HomeMy WebLinkAboutStakeholder Wkshps_Compiled Data_Mar_06
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Project for Hawaii County
Ordinance Issues Stakeholder Workshops
March 8, 2006 – Kona
March 10, 2006 – Hilo
COMPILATION OF DATA
Table of Contents:
Page 1 Cover Sheet
Pages 2 – 5 The Dot Tally
Pages 6 – 9 Evaluation Forms Compiled
Pages 10 – 18 Facilitator’s Report Forms Transcribed
1
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA) Project
March Stakeholder Workshops in Kona and Hilo
Compiled Data
The Dot Tally
KONA:
1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County?
YES: 27
NO: 0
NOT SURE: 1- Benefits residents NOT County.
A. IF Are for County roads, parks, Fire, Police, Solid waste & Wastewater facilities.
AGREE: 24
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Why not schools?
-Water flood channels, low-income housing, SK Police station, underground utilities.
- Plus cost of community planning process.
- Public Parking & public transportation
C. IF should be assessed at the time the building permit is issued.
AGREE: 30
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-The question is slanted,
-Developer should pay IF.
D. Developers who have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions should have IF
reduced or eliminated.
AGREE: 17
DISAGREE: 10
SUGGESTIONS:
-Not sure, too many “deals” have been made in the past
E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for IF facilities after the effective date of
the ordinance they should be reimbursed from IF’s.
AGREE: 12
DISAGREE: 8
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Up to Impact Fee amount only.
F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with a uniform Countywide fee schedule.
AGREE: 14
DISAGREE: 5
SUGGESTIONS: 10
2
-Use sliding fee schedule based on value/ size
-Fees should be assessed by benefit district
G. Fees should be spent on the side of the island (west or east) in which they were collected (two benefit
districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts (fig. 2)
AGREE: 22
DISAGREE: 11
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Until infrastructure ‘equilibrium’ is reached between east and west sides then island wide uniform
application
-What about north and south- 50% in one district, 50% in other districts
H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the County should appropriate other funding to
pay the impact fees for such projects.
AGREE: 17
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-“Affordable” doesn’t work, use “low income”
I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling unit to reduce the fees for smaller units
AGREE: 23
DISAGREE: 15
SUGGESTIONS:
-Also based on home value. To be based on number of occupants
K. Effective date of IF ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair share
contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased.
AGREE: 11
DISAGREE: 13
SUGGESTIONS: 2
- Need longer time frame to incorporate new system
_______________________________________________________
HILO:
1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County? -
- Post workshop
YES: 12
NO: 2
2. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County?
- Pre workshop
YES: 25
NO: 1
NOT SURE: 11
A. IF Are for County roads, parks, Fire, Police, Solid waste & Wastewater facilities.
3
AGREE: 27
DISAGREE: 0
SUGGESTIONS:
-Public Transportation
-State roads
-Schools
-Public housing
C. IF should be assessed at the time the building permit is issued.
AGREE: 21
DISAGREE: 5
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Grace period
D. Developers who have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions should have IF
reduced or eliminated.
AGREE: 20
DISAGREE: 2
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Need to be paid the difference or be credited as such
E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for IF facilities after the effective date of
the ordinance they should be reimbursed from IF’s.
AGREE: 16
DISAGREE: 8
F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with a uniform Countywide fee schedule.
AGREE: 20
DISAGREE: 7
G. Fees should be spent on the side of the island (west or east) in which they were collected (two benefit
districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts (fig. 2)
AGREE: 10
DISAGREE: 17
SUGGESTIONS: 5
-Districts should be based on the system needs/ operations
-Have different districts for different infra/ services
-Ditto
H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the County should appropriate other funding to
pay the impact fees for such projects.
AGREE: 15
DISAGREE: 7
I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling unit to reduce the fees for smaller units
AGREE: 16
DISAGREE: 10
SUGGESTIONS:
4
-Based on zoning or number of bedrooms
K. Effective date of IF ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair share
contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased.
AGREE: 14
DISAGREE: 3
SUGGESTIONS: 3
-This is 2 questions: I agree with part one, but not with part two.
-Option to have fees paid over a specific period of time (Use improvement districts)
-Depending on type of applicant; graduated
5
EVALUATION FORMS COMPILED
KONA:
1. Based on today’s discussion, are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit the
County of Hawaii?
