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 C: TIME OF COLLECTION <br />Hilo Group 2 <br />Summary of discussion: Time of assessment/collection at the time of building lots. Yes – 8, No – 1 <br />Option 1: Incremental payment over time for current owners of existing lots. Yes – 6, No – 1 [an <br />arrow was drawn from this option in the summary area to option area] <br />Hilo Group 5 <br />Can it be assured after completion, so mortgage can include it? Instead of at the permitting? <br />(Group did not poll) <br />ISSUE D: PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS <br />Hilo Group 4 <br />Summary of discussion: 1. Will real property taxes be calculated into impact fee credits? *yes, <br />studies being conducted now to ID hard numbers. 2. Is there any method to determine whether a <br />previous owner has already paid impact fees for a particular lot. *fees paid recorded with land (? w/ <br />land) and not owners. <br />FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. <br />ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS <br />Hilo Group 1 <br />Summary of discussion: Assessment districts and benefit districts – needs to be connected? Why not <br />related to needs? <br />FINAL POLL: [In response to “Does your group agree or disagree with the recommendation?” this <br />group polled zero for Yes and 7 for No.] with comment: “Similar to comments for G.” <br />Hilo Group 5 <br />Summary of discussion: West side costs more for infrastructure so East side cost less, so different <br />fee structure should be placed. <br />(Group did not poll) <br />Hilo Group 6 <br />FINAL POLL: <br />4 for single district for assessment <br />1 for nine districts <br />1 not sure <br />Idea: Zip codes per benefit district <br />ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS <br />Hilo Group 1 <br />Summary of discussion: Group questions rational nexus for impact fees assured in Kohala (for <br />example) and road improvements in Puna? Group questions why 5 districts for parks and not <br />everything else? Consensus s is that group felt inequity due to East/West distinction for districts <br />only. Answer: Make more districts? <br />FINAL POLL: Two benefit districts? Zero for Yes, 7 for No <br />16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.