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
CHAPTER 4: AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION <br />The subject of impact fees is complex, and requires a detailed understanding of many issues, including <br />the legal requirements that test the validity of any adopted impact fee ordinance. Impact fees have been <br />the subject of a large number of court cases thro ughout the United States, and the issues that have <br />constituted these legal challenges are nationally reco gnized in terms of crafting defensible impact fee <br />legislation at the county or municipa l level. It is also important to understand that impact fees can <br />crafted to reflect important county values related to affordable housing and financial impact on builders <br />and property owners, among others. <br />It might be advantageous to hire consultants to consider a local <br />and handing over a completed product in a relati vely short period of time. However such a view is <br />short-sighted and does not allow a community to educate itself in the nuances of an impact fee <br />ordinance by engaging in the discussion and debate of such an important policy program. Impact fees <br />oftentimes produce strong emotions (both pro and con) during the consideration of impact fees by any <br />community. Consequently, it is important for communi ties to educate themselves about impact fees, <br />and educate consultants about the issues important to them, in order to reach a point where the adopted <br />policy clearly reflects the personality of the community. <br />A summary of the agency and public participation events and participants in those events are presen <br />in the Appendices. <br />Overview <br />The process of developing an impact fee progra m for HawaiÓi County purposefully included a <br />component that provided for community and public agency input and education. This aspect of the <br />project included public agency briefings and collecti on of data, focus group meetings, regional meetings <br />with small group break-out discussions, a video c onference, additional disc ussions with a group of <br />individuals (the ÑLocal Resource TeamÒ) who were knowledgeable a <br />provide a Ñbig pictureÒ sounding board for the pr oject team, and use of the HawaiÓi County website to <br />circulate information and work products. <br />The various elements of the agency and public part icipation and education effort are discussed in more <br />detail below. <br />Agency Liaison Team <br />In order to provide the consultants with the necessary informati <br />an Agency Liaison Team, consisting of representati ves from County and State agencies, was formed to <br />provide data on the following type of infrastructure and public facilities: transportation, parks, po <br />fire, solid waste and wastewater. A large volume of information needed to be compiled and organized <br />by the agency liaisons for the consultants to compl ete the needs assessment. Without their assistance <br />the needs assessment could not have been prepared. <br />Public Participation and Education <br />Public participation and education in the study pro cess was determined to be a critical component for <br />this study. Initially, the contract allotted for only one stakeholder meeting, however, as the effort <br />progressed, it became obvious, that without public education, preparing an ordinance that could be <br />implemented would be difficult. The contract was amended twice <br />H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 23 <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.