HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0119.000 2006-2008 N Phone: (808) 961-8263
BOB JACOBSON ~~'•"w'' ~ Faa: (808) 961-8912
Council Member E-Mail: jacobs(q~co.hawaii.hi.us
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
('ounly~ ofHairni'i
1lniling address: Bn.enress address:
I£'onuer Comrt)~ Building 333 /"flanea avenue, Second Floor
?S aupuru Street, Suite 209 Ben Franklin BnildinR
Hilo, Hnwai'i 967?0 Ndo, llnwai'i 96720
January 23, 2007 ~
~
t~._
Pete Hoffmann, Chair ~ = -
and Members of the Hawaii County Council - rv
s
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: HSAC report for January 22, 2007 ~ v
_r:
Aloha Pete, cn
On January 17, 2007 I attended the HSAC monthly board meeting in Honolulu. Attached is a copy of the Agenda.
We were informed that the three Bills; S.B. N0.449, S.D. 1/I-LB. NO. 302 RELATING TO COUNTIES, H.B. No.
2541 RELATING TO LIABILITY and, S.B. No. 583 RELATING TO UNADJUDICATED TRAFFIC FINES, making up
our legislative package had been filed in both houses on the morning of the meeting.
There were no County reports.
Boazd members discussed the upcoming NACo legislative conference in Washington D.C. in March and the WIR
conference in Fairbanks Alaska in May. I informed my fellow board members that I will be attending both.
We also approved the dates for the next three board meetings which will be on:
February 23, 2007
March 15, 2007 and
April 12, 2007
There was a suggestion that we submit a joint resolution "Urging for an Enviromnental Impact Statement" be
prepared on the impacts of the Hawaii Superferry. (Kauai staff will prepare the drag)
Attached for your review are two reports:
State Identity Theft Task Force Report, dated January 9, 2007 and
Hawaii School Impact Fee Study Draft, dated December 2006
Next HSAC board meeting is on February 23, 2007.
Mahalo,
Bob Jacobson, Council Member
R~ ai`i County Council, District 6
BJ/bl "
Comm. ~a• w
Ref. To:
District 6 -Upper Puna, Ka`~7, and South Kona Ref. Uate ~ AN
2^=
ZQ(1Z
Hmvai'i Count}• !s An Equul Opportunity Provider And Employer
JAN-10-2007 WED 09 54 Al COK CLERK OFFICE FRX N0. 808 2416349 P• 02
Mr
a r..
y 'tt.~w:;41<i State Association oi'Cc~untres ~
Cotmtit:; of Kauai, Maui, l.lawaii and Cily and Conuty nl' I lonolulu 4
aG1~,Nnn
lIS~1C F;Xi;CIJ'PIV); COMNflTTE1; Mta;I~.'l"tNG
Wodncsday, January 17, 2007
n,
1:30 p.rn. _t
Council Cmumitt.cc Room, Honolulu ITnlc ~
HonoluluIIawaii -
- i-.
1. (`,~T,I,'I'C) O111)I~:R µ`i
LI. jE~1TN1T'CP~S ~
c:-,
fl. 61inutes of tho I)eceruher 1£4, 'L00(i Executive Coiumil.Leu ATneting,
~;uLmittecl b,y the TISr1C Socrutary.
ILI, laa'Oil'PS
A. L;xrx~.ulivc Cotnmittc:e.. Reports.
1. }tc:port c',f official action tnkcu nl. the llccembcr 1H, 2UU(3
11xor,»(.iyo Conunitt.oe Meeting, approving ihrcc proposals fo>•
inrautiion in the `L007 I3SAC Lot;isL•xtive 1'acha;;c.
13. Cuuniy heports.
1. Maui Counl.y Report.
'L. ll~twui`i Couuty Report.
3. Cit.,y anil Cinu3ty of Honi,la]u lteporl..
liaua`i CounC,y lieporC.
National /association of Counties (NnCo) Repent.
U. aVcst•uru Intothtato )tei,~ii,n (W1R) Rnpo.rt.
li
AJ 1
• .
JAN-10-2007 WED 0954 fl1 COK CLERK OFFICE FRX N0. 808 2916349 P, 03
PSr1O I~:xui~ul,ive (lonuuit.lec A(;enrl:.i
P,,};v 3
IV. UNIT INL5II1~ ll Jil1,yINI,BS
r\. ~~Chcd tlc o1' Upco,ning HSAC Mc:el.iugs.
J''cbru:,xy f), 20107, Friday, I0~00 a..m.
iVlarch 2007, 1.O:U0 a.n,.>'I'13A.
April 3,LO(17, Prid~ty, 10:00 a.m., tentative.
b1ay 2!T, 2007, }~'ridny. I(.):00 a.m.
.Juno <i007 IiSAC". Conferuncc hosted by Maui (7`I3A)
V, NG:1'V IiUS[P11~:55
A. '10111' !lflorrlnhle Housing l~.xcrnption Rpplirat iun
Cor,•rrr,pondencc dated 1)cccmhcr 2(1, 'LO(l(3, from IISAC;
acrrut;ury, transmitting information to the }1SAC b;xccu(.ivo
COlY, 1111ttL`C relating to the Honolulu Council's past retiolutious
that approved 'L01H oxuntpt.ion applic:Uicn,n with
nu,diticaP.inns.
T3. IISAC Jtevrilu6ion LL•;;in„ for un I~.nvironmcnta! In,pnct Statement. La
be I'rolrurod on Lha Impacts of t.ho IIawai i Suprrfarry
Vi. U1,1) I3USI1`-I~.'SS
:1. 3(10'/ :=15AC Logislakive Package
1. kecap of I;he Inlitnnal I3r.icling held on Docen,hcr 18, 'Z.O(1(i wil.lr
invited xueruhrrs oE'the Le<„i,lature.
13. Ac:hor l IrnpncL IPCC ~~~orkin~ Gri,up (S1L~'WCl)
I. Il,twni`i Sohonl Impact I~'cc Study (dr,il't) pre.p;u•ed foe Stato
afH,nv;tii Sr,:hi,ul Impact 1~'ee Workinf{ Cxronl>, etil:tltlished by
.1ct. 'L4f,, Sc~stiian Laws of H:,wai'i 200~i, prop,n'ed lty Duncan
A~~socierf.oh earl Cltroup 70, dated Decrmber'?OOG.
JAN-10-2007 WED 09 ~ 55 A 1 CO~LERK OFF ICE FAX N0. 808 2416349 P, 04
1IFfr1U I';~ec.u6ivo ('onunitlec A;;enrln
1,.,
3
`7tato i rlentit.y'I'hnft Task Forcc
I. Illentil,y Thcl't Task l~'ox•ce Interim Depart (rlr;rfl,} propamd by
Fhe State 01'F'icc of the auditor for the Sta(e Tdenlily Theft
'1'atik l~orCe, as created by Act 140, Ses:;iun Law:, of Iiawaii
2006 lily tiubnxittal to the i,e(;islaturc. (e•mailed to A4c1 Rapozo
on •Irumar•y `l, `200'7)
~~II, A;~1NOi1NCI;~'LP;N'1'S
n. Next. L;xecutivc Couuxxittce Meeting I~ridny, b'cUrnary 2007,
klonulUll CL\1C IIt IO:OO a.ITI.
~i, n~I1Cl'a]111UllnCClttF; llt F,
vul. nr)~fl~iIRNAMI~;N~I'
J
STATE OF HAWAII RP~6~g59N9 s MARION M. HIGH
y . ~ ~ State Auditor
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR ~
465 S. King Street, Room 500 i (808) 587-0800
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2917 y } FAX: (aoe) 587-0830
a@
c
'PB.®.pp.eec'~'
January 9, 2007
The Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say, Speaker of the
House of Representatives and Members of the
House of Representatives
State Capitol, Room 431
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
The Identity Theft Task Force, as created by Act 140, 2006 Session Laws of
Hawaii, is pleased to submit this interim report of task force activities in 2006 and
its plans for 2007. A final report will be submitted prior to the 2008 regular
session.
Background
The Identity Theft Task Force is a continuation of the Anti-Phishing Task Force,
created by the 2005 Legislature, but with added members and responsibilities.
Act 140 (2006 Session Laws) changed the name of the Anti-Phishing Task Force
to the Identity Theft Task Force (Task Force), added twelve members, and
moved administrative responsibility from the office of the attorney general to the
office of the auditor. In addition, new provisions assigned the Task Force
responsibility to:
1. Identify best practices related to protecting personal identifying
information collected by government agencies.
2. Review otherjurisdictions' activities, policies, and laws.
3. Establish a timetable for removal of personal identifying information
from public records.
4. Review current practices in the use and disclosure of Social Security
numbers in state and county records and documents.
5. Review the volume of these records and documents and likely future
increase or decrease.
6. Review the impact of mandatory redaction.
7. Identify and recommend solutions for protecting Social Security
numbers.
_ _
The Task Force is to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature
prior to the convening of the 2007 and 2008 regular sessions. A final report which
will include the Task Force's findings and recommendations will be submitted
prior to the 2008 regular session.
Task Force Meetings
At its initial meeting on September 29, 2006, Task Force members elected Gary
Caulfield, Vice Chairman of First Hawaiian Bank, as its chair, and Marvin Dang,
Hawaii Financial Services Association, as vice chair. The members of the task
force in 2006, their appointing authorities, and where not already evident, the
sectors they represent were:
Task Force Member Appointing Authority
Clayton Arinaga, Acting Police County Police Departments
Chief, Kauai Police Department
Lt. Andrew Castro Honolulu Police Department, Criminal
Investigation Division
Gary Caulfield, Vice Chairman, First House Speaker, Financial Services Industry
Hawaiian Bank
Marvin Dang, Hawaii Financial Senate President, Financial Services Industry
Services Association
Craig A. DeCosta, Prosecuting Hawaii Prosecuting Attorneys Association
Attorney, County of Kauai
Sen. Carol Fukunaga Senate President
Ronald Johnson, Assistant U.S. U.S. Attorney
Attorney
Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu House Speaker
Nathan Kim, Department Chief, Administrative Director of the Judiciary
Support Services Department
Paul Kosasa, CEO, ABC Stores House Speaker, Retail and Small Business
David Lassner, Chief Information University of Hawaii
Officer
Stephen H. Levins, Executive Office of Consumer Protection
Director
Tim Lyons, President, The House Speaker, Consumer and Business
Legislative Center Organizations
Sen. Ron Menor Senate President
Rep. Colleen Meyer House Speaker
Carol Pregill, President, Retail Senate President, Retail and Small Business
Merchants Hawaii Community
Mel Rapozo, President Hawaii Association of Counties
Robert Takushi Senate President, Consumer and Business
Page 2 of 5
Organizations
Tom Terry, Supervisor /Postal U.S. Postal Service
Inspector
Rick Walkinshaw U.S. Secret Service
Sharon Wong, Branch Manager, Department of Accounting and General
Planning and Project Management Services
Office
Christopher D.W. Young, Deputy Department of the Attorney General
Attorney General
Darwin Ching Department of Education
At two subsequent meetings in November and December, informational briefings
by members representing the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of the
Attorney General, and the State Judiciary outlined the scope of the identity theft
problem, law enforcement activities, and the issues faced by custodians of
records. Planned briefings by representatives of county agencies, private sector,
and state agencies will provide the Task Force current information on policies
and practices related to collection and handling of personal information.
The Task Force has cleated two smaller investigative working groups to research
possible legislation to assist law enforcement and public information initiatives to
combat identity theft. The working groups will report their findings and
recommendations to the Task Force.
Research Government Records
To address the new provisions in Act 140, the Office of the Auditor has engaged
the services of JW Loo and Associates (Contractor) to conduct research into
personal information in state and county government records. Due to limited
funds available, the work was divided into two phases and Contractor will
undertake Phase One tasks:
1. Define personal identifying information.
2. Perform a risk assessment of state and county agencies based on volume
of personal identifying information collected and maintained and the risk
and impact of disclosure.
3. Identify best practices to prevent identity theft by reviewing other
jurisdictions' activities, policies, and laws related to protecting personal
information collected by government agencies.
4. Review current practice in the use and disclosure for public inspection of
Social Security numbers in records and documents maintained by Hawaii
state and county agencies.
As of November 16, 2006, Contractor has completed a project work plan for the
Phase One tasks and submitted it to the Office of the Auditor. The work plan
includes the following major activities:
Page 3 of 5
1. Information Gathering (November 16, 2006 -February 9, 2007)
a. Identify other jurisdiction practices and compliance outcomes. The
focus will be on those states whose identity theft statutes apply to
government agencies.
b. Implement an agency survey.
c. Perform focused interviews. The interviews will include 3 - 4
representative State/county agencies and will be designed to obtain
detailed information on the personal information maintained and used,
applicable policies/procedures, staff training, and technical safeguards
applied to secure personal information.
2. Analysis {February 5, 2007 -March 12, 2007)
a. Perform analysis on personal identifying information. This activity will
review the agency survey results and summarize the information types
maintained/used by agencies that conform to the statutory definition of
personal information.
b. Perform risk assessment. This activity will assess agency uses and
potential public exposure of personal information. It will also assess
the technical safeguards deployed to secure the personal information
from unauthorized access.
c. Perform other jurisdiction analysis. This activity will identify best
practice approaches and outcomes at other jurisdictions.
d. Perform Social Security number analysis. This activity will assess the
use of Social Security numbers in State/county agencies and the
scope of disclosure.
3. Implement Reports (December 1, 2006 -December 27, 2007)
? Implement status reports
? Implement interim report for 2007 regular session
? Implement final report for 2008 regular session.
The Contractor developed an agency questionnaire that was mailed to all state
and county agencies on December 12, 2006. State and county agencies
identified as respondents to the agency questionnaire include state executive
branch agencies, the Judiciary, the University of Hawaii system, and county
executive branch agencies.
The questionnaire contained the following sections:
1. General Description. Identifies the types and uses of documents
containing personal information used by the agency.
2. Social Security Numbers. Identifies the use/disclosure of Social Security
numbers by the agency.
3. PersonalInformation Use/Disclosure. Identifies the scope of personal
information transmittal at the agency.
Page 4 of 5
4. Personal Information De-Identipcafion and Encryption. Identifies
agency practices related to de-identification and encryption of personal
information.
5. Agency Contracts. Identifies agency stipulations in contracts to secure
personal information and to notify the agency in case of security breaches.
6. Agency Workforce Policies. Identifies agency policies and procedures
applicable to securing personal information.
7. Agency Compliance. Identifies agency readiness to comply with HRS
§487J (Social .Security Number Protection), HRS §487N (Notice of
Security Breach), and HRS §487R (Destruction of Personal Information
Records). Also identifies significant barriers to compliance reported by
agencies.
An electronic copy of the agency questionnaire was also posted and available for
download from the Office of the Auditor website
(http'//www state hi.us/auditor/meetings.htm). The due date for return of the
agency questionnaire is January 31, 2007.
Phase Two, to be completed in 2007, subject to availability of funds, will include
the following tasks:
1. Review the current volume of documents and records containing
personal identifying information and assess the future growth or
decline in volume.
2. Examine the practicability of mandatory redaction and the impact of
implementation on human and other resources.
3. Propose a timetable for the immediate removal of personal identifying
information from public records in Hawaii.
4. Identify and recommend solutions to issues related to protection of
Social Security numbers, including the sale, lease, trade, rent, or
otherwise intentional release of an individual's Social Security number
to a third party.
