|
Table 2
<br />POTENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE
<br />Single- Multi-
<br />Family Family Retail Office IndustrialTotal
<br />Unit of MeasurementDwellingDwelling1000 sf1000 sf1000 sf
<br />Annual Growth1,88156636125628
<br />Roads*$8,947,487$1,889,268$2, 927,825$1,584,471$110,917$15,459,967
<br />Parks$12,348,702$2,936,096$0$0$0$15,284,799
<br />Fire/EMS$1,032,506$242,835$299, 509$1,585,727$8,256$3,168,834
<br />Police$1,235,623$289,817$357, 967$142,911$9,874$2,036,191
<br />Solid Waste$455,742$0$0$0$0$455,742
<br />Wastewater$7,118,465$1,692, 487$218,544$155,109$17,183$9,201,788
<br />Total Revenue$31,138,525$7,050,503 $3,803,845$3,468,218$146,230$45,607,321
<br />* County roads only; potential re venue if State roads are included would be much higher.
<br />Source: Projected annual growth based on 2000 to 2005 building permit data; potential facility fees from Table 1.
<br />Another way to put the potential revenues in perspective is to c
<br />programmed in the CountyÔs capital improvements program for growth-related improvements. As
<br />shown below, the potential revenue at the maximum fee levels calculated in this report would exceed
<br />planned capacity expenditures programmed in the current 5-year capital improvements program for
<br />parks, fire/EMS and wastewater. Other projects would need to be
<br />impact fees for these facilities. Potential revenue from road and solid waste impact fees, on the other
<br />hand, would fund only a small fraction of planned projects.
<br />Table 3
<br />POTENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS PLANNED EXPENDITURES
<br />Annual CIP % Funded
<br />Planned by Impact
<br />Annual Impact
<br />Type of Facility Fee Revenue Expenditures Fees
<br />Roads*$15,460,000 $87,740,00018%
<br />Parks$15,285,000 $12,015,800127%
<br />Fire/EMS$3,169,000 $4,742,00067%
<br />Police$2,036,000 $2,752,00074%
<br />Solid Waste$456,000 $3,275,00014%
<br />Wastewater$9,202,000 $4,806,000191%
<br />Total$45,608,000 $115,330,80040%
<br />* County roads only; potential revenue if St ate roads are included is much higher.
<br />Source: Potential revenue from Table 2; annual expend itures is one-fifth of eligible CIP funding
<br />from the table at the end of each chapter in Part II..
<br />Impact Fee Comparisons
<br />The maximum impact fees calculated in this report are compared with HawaiÓi CountyÔs existing fair
<br />share assessments and California and national averag e impact fees in Table 4. The potential single-
<br />family impact fee is higher than the current fair sh are assessments for all facilities. The potential road
<br />impact fees for roads (County roads only) are very sim ilar to the current fair share assessments and the
<br />California average (although the road fee would far ex ceed these if it included State road costs). The
<br />H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 5
<br />AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
<br />
<br />
|