Yes: 21 No: 2 Not sure: 1 Did not answer: 1 Other: 0
Comments:
With some revisions to the report as it stands now
2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful information to understand the County
IPFNA Project?
Yes: 21 No: 1 Not sure: 0 Did not answer: 2 Other: 1
Comments:
Not enough
3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate?
Yes: 13 No: 11 If not, why? Did not answer: 0 Other: 1
Comments:
Ka’u resident.
Bad traffic to/from site.
Very noisy.
A venue in Kailua-Kona would have been more convenient. Yano Hall was also very noisy (highway
traffic).
Hot and noisy room.
Far too much noise and crowding.
Not good for hearing! Noisy.
40 miles one way?
It was help during normal working hours making it difficult to attend for me and impossible for many
others. Also, geographically, having one in the north and one in the south would have been more
convenient and more people could have attended from those regions.
Too noisy, too little time. Wrong place, wrong time, not big enough.
Too noisy outside, otherwise okay.
Marginal for driving distance.
Too far from Kailua and noisy!
6
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not understand or need further
clarification on?
Priority 1 and 2 improvements – these could be spelled out (or be required to be spelled out) in
conjunction with adoption of the ordinance.
Most of it was clear.
H…”Appropriate other funding to pay the impact fee for such projects.”
Affordable housing mean income of $52,000 is not affordable most low income workers
o
make less than $20,000.
Yes, (H) affordable Housing Project
Multi units
o
Define more, etc.
o
Single-family low income housing
o
AHP Elderly individuals with limited government fund or income earned.
o
Per law, impact fees will be based on existing facility levels but West Hawaii area levels are so
poor…how can we ever expect equity of facilities and still pay the…share of taxes all the while?
All impact fees should be embarked to a special fund infrastructure. Money or fees cannot be
borrowed or used for any other purposes.
Use of “affordable housing” terminology doesn’t work and the federal formula doesn’t work. We
need “low income housing (rentals and for sale).”
5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop?
Larger room so tables not so close. We had to shout to hear over the other table.
Larger screen or closer so back of the room could read smaller print.
o
Have runners to take questions to be answered instead of having to wait till someone came
o
to out table.
General Q&A time so group could benefit from discussions at other tables.
Hold in a room that provides more quiet for each group.
Facilitators should have had training and notification earlier and been in the budget. We want more
respect and prep time!
Quiet environment and more time.
Different location.
Impact Fees should not into the general fund. Should be assigned to the benefit district.
Facility too noisy.
o
Less participation by consultants at our table, have a runner to them if info needed, who comes
back with a concise answer. This gives us more time. Also, for each issue to first state what the
issue is [re?] what’s wrong with today’s fair assessment fee system? So we know in what light to
look at the proposed answers!
More time, less confusing. Better notice/advance newspaper info, larger meeting room/quiet
environment, held in evening so more residents could attend.
Uncertain. It was well organized.
It was a good workshop but subject is very complicated for even this amount of time. Thanks for
doing it! Thoughtful process.
Given the “rules of engagement” beforehand. Ex: 1.) express ? 2.) discussion 3.) consensus of
group.
Two more workshops
The “Dot” process good except it was missing input from group discussion.
7
Page 7 of policy analogies; HRS46-146 “If shall…preceded”…but as usual corp. counsel
interprets “shall” as “may” (discretionary).
Continue to dialog. Everyone needs more education on issue.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
HILO:
1. Based on today’s discussion, are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit the
County of Hawaii?
Yes: 17 No: 1 Not sure: 5 Did not answer: 2 Other: 3
Comments:
Still depends how commercial/industrial developments are treated.
Needmuch more work re: rational nexus.
Will support impact fee if it:
Complies with statute
o
Meets requirement of needs assessment study
o
Must be predictable
o
Must be reasonable, fair share and proportionate
o
Must show nexus
o
Must stay in the “region”/”community” that contributions are made contribution district =
o
benefit district
Impact fees should be supplemented by other government-funding source thereby making
o
fee reasonable
Must have an implementation plan
o
Much more research necessary and time to incorporate PCDP into this concept.
Yes, generally. Not sure about the details.
Yes, but not sure nexus and fair share still uncertain benefit districts. (?)
2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful information to understand the County
IPFNA Project?
Yes: 27 No: 0 Not sure: 0 Did not answer: 1 Other: 0
3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate?