Respectfaull~ylsu~bm~itted,
ary Caulfiele d
Chairman
Identity Theft Task Force
Page 5 of 5
Hawaii School Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
_
r_
,
s
~r~:' e
„d
y-~t x
~.gw
W'h1..
2
~ Y'~
w' „:.ram x "~,¢'~~3~'p"s,`
l~ s ~
}
4 .
~Kii
i
- ~ d.~. 1
°~"g
i
t
x _6
Prepared for ~
~s:p.: z
State of Hawaii ._h,
School Impact Fee Working Group
Establishetl by State Act 246, Session laws of Hawaii 2005
Prepared by
dut~cart~associates
~ t:;f:~~t.~~;t~
necem6er T006
ti
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Overview of Study 1
Previous Reports 2
Summary of Technical Analysis 3
Summary of Recommendations 4
Draft Legislative Alternatives 5
Chapter l: The Current "Fair Share" System 7
Chapter 2: Policy Recommendations 12
State-Level Approach 12
Decision tolmpose Fees 13
Land Dedication Component 14
Construction Cost Component . 15
Tailored or Uniform Approach 16
Summary of Recommendations . 18
Chapter 3: Salientlssues Analysis 20
New School Facilities Planning 20
Recent Enrollment Trends 21
Enrollment Projections 24
New Development Growth 27
Existing School Capacity 28
PotentiallmpactFee Areas 31
Chapter 4: State-Wide Technical Analysis 33
Student Generation Rates 33
Land Component 38
Construction Cost Component 41
Net Construction Cost 45
Chapters: Central Oahu Case Study 49
Service and Facility Standards 51
Existing Central Oahu School Facilities 53
Central Oahu Impact Fee Schedule 54
Demand for New School Facilities 56
Comparison with Existing Fair Share Contributions 59
Chapter 6: Ewa Case Study 62
Study Area
Service and Facility Standards 64
Existing Ewa School Facilities 66
EwalmpactFee Schedule 67
Appendix A: Act 246 Excerpts 70
Appendix B: Draft School Impact Fee Act-Alternative 1 73
Appendix C: Draft School Impact Fee Act-Alternative 2 84
Appendix D: Legal Framework 89
Early Exactions 89
State Court Rulings 90
Rulings of the U.S.Supreme Court 91
School Exactions and Fees 92
State Mandates 93
Appendix E: School Capital Financing Alternatives 94
Land Dedication Requirements 94
Negotiated Exactions 95
Adequate Public Facility Requirements 96
Special Districts 98
Real Estate Transfer Taxes 99
Impact Fees 100
Development Taxes 105
Impact Fees Versus Development Taxes 107
Appendix F: New School Construction Schedule 109
Appendix G: Trend Data, 1990-2006 110
Appendix H: School lnventory 111
Appendix I: Construction Cost Districts 123
Duncan Associates
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208, Austin, TX 78750
(512) 258-7347 x204, Clancy@duncanplan.com
List of Tables.
Table 1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS 4
Table 2: CURRENT FAIR SHARE LAND CONTRIBUTION FORMULA 9
Table 3: CURRENT FAIR SHARE CONSTRUCTION COST SCHEDULE 10
Table 4: SCHOOL FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2003-2006 11
Table 5: PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 2000-2005 21
Table 6: PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AREA 23
Table 7: RESORT AND VACANT UNITS BY AREA 24
Table 8: PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT, 2005-2011 25
Table 9: PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY GRADE, 2005-2011 26
Table 10: HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEXES WITH ENROLLMENT GROWTH, 2005-2011 26
Table 11: HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEX ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY GRADE LEVEL 27
Table 12: PLANNED UNITS AND RELATED ENROLLMENT BY COMPLEX, 2006-2011 28
Table 13: DISTRICT CAPACITY SUMMARY 29
Table 14: RESTRICTED CAPACITY COMPLEXES 30
Table 15: ENROLLMENT GROWTH AREAS 32
Table 16: LOW GROWTH, HIGH DEVELOPMENT AREAS 32
Table 17: STATE-WIDE STUDENT GENERATION RATES, 2000 33
Table 18: EXPECTED AND ACTUAL STUDENTS, 2006 34
Table 19: CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES 35
Table 20: STUDENT GENERATION RATES BY CENSUS DISTRICT, 2000 36
Table 21: PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT GENERATION BY AGE OF THE HOUSING UNIT 37
Table 22: COMPARATIVE STATE-WIDE STUDENT GENERATION RATES 38
Table 23: SCHOOL DESIGN STANDARDS 38
Table 24: ACRES PER STUDENT BASED ON RECENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION 39
Table 25: COMPARISON OF ACRES PER STUDENT RATIOS 39
Table 26: RECENT LAND ACQUISITION COSTS 40
Table 27: STATE-WIDE SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION AND FEE-IN-LIEU SCHEDULE 41
Table 28: CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRICT VARIABLES 42
Table 29: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT 43
Table 30: ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT . 44
Table 31: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT 44
Table 32: SCHOOL CAPITAL FUNDING, FY 2001-2005 45
Table 33: STATE CAPITAL FUNDING PER STUDENT 46
Table 34: TOTAL OUTSTANDING SCHOOL FACILITY DEBT 46
Table 35: NEW FACILITY SHARE OF SCHOOL DEBT, 2003-2005 47
Table 36: SCHOOL FACILITY DEBT CREDIT . . 47
Table 37: TOTAL CREDIT PER DWELLING UNIT 47
Table 38: STATE-WIDE CONSTRUCTION COST SCHEDULE 48
Table 39: EWA/CENTRAL OAHU STUDENT GENERATION RATES, 2000 51
Table 40: EWA/CENTRAL OAHU CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES 52
Table 41: EWA/CENTRAL OAHU PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT GENERATION BY AGE OF UNIT 52
Table 42: CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY 53
Table 43: EWA/CENTRAL OAHU LAND COST SCHEDULE 54
Table 44: CENTRAL OAHU ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT 55
Table 45: CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT , 55
Table 46: CENTRAL OAHU MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE 56
Table 47: CENTRAL OAHU DEMAND FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES 57
Table 48: CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION AND FEE-IN-LIEU SCHEDULE 58
Table 49: CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST 58
Table 50: CENTRAL OAHU NET CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT 59
Table 51: CENTRAL OAHU FAIR SHARE COMPARISON 59
Table 52: EWA PLANNING AREA GAOWTN, 1990-2030 . . 62
Table 53: EWA STUDENT GENERATION RATE, 2000 64
Table 54: EWA AREA EXPECTED AND ACTUAL STUDENTS, 2006 65
Table 55: EWA/CENTRAL OAHU CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES 65
Table 56: EWA AREA NEW DEVELOPMENT STUDENT GENERATION RATE 66
Table 57: EWA SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY 67
Table 58: EWA ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT &8 '
Table 59: EWA SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT 68
Table 60: EWA MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE 69
Table 61: STATE IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS 101
Table 62: FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES . 102
Table 63: SELECTED ENABLING ACT CHARACTERISTICS 104
Table 64: NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, 2006-2015 109
Table 65: ENROLLMENT AND HOUSING TRENDS, 1990-2006 110
Table 66: DISTRICT INVENTORY SUMMARY 111
Table 67: HONOLULU DISTRICT INVENTORY 112
Table 68: CENTRAL DISTRICT INVENTORY 114
Table 69: LEEWARD DISTRICT INVENTORY 115
Table 70: WINDWARD DISTRICT INVENTORY 117
Table 71: HAWAII DISTRICT INVENTORY 118
Table 72: MAUI DISTRICT INVENTORY . 120
Table 73: KAUAI DISTRICT INVENTORY 122
M
This report has been prepared to support the deliberations of the School Impact Fee Working Group
established by the 2005 Hawaii State Legislature. Act 246, Session Laws of 2005, sets forth the
following tasks for the Working Group:
o Analyze salient issues, including current "Fair Share" practices and enrollment projections by
the Department of Education (DOE), alternative funding mechanisms and best practices
utilized by other jurisdictions nation-wide, and different infrastructure needs imposed by
different types of development, including infill.
o Conduct a case study for a specific area in Central Oahu.
o Develop new ox revised statutes, ordinances or DOE procedures that could be used to
implement Working Group xecorrunendations.
Overview of Study
This report begins in Chapter 7 with a description of DOE's current "Fair Share" system oEnegotiated
developer exactions.
Chapter 2 contains the "Policy Recommendations" of the consultant team to the Working Group. It
proposes State authorizing legislation to empower the elected State Board of Education to nnpose
school land dedication requirements and impact fees in growth areas, or "school impact districts," that
meet specific criteria. Two alternative legislative proposals are described, with detailed language
provided in the Appendix. The "tailored approach" detailed in. Appendix B would require that the
amount of the fees be calculated for each school impact district. The "uniform approach" detailed in
Appendix C would require only a limited analysis to show that a percentage of the fees calculated for
the Ewa case study would not exceed that actual school impacts of new residential development.
Chapter 3 contains a "Salient Issues Analysis" that addresses the fundamental issue now confronting
proponents of school impact fees in Hawaii, which is the state-wide decline in public school enrollment.
The conclusion of the analysis is that while impact fees cannot be justified on a state-wide or school
district basis, they can be justified for individual school impact districts.
The final three chapters present the technical impact fee analysis. Chapter 4 contains [he state-wide
technical analysis. While state-wide impact fees are no longer recommended like they were in the 2001
Sc/ioo! Fair Share Contribution Strrdy, some of the technical analysis required to develop impact Eees for
school impact districts must be done at the state-wide level. The analysis in this chapter follows the
basic methodology set forth in the 2001 study.
Chapter 5 provides impact fee calculations for the Central Oahu case study area. This case study is an
example of a "greenfield" school impact district, which consists of a large tract of former agricultural
land being developed primarily for residential use.
~ See excerpts in Appendu A.
duncan ~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, D2CEmbef 78, 2006 DitAl~ f, Page 1
Chapter 6 provides impact fee calculations for the Ewa case study area. This case study is an example
of a "non-greenfield" school impact district, which consists of an area with substantial existing
development where new residential development is occurring in a more scattered pattern.
The appendices contains supplementary material. Several are notable. Appendix D contains the legal
framework fox impact fees that was described in the 200] School Fair Share Contribution Study and remains
relevant today with few amendments. Appendix E updates the discussion of the alternative financing
techniques used on the mainland to fund school facilities that was contained in the 2001 study. The
approaches themselves have not changed, but some of the examples have been updated, and the
discussion of impact fees has been completely re-written.
Previous Reports
State-wide reports related to school infrastructure Finance and impact fees in Hawaii were conducted
in 1992 and 2001. The 1992 study, entitled Impart Fees in Hawaii: Implementing the State Law,Z presented
an analysis of the State impact fee law of 1992. The 2001 Sr{ioo/Fair Share Contribution Study; specifically
addressed the issue of school financing in Hawaii.
The 1992 study was sponsored by the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii in order to assist
Hawaii counties in developing impact fee ordinances in response to the State impact fee ac[ of 1992.
The study provided a history of impact fees and their legal basis along with a discussion of their role as
an instrument of fiscal policy and how impact fees were used in different jurisdictions. The report's
primary focus was to serve as a handbook foxlocalgovemments in calculatingand administeringimpact
Fees and the drafting of impact fee ordinances.
While the 1992 study was designed to help counties implement impact fees, the report's discussion of
the State enabling act and impact fee methodology is relevant to this study. The consultants followed
the recommended methodology in developing the technical analysis and impact fee schedule for schools
fox this report.
The 2007 School FairSbare Contri6retion Study examined the existing DOE practice of assessing Fair Share
contributions, updated the school Fair Share fee schedule and recommended that the State consider
implementation of a state-wide school impact fee. DOE has subsequently used the recommended land
component for Fair Share contributions and 30 percent of the recommended construction cost
component in Fair Share negotiations with developers. The current study does not recommend a state-
wide school impact fee system. Instead, it updates all sections of the 2001 study, and provides a basis
for applying school impact Fees in areas of the state that are experiencing enrollment growth due to new
development.
Z)ames Nicholas and Dan Da~ridson, ImpaaT Feet in Hawaii, Imptementin3 lbe State Law, ]992.
sDuncan dssociates and Group 70 International, Srhaot Fair Share Contribution Study, 200].
dunCan aS500ia18S/GROUP 70 Hnwan SCHOOL Ionrac7 Fee STUDY, December 18, 2006 nIW 1'r, Page 2
Summary of Technical Analysis
The results of the analysis described in this report are compared with the results of the 2001 School Fair
Share Contribzrtian Study and DOE's current Fair Share requests of developers in Table 1. (Note that
construction costs shown axe for the Honolulu area, and would be higher for other areas of the state.)
DOE curxendy asks for the amount of land dedication that was calculated in the 2001 study, but only
about 30 percent of the net cost of school buildings documented in that study.
The state-wide technical analysis prepared as part of this study indicates that construction costs per
student have increased by about 50 percent between the two studies. This is due not only to increases
in construction costs over the last five years, but also to more accurate, up-to-date cost data used in this
update. The cost data in the 200] study was for projects that had been recently completed as of August
1998, while the data in this study are fox schools completed from 1997 through 2007, adjusted for cost
inflation.
The revenue credit per unit that reflects general tax dollars spent on schools has decreased significantly
from the 2001 study. This is primarily due to the fact that State spending on school capital
improvements has declined significantly over the last five years. The State Legislature authorized an
average of $115 million annually in school capital funding from 1992 to 1998, compared to only $84
million annually from 2001 through 2005.
The maximum fees that can be justified in the two school impact district case studies ace more than 50
percent higher than the maximum fees based on the state-wide analysis, with or without the inclusion
of land costs. This is due to the fact that student generation rates in these areas are about 50 percent
higher than the state average.
The value of school land dedications depends on the value of land in a development. In the draft
legislation, fees in lieu of dedication would be based on the appraised value of the property fox larger
developments, and on an average cost per acre determined for each school impact district for smaller
developments. For illustrative purposes, a value of $350,000 per acre has been assumed. Based on this
assumption, typical current Fair Share developer exactions amount to only about one-quarter of the full
net cost to provide schools in school impact districts.
dunCan a55oCi2fe5/GROUP 70 Hawau SCHOOL IMPACT Fee Sruov, December 18, 2006 DRAI'I', Page 3
Table 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS
rt,
t!
Students/Unit 0.5760 0.5760 0.4388 0.6687 0.6687
Acres per Student 0.0156 0.0156 0,0195 0.0197 0.0197
Acres per Uni[ 0.00899 0.00899- 0.00856 0.01316- 0.01316
Percent Permanent Stations* 86.7% 86.9% 83.7% 83.3%
Adjusted Construction Cost/Student** $23,003 $35,629 $34,300 $34,751
Construction Cost per Uni[ $13,169 $15,746 $23,123 $23,469
Revenue Credit er Unit $4,698 $2,786 $2,786 $2,786
Net Construction Cost per Unit $2,541 $8,471 $12,960 $20,337 $20,683
Land Cost er Unit 1$350,000/ac.)*** $3,147 $3,147 $2,996 $4,606 $4,606
Total Net Cost per Unit $5,688 $11,618 $15,956 $24,943 $25,289
Percent of student stations in permanent buildings, weighted with student generation rates by housing type and grade level
"Construction cost per student in Honolulu cost area, weighted with student generation fates by housing type and grade level and
adjusted by percent of student stations in permanent buildings by grade level,
$350,000 cost per acre assumed for illusIrative purposes
Source: Current Fair Share and 2001 study data from Group 701nternationalanti Duncan Associates, School Fai/Share Contribution
Study, May 2001 and Table 3; 2006 update study data from this report; percent permanent stations and adjusted cost per student
are weighted averages based on relative shares o} single-family and multi-family units and elementary, middle and high school
student generation rates by housing type.
