Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0307.003 2006-2008 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: Gladys Quinto [gquinto@lurt.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:12 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: RE: Testimony on Bills 156 and 318 Attachments: 070418 Bill No. 318 Concurrency Redraft 4 (Council 1st reading).doc My apologies, but could you please replace the Bill 318 that I sent earlier with this one. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Gladys Quinto [mailto:gquinto@lurf.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:55 PM To: 'counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us' Subject: Testimony on Bills 156 and 318 Aloha, Please find attached our testimony on the above bills. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Gladys G A. ~ Director of Research and Legal Affairs Land Use Research Foundation 700 Bishop Street, 111928 Honolulu, HI 96613 (808) 521-4717 x14 (808) 536-0132 fax www.lurf.org _Ci 1 C~r~~n=o,. y~~. 3013 r, o-~..r_ /G 4/18/2007 :u'.,~ ~C~ s LAND USE RESEARCH ' FOUNDATION OF HAWAII Sou bishop titreet, Ste. t9~8 Honolulu, Hawaii 968 i3 ~ Phone 5~i-47~7 Pax 536-oi3z ~ April r8, zoos The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chair & Presiding Officer Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Building z5 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96~2o By Facsimile: (808) 96i-842 Dear Chair Graham: RE: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article z, Division 4, Hawaii County Code t98g (zoos Edition) By Adding A New Section Related to Concurrency Conditions My name is Dave Arakawa, Executive Director of the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii ("LURF"), testifying in opposition to Bi113i8, which would add a new section to the Hawaii County Code related to Concurrency Conditions because this bill would just simply shifting the burden for securing infrastructure capacity from the County (who is responsible for pro~~iding such ser~~ices) to the applicants for new developments. We respectfully urge the City Council to consider other creative and realistic alternatives to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future growth. LURF is 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 participated in the County of Hawaii's Impact Fee Study. That process has confirmed that funding of infrastructure is primarily done through grants, government bonds, aide 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 clement 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. LURF believes that rather than implement "concurrency", and in this case, effectively shifting the County's burden of providing the necessary county services to the applicant, the Council should develop realistic alternatives to finance the construction of more infrastructure capacity. Requiring the applicant to secure future commitments from the County for services and infrastructure capacity that the County is responsible for planning and building seems to place the applicant in the position of reprioritizing the County's budget with no authority over the County. 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. 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 he 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. LURF is opposed to simply shifting the burden for securing infrastructure capacity from the County to the applicants for new developments and respectfully recommends that the Council consider realistic alternatives to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future grov~th. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this matter.