HomeMy WebLinkAboutVideo Conf_Eval_Jan_17_06
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA)
Project
Video Conference Workshop - Tuesday, January 17, 2006
EVALUATION FORM ANSWERS
1. Did this Video Conference Workshop provide you with helpful
information to understand the County IPFNA Project?
Yes: 23 No: 1 No Answer: 1
2. Was the venue convenient and appropriate?
Yes:19 No: 3 Both: 1 Not Sure/No
Answer: 1
If No, Why?
1. Could not see video
2. Little chance for dialogue
3. For the size of audience- a larger monitor is necessary. A small
auditorium with a projector would be an improvement. Sound is
good.
Comments:
1. Too bad room is so small.
2. Why not use Waimea’s facilities too? (VC facilities in Pete’s
office)
3. Would like to use Waimea office in the future
3.Based on today’s discussion, do you agree that the establishment of an
impact fee system would benefit the County of Hawaii?
Yes: 17 No: 1 Left Blank/Undecided: 6 Possibly: 1
Comments:
1. Need information to make a decision. This was a good start but
need to have more specific info.
2. Some parts need clarity
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not understand
or need further clarification on?
No’s: 4
Clear definitions of off-site and on-site impacts.
No- but need more information on how the impact fee would affect supple and
demands for housing.
Impact Fee Video Conference Page 1
Evaluation - January 17, 2006
A)B)
Collected fee at the time of building permit? Impact fees for repair of
C)
existing building? Fee’s- Hilo and Kona (for county of Hawaii)? Are we
sharing fees?
“Residential Parcels” = Are we talking about AG-3 parcels? It is unclear whether
the impact fees would apply to agricultural parcels.
Could existing lots be charged an impact fee if not occupied for two years or
more? Tax on developers of existing lots?
Yes…will submit later.
Yes. I understand all.
“Develop to current level…” In some volcano road locales, road potholes could
hide a Volkswagen. Should this be a “current standard”?
Fees are based on consumer-based principle for new developments and their
impacts. Growth of cars impact transportation facilities. How do cars proliferation
affect impact fees?
There were good questions but it would be helpful to take more questions. The
clearer things are the more likely we will get support for impact fees.
We need mayor’s bill number. Gov. Lingle proposed a similar bill last session-
what was its #?
5.How could we have improved this Video Conference Session?
Answers to questions showed that the respondents were not sufficiently
knowledgeable
about local conditions to be able to make an informed, reasonable
recommendation. Lack
of knowledge about non-conforming subdivisions was profound. The session
would be
improved if:
a. The consultants were sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the
questions that we asked. The way they answered demonstrated
they were not.
b. Allow much more time for questions.
c. Use a video projector and large screen.
Larger screen.
Little more time.
Impact Fee Video Conference Page 2
Evaluation - January 17, 2006
Power Point handouts or larger screen. Print too small to follow.
Larger television for viewing.
Bigger Screen.
Hand out copies of information. Video was hard to see.
Need larger TV Screens and perhaps several around the room so those of us
who are older can really see the people on screen.
Allow more time for questions and answers.
For a first time effort, the conference came off quite well. Good traffic direction by
site moderators. From a facility standpoint, large screens would be helpful,
particularly when viewing PowerPoint or other graphic displays.
Larger fonts on slides (less per slide)
Slides were hard to read- Need bigger point
I don’t know
It is good to use VCS to discuss. It is better to use PowerPoint to present at each
site.
Expand locations if possible- Waimea?
Need larger venue
TV resolution was bad! Kona was shorted two questions relative to Hilo.
Impact Fee Video Conference Page 3
Evaluation - January 17, 2006