Summary of Recommendations
In the context of declining state-wide public school enrollment, the updated state-wide analysis provides
the background data and analysis to support the development of school impact fees for individual
school impact districts. There are two types of school impact districts that might warrant school impact
fees: "greenfield" areas and "non-greenfield" areas.
Greenfield areas are planned development projects on former agricultural lands that are large enough
to need their own new schools, from elementary to high school. In general, these areas are somewhat
isolated or distant from existing development, so that the schools that will serve them will be located
within the school impact district. The Central Oahu case study is an example of a greenfield area impact
fee calculation.
Non-greenfield areas, in contrast, are areas comprising one or more existing high school complexes
where new development typically occurs on smaller, scattered sites. The key characteristic of non-
greenfield areas is that, for the most part, the same schools will serve both existing and new housing.
The Ewa case study is an example of anon-greenfield area impact fee calculation.
The proposed draft legislation consists of two components: school land dedication/fee-in-lieu and
school construction impact fee. The land dedication requirement applies at the time of subdivision
approval, while the school constmcdon impact fee would be collected at dyne of building permit
issuance. In each case, the requirements would apply only to residential development located in
duncan ~ associates/GBOUp 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 tlltAl'!', Page 4
designated "school impact districts." School impact districts are geographic areas where anticipated
housing construction will necessitate new ox expanded school facilities over the next ten years.
Proposed school impact districts would be trapped and described in a written analysis prepared by
DOE. Approval by the State Board of Education would be required to designate a school impact
district and establish the impact fee requirements. Counties would be required to ensure compliance
with school impact district requirements prior to final subdivision approval and building permit
issuance.
Draft Legislative Alternatives
The consultant team has prepared two alternative sets of draft legislation. The first "tailored" alternaive
would require each school impact district study to determine appropriate student generation rates Eox
the area. The second "uniform" alternative would require only an analysis of growth potential and
average land costs, and would rely on the Ewa case study impact fee analysis.
Our recommendation is the uniform alternative. While an individual study of student generation rates
for each school impact district could theoretically provide a stronger nexus between the amount of the
unpact fee and the actual impact of new housing, detailed student generation data is not available fox
most areas of the state. State-wide data is distorted by resort residential development, and areas where
residential development is generating the need Eor new schools axe likely to have student generation rates
similar to those in the Ewa/Central Oahu case study areas. Therefore, we recommend using the student
generation rates developed in the Ewa case study in establishing a uniform state-wide approach For
school land dedication/construction impact fee requirements.
It appears based on the case studies' that school impact district studies would justify very high school
construction impact fees (more than $20,000 per single-family unit). Given the magnitude of these
maximum fees, basing the Eees on a percentage of the fees derived from the Ewa case study could avoid
unnecessazy complexity and provide a more consistent set of school construction impact fees in school
impact districts across the state.
Basic Legislative Framework
Both alternatives follow the same general framework or process. DOE would prepare a written report
that includes a map of the proposed school impact district, an analysis that shows that anticipated new
residential development in [he area will create the need Eox new school facilities in the next ten years,
and a determination of the average value per acre of improved land in the area suitable for school sites.
Greenfield school impact districts must not have any significant existing development, and be large
enough to ultimately support at least one new high school. Non-gxeenfield school impact districts must
consist of one or more existing high school complex attendance areas. Fees in-lieu of land dedication
for smaller developments would be based on [he averagevalue of improved land suitable for school sites
in the area.
Board of Education approval would be required to designate a school impact district and establish the
dedication requirements and impact fees fox the area. Counties would be required to ensure that school
land dedication and fee-in-lieu requirements were met before final approval of residential subdivisions
in designated school impact districts. Counties would also be required to ensure that school impact fees
had been paid before issuing residential building permits in designated districts. DOE would update
the analysis for review by the State Board of Education at least every three years, at which time the
dedication requirements and fees could be adjusted.
duncan ~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, D2C2fTlb2! iB, ZOO6 1)Ri4{`P, PegE S
f
Alternative 1: Tailored Pees
The "taflored" alternative would require determination of appropriate student generation rates for each
growth area. The localized student generation rates would then be multiplied by acres per student ratios
from the state-wide analysis to determine the land dedication requirement per unit. The school
construction impact fees would be the product of the localized student generation rates and the state-
wide construction costs per student (adjusted for the cost area), less the state-wide credit per unit. This
alternative is presented in Appendix B.
Alternative 2: Uniform Pees
The "uniform" alternative would require, fox non-greenfield areas, an analysis to confirm that 82 percent
of the Ewa case study student generation rates do not overstate the net impact of new development on
the need for schools in the area. Assuming that could be demonstrated, the land dedication
requirements and impact fees in both greenfield and non-greenfield areas would be the based on the
Ewa case study analysis. This altemadve is presented in Appendix C.
dtincan ~ associates/GROUT 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECCrt1bEf 18, 2006 IIRAI'1', Paye 6
s - - -
The practice of requesting or requiring developers in Hawaii to contribute to the provision of new
public schools has been in effect fox many years. Efforts to obtain developer contributions for new
schools have historically been and continue to be based solely on adopted Board of Education policy.
No specific statutory authority cuxrendy exists to authorize or mandate [he assessment of developers
fox these costs. The primary vehicle fox accomplishing this has been to condition the approval of new
residential developments requiring changes in State Land Use District classifications from anon-urban
district to the Urban District. In addition, certain counties also impose school fair-share conditions as
part of the local planning process; however, only Maui regularly includes such conditions in land-use
approvals.
In the early years following the establishment of the State Land Use Districts in 1962, DOE would only
comment as to the adequacy of existing schools when asked to review reclassification petitions. No
requests were made for developer contributons of land or facilities. The philosophy at that time was
that schools would be built by the State, and the Department of Education (DOE) would need to "make
do" with what the State could provide. However, within a few years it became obvious that adequate
funding fox growth-related education needs were not being met under this policy. Consequently, DOE
began to look at ways to obtain additional funds, eventually leading DOE to start requesting
contributions fox schools fiom new residential development.
The form of developer contribution was determined strictly on a case-by-case basis through negotiated
exactions or fees-in-lieu. There were no "formulas" or formally established policies to guide the process
of negotiating what constituted a reasonable developer contribution. Initially, DOE asked developers
fox a place to build a school. While some sites were provided, many were not in good locations - an
example being a school in Waipahu that is located in a gully. Developers rarely agreed to provide well-
located sites because they were also prime locations fox building homes.
The policy of negotiated exactions was unable to fulfill the need for new schools and the Funding
available to build them. In [he late 7 980's, DOE started asking fox a "Fair Share" of the cost of building
the new schools. The request was based on the student impact of the development projects. Fair Share
was determined by dividing the total number of new students by the standard class size to obtain the
number of required new classrooms. In order to obtain the total Fair Share contribution, the number
of required classrooms was multiplied by the average cost of building a new classroom, determined by
DOE by island.
The primary route that DOE has utilized to secure developer commitments for land dedication and
construction cost contributions has been through conditions of approval imposed by the State Land Use
Commission fox a change in the State Land Use District classification. This has been possible because,
being a State agency, the Commission has generally been willing to support DOE's efforts to get
deve]opers of residential projects to contribute to the cost of new schools, and has made the negotiated
developer contribution a condition of approval. Typical wording of this condition is as follows:
The Petitioner shall contribute to the development, funding, and/or constmction of
school facilities, on a fair-share basis, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the
duncan ~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCembef 1H, ZOO6 QI{AI'i', P89e ~
Department of Education. Textns of the contribution shall be agreed upon by the
Petitioner and the DOE prior to Petitioner applying for county rezoning.
Not all new development proposals require State Land Use Commission approval. Requests for
approvals go directly to the counties where a planned development involves land that is either already
in the State Urban District or is 15 acres ox less in size. Obtaining developers' contributions for new
school facilities has proved to be mote difficult at the county level.
The original Fair Share assessment formula was land-based -that is, it was intended to provide
sufficient funds only to cover the cost of purchasing land for new schools. Land requirements were
based on the Board ofEducation's Educational Specifications and Standards for Facilities and its School
Size Standards Policy (No. 6701). The initial Fair Share assessment was calculated to be $850 per
housing unit. DOE consulted with developers on the establishment of the new formula, including the
$850 per unit assessment. Some considered it reasonable; others felt i[ was too high.
The School Size Standards Policy was revised by DOE in March 1997 to reduce maximum enrollment
standards per school by a little over 30% on the average. However, school site size standards were
reduced by only an average of 8 percent, resulting in a significant increase in the required site area per
student. Consequently, the fee per unit was raised from $850 to $1,125.
Where land for a school site was to be dedicated in lieu of paying the per unit fee, a land value of
$100,000 pet acre was used determine the amount of credit given for the land dedication, which was
based on the average cost per acre of new school sites purchased since 1985. Collected fees were
deposited in a trust account with separate bust accounts for each high school complex. This was
intended to ensure that Fair Share fees were expended in the same areas where the developments paying
them were located.
However, even with [he established formula and fee per unit, developers' contributions to new school
facilities were still being negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, the wording of the condition in
land use reclassification petition approvals did not specify whether a fee was to be paid or land for a new
school site was to be dedicated. The initial formula addressed only the monetary value of the
contribution required from developers. Consequenty, an agreement on the dedication of land, as
opposed to payment of a fee, had in each case to be negotiated between the developer and DOE.
In May 2001, a study was completed for DOE by the consultant team, which recommended land
dedication requirements per dwelling unit, as well as fees in-lieu of land dedication and impact fees for
school construction costs. Since [hat time, DOE has been asking developers to contribute the acres of
land needed for new schools based on the standards derived from that study, as well as 30 percent of
the maximum construction-related impact fee amounts calculated in that study.
DOE's current Faix Share formula includes both a land and construction component. The current land
component schedule was implemented in 2003 based on the 2001 School Fair Share Comtribrdiou Study.
The current schedule for land applies to developments less than 50 acres, and is based on ratios of
school land per student station and a land cost of $100,000 per acre. For developments greater than 50
acres, DOE, utilizes the same acre-pet-unit requirement, and DOE detertnines on a case-by-case basis
whether the developer will provide a land dedication for a school or be assessed the land portion of the
fee based on the appraised value per acre of the development. The current Fair Share contribution
formula per unit is shown in Table 2.
durtCan I BSSOCIBIBS/GROUP 70 Hnwait SCHOOL IMPACT FEE S7uov, December 18, 2006 IIR.AI'I', Page 8
The current standard acres/unit is based on DOE's student generation multipliers multiplied by the
acres per student developed in the 2001 study. That study based the standard provision of land per
student on actual school construction from 1988 to 1997. Based on the student generation rates and
land requirements per student, the land requirement ranges From 0.00899 acres per unit for single-family
units to 0.00356 acres per unit fox multi-family units. Based on the land cost of $100,000 per acre used
for fee-in-lieu for development of less than 50 acres, the current in-lieu fee fox the land component is
$899 per unit for single-family and $356 for mull-family-
Table 2
CURRENT FAIR SHARE LAND CONTRIBUTION FORMULA
Elementary 0.2790 0.0122 0.00340 $100,000 $340
Middle School 0.1430 0.0114 0.00163 $100,000 $163
High School 0.1540 0.0257 0.00396 $100,000 $396
Total, Single-Family" 0.00899 $899
Elementary 0.1090 0.0122 0.00133 $100,000 $133
Middle School 0.0400 0.0114 0.00046 $100,000 $46
High School 0.0690 0.0257 0.00177 $100,000 $177
Total, Multi-Family 0.00356 $356
includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Note: fee calculation for developments over 50 acres based on per acre appraisal prior to subdivision.
Source: State of Hawaii Department of Education "Fair Share Calculation Worksheet,' June, 2005.
The cost of school construction varies among regions of the state. For [he Honolulu area, developers
are currently being asked to contribute $2,541 per single-family unit and $997 per multi-family unit
toward construction costs. The existing Fair Share construction cost schedule is shown in Table 3.
(~RF1C0Ct I aS50CIaieS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Decembef 18, 2006 I1RA1~'I', Page 9
Table 3
CURRENT FAIR SHARE CONSTRUCTION COST SCHEDULE
r•
Honolulu Honolulu $2,541 $997
Central Ewa $2,541 $997
Central Wahiawa $2,739 $1,074
Central Waialua $2,936 $1,150
Windward Koolaupoko $2,541 $997
Windward Koolauloa $2,936 $1,150
Leeward Ewa $2,541 $997
Leeward Waianae $2,936 $1,150
Hawaii Hilo $3,134 $1,227
Hawaii Puna $3,332 $1,303
Hawaii Kona $3,332 $1,303
Hawaii Hamakua $3,332 $1,303
Hawaii South Kohala $3,332 $1,303
Hawaii North Kohala $3,529 $1,380
Hawaii Pohakuloa $3,529 $1,380
Hawaii Kau $3,727 $1,457
Maui Wailuku $3,134 $1,227
Maui Makawao $3,529 $1,380
Maui Lahaina $3,727 $1,457
Maui Hana $3,924 $1,533
Molokai - Molokai $3,727 $1,457
Lanai Lanai $3,924 $1,533
Kauai Lihue $3,134 - $1,227
Kauai Koloa $3,332 $1,303
Kauai Kawaihau $3,332 $1,303
Kauai Waimea $3,529 $1,380
Kauai Hanalei 3 529 $1 380
Source: Department of Education, Facilities Development Branch, Fair Share
Worksheet.
The annual Fair Share revenue over the past four years and the account balance are shown in Table
4-the revenue does not include the value of land dedication commitments. As reflected in the balance
of the account, DOE has not made any expenditures from the Fair Share contributions since 2002. The
DOE has commitments from developers through current Fair Share agreements to provide an
additional $4.4 million. The funding commitments will be combined with the existing fund balance to
offset construction and land costs for ne~v schools.
duncan ~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAl18CHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 1{ICAf'r, Page 10
Table 4
SCHOOL FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2003-2006
2002 $419,205
2003 $159,156 $578,361
2004 $487,636 $1,065,997
2005 $242,651 $1,308,648
2006* $490,701 $1,799,349
• Note: 2006 contributions through the third quarter.
Source: Hawaii Department of Education, Facilities
Development Branch, May 18, 2006.
duncan ~ associates/Gaoup 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, D2cembef 78, 2006 DI{.d{`I', Page 11
- -
This chapter addresses several major issues facing the School Impact Fee Working Group relating to
development exactions for school facilities in Hawaii:
1. Should State authorizing legislation be sought?
2. Who would decide where school impact Fees are imposed?
3. What form should the land cost component take?
4. What form should the school construction cost component take?
5. Should uniform state-wide formulas be used to determine the school land requirements and
construction impact fees, ox should they be tailored to more closely reflect -the student
generation rates in the local area where they are to be imposed?
The chapter concludes with a summary of the consultant's recommendations.
