My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
IPFNA_Final_Sept_06
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
General Planning Department Information
>
IPFNA
>
IPFNA Study
>
IPFNA_Final_Sept_06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2011 11:02:39 AM
Creation date
12/21/2011 10:57:16 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
wide at the same percentage. If the project loca ted outside the district has significant benefits to <br />development in another district that is not paying that fee, or paying a lower fee, it may be difficult to <br />establish that the fees are meeting the tests of e quity and proportionality. Consequently, the mixing and <br />matching alternative to island-wide application me ans the County will probably need to give up some <br />of the flexibility of using fees outside th e district in which the fees were collected. <br /> <br />Finally, the County would probably want to show th at the impact fee money is not simply being used <br />to allow the County to take property tax money it ha d been spending in the areas that now have fees, <br />and spending it instead in areas where no fees are be ing charged. If the fees can be shown to provide <br />benefits to the fee-paying areas that they would not otherwise have seen, any equity concerns with this <br />approach could be avoided. <br /> <br /> <br />H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 22 <br />AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.