Yes: 26 No: 1 If not, why? Did not answer: 1 Other: 0
35 min. one way
Comments:
Too noisy
Not enough parking!
8
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not understand or need further
clarification on? No: 3
I learned many new terms today – Thank you!
Effect of impact fees on commercial areas! I’m particularly concerned about downtown Hilo
which is under onerous development regulations, has plans (sanctioned by resolution of envision
Downtown Hilo 2025) to develop “2ns floor living” and is seriously/strongly considering a B.I.D.
Has been explained
Not exactly sure how impact fees differ from fair share.
5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop?
This issue needs to be related to the larger issues of service level needs, maintenance and support
cost/funding, and system needs and operations.
More time is needed- issues are too critical
Better explanation/clarification re: COH/Public Sector contribution
o
Clarify nexus between CDP/General Plan and Impact Fee
o
not a planning based
Process- consultants told us that the Impact Fee process (analysis) is
o
process.
A connection with CDP planning process would help some of us participating in both, but would
help in “wrapping minds” around the topics/issues that need addressing so impact fees could be
implemented.
A little more clarity in Q/A section (materials)
Ex: Using bullets, rather than imbedded info
o
Ex: Proofing carefully (alph) and being consistent with presentation slides, etc.
o
Clarify what types of development will pay such fees before the issue of waivers is discussed.
More time
Better explain the methodology (maintain existing level of service) as opposed o methodology
used on Oahu for the Ewa example. Why is it better?
Seminar was positive. However, questionnaire seems so focused, why even bring up the other
points if that isn’t going to be really discussed?
It was well don’t/informative. I felt like the idea of impact fees on commercial development or
redevelopment was purposely moved under the rug.
Clarify commercial and residential I.T.
I thought it worked really well. Thanks!
More publicity about it. I wouldn’t have known I could participate.
More discussion on cost recovery. How COH island wide impact fee compares with Ewa highway
impact fee on Oahu.
Should have responded to participant [questions] before doing small group discussions.
Should have allowed “comments” to be incorporated as part of feed back in addition to
o
adding solutions and voting on solutions.
9
FACILITATORS REPORT FORMS – COMPILED BY ISSUES IN ALPHA ORDER
KONA:
ISSUE A: TYPES OF FEES
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Is there a better method to supply water to those who do not have access
except catchment? Can impact fees remedy this if charter were changed, or what could be done?
Agree that we need the fees. Would like to include water but we don’t know how.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Would like to include
water (see above)
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Can Impact Fees cover public buildings? Can we include water systems in
the Impact Fees? Impact Fees to cover new flood channels and flooding issues? Parking lots?
Underground utilities? But lots of options discussed we had a different idea about covering flooding.
(Did not do Poll)
ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: Why exclude Puna and Ka`u- they are lacking in infrastructure and should
be included. We agree they SHOULD BE INCLUDED. We agree possibly have a share cost with
County for low-income owner.
Option 5: Treat everyone equally, with some subsidy to low-income homebuilder on single-family
lots. One year to implement – grace period during which time fair share assessment would still
apply.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1 – 4. No written number on poll on Option 5 except as noted in
discussion above.
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Discussion of existing lots and how to assess them. There is a consensus
that we decide to add #5 that all existing lots should be assessed an impact fee to be collected at the
time of pulling building permit.
Option 5: We have a consensus that we want to add alternative #5. All existing lots should be
assessed an impact fee to be collected at time of pulling building permit.
(Did not do Poll)
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Puna & Ka`u don’t have service? If not going assess fees in Puna & Kau
where is money coming from? If more lots zoned than houses #1 without paying fee (if #1) double.
Why shouldn’t everyone pay? What affect on affordable housing does everyone pays have?
How can we assess three options without knowing what is wrong with current system?
Are these options mutually exclusive? No rationale for exempting.
Option 5: Fees same across the line. All new buildings pay impact fees. Adjustment for lower
income. Progressive schedule.
Option 6: Existing lots of record with existing owners of record with a grace period of 2-5 years to
build without impact fee.
10
FINAL POLL: 3 for Option 5; 1 for Option 6
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Exclude Ka`u and Puna means no services. Reject #4
Why is there no option #5 that says we charge full fees for development? Why would Puna and
Ka`u be excluded? The poor should not have to pay impact fees for their housing. This fits in at
time of permits.
Option 5: We charge full fees to everyone (residence, commercial, industrial, multi-family) at
building permit level.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4. 1 for Option 3; 4 for Option 5.
