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
Other Option: Add value. <br />Kona Group 6 <br />Summary of discussion: How does this relate to multi-family? (Ohana) Should be different issue <br />from single family. <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled. <br />Why? Flat fee would reflect reality of island living verses square footage up to 4,500 sq. ft. <br />Other Option: Suggestion: No fees for units up to 4,500 sq. ft. <br />ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY <br />Kona Group 1 <br />Summary of discussion: Impact fees can be used for studies for water, sewer, police, fire, and <br />PARKS, community plans purchasing easements for public access. 100% adoption is okay- Yes. <br />Exception where county subsidizes lower income single family lots. <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes (with option)” but no number of how many polled. <br />Other Option: 100% with exception of lower income/county subsidizes <br />Kona Group 2 <br />Summary of discussion: Suggested to charge maximum 100% at least as we begin until we see how <br />the system operates. We have a large shortfall on infrastructure now, we need to catch up. <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Noted “100% Charge.” <br />Kona Group 6 <br />Summary of discussion: What will the actual cost impact fees? Won’t there be a disparity/inequity of <br />services. East Hawaii vs. West Hawaii? Hello! <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Noted “See issue G” <br />________________________________________________________________________________ <br />HILO: <br />ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD <br />Hilo Group 1 <br />Summary of discussion: Generally, group concerns were the exclusion of fees for existing lots and <br />national nexus for exclusion? <br />Concurrency <br />Resource assessments <br />Consistency with CDP’s general plan <br />Option 5: Everybody pays <br />FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 3; 1 for Option 4 with condition “Support Option 5 if <br />beginning point is concurrency <br />Hilo Group 2 <br />Summary of discussion: Want rational nexus! What is the definition of “impact”? What kind of <br />facilities would be built? Is this discussion premature? Impact fees vs. improvement district. Is there <br />14 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.