Laserfiche WebLink
FINAL POLL: “DISAGREE UNANIMOUS” <br />Other Option: 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district <br />Kona Group 5 <br />Summary of discussion: Most participants would like to have the resources generated in the area <br />kept as close to the impact as possible. Most of the group wanted at least 2 benefit districts, and if <br />only 2, that they should be segregated East/West. Most of the group, however, would like to see <br />more than 2 districts. Five members of the group voted to have the districts established by existing <br />districts (e.g. a district for Kau, a separate district for S. Kona, a separate district for N. Kona, etc...) <br />Three member of the group voted to see the benefit districts conformed with the Five proposed park <br />districts. <br />FINAL POLL: see below <br />Other Options: 1 for North/South; 5 for East/West; 3 for 9 Districts; 5 for 5 Districts (based on park <br />districts) <br />Kona Group 6 <br />Summary of discussion: Proposed park districts seem to be a fairer spread in relationship to <br />infrastructure needs --- based on population density but might inadequate (there should be different <br />maps for the different services -police, fire, etc.) but proposed east/west districts. Fig. 1 relates <br />better in subsidizing to what actually exists. All services are not equal. <br />FINAL POLL: Do you agree with the recommendation of EAST/WEST benefit districts per figure 1? <br />YES with equity and level of service. <br />ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING <br />Kona Group 3 <br />Summary of discussion: Rational nexus. Need, benefit, fair share-everybody pays. <br />Capacity enhancing <br />Inequity created–everybody pays. <br />1.Legal Implications <br />2.What is wrong with existing system- not broke why fix? <br />Current system- before I.F. act- legal defensibility issue. Fairness issue-commercial. All not zoned <br />not paying? Renewal issue- not getting money. County exempted commercial. <br />FINAL POLL: 6 agree with recommendation; 0 do not agree <br />ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE <br />Kona Group 3 <br />Summary of discussion: Should fees be based on distance from urban core? Higher level of fees- <br />some do increase with distance- trip rates and trip length- Fees can be used. Can be variable- more <br />complicated- second generation fee. <br />Boundaries can be changed-lineal cash increases with distance. <br />Benefit district/assessment fee- <br />Impact fee capacity enhancing new development <br />Charge same for every home- progressive fees. <br />Socially regressive fee- rational nexus = supply and demand. <br />Create a need = need to pay. Made a gesture toward affordability. <br />FINAL POLL: 5 agree with recommendation; 1 did not agree <br />13 <br /> <br />