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Most of the group felt that the unintended consequences associated with an
exemption or exemption period would create negative impacts. Most of the group voted to have NO
exemption. Most of the group would like to have the no exemption approach coupled with a sliding
scale based upon the size (square footage) of the residence. Questions arose as to what was included
in the counted lots (were ag. lots included?). A question was raised as to whether social engineering
was behind the impact fee policy.
Option 5:
a.No exemption for existing lots, but provide a sliding scale based upon home size (Sq. Ftge.)
b.No exemption and no sliding scale
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 6 for Option 5a; 3 for Option 5b
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: What is the magic of a 5-year period? What is the nexus?
Does 2-5 year period provide an advantage to developers vs. local residents?
nd
Option 5: Bonafide farm dwelling (2 house for workers) should be exempt and not give time
advantage to big any developer over local residents.
FINAL POLL: As written: Option 1 _No_ Option 2 __No_ Option 3 Mixed Option 4
unconstitutional best if can include option 5
ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: When fees collected
a)Agree with recommendations collect at time of building permit.
b)Will impact fees lead to more non-permitted (illegal) construction
c)More site inspections for illegal buildings to collect impact fees/taxes
(No “FINAL POLL” printed on worksheet) Group checked “Yes” and noted “with above
recommendations”
ISSUE D: PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS
Kona Group 4
No reimbursement of fees? If the fair share is less than the impact fee does the developer get charged
more?
FINAL POLL: Confusing question.
11
ISSUE E: ORDINANCE REIMBURSEMENTS
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Question/Comment was made that while the proposed (Raleigh) approach
may be easier for administration, but it may not be fair to the developer. Comments were made as to
the benefits of the CFD process, including fairness to the developer and spreading out the impacts of
fees on residents. Adjustments should be made under the Raleigh approach for the time value of
money.
FINAL POLL: No Vote.
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: After ordinance date, why should developers who paid for eligible
improvements be reimbursed from impact fees? Developers should be exempt.
(No “FINAL POLL” printed on that particular section of worksheet) Group noted: needs
clarification
ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: May be unfair if same schedule used around the island. (recorder drew
arrow with this noted to point to underneath “Final Poll”)
FINAL POLL: 4 Yes; 3 No
ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: We agree that there should be 9 districts.
The majority of fees kept in their respective districts, with just a % to island-wide fund rather than
split East/ West.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled. Responded to “If NO,
how many?” with: 9 as noted above
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Divide into East-West first, then after a period of 2 years perform a
mandatory review to determine if this is a fair and workable plan.
(Did not do poll)
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Benefits should be based on needs. How does benefits district help?
Puna & Ka`u will be isolated.
FINAL POLL: [ALICE NOTES: this is confusing…they have written 11 for Yes, agree with 2
benefit districts then they wrote under that and circled “abstain” then there is what looks like a tally
with hash marks – three hash marks with “4 or 5” after them and 1 hash mark with “4 – 9” after it]
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Can we expand and benefit districts from 2-4? Can we create sub-districts
within Benefit Districts? Can we list different infrastructure needs and level of service by Judicial
District? Can 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district?
12
FINAL POLL: “DISAGREE UNANIMOUS”
Other Option: 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Most participants would like to have the resources generated in the area
kept as close to the impact as possible. Most of the group wanted at least 2 benefit districts, and if
only 2, that they should be segregated East/West. Most of the group, however, would like to see
more than 2 districts. Five members of the group voted to have the districts established by existing
districts (e.g. a district for Kau, a separate district for S. Kona, a separate district for N. Kona, etc...)
Three member of the group voted to see the benefit districts conformed with the Five proposed park
districts.
FINAL POLL: see below
Other Options: 1 for North/South; 5 for East/West; 3 for 9 Districts; 5 for 5 Districts (based on park
districts)
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: Proposed park districts seem to be a fairer spread in relationship to
infrastructure needs --- based on population density but might inadequate (there should be different
maps for the different services -police, fire, etc.) but proposed east/west districts. Fig. 1 relates
better in subsidizing to what actually exists. All services are not equal.
FINAL POLL: Do you agree with the recommendation of EAST/WEST benefit districts per figure 1?
YES with equity and level of service.
ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Rational nexus. Need, benefit, fair share-everybody pays.
Capacity enhancing
Inequity created–everybody pays.
