My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Stakeholder Wkshps_Compiled Data_Mar_06
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
General Planning Department Information
>
IPFNA
>
Community Stakeholder Meetings
>
Stakeholder Wkshps_Compiled Data_Mar_06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2011 12:59:07 PM
Creation date
12/21/2011 12:59:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
ISSUE E: ORDINANCE REIMBURSEMENTS <br />Kona Group 5 <br />Summary of discussion: Question/Comment was made that while the proposed (Raleigh) approach <br />may be easier for administration, but it may not be fair to the developer. Comments were made as to <br />the benefits of the CFD process, including fairness to the developer and spreading out the impacts of <br />fees on residents. Adjustments should be made under the Raleigh approach for the time value of <br />money. <br />FINAL POLL: No Vote. <br />Kona Group 6 <br />Summary of discussion: After ordinance date, why should developers who paid for eligible <br />improvements be reimbursed from impact fees? Developers should be exempt. <br />(No “FINAL POLL” printed on that particular section of worksheet) Group noted: needs <br />clarification <br />ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS <br />Kona Group 5 <br />Summary of discussion: May be unfair if same schedule used around the island. (recorder drew <br />arrow with this noted to point to underneath “Final Poll”) <br />FINAL POLL: 4 Yes; 3 No <br />ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS <br />Kona Group 1 <br />Summary of discussion: We agree that there should be 9 districts. <br />The majority of fees kept in their respective districts, with just a % to island-wide fund rather than <br />split East/ West. <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled. Responded to “If NO, <br />how many?” with: 9 as noted above <br />Kona Group 2 <br />Summary of discussion: Divide into East-West first, then after a period of 2 years perform a <br />mandatory review to determine if this is a fair and workable plan. <br />(Did not do poll) <br />Kona Group 3 <br />Summary of discussion: Benefits should be based on needs. How does benefits district help? <br />Puna & Ka`u will be isolated. <br />FINAL POLL: [ALICE NOTES: this is confusing…they have written 11 for Yes, agree with 2 <br />benefit districts then they wrote under that and circled “abstain” then there is what looks like a tally <br />with hash marks – three hash marks with “4 or 5” after them and 1 hash mark with “4 – 9” after it] <br />Kona Group 4 <br />Summary of discussion: Can we expand and benefit districts from 2-4? Can we create sub-districts <br />within Benefit Districts? Can we list different infrastructure needs and level of service by Judicial <br />District? Can 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district? <br />12 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.