State-Level Approach
The Department of Education's (DOE's) current Fair Share Contribution formula is similar to a land
dedication requirement or an impact fee, but since it is not imposed by statute or ordinance, it is
implemented in a manner similar to a negotiated developer exaction. DOE must rely on the State Land
Use Commission and counties to impose school exactions on developers, and often gets involved in
negotiating the amount of the dedication or fee with developers.
Obviously there is a need fox some negotiation when DOE wants to secure a school site within a
development. But when the amount of the fee to be paid is the only issue, it is difficult to see why
negotiation should be required. There should be a consistent formula applied to determine [he cost of
a residential development's impact on the need for new school facilities.
DOE has an explicit formula, but cannot consistently apply it because it lacks the force of State law or
county ordinance. In Hawaii, there are two potential mechanisms fox implementing a rational system
of developer exactions for schools- the State legislature or the counties. ~y1e recommend the state-level
approach.
School Facility capital funding in Hawaii is unique in certain respects From the experience of the
mainland. The most significant difference is that the public school system in Hawaii is provided by a
single, state-level agency-the Department of Education (DOE). A state-wide school system provides
less incentives to counties to implement school dedication xequuements or to enact school impact fees
than if there was a local school district that matched county boundaries. Certainly, if counties in Hawaii
had direct financial and administrative control of [heir individual school districts, as they do in some
other states, they would almost certainly be more interested in the subject of developer exactions for
schools. Yet as county officials are undoubtedly aware, the capital funding provided by school exactions
or impact fees in one county would likely result in available State capital funding being shifted to other
counties that do not impose impact fees or developer exactions.
duncan ~ associateslGROUP 70 Hnwnu SCHOOL IMPACT Pee STUDV, December 18, 2006 DItAP'1', Page 72
Still, none of the four counties has adopted school land dedication requirements, which are [he most
common form of developer exactions for schools on the mainland, much less school impact fees. DOE
has had more consistent success in implementing its current limited development exaction system when
State approval is required in the development process (e.g., through the State Land Use Commission).
Even there, however, developers axe required to negotiate with DOE.
The result is a system that is uneven in its application and is perceived by some to be unfair. Small
projects generally are not required to contribute, and projects that do not requite a change in State land
use designation are less likely to be required to contribute than those that do. And those projects that
axe required to make some contribution negotiate with DOE and end up making various levels of
contributions. These individual negotiations are not informed by a consistent framework for
determining an individual development's impact on the need fot school facilities.
Hawaii's system of developer exactions for schools could be made more consistently and uniformly
applied through State legislative action. Only if the Fair Share Contribution policy or some other form
of school exaction or impact fee has the force of State law will the "playing field" be leveled and
individual developers [seated equitably.
Decision to Impose Fees
If State legislation is to authorize the imposition of school impact fees in areas where residential
development will require the provision of new school (hereinafter referred to as "school impact
districts"), who will make the decision on where fees will be imposed? There are several possibilities:
o The State Legislature,
o individual County Councils,
o State Board of Education, or
o Department of Education staff.
In general, the decision to impose impact fees in a particular school impact district should probably be
a legislative rather than an administrative act. This requires that it be made by an elected body, rather
than by DOE staff.
The authorizing legislation could establish the framework for school impact fees, but still require an
additional act of the Legislature to designate each school impact district. However, this process might
be rather cumbersome and unnecessary if the legislation is drafted ro provide clear guidance in
identifying areas for which impact fees would be appropriate.
An alternative to the Legislature would be to requite action by the County Council of the county in
which the proposed school impact district is located. A potential problem with this is that it would give
veto power over an alternative funding source for school construction to a body that is not responsible
for school construction. As noted above, the count}+governments have not always been supportive of
DOE's efforts to secure developer participating in mitigating school impacts.
The consultant team recommends that the State Board o£ Education have the authority to designate
school impact districts for school impact fee. The Board of Education is elected state-wide, and is the
body responsible for providing public school facilities.
duncan 85SOCI8IQS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeLembef 1B, 20OE illtAl~'x, Pdy2 13
Land Dedication Component
Should State legislation authorizing school impact fees in certain school impact districts include a
separate land dedication requirement? Or should it forego the idea of requiring dedication and instead
concentrate on securing sufficient school fees to purchase school sites? These are the questions we
address in this section.
School land dedication requirements are among the oldest and most widespread types of developer
exactions. And with good reason-public school sites, particularly for elementary schools, need to be
located in proximity to residential developments. School districts need to be interactingwith developers
in the early planning stages, and ]and dedication requirements are typically imposed at the time of
subdivision approval.
On the surface, DOE's current Fair Share policy for land is virtually identical to the typical school land
dedicationJfee-in-lieu requirement imposed by a city or county on the mainland. 1-lowever, because
DOE cannot require compliance with it, the policy is not truly a dedication requirement.
Dedication requirements always require some amount of negotiation, since it is not possible to identify
the most appropriate site for a school with predetermined rules. The fact that the location of a site is
a major determinant of its value gives the developer an incentive To resist school district requests For
dedication of prime home-building sites. The negotiation over school sites within new development
projects could be much easier if DOE already had secured land acquisition funds from some other
source and was simply interested in reaching agreement on the fair market value of the desired site.
DOE could, of course, avoid these difficult negotiations over the site to be dedicated by always asking
for the fee-in-.lieu and then using those funds to purchase its desired site. Or it could go one step
further and abandon the concept of a land-based exaction completely, by folding land costs into a
school impact fee to be assessed at time of building pemvt.
We believe that there are some good reasons for retaining aland-based exaction, regardless of whether
an additional fee for construction costs is pursued. First, despite the fact the developers often want to
have a school within their development, there may be occasions when DOE needs to be able to require
a developer to provide a site that is appropriately located within the school's service area. Second, the
fact that a land dedication requirement or fee-in-lieu is imposed at the time of subdivision means that
it is paid by the developer rather than the homebuilder. The earlier in the development process such
fees are assessed the more likely they are to be absorbed by the landowner in lower land costs. Third,
despite their complaints about its fairness, developers are used to the current land-based policy. And
finally, it may be strategically wise to carry forward proposals to the Legislature for both land-based
requirements and construction-based fees that can be adopted independently of each other.
One issue that must be addressed in a land dedication or fee-in-lieu requirement is how to deternune
the value of land. The fees-in-lieu can be based on 1) the average land value for the entire jurisdiction
or a subarea, or 2) on the average value of land within the development making the dedication. DOE's
current Fair Share policy takes the fast approach, with the fees-in-lieu based on a standard land value
of $100,000 per acre. This has led to some complaints from developers, who view it as if they are being
paid only $100,000 an acre for land they ate required to dedicate that they consider to be worth
considerably more. An alternative to using a uniform cost per acre across the state would be to develop
duncan ~ associates/GROUP 70 Hawan SCHOOL Imrnei Fee Siuov, December 18, 2006 DIt4P'I', Page 14
cost regions fox land costs similar to the 26 cost regions developed by the Department of Accounting
and General Se>vices for construction costs.
The second approach would be to base the fee-in-lieu on the value of the property subject to the
exaction. This approach is used in many park and school land dedication requirements on the mainland,
and is also the approach currently used by the Hawaii Community Development Authority. It is
perhaps most "Fair" because it better ensures equal treatment between developers and equitable
compensation for the dedicated land. However, this approach can require multiple appraisals before
the parties come to agreement on the value of the land and therefore the amount of the fees to be paid.
A third approach would be to blend the first two approaches. This approach would use a standazd fee-
in-lieu per unit for smaller projects, but base the fee-in-lieu for larger projects on the value of the
property.
While there are pros and cons to all three approaches, our recommendation is to pursue the blended
approach. Projects below a certain size threshold should be exempt for the dedication requirement, and
should have their fees-in-lieu based on a standard land value. Developers who believe the value of their
land is significantly below the standard land value would have the option to hire appraisers to attempt
to demonstrate that their fees should be lower. For larger projects where DOE does not want to require
dedication of a site, the fees-in-lieu would be based on the value of the property.
A related issue is the time at which the property should be valued. Should the value be-based on raw
land prices, ox on the value of the land once subdivision improvements have been made? Generally,
land dedication requirements stipulate that the land to be dedicated must have road access, proper
drainage and utilities installed to the perimeter of the site. Consequently, it makes sense to base the
value of the property for the purpose of determining fees in lieu of dedication on improved land after
the completion of road, drainage and utility improvements.
A final issue is whether the amount of land to be dedicated per dwelling unit should be reduced below
the amount calculated if the school construction impact fee is charged at only a percentage of the Eull
calculated cost. Since DOE will need sufficiently-sized and sufficiently-numerous sites located within
new residential developments, no corresponding percentage reduction of the land dedication
requirement should be made.
However, if a uniform state-wide approach is used, what student generation rates would be appropriate?
The state-wide student generation rates underestimate student generation from non-resort areas, and
especially underestimate multi-family student generation in such areas. On the other hand, not all non-
resort residential growth areas will necessarily have student generation rates as high as the Ewa case
study. Our recommendation is to split the difference between [hesingle-family dedication requirements
derived from the state-wide analysis (0.00856 acres per student) and the Ewa/Central Oahu case study
analysis (0.01316 acres per student). The recommended single-Family requirement of 0.01086 acres per
student represents 82.5 percent of the Ewa/Central Oahu case study figure.
Construction Cost Component
The legislation to enact school construction impact fees should contain provisions similar to those
required by Act 282 for county impact fee ordinances. These include provisions for credits against the
fees fox any required developer contributions toward school facilities (other than land dedication or
dun Corti ~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAl15CHODr IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeC2mber 18, 2006 i)ttAl°I', Page 15
payment of aFee in-lieu ofdedication), earmarkingof Funds for school capital improvements, restriction
of funds for expenditure in the school impact districtin which theywere collected, and refunding of fees
if not expended within a specified period of time (ten years is proposed rather than the six years required
by Act 282). Age-res tricted retirement housing or assisted living communities for the disabled or elderly
will not generate school children and should be exempted from payment of school impact fees.
Given their potential magnitude, the impact fees should probably be charged at some percentage of the
maximum fees calculated in this study. In addition, impact fees should be phased-in gradually to avoid
disrupting development plans already underway. For example, fees could be adopted initially at 25
percent of [he ultimate fee, raised to 50 percent after six months, raised to 75 percent after one years
and raised to thevldmate level after two years.
Tailored or Uniform Approach.
There are two alternative approaches that can be taken to school-land dedication/school construction
impact fee requirements. The first "tailored" altemadve would require each school impact district study
to determine appropriate student generation rates for the area. The second "uniform" alternative would
require only an analysis of growth potential and average land costs, and would rely on the Ewa case
study analysis. Our recommendation is to use the uniform approach.
While an individual study of student generation rates for each school impact district could theoretically
provide a stronger nexus between the amount of the land dedication requirement/impact fee and the
actual impact of new housing, lack of truly localized student generation data limits this advantage. Due
to the geography of U.S. Census areas, year 2000 student generation data is available only for areas of
at least 100,000 persons. As a result, data is only available for the entire Big Island, and for the
combination of Maui and Kauai Counties. There are no available sources of student generation data
the for only those (non-resort) portions of the neighbor islands where major new development to house
residents has occurred in the past and/or is likely to occur in [he future. Given the lack of available data
for most areas of the s rate that accurately reflects local conditions,. a uniform state-wide approach would
be more appropriate.
Major new developments on the neighbor islands that are intended to house residents can be reasonably
expected closely reflect the character of current and future residential development in the EwaJCentral
Oahu area. Consequently, the studentgeneration rates derived from data for Ewa/Central Oahu should
also closely reflect the rates for similar developments across the state. Therefore, we recommend using
the student generation rates developed in the Ewa case study in establishing a uniform state-wide
approach for school land dedication/construction impact fee requirements.
Initially, we were concerned that new housing in "non-greenfield" areas with subs tantial errs dng housing
might have very little net impact on the need for new schools, due to declining state-wide student
generation sates and the aging of the population living in existing housing units. However, this certainly
proved not to be the case in Ewa, where student generation rates have actually been increasing over
time. It would be reasonable to assume that other areas in the state that are experiencing growth in non-
xesort housing will have similar student generation rates to the Ewa area.
It appears based on the case studies that school impact district studies would justify very high school
construction impact fees (more than $20,000 per single-family unit). Given the magnitude of these
maximum fees, basing the fees on a percentage of the fees derived from the Ewa case study could avoid
duncan~associates/GROUP 70 HaWnnSCxootlrotapCrFEeS7uor,December18,20061112A~~1',Page16
unnecessary complexity and provide a more consistent set of school construction impact fees in school
impact districts across the state.
Basic Legislative Framework
Both approaches to establishing school impact Eees follow the same general framework. DOE would
prepare a written report that includes a map oEthe proposed school impact district, analysis that shows
that anticipated new residential development in the area will create the need fox new school facilities in
the next ten years, and a determination of the average value per acre of improved land in the area
suitable fox school sites. Fees in-lieu of land dedication for smaller subdivisions would be based on the
average value of improved land suitable for school sites in the area.
There are two types of school impact districts that mightwarrant schoolimpact fees: "greenfield" areas
and "non-greenfield" areas. Greenfield areas ace planned development projects on former agricultural
lands that are large enough to need their own new schools, from elementary to high school. In general,
these areas are somewhat isolated ox distant from existing development, so that the schools that will
serve them will be located within the school impact district. Greenfield school impact districts must not
have any significant existing development, and be large enough to ultimately support at least one new
high school.
Non-greenfield areas, in contrast, are areas comprising one or more existing high school complexes
where new development typically occurs on smaller, scattered sites. The key characteristic of non-
greenfield areas is that, for the most part, the same schools will serve both existing and ne~v housing.
Non-gxeenfield school impact districts must consist of one ox more existing high school complex
attendance areas.
Board of Education approval would be required to designate a school impact district and establish the
land dedication requirements and impact fees for the area. Counties would be requited to ensure that
school land dedication and fee-in-lieu requirements were met before final approval of residential
subdivisions in designated school impact districts. Counties would also be required to ensure that
school constmction impact fees had been paid before issuing residential building permits in designated
school impact districts. DOE would update the analysis fox review by the State Board of Education at
least every three years, at which time the dedication requirements and Eees could be adjusted.
Alternative 1: Tailored Fees
The "tailored" alternative would require determination of appropriate student generation rates for each
school impact district. The localized student generation rates would then be multiplied by acres pet
student ratios from the state-wide analysis to determine the land dedication requirement per unit. The
school impact Eees would be the product of the localized srudent generation rates and the state-wide
construction costs per student (adjusted fox the cost area), less the state-wide credit per unit. Draft
legislation fox this alternative is presented in Appendix B.
Alternative 2: Uniform Fees
The "uniform" altemative would require, for non-greenfield areas, an analysis to confirm that 83 percent
of the Ewa case study student generation rates do not overstate the net impact of new development on
the need fox schools in the area. Assuming that could be demonstrated, the land dedication
requirements and school construction impact fees in both greenfield and non-greenfield areas would
be the based on the Ewa case study analysis. Draft legislation fox this alternative is presented in
Appendix C. As noted above, this is the alternative recommended by the consultant.
duncan I a5SOC18185/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCembef 78, 2006 DItA1"r, Page 17
Summary of Recommendations
The overall decline in public school enrollment makes it impossible to justify state-wide school impact
fees. Instead, this study provides a framework fox determining fee schedules for areas of the state that
are experiencing new residential development that is expected to create the need of new or expanded
school facilities. The process for developinglocal impact fee schedules for both "greenfield" and "non-
gxeenfield"school impact districts are explored in the two case studies presented in subsequent chap[ers
of this report.
