Laserfiche WebLink
AGREE: 27 <br />DISAGREE: 0 <br />SUGGESTIONS: <br />-Public Transportation <br />-State roads <br />-Schools <br />-Public housing <br />C. IF should be assessed at the time the building permit is issued. <br />AGREE: 21 <br />DISAGREE: 5 <br />SUGGESTIONS: 1 <br /> -Grace period <br />D. Developers who have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions should have IF <br />reduced or eliminated. <br />AGREE: 20 <br />DISAGREE: 2 <br />SUGGESTIONS: 1 <br /> -Need to be paid the difference or be credited as such <br />E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for IF facilities after the effective date of <br />the ordinance they should be reimbursed from IF’s. <br />AGREE: 16 <br />DISAGREE: 8 <br />F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with a uniform Countywide fee schedule. <br />AGREE: 20 <br />DISAGREE: 7 <br />G. Fees should be spent on the side of the island (west or east) in which they were collected (two benefit <br />districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts (fig. 2) <br />AGREE: 10 <br />DISAGREE: 17 <br />SUGGESTIONS: 5 <br /> -Districts should be based on the system needs/ operations <br />-Have different districts for different infra/ services <br />-Ditto <br />H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the County should appropriate other funding to <br />pay the impact fees for such projects. <br />AGREE: 15 <br />DISAGREE: 7 <br />I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling unit to reduce the fees for smaller units <br />AGREE: 16 <br />DISAGREE: 10 <br />SUGGESTIONS: <br />4 <br /> <br />