1.Legal Implications
2.What is wrong with existing system- not broke why fix?
Current system- before I.F. act- legal defensibility issue. Fairness issue-commercial. All not zoned
not paying? Renewal issue- not getting money. County exempted commercial.
FINAL POLL: 6 agree with recommendation; 0 do not agree
ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Should fees be based on distance from urban core? Higher level of fees-
some do increase with distance- trip rates and trip length- Fees can be used. Can be variable- more
complicated- second generation fee.
Boundaries can be changed-lineal cash increases with distance.
Benefit district/assessment fee-
Impact fee capacity enhancing new development
Charge same for every home- progressive fees.
Socially regressive fee- rational nexus = supply and demand.
Create a need = need to pay. Made a gesture toward affordability.
FINAL POLL: 5 agree with recommendation; 1 did not agree
13
Other Option: Add value.
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: How does this relate to multi-family? (Ohana) Should be different issue
from single family.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled.
Why? Flat fee would reflect reality of island living verses square footage up to 4,500 sq. ft.
Other Option: Suggestion: No fees for units up to 4,500 sq. ft.
ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: Impact fees can be used for studies for water, sewer, police, fire, and
PARKS, community plans purchasing easements for public access. 100% adoption is okay- Yes.
Exception where county subsidizes lower income single family lots.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes (with option)” but no number of how many polled.
Other Option: 100% with exception of lower income/county subsidizes
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Suggested to charge maximum 100% at least as we begin until we see how
the system operates. We have a large shortfall on infrastructure now, we need to catch up.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Noted “100% Charge.”
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: What will the actual cost impact fees? Won’t there be a disparity/inequity of
services. East Hawaii vs. West Hawaii? Hello!
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Noted “See issue G”
________________________________________________________________________________
HILO:
ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Generally, group concerns were the exclusion of fees for existing lots and
national nexus for exclusion?
Concurrency
Resource assessments
Consistency with CDP’s general plan
Option 5: Everybody pays
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 3; 1 for Option 4 with condition “Support Option 5 if
beginning point is concurrency
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: Want rational nexus! What is the definition of “impact”? What kind of
facilities would be built? Is this discussion premature? Impact fees vs. improvement district. Is there
14
a constitutional issue is asking fees for existing lots? How did we get to the 64,000? How many of
those are owned by “State of HI” residents?
Option 5a: Everyone pays with a credit to “substandard” subdivisions
Option 6: Long term residence (sic) don’t pay fee unless they are sell (sic) (speculator) (like state 10
year plan)
Option 7: Needs more work
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 3 for Option 3; 5 for Option 5a; 6 for Option 6; 6 for
Option 7
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: Very complex issue; see option #5.
Option 5: All previous lots pay, with an offset for low income owner-occupants based on a sliding
scale in accordance with affordable housing policy.
FINAL POLL: We all agree that Option #5 should be considered.
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: Option 4 not viable vs. creating improvement districts
Assessment districts
Already built lots
BI owners v. off-island/out of state owners- why not have everyone pay?
Option 5: Impose impact fees to all lots in existence from date or ordinance. (against grace period
because it potentially benefits the wrong people/penalizes the wrong people). No waiver period or
exemption for 1 SF unit.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 4 for Option 5
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: Lots of confusion about if commercial development was included in the
discussion. How are mixed used property handled? Eg. a store with residential above. Can we factor
in residency/non-residency in the charge of I.F.? Are we getting all the property owners (in and out
of states) voices heard?
Option 5: Existing lot owners will not get assessed impact fee, if lot gets transferred, new owners get
assessed impact fee.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3 with condition: “2-5year”; 3 for Option 5
and 1 abstained
Hilo Group 6
[ALICE NOTES: very difficult to decipher this report – some notes but not good recording]
FINAL POLL:
Option 1 – 3
Option 2 – 0
Option 3 – 2
Option 4 – 1
st
Option 5 – 3 Collect upon 1 sale of developed property
Option 6 – 1 Each district will determine its own treatment of existing lots
15
ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: Time of assessment/collection at the time of building lots. Yes – 8, No – 1
Option 1: Incremental payment over time for current owners of existing lots. Yes – 6, No – 1 [an
arrow was drawn from this option in the summary area to option area]
Hilo Group 5
Can it be assured after completion, so mortgage can include it? Instead of at the permitting?
