrounded by
residential development, will provide a much needed north-south connector road from Hina Lani to
Kaiminani. It will also develop a well system and reservoir storage system to enhance the Department of
Water Supply's system, far in excess of its own requirements. It also has the potential to participate in
the Improvement District planned in the Kaloko area to expand the municipal sewer system. Lenders are
now questioning whether they should lend on this project that they have committed to previously. This
resolution does not provide needed infrastructure, it may in fact inhibit the provision of the very roads
and water system improvements that we need.
My final objection to this resolution is that it places far too much emphasis on the Community
Development Plan currently being drafted. While I whole heartedly support this community based effort,
I offer this word of caution. In the last 20 years I have actively participated in the development of the
State's West Hawaii Regional Plan, the County's General Plan revisions, the Keahole to Kailua sub-
regional plan, the revision of the Kailua Village Plan and a Northwest Hawaii Infrastructure Financing
Plan. They were all valuable exercises, but they are just plans that were never fully implemented because
the needed infrastructure identified by all of these plans was never funded or implemented. While I hope
the CDP does not meet the same fate, it is unrealistic to assume that this plan will be endorsed by January
'07 and implemented in a more timely and better fashion than any of these previous plans.
I urge the Council to not support this ill conceived and politically motivated resolution and keep your
focus on the necessary task of providing infrastructure financing for plans that have been on the books for
decades. Please consider this objective when preparing your budgets by setting aside a reasonable portion
of the real property tax increases for infrastructure development and demand that the developers and the
administration make good on their many promises of new roads and infrastructure improvements island
wide.
Thank ou for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Respectfully submitted,
Grego ooers
President