Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0729.005 2008-2010• , The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Streeet Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LMD USE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF .HAWAII 7ne Bishop Street, Ste. 1928 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone 521-4717 'ex 536 -0132 September 20, 2010 tip '7 Via Facsimile: 808 -961 -8912 & Via E -mail: counciitestimpnv @co,htv_aii,hi,us RE: Comments and Opposition to Bill 215 (2008- 2010), Draft 2 Relating to Concurrency Conditions (New concurrency requiremen' :s – parks, recreational and fire facilities) Meeting Date: Monday, September 20, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Committee ,m Planning at Sheraton Keauhou, Kailua, krona Dear Chair Ikeda and Meni:. rs of the Committee on Planning, I am Dave ?.rakawa, the Executive Director of the Land Use Research Found . hon of Hawaii (LURF), a private, no:1 -profit research and trade association whose members include mayor Hawaii lane o-o,ners, developers and a utility company. One ofURF's missions is to ,tsonable, rational and equitable land use planning, legislation a encourage well- planned economic growth and development, 1% _ :. ing Hawaii's significant natural and cultural resources and public LURF apps aciates the oppor: unity to submit its comments and opposition to Bill 215 Draft 2. LURF Is opposed. tv. Bill 215, Draft 2, which simply proposes to shift the burden for : c , ing infra s r i :ture capacity from the County to the applicants for new developments, which. .n-i . ._ ; 'vase the cost of affordable rcusing:. Additionally, Bill 215, Draft 2 a ®:fir to :: with the ind E:g: ~ f - _ . : ity of Hawaii's Impact Fey _ . a_ .` .d in .E epterbc. - respc._ my recomrn rr , lip . ..zcil follow the' -1, . ai Impact Fee Study and its reco:a1menda as follows: (x) have a z1r1o::`e extensive and comprehensive disciissicn of funding options for new infrastructure and public xac,ili des; and (2) 4 : mate an Impact Fee Working Group to explore new and t; 4,. ,tialg fundtr:4 options i771.d make recommendations; and (3) consicie °id`s _ s i " t v s - _." }vide the neces _ y infrastruct ".ire to accomr o:l vtla.. Co:,". 1 S Ref. To: (" Pc Ref: Date SEP 20 201 - r Ja ,. 1/4:V1 C The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair The Honorable Guy Enriques, Vice Chair Committee on Planning September 20, 2010 Page 2 Background. LURF participated in the County of Hawaii's previous Impact Fee Study. (http: /Jwww.hawaii- county .comJplanninejipfna /IFFNA%2ofinal%2o9- 14- O6.pdf) Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study, September 2006 (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study). That process has confirmed that funding of infrastructure is primarily dons* through grants, government bonds, aid 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 deficiencies are more appropriately addressed through an improvement district or community facilities district funded by special assessments or tax increment financing. Hawaii County Impact Fee Study recommendations: • A more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options for new infrastructure and public facilities should take place, with the consideration of impact fees in the context of other financing tools. This was an overarching theme that permeated all aspects of public discussion during the Hawaii Impact Fee Study project. (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study, p. 29) • An Impact Fee Working Group should be established to receive an overview and education of the County's present budgetary and planning process for funding new infrastructure and informed of existing financing tools available to government. The Working Group would be tasked with considering and exploring new and creative financing options, including impact fees. A cola orative approach involving developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, local impact fee "experts" and government agencies would provide an opportunity to work on specific infrastructure improvements. The Working Group could also be tasked with identifying specific infrastructure projects with consideration of the General Plan, Community Development Plans and Capital Improvement Project (CIF) budget and proceed to implement a collaborative resolution to the planning, implementation and construction of specific projects. (Hawaii County Impact Fee Study, p. 29) Bill 215, I3raflt 2. Bill 215, Draft 2 proposes additional concurrency requirements for parks, recreational facilities, and firefighting facilities, which is in addition to current concurrency standards for roads and water. The purpose of Bill 215, Draft 2 is rurported to be due to the infrastructure needs because of the recent and expected growth in Puna and Ka' u. As stated in Bill 215, Draft 2 "[t]he rapid population growth in Hawaii County in areas with inadequate infrastructure and public services to accommodate such growth, it is necessary to assess the impacts of new developments ac the time of rezoning... mostly in Puna and Ka' u... these new developments will generate demands for expanded pars and recreational facilities or expanded fire stations, or will generate such : 17- 10;09:01AM;lanc+ use researoh The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair The Honorable Guy Enriquess, Vicc Chair Committee on Planning September 20, 2010 Page 3 ;5360'132 # 3! demands upon full build out in the foreseeable future, then the rezoning should not take effect unless improvements to infrastructure and public services occur before the occupancy of the project." Bill 215, Draft 2 proposes the following of applicants seeking zone changes: • Parks and Recreational Facilities. Section 252 -46, Subsection (o) proposes that a change of zoning shall not be granted unless (a) the Department of Parks and Recreation determines that it can meet recreation requirements using existing facilities or staff; or (2) specific improvements to existing public parks and recreational facilities or private parks and recreational facilities will be provided to meet the recreational needs of the project and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are constructed. The minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks "shall be five acres of public park area with developed recreational facilities for each one thousand residents in the district(s) in which the change of zone is located." Must be within a five mile radius. • In Lieu of improvements to Existing Park and Recreational Facilities. If it is determined that the improvements to existing park and recreational facilities will not meet the requirements, in lieu, the applicant could do one of the following: (1) contribute a beach park with bathroom and adequate parking; or (2) an open park space that could be accessed by the public for hiking, bicycling and other similar activities that would not adversely affect the character of the open park space. • Firefighting Facilities. Subsection (p) proposes that a change of zoning shall not be granted unless (1) fire department determines that current facilities meet fire safety requirements; and (2) that specific improvements to existing public or private firefighting facilities are approved by fire department and will be provided to meet the public safety needs of the project and conditions of zoning. • In Lieu of improvements to Existing Firefighting Facilities. If it is determined that the fire safety requirements cannot be met by using existing facilities or staff, in lieu, the applicant may opt for one or both of the following: (1) contribution of firefighting equipment to the nearest existing fire safety facility, to include fire vehicles, gear and supplies; or (2) installation of fire hydrants or water lines where appropriate by the Planning Director. The Planning Director with approval of Council shall determine the appropriate level of contribution. • Exemption from Making Improvements of Firefighting Facilities if less than 20 lots. Tne concurrency section relating to firefighting facilities will not be applicable if the rezoning will create less than twenty lots. Instead, the applicant will be subject to the impact fee or "fair share system." Possible Infrastructure Funding Tools We recognize the need to address the current infrastructure deficiencies. However, 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: Increase and /or dedicate a portion of the real property tax revenues to specific infrastrucnire. C9- 17- 1C;09:01AM; :and use research The Honorable Donald Ikeda, Chair The Honorable Guy Enriques, Vice Chair Committee on Planning September 20, 2010 Page 4 ,53601 JL # 4! 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. 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. Bill 23.5, Draft 2 is inconsistent with the Hawaii County Impact Fee Study. LURF respectfully recommends that the Council 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.