(Group did not poll)
ISSUE D: PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: 1. Will real property taxes be calculated into impact fee credits? *yes,
studies being conducted now to ID hard numbers. 2. Is there any method to determine whether a
previous owner has already paid impact fees for a particular lot. *fees paid recorded with land (? w/
land) and not owners.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled.
ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Assessment districts and benefit districts – needs to be connected? Why not
related to needs?
FINAL POLL: [In response to “Does your group agree or disagree with the recommendation?” this
group polled zero for Yes and 7 for No.] with comment: “Similar to comments for G.”
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: West side costs more for infrastructure so East side cost less, so different
fee structure should be placed.
(Group did not poll)
Hilo Group 6
FINAL POLL:
4 for single district for assessment
1 for nine districts
1 not sure
Idea: Zip codes per benefit district
ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Group questions rational nexus for impact fees assured in Kohala (for
example) and road improvements in Puna? Group questions why 5 districts for parks and not
everything else? Consensus s is that group felt inequity due to East/West distinction for districts
only. Answer: Make more districts?
FINAL POLL: Two benefit districts? Zero for Yes, 7 for No
16
If no how many? Make more districts. 9 judicial districts. More specific about impact. Looking at
level of service differences.
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: N. Kona and S. Kona should be grouped together with Kau as separate
district. How are “lock box” managed? Should multiple types of districts be rationalized (eg.
Benefits, representations, cenus, judicial, parks, etc.). Districts “value” vs. “needs”
FINAL POLL: Zero for yes; 9 for No; Comment: Needs more work
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: Perhaps we should look at benefit districts with a systems approach
defining each district with respect to infrastructure categories. (Roads, park, fire, police, wastewater)
FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled.
If no how many? 7
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion:
1.Will east/west benefit districts foster more divisiveness between east HI and west HI? No - may
help W. HI to know they are paying their own share.
2.Too broad - just East v West doesn’t have adequate nexus.
3.Do judicial districts have to be basis of benefit district area? Benefit district boundaries need to
adequately reflect situation/community relationships (volcano)
4.How flexible are benefit district boundaries as system evolves?
5.What factors determine district boundaries initially?
6.Why should people in an already established neighborhood pay for new growth?
7.Can benefit district be decided by up code?
8.Is there a way to differentiate fees for different types of services that benefit entire county (parks,
fire, med) and those that are regional (roads)?
9.Ex: Kapolei charges flat rate fee per permit pulled to support roads.
10.Have improvement projects already been identified for proposed benefit districts?
FINAL POLL: 5 for Yes; 1 for No; 1 Doesn’t want to foster further animosity between E. HI and W.
HI.
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: Why are the benefit districts so large? If it’s too small, there won’t be
enough $$$. Concerned about money collected in a benefit district gets used in that area?
2 districts - Some districts can share benefit i.e. regional parks, roads that are shared any 2 or more
benefit districts.
FINAL POLL: Unanimously No; Suggestion: Follow park districts
Hilo Group 6
FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled.
2 districts - 1
5 districts - 0
3 districts - 4
9 districts - 1
Comment: eliminate language “V.S.” from all presentations.
17
ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: 1. What is the source of affordable housing fund? *unknown at this time
2. Will developers be assisted a fee to pay into affordable housing fund *no
FINAL POLL: Group checked “Yes” but no number of how many polled. Comment: But not sure
where money would come from.
ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion:
Progressive residential fees: Yes-0, No-7
Needs more study: Yes-0, No
Wrong measurement (family unit): Yes-8, No-0
Flat Fee: Yes-6, No-0
FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 7 for No. If no why? Needs
more study
Other Option: Flat Fee: Yes-6, No-0
ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: 1) Where is public sector/county share? 2) What is total cost of improvement
and how much does county pay? 3) Impact fees that pay for everything is a tax
1)Define public/county share: existing level of service
2)Ewa model. Calculate what you want, how funded. (i.e. impact fees, tax, etc.)
3)Current LOS (?) by tax revenues. Future improvements by impact fees
4)Are all fees expected to pay for all improvements in the future.
FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 6 for No
ISSUE K: PHASE-IN PERIOD
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: We feel there should be a phase-in period.
FINAL POLL: Group checked “No” but no number of how many polled.
Other Option: Payments over time, with various financing periods.
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: If there is a phase-in period, how does that guarantee timely construction of
improvements? *phase in to address county preparation for implementation fair share payment will
still continue to be collected until I.F. becomes effective.
(Group did not poll)
18