The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0998.014 2004-2006 9-11-06; 9:54AM;18085283463 ;18085283463 n 2/ 9 i I > d. LAND USE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF HAWAII -loo Bishop Street, Ste.1928 1 N~ Aonoluln, Hawaii 96813 1 Phone 521-4727 1 Fax 536-o232 September 7, 2oo6 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 9672o By Facsimile: (8o8) 961-8912 Dear Chair Higa: Subject: Proposed Bill No. 318 Amends Chapter 25 Hawaii County Code by Adding Requirements to Mitigate Water Supply and Transportation Impacts Concurrent with Any Proposed Change of Zoning Application My name is Dean Uchida, Executive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii (LURF), a private, non-profit research and trade association whose members include major Hawaii landowners, developers and a utility company. One of LURF's missions is to advocate for reasonable and rational land use planning, legislation and regulations affecting common problems in Hawaii. LURF has been a participant in the County of Hawaii's Impact Fee Study. Through that process, we learned that funding of infrastructure is usually done through grants, aides, various sources of tax revenues (i.e. real property tax, vehicle weight tax, fuel tax, etc.) and other fees. Impact fees essentially provide another alternative source of funding for basic infrastructure. We realize that the scope of this project was primarily focused on impact fees. However, 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. The Bill proposes that any change of zoning in a particular area should be assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in that area. The requirements are proposed to be made f concurrent with any change of zone in order to manage growth and coordinate delivery I of government services. Comm. No. G1 Ref. To: rbiwll I 9-11-06; 9:544M;18085283463 ;tAOF5283463 a _9 3 I, f i i Background; t { As we understand the planning process for the County of Hawaii, the General Plan establishes the future vision for the County. It is a direction setting, policy document (guideline or tool) and not intended to be regulatory. It is intended to guide the County's actions and decisions on: Land use and land development regulations; zoning changes; preparing and adopting Development and Public Facility Plans; and preparing and adopting capital improvement plans. The Community Development Plans are intended to implement the purpose and intent of the General Plans for the specific areas in a more precise and detailed manner. Most municipal infrastructure planning processes include a master plan for the development of a specific facility (i.e. building, road, pipeline or other capital improvement to serve the public), which may include a single capital improvement project or a series of capital improvements to be undertaken over a longer period of time based on the projected needs outlined in the General Plan and Community Development Plan. Comments on the Specific Pro ok sal_ We understand that part of the justification for the proposed "concurrency" on rezoning applications is based on the concerns of existing residence regarding the capacity of the existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewer, water, parks, schools, etc) to accommodate more growth. Furthermore, the definition of "concurrent with development" in the bill seems to shift the burden of financing and/or implementing the construction of the necessary infrastructure capacity on the applicant. Section "c "of the bill states: `For the purposes of this section, "concurrent with development" shall mean: z. That improvement or strategies are in place at the time of development; or 2. That a financial commitment is in place at the time of preliminary plat or map approval to complete the improvements or strategies within six years of preliminary plat or map approval. I Financial commitment may include: a) Adoption by county council by ordinance of a six year capital improvement program that identifies reasonably anticipated sources of funding for the identified improvements or strategies; b) Agreements with the county to implement improvements or strategies; and c) Agreements with the county to pay for implementing identified improvements or strategies." Rather than implement concurrency, and in this case, effectively shifting the burden of securing the necessary county services to the applicant, the Council should develop j realistic alternative to finance the construction of more infrastructure capacity. j Requiring the applicant to secure future commitments from the County for services and j infrastructure capacity that the County is responsible for planning and building seems i place the applicant in the position of reprioritizing the County's budget with no authority over the County. i i 9-11-06; 9:54AM:~8085283463 ;18085283463 A/ 9 The University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education 1 recently completed a study on Inappropriate Use, Inconsistent Standards, and Unintended Consequences of Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFO). "APFO's are designed to assure that public schools, roads, sewers, water for fire fighting, police and rescue response times and/or other infrastructure or services are "adequate" to support proposed new development. (In other parts of the country, APFO's are sometimes referred to as "Concurrency Requirements.") The study concluded that APFO's were responsible for deflecting as much as to percent of the new home development that otherwise would have been built within the designated growth areas. The effect of this shift is that the amount of housing available in those counties is reduced, housing prices are inflated, and the growth simply moves elsewhere, often to rural areas never intended for growth or worse, simply does not occur. In short, the APFO's appear to be fueling the same pattern of development the State's Smart Growth policy is intended to curtail." "APFO's consistency with local comprehensive plans is possible only if adequate funding is allocated to provide necessary infrastructure in the plan's designated areas. When roads, schools, or other infrastructure are judged to be insufficient to meet the standards established within APFO's, the result is often a moratorium on building until the infrastructure is ready to come on line. The study recommended different financing options to provide adequate funding for infrastructure such as tax increment financing and special tax (improvement) districts. We recognize the need to address the current infrastructure deficiencies. We suggest that the Council find alternative ways to increase public infrastructure capacity for existing and future growth by bundling the following tools to provide the necessary financing: r. Increase and/or dedicate a portion of the real property tax revenues to specific infrastructure. j 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. i 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. 9-ti-06: 9:54AM;15085283463 :18085283463 a 5/ 9 I~ 1 j We strongly recommend that the Council consider realistic ways to provide the necessary 1 infrastructure to accommodate future growth. LURF is opposed to simply shifting the burden for securing infrastructure capacity on the applicants. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. I I I I i i, i I 1 1