Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0729.007 2008-2010 At At 1h.. ' LAND USE RESEARCH _ FOUNDATION OF HAWAII 11111 k--- 700 Bishop Street, Ste. 1928 MOMMt` Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 ''11n/ Phone 521 -4717 Fax 536 -0132 `"► Via Facsimile: 8198 -961 -8912 & Via E - mail: counciltestimony (co.hawaii.hi.us October 6, 2010 1. ,P The Honorable J. Yoshimoto, Chair The Honorable Emily Naeole- Beason c.: Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Streeet Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Comments and Opposition to Bill 215 (2008 - 2010), Draft 2 Relating to Concurrency Conditions (New concurrency requirements — parks, recreational and fire facilities) Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Dear Chair Yoshimoto, Vice Chair Naeole- Beason and Councilmember's, I am Dave Arakawa, the 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, rational and equitable land use planning, legislation and regulations that encourage well - planned economic growth and development, while safeguarding Hawaii's significant natural and cultural resources and public health and safety. LURF appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments and opposition to Bill 215 Draft 2. LURF is opposed to Bill 215, Draft 2, which simply proposes to shift the burden for securing infrastructure capacity from the County to the applicants for new developments, and the additional costs imposed by the Bill will be passed on to new homebuyers and will increase the cost of affordable housing. LURF also agrees with the negative recommendation on Bill 215 by the Hawaii County Planning Department (PD), the Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) , and the Hawaii County Council Committee on Planning (September 20, 2010, Committee on Planning PC Report No. 94) and the Hawaii County Planning Commission (HPC) (October 24, 2008 letter). LURF's opposition is based on, among other things, the following: A-9 Comm. No. r Ref. To: / Ref. Date OCT 0 6 2010 The Honorable J. Yoshimoto, Chair The Honorable Emily Naeole- Beason, Vice Chair Hawaii County Council October 6, 2010 Page 3 of 5 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. Background. LURF participated in the County of Hawaii's previous Impact Fee Study. (http: / /wra w.hawaii- county .conlplanning/ ipfna /IPFNA%2afinal%2oq- 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 done 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 collaborative 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 (CIP) 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 21S, Draft 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 purported to be due to the infrastructure needs because of the recent and expected growth in Puna The Honorable J. Yoshimoto, Chair The Honorable Emily Naeole- Beason, Vice Chair Hawaii County Council October 6, 2010 Page 5 of 5 for existing and future growth by bundling the following tools to provide the necessary financing: 1. 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 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. and the additional costs imposed by the Bill will be passed on to new homebuyers and will increase the cost of affordable housing. Bill 215, Draft 2 is inconsistent with the Hawaii County Impact Fee Study. It is also notable that this bill has received negative and unfavorable recommendations from the Hawaii County Planning Department, the Department of Parks and Recreation the Hawaii County Council Committee on Planning, and the Hawaii County Planning Commission (HPC) (October 24, 2008 letter). LURF respectfully recommends that the Council reject Bill 215, Draft 2, and 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.