We recommend State legislation to authorize the imposition of school land dedication requirements and
impact fees in selected school impact districts meeting specific criteria. Department of Education staff
would map a proposed school impact district and prepare a written analysis supporting the
appropriateness ofimpact fees. The final decision on designating a school impact districtwould lie with
[he State Board of Education. Within designated school impact districts, the legislation would require
counties to ensure compliance with school land dedication requirements and fees in-lieu prior to
approval of residential subdivision plats, and to ensure payment of school impact fees prior to approval
of residential building permits.
Two alternative sets of draft legislation have been prepared as part of this study. The fast alternative
would require each school impact district study to determine appropriate student generation rates for
the area (see Appendix B). The second alternative would require only an analysis of growth potential
and average land costs, and would rely on the Ewa case study impact fee analysis (see Appendix C). The
consultant team recommends the second alternative.
State passage of a land dedication and fee in-lieu requirement would ensure that all new residential
developments in designated school impact districts pay their fair share for the cost of school sites. It
would level the playing field between developers and get DOE and the State Land Use Comrnission out
of the process of having to negotiate school land dedications or fees for each development project.
Key chuacteristics of the recommended dedication requirement include the following:
o It would apply only to new residential units;
o Retirement housing and developments that have already entered into Fair Share agreements with
the Department of Education would be exempt;
o The amount of the dedication requirement would be based on existing state-wide levels of
service (acres per student}, rather than "desired" standards;
o Fees in-lieu of dedication would be based on the value of the applicant's property, although
smaller projects would have the option of paying fees based on a uniform cost per acre
determined for the district as a whole;
o Fees-in-lieu would be based on the value of improved land, after typical subdivision
improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities are installed;
o Fees-in-lieu would be collected at time of final subdivision approval;
dunean a550CIaf85/GROUP 70 Hnwan SCHOOL IMPACT Fee Sruov, December 18, 2006 D1tAf'1', Page 18
o Fees would be earmarked for expenditure to acquire school sites within the same school impact
district in which [hey were collected.
State passage of a school construction impact fee would ensure that all new residential developments
in designated school impact districts pay their fair share for the cost of school buildings and related
improvements. The school impact fee act should have the following features:
o It would be reasonably consistent with the requirements of Act 282 for county impact fee
ordinances;
o Tt would apply only to new residential units;
o Retirement housing and developments that have already entered into Fair Share agreements with
the Department of Education would be exempt;
o Impact fees would be collected at the dme of issuance of building permits;
o Tmpact fees would be capped at some percentage of the maximum allowable fee calculated in
this report for the Ewa case study area;
o Impact fees would be phased in gradually over atwo-year period; and
o Impact fee revenues would be earmarked for school construction within the school impact
district in which they were collected.
dunCan I $$SOCI2fB5/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT fEE STUDY, DeGembef 7$, 2006 OR.41rr, PeyE 19
- -
This section discusses some of the issues related to implementing an impact fee for school facilities and
land. The fundamentalissueisthexelationshipbetweenresidentialdevelopmentandenrollmentgrowth
and the resulting need for new school facilities. Other issues to consider in developing impact fees
include existing school facility capacity available to accommodate new growth, variations in land and
construction costs between different areas of the state and the fair distribution of fees collected within
certain benefit districts for new school facilities.
New School Facilities Planning
State and local school planning coordination is essential in planning new facilities and determining staff
and resource needs for existing schools. The DOE planning process fox new school facilities includes
three steps: identification of school facility need, prioritizing facility needs, and budget planning for
facilities. The identification of need includes the evaluation of the annual enrollment projections and
school capacity reports, evaluation of compliance requirements, and evaluation of other projects
requested by the schools or identified by DOE staff. Areas with the highest need are prioritized with
facility requests for these areas included in DOE's biennial budget request The budget requestindudes
a ranking of projects by priority; however, the original facility requests and priority rankings axe often
modified as the biennial budget works through both chambers of the Legislature. Final construction
Funding is made available for approved facilities upon approval of allotment requests, subject to
available State resources. DOE's most recent new school construction priority schedule is shown in
.Appendix F.
DOE interacts with county-level planning agencies at several stages of the new school facility planning
process. The most formalized step in DOE's relationship to county planning agencies is county
solicitation ofDOE's comments when a proposed development needs countyland use approvals. Land
use approvals are typically required for zoning changes, planned development district approvals, special
management area approvals, cluster housing and State land use changes for parcels less than ] 5 acres.
DOE provides comments on all developments and may request [he imposition of a condition requiring
a school Fair Share contribution. DOE follows residential projects throughout the local review process
if it includes a Fair Share request. On large projects, DOE will meet with local developers before they
submit their county applications to determine the need for school facilities and initiate Fair Share
contribution negotiations.
Once the need for a school facility has been established, DOE works with both developers and local
governments in determining the design and location of a school. For most large developments,
developers will have established school sites within the development plan and submit the plans to DOE
and the appropriate countyforreview. DOE'sprimaryinteractionwithcountyplanningagenciesduring
the site and design process occurs during the county zoning and building pemrit review process.
Counties also have the opportunity to comment on school facility locations at the tune DOE files an
environmental impact statement or assessment for a new school facility.
dunean ~ associates/GROUP 70 Hnwnn SCHOOL Imapcr Fee Siuov, December 18, 2006 DIIAP'i', Page 20
Recent Enrollment Trends
An important prerequisite for impact fees or other forms of developer exactions is a demonstration that
growth and development axe occurring and creating the need for new school facilities. In Hawaii,
approximately 36,000 new housing units were constructed fiom 2000 to 2005, resulting in an increase
of almost 1.5 percent per pear to the existing housing stock. However, total enrollment in Hawaii's
public schools fell by 220 students during the same period. These conflicting trends seem to suggest
that new housing has not created additional state-wide demand for public school facilities in Hawaii.
In this subsection, we explore the factors responsible for these rends, and how the state-wide analysis
masks [he more localized need for schools created by growth.
While public schools for the entire State of Hawaii are administered by a single State agency, the
Department of Education has divided the state into seven "districts" for administrative purposes. The
island of Oahu is divided into four school districts (Honolulu, Central, Leeward and Windward), while
the other islands are served by three districts (Hawaii, Maui and Kauai) whose boundaries are
coterrrunous with the county boundaries.
Public school enrollment by school district from 2000 to 2005 is shown in Table 5. Among the districts,
only Leeward's enrollment increased between 2000 and 2005. A portion of the enrollment loss among
the districts' regular schools can be explained by the growth in charier school enrollment since 2000.
Public school enrollment includes students enrolled in charter schools. Four of the existing charter
schools (Lanikai, Waimea Middle, Kualapuu, and Waialae) were converted from regular public schools
and operate on DOE campuses. The remaining "independent" charter schools receive an annual per
pupil allotment to cover facility costs.° In addition, there is no guarantee that individual charter schools
will not fail and return the responsibility of providing capital facilities for their students to the regular
public school system.
Table 5
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 2000-2005
Leeward 37,152 37,672 38,250 38,827 39,409 39,811
Central 33,505 33,749 33,566 33,034 32,866 32,683
Honolulu 33,767 33,277 32,800 32,812 32,454 32,289
Windward 18,669 18,268 18,019 17,697 17,243 16,829
Hawaii 26,658 25,470 24,969 24,168 24,049 24,079
Maui 21,645 21,596 21,488 21,244 20,738 20,376
Kauai 10,697 10,443 10,263 10,050 9,876 9,595
Regular Schools Subtotal 182,093 180,475 179,355 177,832 176,635 175,662
Special Schools 86 88 93 100 95 97
DOE Schools Total 182,179 180,563 179,448 177,932 176,730 175,759
Charter Schools 1,341 3,066 3,350 4,502 5,167 5,596
State Totals 183,520 183,629 182,798 182,434 181,897 181,355
Source: Hawaii Department of Education, Schoo/Enro//ment Report, 2000/01 to 2005/06 school years.
°The per pupil funding for 2006-07 is $G,940, an additional amount of $G8G per pupil is provided to cover
facility costs for chaaer schools not located on DOE campuses.
duncan ~ associates/Grlour 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DecemSer 16, 2006 IIS6iE'f, Page Z1
The total projected enrollment decline reflects astate-wide trend in declining public school enrollment
since it peaked at 189,281 in 1997/98. This has occurred despite continued growth in housing units.
A summary of enrollment and housing trends is provided in Appendix G, and is illustrated in Figure
1.
A number of factors could be responsible for the decline in public school enrollment. One factoris the
increase in private school enrollment. Enrollment in private schools has risen slowly over the last five
years, and accounts for 16.5 percent of the state's students (although it is still under the 17 percent high
recorded in the late 7980s).s Since 1997, private school enrollment grew by 3,415 students from 32,566
to 35,98] in the 2005/06 school year, during the time public school enrollment declined by 7,130, from
788,485 to 181,355.
As shown in Table 6, the more affluent areas of the state tend to have the highest private school
enrollment. The highest private school enrollment occurs in East Honolulu and Central Honolulu.
Overall, private school enrollment accounts for 21 percent ofsingle-family household students and 14
percent of students from mull-family unit households.
Figure 1
ENROLLMENT AND HOUSING, 1990-2005
500.000
1
A50.000
.s ~ _
A00,000
350.000 ~ - -Housing
Qcc.llnit-
- - Sch Age +
500.000 - Publi<
Private '
250,000
200,000
750,000
700.000
50.000
0
1880 1885 2000 2005
SEnrollmen[ [rend and private school enrollment data from Hawan DOE, 2005 Supeauteudeu! i 16'D Annual
7~po,r, p. z, zoos.
duncan ~ associates/GrtouP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STIIDV, Deeemb2e 78, 2006 U/tAF'1', P2ge 22
Table 6
PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AREA
100 Hawaii County 12.7% 9.3%
200 Maui, Kauai 11.3% 8.3%
303 East Honolulu 43.7% 28.3%
304 Central Honolulu 45.5% 25.9%
305 Liliha-Kalihi 14.3% 7.3%
306 Moanalua-Pearl City 24.6% 9.8%
307 Central Oahu-Ewa 19.2% 111%
301 Koolauloa-N Shore-Wahiawa-Waianae 13.1% 7.8%
302 Windward (so.~-Koolaupoko 32.2% 22.4%
-State Total 20.1% 13.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 5 % Public Use Microdata Sample.
The growth in private school enxolltnent does not completely explain the decline in public school
enrollment, an certainly does not account for the fact that public school enrollment did not increase
while [he number of housing units increased significantly.
A more significant factor accounting fox the lack of gxowth in public school enrollment is the aging of
the population. The declining enrollment trend parallels an overall drop in the state's population of
school-age children. For example, the number of children aged 5-17 dropped by almost 9,000 from
2000 to 2005, even as the number of housing units increased by over 30,000 during the same five-year
period.
Another major contributing factor is that many of the new units constructed are not meant for
permanent occupancy, but axe for seasonal or recreational use. For example, the increase in vacant units
held for seasonal or recreational use from 1990 to 2000 accounts for 20 percent of the total increase in
housing units during the last decade. Other vacancies also increased during the decade. The presence
of vacant units further reduces the number of school-aged children per housing unit beyond
demographic changes, explaining more than half of the decline of 6.5 percent fox all housing units in
the number of school-aged children per unit in the last decade. As shown in Table 7, the prominence
of resort development and vacant units in Hawaii is concentrated in Hawaii County and Maui.
However, multi-family vacancy rates are relatively high throughout the state.
duncan ~ associates/GaouP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 16, 2006 DR.41'Y, Page 23
Table 7
RESORT AND VACANT UNITS BY AREA
100 Hawaii County 5.0% 43.7% 8.5% 51.8%
200 Maui, Kauai 5.1% 25.2% 11.6% 34.8%
303 East HOnoIUIU 0.9% 8.3% 3.9% 16.2%
304 Central Honolulu 0.6% 8.3% 3.8% 20.2%
305 Liliha-Kalihi 0.4°!° 0.6% 5.3% 7.3°!°
306 Moanalua-Pearl City 0.0% 0.6% 3.9% 9.8%
307 Central Oahu-Ewa 0.3% 0.8% 5.1% 9.0%
301 Koolauloa-N Shore-Wahiawa-Waianae 2.5% 7.4% 9.5% 26.9%
302 Windward (so. Koolau oko 0.7% 1.5% 3.8% 10.8%
State Total 2 4°!° 11.fi°1° 6.9% 21.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 5% Public Use Microdata Sample.
Enrollment Projections
I n planning new facilities and axommodating student growth, DOE relies on local, district and state
wide enrollment projections. DOE prepaes both one- and sx-yea ertrollrr>erlt projectionsfor eaJi
school, high sdlool complex, district and the entire state. The enrollment projections ae prepaed
annually, and ae useful in determining demand for new faalities, which typically require sererai yeas
to plan and build. One- and sx-year enrollment projedionsaebased on computer-generated models
with additional external factors added to the final models by staff in the Information Resource
Management Branch.
DOE'scomputer-generated model isbased on general enrollment trendsadjusted byaoohort-survival
ratio. The general enrollment trends ae based on incoming grade size, the exiting grade size and
migration of studattsoverthepast sxyeas. Theincominggradesizeisbasai on censusbirth dataand
feeder school enrollment. Migration of studentsindudesstudentsenteringandexitingthepublicsdlool
system, districts, complexesand individual schools Enrollment by gradeisdetermined by examining
the moverr>ent of students from grade to grade over the past six yeas.
In addition to the computer-generated models, DOE analysts add external factors to the final
enrollment mold for both theone- and six-yea projections. Migration factors related to the children
of militayfaniliesaefa~oredforaea;withlagemilitayinstall~ions. DOEcolledsnEwhousng
projections by housng type (singlefanily and multi-family) for eadl complex aea Most new
residential development in Hawai is undertaken by a handful of lage development companies, and
DOEcolledsnewconstructiondatadirectlyfromthesehousingdevelopers Inadditiontothenumber
of new units, DOE considers a de?dopment's chaaderistics, such a; location, house price and
developrt~rtt age in determining an appropriaiestudent generation ratefor each development.
Theapplic~ion of computer-gener~ed moddsand external factors havebeen developed by DOE staff
throuyh®cpgiertceandstatisticalanalysis Noncthel~ss,theconditionsrelatedtoenrollmattprojedions
aesubjed to changethat cannot alwaysbefactored into either themodel or theexternai factor analysis.
This is particularly true for forecasts of individual completes and schools within a complex. For
dunCanl aSSOCiateS/GROUP 70 Hawau SCHOOCImpacr FeeSTUDY, December 18, 2006 nRA!'I', Page 24
example, local and national ewnomicoonditionsmaycauseasudden changeintheabrorption rcteof
new housing, or a developer mad change the maketing focus for a given development and suddenly
attract morefamilies. ~1di changes can result in vaiation between theadual and forecast enrollment,
particularly for complexes and individual schools. Nonetheless, theforecast ises~ential for planning
for new school facllities and budgding for operational exp6nses, and provide a bans for determining
theapplicz5ilityof aschool impart feein Hauvaii.
