HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0307.016 2006-2008 ~i,
~4'
J
LAND USE RESEARCH
FOUNDATION OF HAWAII -
~ ~
70o Bishop Street, Ste. 1928 ~ - _ -
Honolulu, Hawaii g6A~3
Phone 5zt-4717
Fax 536-ot32
May 16, zoos -
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chair & Presiding Officer
Hawaii County Council
333 Kilauea Avenue (Ben Franklin Building)
2°a Floor, Council Room
Hilo, HI 96~zo By Facsimile: (808) 961-8~4z
Dear Chair Hoffmann:
RE: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4,
Hawaii County Code ><98g (2005 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 Bill 318, 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 providing such services) 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
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
Comm. No. 3 a
7a
7 . i
Ref. To: ~J,~.~.
Ref. seta mNI
1~----"
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 maybe 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.
q. 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.
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 Counci] consider realistic alternatives to provide the necessary infrastructure to
accommodate future growth.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this matter.