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
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not understand or need further <br />clarification on? No: 3 <br />I learned many new terms today – Thank you! <br />Effect of impact fees on commercial areas! I’m particularly concerned about downtown Hilo <br />which is under onerous development regulations, has plans (sanctioned by resolution of envision <br />Downtown Hilo 2025) to develop “2ns floor living” and is seriously/strongly considering a B.I.D. <br />Has been explained <br />Not exactly sure how impact fees differ from fair share. <br />5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop? <br />This issue needs to be related to the larger issues of service level needs, maintenance and support <br />cost/funding, and system needs and operations. <br />More time is needed- issues are too critical <br />Better explanation/clarification re: COH/Public Sector contribution <br />o <br />Clarify nexus between CDP/General Plan and Impact Fee <br />o <br />not a planning based <br />Process- consultants told us that the Impact Fee process (analysis) is <br />o <br />process. <br />A connection with CDP planning process would help some of us participating in both, but would <br />help in “wrapping minds” around the topics/issues that need addressing so impact fees could be <br />implemented. <br />A little more clarity in Q/A section (materials) <br />Ex: Using bullets, rather than imbedded info <br />o <br />Ex: Proofing carefully (alph) and being consistent with presentation slides, etc. <br />o <br />Clarify what types of development will pay such fees before the issue of waivers is discussed. <br />More time <br />Better explain the methodology (maintain existing level of service) as opposed o methodology <br />used on Oahu for the Ewa example. Why is it better? <br />Seminar was positive. However, questionnaire seems so focused, why even bring up the other <br />points if that isn’t going to be really discussed? <br />It was well don’t/informative. I felt like the idea of impact fees on commercial development or <br />redevelopment was purposely moved under the rug. <br />Clarify commercial and residential I.T. <br />I thought it worked really well. Thanks! <br />More publicity about it. I wouldn’t have known I could participate. <br />More discussion on cost recovery. How COH island wide impact fee compares with Ewa highway <br />impact fee on Oahu. <br />Should have responded to participant [questions] before doing small group discussions. <br />Should have allowed “comments” to be incorporated as part of feed back in addition to <br />o <br />adding solutions and voting on solutions. <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.