Themost rearlt DOE enrollment projections, for theperiod 2002011, indicatethat, statewide, there
will be about 3,900 fewer ne?v public schcol students over the six-yea period. The projections show
that the rate of statewide enrollment dedi ne is projected to slow, with the Leewad and H aNaii school
distridsexpected to grow and enrollment stabilizing in Mani. Asshown in Table8, four districtswill
continue to experience declining overall enrollment, and only the Leewad and Hawaii Districts ae
expected to see significant growth.
Table 8
PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT, 2005-2011
Honolulu 32,289 28,965 (3,324) -10.3%
Central 33,215 31,079 (2,136) -Ci.4%
Leeward 39,811 42,171 2,360 5.9%
Windward 17,160 15,015 (2,145) -12.5%
Hawaii 24,595 25,631 1,036 4.2%
Maui 20,790 20,888 98 0.5%
Kauai 9 595 8 798 797 -8.3%
State-wide Total 177,455 172,547 4,908 -2.8%
• Excludes Molokai and Lanai Schools
Source: Department of Education, Facilities Branch (see Appendix H),
excluding enrollment in non-Slate-0wned charter school tacilities.
Despite the declining enrollment trends ~ the state and school district levels, new recldential
development in certain aces is likely to create localized demand for expanded school facilities. The
state-wide and even school district level analysis talds to average-out aces that consst of resort
condominium units and va~tion homes with aces the ae populated with permanent year-round
residents.
In addition, adedinein enrollment in onehigh school complex does not nec~sarilyfreeup facllities
for use by ne?v studentsin another complex. Smilarly, declines in enrollment in onegrade level (eg.,
elerrterltary) do not neoessailyfree up facllitiesthat aeappropriatefor use by new studentsin another
gradelerd (e.g., high school). Asshown in Table9, theLeewad, HaNaii and Maui school distridswill
havearl overall district-wide need for new fadlitiesbased on theprojeded enrollment growth bygrade
through 2011. Asde from Honolulu and Windward, all school districts will experience growth in
elementary school students. Theprojected growth in elarlentary school studentsmay indicates reversal
of recent demographictrendsthat led, in part, to an overall publicsctlool enrollment decline. Onlythe
Leewad district has projected growth in middle school students, and no district has projected high
school enrollment growth.
duneanl a550ClaleS/GROUP 70 Hawnn SCHOOL Irvtrnci FEE STUDV, December 18, 2006 t1Ft.4t"[', Page 25
Table 9
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY GRADE, 2005-2011
.
Honolulu (1,354) (691) (1,279) na (3,324) 0
Central (1,168) (340) (628) na (2,136) 919
Leeward 1,990 685 (315) na 2,360 2,675
Windward (721) (373) (900) (151) (2,145) 0
Hawaii 1,798 (293) (554) 85 1,036 1,883
Maui 1,047 (78) (629) (242) 98 990
Kauai 94 (256 (635 ~ na 797) 94
State-wide Total 1,686 (1,346) (4,940) (308) (4,908 6;561
Source: Department of Education, Facilities Branch (see Appendix H less enrollment in non-State-0wned charter schools.
Districts arefurther divided into high school complex areafor administrative purposes Throughout
H awai, cetta n complexeswithin distridsaeocperiendng enrollment growth dueto new derdoprrlalt
and localized demogr~hicvariation whileother areaswithin thesamedistrid areexperiendng dedining
enrolllr>ent and excessfadlity capacity. Asaresult, high school complex areasprovideaseoond le?el
ofanalyssinunderstandingwherepublicschoolenrollmentgrowthisexpededtooccur. The Central,
Leeward, Hawai and Maui school distridsall indudeindividual high school complexes that will face
overall enrollment growth. Complexes that areforeca5t to experience enrollment growth from 2005
to 2011 are shown in Table 10. Of these, the most sgnifignt growth will olxur in Campbell and
Kapolei (Leeward), Honokaaand Waakea(Hawaii), and Baldwin and Maui (Maui).
Table 10
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEXES WITH ENROLLMENT GROWTH, 2005-2011
Pearl Harbor Central 6,710 6,777 67
Mililani Central 7,883 8,087 204
Campbell Leeward 8,317 10,960 2,643
Kapolei Leeward 6,654 7,712 1,058
Honokaa Hawaii 2,646 3,178 532
Kealakehe Hawaii 4,521 4,713 192
Kohala Hawaii 908 932 24
Kanawaena Hawaii 2,351 2,365 14
Waiakea Hawaii 3,730 4,118 388
Kau-Pahala Hawaii 585 656 '71
Keaau Hawaii 2,662 2,869 207
Lahainaluna Maui 3,004 3,016 12
Baldwin Maui 4,207 5,174 967
Maui Maui 6,968 7,859 891
Source: Complexes with forecast growth based on school inventory from Appendix H.
dunCanl a550Ciates/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCNOOLIMPACT FEE STUDY, December lB, 2OOB IIILAF'P, Page 26
Refledingthedistrict-widetrend, most of theprojeded growth in high school complexesistheresult
of elementary school enrollment growth. As shown in Table 11, dI of the complexes with projected
overall enrollment growth will haveexpanded elarlentaryschool enrollment, whilefour complexeswill
likely experience growth in middle school enrollment (Campbell, Kaaol6i, Baldwin and Mail). High
school enrollment is projected to increase in seven of the complexes (Mililani, Campbell, Kapolei,
Honokaa, Waiakea, Baldwin and Maui).
Table 11
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEX ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY GRADE LEVEL
Pearl•Harbor Central 4,487 880 1,343 4,721 799 1,257 234 (81) (86) 67
Mililani Central 4,530 932 2,421 4,949 596 2,542 419 (336) 121 Z04
Campbell Leeward 4,833 1,201 2,283 6,276 2,149 2,535 1,443 948 252 2,643
Kapolei Leeward 2,741 1,580 2,333 3,404 1,754 2,554 663 174 221 1,058
Honokaa Hawaii 1,570 241 835 2,054 239 885 484 (2) 50 532
Kealakehe Hawaii 2,026 965 1,530 2,444 874 1,395 418 (91) (135) 192
Kohala Hawaii 409 214 285 439 214 279 30 0 (6) 24
Kanawaena' Hawaii 976 446 929 1,180 399 786 204 (47) (143) 14
Waiakea Hawaii 1,510 908 1,312 1,895 882 1,341 385 (26) 29 388
Kau-Pahala" Hawaii 358 NA 227 429 NA 227 71 0 0 71
Keaau Hawaii 1,162 633 867 1,398 619 852 236 (14) (15) 207
Lahainaluna Maui 1,393 578 1,033 1,730 490 796 337 (88) .(237) 12
Baldwin Maui 1,803 830 1,574 2,345 1,053 1,776 542 223 202 967
Maui Maui 3,480 1,779 1,709 4,079 1,919 1,861 599 140 152 891
Notes: "'Other" schools classified under Elementary schools; " "Other" schools classified under High Schools.
Source: Complexes with forecast growth based on school inventory from Appendix H.
New Development Growth
Areas of the statethat are likely to experience enrollment growth ~ a result of nenr development can
beisolated by examining planned development in eadl of Hawai'shigh school complex areas. Aspart
of its enrollment projections, DOE conducts asurvey of adiveand planned residential development
to help plan for new growth. The survey data indudes single-family and multi-family unitscompiled
by district and complex. The total number of units planned during the forecast period are bared on
annual estimates, which are constantly adjusted in the survey to reflect the current demand trend and
developers construction plans. The survey of developers captures a large portion of new home
construction given that de?eJoprnent in H awaii generally occurs in planned dc~eJopments rather than
on scattered lots.
The development survey results for complexes with greeter than 100 planned new units are shown in
Table 12. Bated on thesurvey, planned development between 2006 and 2011 will add atotal of 32,860
units, with 18,401 snglefamily units and 14,459 multi-family units. Based on the D OE survey, ten of
the complexes are projected to ha?e more than 1,000 new housing units added between 2006 to 2011.
These indudethefollowing: Baldwin, Maui and La!lainaiunain theMaui District; Campbell, K~olei
and Part City in theLeeward District; McKinley in Honolulu; Honokaaand Kealakehein theHawaii
duncanl a550ClataS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Deoem6er 1H, 20OB IHtiP'P, Page Z7
District; 2nd Kauai in the Kat2i District. Based on stye-wide student generaion rues, the nenr
derdopment would be expected to add 13,307 new students
Table 12
PLANNED UNITS AND RELATED ENROLLMENT BY COMPLEX, 2006-2011
Maui Baldwin 1,191 572 1,763 616 150 766
Maui Maui 1,358 809 2,167 702 212 914
Maui Kekaulike 485 140 625 251 37 288
Maui Lahainaluna 740 1,010 1,750 383 265 648
Maui Lanai 17 84 101 9 22 31
Leeward Campbell 3,579 1,443 5,022 1;851 378 2,229
Leeward Kapolei 3,239 1,509 4,748 1,675 395 2,070
Leeward Waianae 732 0 732 379 0 379
Leeward Pearl City 1,277 2,743 4,020 660 719 1,379
Leeward Waipahu 76 330 406 39 86 125
Honolulu McKinley 0 2,945 2,945 0 772 772
Central Mililani 313 320 633 162 84 246
Central Pearl Harbor 430 480 910 222 126 348
Hawaii Honokaa 1,979 1,002 2,981 1,024 263 1,287
Hawaii Kau 460 0 460 238 0 238
Hawaii Keaau 820 0 820 424 D 424
Hawaii Kealakehe 574 474 1,048 - 297 124 421
Hawaii Konawaena 333 212 545 172 56 228
Kauai Kapaa 181 0 181 94 0 94
Kauai Kauai 617 386 1,003 319 101 420
Total 18,401 14,459 32,860 9,517 3,790 13,307
Source: Hawaii DOE, Facilities Development Branch, Planning Section"Development Survey;' September, 2006;
planned enrollment growth from new development based on state-wide student generation rate from Table 17.
Existing School Capacity
This s~tion analyzes the existing school district, complex and individual school capaaty ~ mem-tared
by DOE and school administrators At thestatelclrel, theentireschool systgrl hassuffident czt7aaty
to handle growth based on current and projected alrollment and current desgn capacty of schools
However, b~cl on an analysis of school district facilities in Appendix H, school-speafic capacity
shortfallsexist in all aeasof thestate, with morethan 80 school faalitiesexperienangenrollment that
is higher than 95 percent of their designed capaaty.
As shown in Table 13, district-wide capacity defiaaltaesexist for middle schools in the Lewvard and
Maui school districts, and high school faalitydd•idenaesezist in Honolulu, Central, Windward and
Leeward districts Overall, the high school faalitiesaeat capatty ~ thesystem-wide lend; however,
the avalable txpaaty is expected to increase over the nett few yeas as the number of high school-age
students declines.
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Decembef 18, 2006 iN:1P'I', Pegg 26
Table 73
DISTRICT CAPACITY SUMMARY
Elementary 20,682 16,339 79%
Meddle 7,714 6,271 61%
Hi h 9,755 9,679 99%
Total, Honolulu 38,151 32,289 85%
Elementary 20,854 17,884 86%
Middle 6,300 5,764 91%
Hi h 9,088 9,567 105%
Total, Central 36,242 33,215 92%
Elementary 11,733 9,408 80%
Middle 3,421 2,094 61%
High 4,174 3,779 91%
Other 1,551 1,879 12T%
Total, Windward 20,879 17,160 82%
Elementary 23,225 21,057 91°/a
Middle 5,979 6,243 104%
High 11,022 12,511 114%
Total, Leeward 40,226 39,811 99%
Elementary 12,785 11,000 86%
Middle 6,648 4,931 74%
High 9,091 8,066 89%
Other 1,330 598 45%
Total, Hawaii 29,854 24,595 82%
Elementary 10,757 9,393 87%
Middle 4,288 4,313 101%
High 5,188 6,112 118%
Other 2,041 972 48%
Total, Maui 22,274 20,790 93%
Elementary 5,634 4,238 75%
Middle 2,886 2,131 74%
High 3,617 3,226 89%
Total, Kauai 12,137 9,595 79%
Elementary 105,670 89,319 85%
Middle 37,236 31,747 85%
High 51,935 52,940 102%
Other 4,922 3,449 70%
Total, All Districts 199,763 177,455 89%
Source: Enrollment and capacity data from Appendix H; Table 66; "Other"
schools have multiple grade levels.
dunCanl d550Ciates/GROUP 70 Hnwai SCHOOtIMCacr Feb Sruov, December 18, 2006111tA1>f, Page 29
Thefull impact of Iargeplanned developmentsisin manycasesnot reflected inthesix-year enrollment
projections, because the planning and build-out ne~sary. for such developments are beyond the
projection time period. As a result, in implanerlting an"impact fee, arms that are at or above thelr
capa7tyand likelyto experienoeadditional enrollment growth should be considered for school impa~
fees. High schoolcomplexesthatcurrentlyhaveerlrollmentext~eding95percattoftheoverallc~padty
are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
RESTRICTED CAPACITY COMPLEXES
Mililani Central 8,240 7,883 95.7%
Moanalua Central 1,640 2,016 122.9%
Campbell' - Leeward 8,414 8,317 98.8%
Kapolei Leeward 6,616 6,654 100.8%
Waianae Leeward 6,917 6,580 95.1%
Waipahu Leeward 8,264 8,651 104.7%
Pearl City Leeward 7,164 6,831 95.4%
Kahuku Windward 3,597 3,845 106.9%
Honokaa Hawaii 3,224 3,162 98.1%
Kealakehe Hawaii 4,741 4,521 95.4°!°
Lahainaluna Maui ~ 2,740 3,004 109.6%
Baldwin Maui 4,370 4,207 96.3%
Maui Maui 6,962 6,968 100.1%
Lanai Maui 553 618 111.4%
' excluding capacity of Ocean Pointe ~ementary, which opens in 2007
Source: Complexes with greater than 95 percent of current capacity based on
school inventory from school inventory tables, Appendix H.
I t should be noted that thepublic school district and high school complex boundariesarenot fixerl,and
DOE has the ability to adjust district and complex boundaries to match capaaty needs and
accommodate some of the projected enrollment growth. DOE can also axommodate growth by
changing disfrid and comploc assignments for individual schools. Demand for schools cal also be
modified by adjustingthegrade Ic-uels; for ~canple, fifth grarlerscould besuitched from agrade~hoot
to a middle school if additional capaaty were available at the middle school le?el.
While the flexibility to modify school district and high school complex boundaries allows DOE to
acoommodatesome growth, in many comes it may not befe~ibleto transport students in growing a~
with enrollment pressureto areas with exoesscapaaty. Given thestrong publicdesireto hareschool
faalitieslocateddosetothederreloplrtentstheyserve,amswith littleavalableschool capa~tywould
need Want fadlitiesto axommod~e large resdential development.
~hool c~aaty is based on thetotal number of available dassrooms and a school's configuration. I n
sorrtec~es, school capaaty can beajjusted without physcally aiding spate by re-arranging das~oom
schedules, re-configuring existing space, or from a change in the mix of students. Far example, some
schoolscan beoonfigured to acoommodatea multi-track school schedulethaf maximizesspacebyusiWg
a faalityyear-round. Bch a strelegy can inlx~e school capaaty by a; much ~ 25 pa cent.
dunean~associates/GROUP 70 HnwanSCaoorlmancrFeeSruov,December75,20061HtA1'f,Page30
However, the ability of a school district to reconfigure classroom space, schedules and utilization
depends on the design flexibility of the original structure and the degree to which such efforts hale
already been undertaken to maximizecapaclty, a;well ascommunityacceptancetotheproposed change
For the analysis of school facility capacity, the consultants assumed that DOE and local school
administrators maximize space in existingfaalities.
