My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Memo_Yagong_Planning Dept Comments 304 Dr April_11
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
General Planning Department Information
>
IPFNA
>
Impact Fee Correspondences
>
Memo_Yagong_Planning Dept Comments 304 Dr April_11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 8:57:57 AM
Creation date
12/21/2011 2:09:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Comments on Bill 304 <br />Prepared by <br />Co of Hl Planning Department <br />April 5, 2011 <br />Comments on Bill 304: DRAFT Chapter 36 - Impact Fees <br />The council proposes to replace the Fair Share system with an impact fee system with <br />authority in HRS and clear implementation roles and responsibilities. The Planning <br />Department appreciates the Council's invitation for constructive deliberation about how <br />to develop a workable and effective impact fee program. In that light, because Bill 304 <br />is very complicated legislation requiring considerable clarification and modification, we <br />share this summary of comments and questions. They are organized by section (plus a <br />section at the end specific to implementation) and fall into three categories: <br />1. Non - substantive edits (in plain text) <br />2. Recommendations for substantive changes (bold, italicized) <br />3. Questions /comments that require more clarification and/or deliberation <br />(bold). <br />Findings & Purpose (36-1) <br />• The term "development" is considered plural. Remove "s" from development <br />where appropriate throughout. <br />• <br />"Facilities ": the description /definition is different throughout the document. Follow <br />consistent wording for the list of facilities, such as "roads, parks and recreation, <br />fire /emergency medical service (EMS), police, solid waste, and wastewater." <br />Definitions (36 -2) <br />■ Definitions do not match HRS 46 -141. Check all definitions for consistency. <br />o Most importantly, the "needs assessment study" defined in Bill 304 is <br />inconsistent with the definition in HRS. <br />• The "affordable housing trust fund" should be defined. <br />• Fair Share: add wording as follows: "...which requires payment of fees to <br />miti__ acute the potential regional impacts of the development, based on the extent <br />of the development allowed...." <br />• Impact Fee Administrator: Since the Planning Department's role in impact fee <br />administration should be limited to CIP recommendations (see various sections <br />below), a different County department should be the Administrator. <br />• Small Lot Subdivision: confirm consistency of the definition with the <br />Subdivision Code (HCC chapter 23). <br />• Add definition of owner - builder and confirm that it's consistent with DPW's <br />definition. <br />Appeals (36 -3) <br />• Check with Corp Counsel. BOA hears appeals on Directors' decisions. These <br />are fees /assessments that will be mandated by ordinance, so appeals should be <br />heard by council. <br />Program Review (36 -6) <br />Page 1 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.