Potential Impact Fee Areas
I n order to fund new school facilitiesthat ae required dueto growth, it is recommended that the3ate
of Haroaii implement school impact fees in aeasthat aeexperienang overall enrollment growth, ae
expected to experience new residential development within thenext ten yeasthaf will requireadditional
school facllities, and have limited availablecapaclty.
There ae really two types of school impact districts that meet these criteria "greenfield" seas and
"non-greenfield" seas. Greenfield aeasaeplanned development projectson undeveloped landsthaf
ae lage enough to need thelr own new schools, from elementary to high schools. I n general, these
aeas ae somewhat isolated or distant from existing derelopment, so that all of the sctlools that
ultimatelywill servethem (somestudentsfrom theseaeasmayadtendexisting middleandhigh schools
in theshort-term)willbelocatedwithintheschoolimpactdistrict. The Central OahucacestUdyisan
exampleof agreenfield aea
Non-greenfield aeas, in contrast, ae aeas compriclng one or more existing high school complexes
where new development typically occurs on smaller, scattered sites. The key chaacteristic of non-
greenfield aeas is that the same schoolswill serve both existing and new housing. I n non-greenfield
aeas, average student generation rates may over-predict the import of new development, if declining
enrollment from existing housingisfreelngupcapaatyintheexistingschools. The Ewa case study is
an exampleof anon-greenfield aea
To identify potential non-greenfield aeacandidates, an enrollment growth threshold of approximately
400 new housingunitswithinthenextsixyeasforwhichprojectionsaeavailablewasutilized. High
school complex aeas ore used to illustrate school impact districts snce data is collected by DOE for
each complex aea However, a;will bediscussed in the"Technical Analysis' section of thisreport, the
actual boundaies of impact fee aeas may not necessarily correspond to existing complex aea
boundaies TheexistingcomplexaeasthatmeetthecriteriadefinedinthisreportaeshowninTable
15. The high growth complex aeas fall within three existing school districts Maui, Lezuvad and
Ha?vaii. The Ewa case studyencompassesthetwoLeevvardhighschoolcomplexesidentifiedhere.
duncanl 255og8leS~GROUP JO HAWpIi SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STODV, December 18, 2006 IHSAf'1', Page 31
Table 15
ENROLLMENT GROWTH AREAS
ri• r rr. r•
Maui Baldwin 967 794 96.3%
Maui Maui 891 957 100.1%
Leeward Campbell 2,643 2,297 100.2%
Leeward Kapolei 1,058 2,145 100.7°10
Hawaii Honokaa 532 1,337 98.1%
Source: Complex areas with forecast enrollment growth from Table it; new students
expected from residential growth from Table 12; current facility capacity from Table 14.
The criteria ussi above eliminates several complex seas that are fore to experience significant
growth in new reddential unitsfrom 2006 to 2011. Based onstale-wide student generation rates, these
aces would be expelled to experience overal I enrol I meat growth, but i n many cases these distrids are
aduallyprojededtoharedediningenrollment. AsshowninTablel6,thesehighschoolcomplexaeas
indude Pearl City in the Leswad Distrid, Md<inle~ in the Honolulu Distrid a1d Kauai in the Kauai
Distrid, all of which ae expelled to ocpaience enrollment declines. DOE does not expel new
d~rdopment in H onolulu and K auai to generate manystudents s ncethece aetypicallyhigh-end multi-
fanilyor resort de?elopments
The Peal City developmentsindudethelageresdertial dr~elopmentsof KoaRidgeand Waauvathat
togetherformagreenfiddaceandaetheslubjedoftheCeritralOahuc~estudy. Thesedeveloprnents
will ultimately become tht~r own high school complex, but ae not expectsi to start sgnificant
construdion of new dwelling units until 2010. Consequently, thefad that projected enrollment in the
Pcerl City high school complex isprojeded to decline in thenext six yeasedenwith solve new housng
growth doce not mean that there will not ultimately be a need for new school facilities to serve those
new housing units
Table 16
LOW GROWTH, HIGH DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ri, ~ r.. r
Maui Lahainaluna 12 707
Leeward Pearl City (276) 1,548
Honolulu McKinley (528) 963
Hawaii Keaau 207 418
Hawaii Kealakehe 192 448
Kauai Kauai (295 441
Source: Complex areas overall enrollment growth from Appendix H; new
development residential growth from Table 12.
d'unCanlaS50dates/GROUP70 HnwanSCHOOrlmanttFeeSTUDV,December18,200611RAt"I',Page32
- - -
Thissection calculalesthemaximum school impact fe~that could bechargerJ in Hawai if astate-wide
school impact fee were adopted. The maximum impact feecalculation also provides an upda`eof the
assumptions utilizes in the existing land and construction components of DOE's alrrent Far 9~are
formula Thissection updatesthestate-widetecttnical anaysistheconsultanttearn prepared in the2001
Far 9iare study.
As prclriously noted, theestablishment of a state-wideschool impa~ fce is not recommended. I nstead,
the purpose of this st~ewide analysis is to provide a basis for developing impact fee schedules for
speafic growth areas, referred to a;"school impact districts," throughout thestate,
Student Generation Rates
Theimpact of new residential de~dopment on thedenand for school faalities isbased on thenumber
of public schlool students generated per dwelling unit. The most current adalable data source on
student generation rates by type of dwelling unit is the 2000 U.S Census 5perce~t Public-Use
Miaodata S~rrtples (PUNS). The 2000 PUMSdata for Hawai consists of census enumerations for
occupied and vaant housing units. 1 n usingtheoglsussampledzta, publicschool studentsaredctined
as personsenrolled in publicschooland attending preschool through 12t"grade. Thestudent generation
rates from the 2000 census sample data by housing type are shown in Table 17.
Table 17
STATE-WIDE STUDENT GENERATION RATES, 2000
Elementary 59,972 288,988 0.2075
Middle School 43,520 288,988 0.1506
Hi h School 45,963 288,988 0.1590
Total, Single-Family' 149,455 288,988 0.5172
Elementary 20,040 171,655 0.1167
Middle School 12,917 171,655 0.0752
Hi h School 12,020 171,655 0.0700
Total, Multi-Family 44,977 171,655 0.2620
All Housin T pes 194,432 460,643 0.4221
` includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, weighted 2000 PUMSS% sample data for State of Hawaii;
students per unit is ratio of public school students to total dwelling units (occupied plus
vacant); public school students are defined as persons attending preschool through 12'"
gratle in public school (elementary is pre-K through 4th grade, middle is 5fh through 8th
grades, and high school is 9th through 12th grades).
One problgrl with the student generation rates derived from the 2000 sample data is how the grade
levdsaredefined. TheCensusdctinesmiddleschool as grades5-8,whilemiddles~-loolsin Hawai are
lather grates G-8 or grades 7-8. Aschool-by-school a-laysis of middle schools rcv~led that there are
duncan~associates/GaouP70 HAWAII SCHOOLIMVACTFEESTUOY,December18,2006111t:1E''I',Page33
. no fifth gradersattendingthem, and only42 percent of all sxth graders are enrolled in middleschools
(most of the rest are in dtary schools).
To eorred for this problem, as well asto ensurethat thestudent generation rates are representative of
actual conditionstoday, theexpeded publicschool studentsbased on thenumber of estimated dwelling
units i n 2006 and the student generation rates derived from the 2000 census sample data are compared
totheadual publicschool enrollment in HaMaii forthecurrentsctlool year. Not surprisngly, a;Table
18shows, theCensusmultipliersunder-predid elt~rtentayschool enrollment and over-predid middle
school enrollment, dueto thedifferenoes in grade le~rel definitionsdiscussed above.
Table 18
EXPECTED AND ACTUAL STUDENTS, 2006
Single-Family:'
Elementary 319,828 0.2075 66,364
Middle 319;828 0.1506 48,166
High 319,828 0.1590 50,853
Multi-Family:
Elementary 182,457 0.1167 21,293
Middle 182,457 0.0752 13,721
High 182,457 0.0700 12,772
All Dwelling Units:
Elementary - 87,657 93,196 1.0632
Middle ~ - ~ 61,887 32,735 0.5289
Hi h ~ 63,625 55,424 0.8711
Total 213,169 181,355
" includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Tota12006 units based on units from 2000 U.S. Census, Summary Fle 3 (weighted 1 an£ sample d ata), plus building permits
issued in 2000 through 2005 from the Census Bureau web site; student generation rates from Table 17; actual enrollment from
Hawaii Department of Education, Official Enrollment Counts, 2U05-2006, from web site (6th graders allocated 42% to middle school
and 58 % to elementary school, based on analysis of middle school enrollments).
Thestudent generation ratesfromthe2000sampledataharebeen calibrated by adjusting them bythe
fadorscalculated in iheprevioustable, asshovun in T~1e19.
.
duneanl a550CIateS~GROUP 7O HAWAII SCHOOLIMPACT FEE STUDY, December 78, 200fi IIItAi'r, Page 34
Table 19
CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES
rrr
Elementary 0.2075 1.0632 0.2206
Middle School 0.1506 0.5289 0.0797
Hi h School 0.1590 0.8711 0.1385
Total, Single-Family Detached 0.5172 0.4386
- Elementary ~ 0.1167 1.0632 0.1241
Middle School 0.0752 0.5289 0.0398
High School 0.0700 0.8711 0.0610
Total, Multi-Family 0.2620 0.2249
All Housing T pes 0.4221 0.8555 D.3611
Source: 2000 students per unit from Table 17; adjustment factors from Table 18.
Thestate-wide student generation rates calculated above do not account for regional vaiation. For
exanple, student generation rates per unit will vay between a~that indudeasignificant number of
resort condominium unitsand vacation homesversusa~sthat aeprimailypopulatedwith permanent
yea-round residents. Asaresult,thestate-widerctecalculatedinthisanalysiswilllikelyoverstatethe
student generation ratesfor housing in resort aeasand understatethegenerelion rate in regionsof the
statewith traditional residential development andyear'-round residents.
The vaiation in student generation rates by individual school districts or conglomerations of school
distridscanbeseenindataa~ailablefromthe2000Census,~showninTable20. Thefadorsrelated
to lower student generation ratesaediscussed in moreddail in the"Salient Issues Analysis' section
of this report. Not surprisingly, the Leewad district and the northern part of the Central district, U.S
Census Public Use M iaodata Armes (PUMAS) 307 and 301, respectively, which have anong the lowest
percentages of private school enrollment and vaca-Idesdueto seasonal and recr~ional use, havethe
highest studentgenerelionrates. The Biglslandcontainsamixtureofmostlynon-resortsingle-family
with a low rate of private schooling and resort condominium development, giving it thethird-highest
single-family student generation rele and thesecond-lowest multi-fanily ra`.e
duneanl a550CIateS/GROUP 70 Hawnn SCHOOL IMrnCT FeE STUDY, December 18, 200611R.a1'3', Page 35
Table 20
STUDENT GENERATION RATES BY CENSUS DISTRICT, 2000
100 Hawaii County 0.5686 0.1400 0.4362 12.3% 21.9%
200 Maui, Kauai 0.5177 0.1844 0.4606 11.1% 15.6%
303 East Honolulu 0.2641 0.1967 0.2496 41.5% 6.6%
304 Central Honolulu 0.2094 0.1134 0.1282 32.0% 17.6%
305 Liliha-Kalihi 0.4783 0.4013 0.4387 11.2°/, 6.3%
306 Moanalua-Pearl City 0.4585 .0.4464 0.4536 19.3% 6.3%
307 Central Oahu-Ewa 0.6921 0.4936 0.6301 .17.4% 6.3%
301 Koolauloa-N Shore-Wahiawa-Waianae 0.6963 0.4485 0.6346 12.2% 13.8%
302 Windward (so.)-Koolau oko 0.4873 0.3639 0.4621 30.8% 5.2%
State-Wide Total 0.5172 0.2620 0.4221 18.7% 12.4%
' includes single-family detached, single-Tamily attached antl duplex units
Source: 2000 US Census, 5°h Public Use Microdata Sample. _
The student generation radesdiscxlssaJ so far have beat based on all dweiling units existing in Hawaii
~ the time of the 2000 census. However, the 2000 census sample data also allow us to look ~ how
student generation varieswith the age of the unit. These data allow us to confirm that new dwelling
units do, in fact, contain publicschool children and therefore have an immedi~e impact on the need
for ntav sdtool faalities,
The public school student generation rate by housing unit age, displayed in Table21, dearly confirm
that new dwelling units, regadless of wh~her "neu?' is defined as units built in the lad five, tat or 20
y~rs, contain substantial numbersof publicschool studentsand thushavean immediateimpact on the
needforpubliceducationalfaalities. Thefadthatthenumbaofstudentspaunitfluctuatessomevvha`.
depending on the age of adwelling unit isto beexpeded, but the impact fee should be based on the
expeded student oixupancy ova the lifeof the housing units The impact of new development is not
confined totheimrrleciiateimpad, but also indudesthelong-tam impact. TheStateof Hanrai public
school system will have the responsibility of providing facilities to serve a new dwelling unit in
perpetuity.
s AstheFloridaS~prane Court obs~vgi in St..HmCarty, A v Naths~ Florida BuId3sA~r>, 583 ~.2d
635 (1991):"During thetrselul lifeof thenanr dwelling units, school-a3echildren will oomeatd g0. It ma/ bethat some
of theunitswillneaahou~childrat. Howtva,thecountyh~delaminedthelforei~yonehundredunitsthelae
built, forty-four nenr studettswill requirean e~tx~ion at apublic school"
dUttCOttI assodaleS(GROUP 70 Hnwau SCNOOL l°naacr Fee STUOV, December 18, 2006 tlttAPT, Page 36
Table 21
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT GENERATION BY AGE OF THE HOUSING UNIT
r r
Single-Family` 0.517 0.553 0.656 0.635 0.459
Multi-Fami 0.262 0.289 0.195 0.239 0.275
All Housing Types 0.422 0.474 0.492 0.490 0.388
Sam le Size 33,079 2,433 3,252 5,300 22,094
iuludes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Unadjustetl multipliers from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 PUMS 5% sample data for Hawaii;
multipliers are ratios of public school students fo total dwelling units; public school students are
definetl as persons attending preschool through 12'" grade in public school; age of unit based on year
built, with 0-5 years old being units built 1995 through 2000, etc.
Overall, ~?era ~untl~valingfadorsareat work in thestudent generation rate per household. First,
the stye-wide student generation rates based on the 2000 Census data and calibrated for 2006
enrollment are likely to understate adua current student generation rates in areas of the state thai are
experienclng sgnificant, non-resort residential derelopma~t. On the other hand, they may overstate
thelong-term impads, asthenumber of studentsgenerated byboth existing and new homescontinues
to decline. Thetwo cas~studiespre3entecl in subsequent sl~#ionsof thisreport providean opportunity
to develop calibreted local student generation rates for two different types of school impact districts
The stye-wide student generaion ryes are consderably lower for single-family and sl ightly higher for
multi-faTlily than the ratesthat DOE currently uses in Far 9iare negotiations, ~ shown in Table22.
DOE's student generation raies may be more reflective of the impacts of growth in traditional
residentia de~elopmerts, sincethestae-wideratesindudeboth-resort areasandhigh-incomeareaswith
high private school enrollment.
duneanlaSSOCIatQS/GROUP70 HawanSCHOOrIMPnciFeeSiuor,December18,2006U[tAr~l',Page37
Table 22
COMPARATIVE STATE-WIDE STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Elementary 0.2790 02206
Middle School 0.1430 0.0797
High School 0.1540 0.1385
Total, Single-Family' 0.5760 0.4388
Elementary 0.1090 0.1241
MiddleSchool 0.0400 0.0398
Hi h School 0.0690 0.0610
Total, Multi-Family 0.2180 0.2249
All Housing T pes 0.4120 0.3611
' inclutles sfngle-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Existing student multipliers from Hawaii Department of Education;
proposed student multipliers from Table 19.
Land Component
DOE'scurrentFar9lareformulaforlandwaspres~sltedealierinthisreport(ceeTable2). Whilethe
land component of thecurrent Far 9lareformulaisbased on theactual school sitesizES, DOE utilizes
a somewhat different set of d~gn standards in planning nEw facilities As shown in Table 23, the
current desgn standards rangef rom 0.0218 acres per student for elementary schoolsto 0.0500 acres per
student for high schools.
Table 23
SCHOOL DESIGN STANDARDS
Elementary (K-5) 550 12 0.0218
Intermediate (6-8) 600 18 0.0300
High (9-12) 1000 50 0.0500
Source: State-wide general design assumptions from DOE Facilities Branch, April 10, 2006.
I mpact feesand de?doplT>ent exa~ionsshould not beammnsof requiring nenr developrrlent to provide
a higher level of st~vice than is already being provided to existing dedelopmalt. This prinaple is
incorporated into HaNai'sAd 282, which statesthat impact fees shall be bored on a IEUd of service
standard that "shall apply equaly to ®cisting and ncnr public fadlitit>s." The service standard upon
which to bace fees is the existing level of cervice. For this study, Harvai's e~cisting level of s7vice is
based on recent school construction standards. Asshown in Table24, recent school steshadeprovided
0.0156 axesper student for elementaryschools, 0.0110for middleschoolsand 0.0306 for high schools.
dUtSCattl a5$OClate$/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEESTUDY, December 18, 200611It.41~'1', Pega 38
Table 24
ACRES PER STUDENT BASED ON RECENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Keaau II Elementary 2 1998 15.40 900 0.0171
Konawaena Elementary 5 2000 10.00 658 0.0152
Maui Lani Elementary 6 2007 13.90 650 0.0214
Mililani Ike Fementary 2 2004 11.87 728 0.0163
Nanaikapono Elementary (Nanakuli) 3 2004 13.96 1,134 0.0123
Oceanpointe Elementary 3 2007 11.80 725 0.0163
Waikele Elementar 3 1998 10.12 796 0.0127
Elementary Total 87.05 5,591 0.0156
Chiefess Kam akehelei Middle (Kauai) 7 2000 14.28 1,271 0.0112
Kapolei Middle 3 1999 20.00 1,435 0.0139
Mililani Middle 2 1998 15.48 1,821 0.0085
Middle School Total 49.76 4,527 0.0110
Kapolei High 3 2000 45.07 2,053 0.0220
Keaau High 5 1999 50.42 1,178 0.0428
Kealakehe Hi h 7 1997 48.85 1,480 0.0330
High School Total 144.34 4,711 0.0306
Source: New school construction projects from DOE Planning Section, Construction Reports, April 70, 20D6;
design Enrollment from DOE Facility Inventory, Appendix H; and site size from DOE School Parcel Ownership
report, sent June 23, 2006
The re~rlt data on school capaaty and site sze indicatethal DOE in the recent part provided slightly
more acreage per student than tilled for in the current Far Shareformula; howefrer, it is ha; not been
providing the desired level of vice bawl on curralt design standards. The comparisons are shown
in Table 25.
Table 25
COMPARISON OF ACRES PER STUDENT RATIOS
Elementary (K-5) 0.0218 0.0122 0.0156
Intermediate (6-8) 0.0300 0.0114 0.0110
Hi h 9-12 0.0500 0.0257 0.0306
Source: Design standard acres per student from Table 23; current fee
- basis acres per stutlent from Table 2; and recent school construction
standards from Table 24.
As noted earlier, the current Far 9iareformula uses an avaage school land cost of $100,000 per acre.
This figure is bated on the average cost of land aoauisitions from the 2001 Far Share study, which
otamined land acquisition datafrom 1988 to 2000. Land axauisitionsforvew sctloolsover thepast tat
years are shown in Table 26. As illustrated in the table, the State has made only three market-rye
duneanl a56oCiafeS/GROUP 70 Hawnu SCHOOL ImracT Fee STUDY, December 18, 2D0611 RAi"1', Page 39
acquistionsofsitesforschoolsoverthepasttenyears ThesmallKaualntermediateShcoolsitewas
purchased by the Sate, but the balance of the ste (ten acres) wa; axluired through a Fair Share
contribution. Thergrlainingsteshareb~nacquiredthroughbelowmarketratesorthroughdereloper
agreements. Baste on the three markd-rate ste acquisitions, the a?aage cost per acre is $153,786.
However, the average oust of each parcel varies considerably, with the Kaua I nterrr>Ediate School site
costing almost ten times more per acre than the K~aa Middle School site. These dalta illustrate the
difficulty of determining an a~relage land cost p~ acre.
Table 26
RECENT LAND ACQUISITION COSTS
~r
Konawaena Elem 1998 $825,000 1.236 $1,019,700 10.45 $97,579
Kauailntermediate 1998 $2,250,000 1.236 $2,781,000 4.28 $649,766
Kapaa Middle 1996 $959,700 1.284 $1,232,255 18.01 $68,428
Total $5,034,960 32.74 $153,786
Keaau II EJem 2003 na 15.40
Mililani Ike Elem 2002 - na 11.87
Kauai Intermediate 1999 na 10.00
Keaau High' 1998 $687,835 63.26
Kapaa Middle 1998 na 10.00
Mililani Middle 1997 na 15.48
Kapaa Middle 1996 na 17.28
Waikele Elem" 1996 na 10.12
Total 143.40
Notes: 'NOninarkel priced land acquisition; "Includes 4.12 acre park site.
Source: Year of acquisition, original land cost and acres purchased from DOE, "Total Cost of Recent New
Schools," May 11 and May 15, 2006; inflation factor based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer
Price Index (CPI), U.S. City Average, All Items (April 2006 = 201.5).
For illustrativepurposes, theoonsultant utilized the land cost of $350,000 per axe used in recerlt Far
Share agreements in providing an updated land cost schedule. The land cost schedule in Table 27
reflects changes in student generation rates and updates in the provision of land per student based on
recent school oonstrudion sincethe2001 SdiDd Fair ShareCmtributim Study
duncan~associates/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMVAGTFEESTUOY,December18,20061111AFT,Page40
Table 27
STATE-WIDE SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION AND FEE-IN-LIEU SCHEDULE
Elementary 0.2206 0.0156 0.00344 $350,000 $1,204
Middle School 0.0797 0.0110 0.00088 $350,000 $308
Hi h School 0.1385 0.0306 0.00424 $350,000 $1,484
Total, Single-Family" 0.00856 $2,996
Elementary 0.1241 0.0156 0.00194 $350,000 $679
Middle School 0.0398 0.0110 0.00044 $350,000 $154
High School 0.0610 0.0306 0.00187 ~ $350,000 $655
Total, Multi-Fami 0.00425 $1,488
• Illustrative. Cost per acre for impact fee zones would be determined based on fair market value.
includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Students per unit based on recent school construction site size from Table 19; acres per student from
Table 24; cost per acre based on DOE's current Fair Share "fee-iMieu" calculation for developments less than 50
acres.
Construction Cost Component
The construction cost component of the impact fee is determined basl~l on the current provision of
facilities andfaalitycosts. DOE'scurrentFairS~aeconstrudioncostcomponentisbamdonthe2001
ShcodFarShaeCartributimStudy Howe?er,thecurrentFar9~larefeeisthirtyperoentofthemaximum
fee calculated in the 2001 report.
The State Deportment of Accounting and General 5~vices (DAGS) has identified construction cost
factors for 26 regions of the state, which ore shown in Table 28. These factors reflect the relative
construction costs in each region oompaed to construction vests in Honolulu. As is the current
practice for the DOE's Fair Shore calculction for construction costs, it is recommended that
determinations of the anount of the fees to be asi in different impact fee oreas reflect the
construction cost diffa~enoes between these 26 cost districts
The DAGSconstrudion cost vaiabledistridsoreillustrated inAppendix band oresuperimpo~d on
mapsof ~ school district and high school complex am Many of the DAGScost district boundaies
do not correspond to the existing school districts or complex orea boundaries; howefer, the level of
decal permits assignment of geographic a~that will bes~bjed to impact feesto theprimary DAGS
cost distridswithin which the impact fee benefit a~ lies.
duneanl aSSCCiafaS/GROUP 70 Huwan SCHOOL Ingaacr FSe Sruor, December 18, 2006 bitAF"'I', Page 41
Table 28
CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRICT VARIABLES
Kaiser, Kalani, Roosevelt, McKinley, Kaimuki,
Oahu Honolulu Farrington, Moanalua, Radford Honolulu 1.00
Oahu Central/Leeward Kapola, Campbell, Waipahu, Pearl City, Aiea Ewa ~ 1.00
Oahu Central Waianae, Nanakuli Waianae 1.10
Oahu Central Waialua Waialua 1.10
Oahu Windward Castle, Kailua, Kalaheo Koolaupoko 1.00
Oahu Windward Kahuku Koolauloa 1.10
Oahu Leeward Leilehua Wahiawa 1.05
Hawaii Hawaii Hilo Hilo 1.15
Hawaii Hawaii Waiakea, Kea'au, Pahoa Puna 1.20
Hawaii Hawaii Kealakehe, Konawaena Kona 1.20
Hawaii Hawaii Laupahoehoe Hamakua 1.20
Hawaii Hawaii Honoka'a South Kohala ~ 1.20
Hawaii Hawaii Kohala North Kohala 1.25
Hawaii Hawaii None assigned Pohakuloa 1.25
Hawaii Hawaii Kau Kau 1.30
Maui Maui Maui, Baldwin Wailuku 1.15
Maui Maui Kekaulike Makawao 1.25
Maui Maui Lahainaluna Lahaina 1.30
Maui Maui Hana Hana 1.35
Molokai Molokai Molokai Molokai 1.30
Lanai Lanai Lanai Lanai 1.35
Kauai Kauai None assigned Lihue 1.15
Kauai Kauai Kauai Koloa 1.20
Kauai Kauai None assigned Kawaihau 1.20
Kauai Kauai Waimea Waimea 1.25
Kauai Kauai Ka as Hanalei 1.25
Source: Depadment of Accounting and General Services, Public Works Division, Planning Branch, Budget Estimating Guide, 2004;
complex areas assigned based on complex area map and cost district map overlap presented in Appendix t.
In determining the basis for the construction component of the few the costs of recent school
construction projects were divided by theappropria`.eregional cost factors to arrive at adjusted costs
that represent construction costswithin theHonolulu area. Thefeeswitl ultimately be multiplied bythe
same regional) cost factors to determine foes by region as is currently the practice in dctermining the
construction component for theStates Fair 9iarefee. Bated on school construction ova the pad ten
years, the average building cost per student station, normalized for Honolulu area construction costs,
rangesfrom $32,717 for middle school studentsto $58,904 for high school students, as shown in Table
29.
dun Canl aSSOCiateS/GROUP 70 Hnwan SCtioor lroracT FeE Sruov, December 18, 2006 DiiaP'1', Page 42
Table 29
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT
Central Mililani Ike 2004 $23,800,000 $25,757,000 1.05 $24,530,476 650 $37,739
Leeward Nanaikapono 2004 $25,800,000 $26,680,000 1.00 $26,680,000 1,042 $25,605
Maui Maui Lani 2007 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 1.25 $25,600,000 650 $39,385
Leeward Oceanpointe 2007 $27,200,000 $27,200,000 1.00 $27,200,000 725 $37,517
Hawaii Keaau II 1998 $24,400,000 $31,736,000 1.15 $27,596,522 945 $29,203
Leeward Waikele ~ 1998 $16,600,000 $21,591,000 1.00 $21,591,000 750 $28,786
Hawaii Konawaena 2000 $26,300,000 $32,547,000 1.15 $28,301,739 700 $40,431
Total, Elementary $181,499,737 5,462 $33,230
Kauai Kamakehelei 2000 $36,900,000 $45,665,000 1.20 $38,054,167 1,300 $29,272
Leeward Kapolei 1999 $36,970,000 $46,975,000 1.00 $46,975,000 1,200 $39,146
Central Mililani 1998 $36,600,000 $47,605,000 1.05 $45,338,095 1,350 $33,584
Kauai Kapaa 1997 $28,670,000 $37,899,000 1.20 $31,582,500 1,100 $28,711
Total-, Middle School $161,949,762 4,950 $32,717
Leeward Kapolei 2000 $98,700,000 $122,146,000 1.00 $122,146,000 1,800 $67,859
Hawaii Keaau 1999 $74,670,000 $94,878,000 1.15 $82,502,609 1,330 $62,032
Hawaii Kealakehe 1997 $74,600,000 $98,613,000 1.15 $85,750,435 1,800 $47,639
Total, Hi h School $290,399,043 4,930 $58,904
Source: Construction cost data from Department of Education, Facilities Development Branch; design enrollment from Department
of Education, based on "single-track" enrollment design capacity; time-adjusted cost based on Engineering News Record,
Construction Cost Index, June 2006; area adjustment cost factor from Depanment of Accounting and General Services "Table A9:
Regional Cost Factors'
The construction costs per student in this report are considerably higher than the construction costs
utilized in thecurrent Fair Slareformulathat were implemaited in 2003, which werebased on the2001
Sd1od Fair 5rareCartributim Sttxfy. Construction costs per student inert over the 2001 study by
approximately 50 percent for elementary schools and high sdlools, with elementary school cost per
student increasing from $21,300 to $33,230 and high sdTOOI costs increasing from $38,500 to $58,904.
Middle school construction costs per student ina~ by approximately 40 percent, from $23,200 to
$32,717. N o new middle schools were constructed since the 2001 study, so the increase in middle
school construction rdlects inlxeaseci construction costs ~ tTleasured by the wnstruction cost index
and an adjusttTteitt to the desgn capadty for Mililani, which reflects the school's lower sngletra~c
avollment capacity.
A printdpleof impact fees, which also applies to DOE'sexisting Far 5iarefeecalculation, isthat new
development should not be charged for a higher level of service than is being provided to existing
devdopmerlt. A reasonable m~sure of the level of service is the percent of clamsrooms that are in
permanent structures, asopposed to portablebuildings. This isespeaally important becalsethecost
per student calculated inTable29 isbased on"brick and mortar" sctlool construction, not on themuctt
lower cost of portable buildings Cons~uently, the building cost per student should be multiplied by
the percent of classrooms in permanent structures to derive the adjusted cost per student staion that
rdledsthe existing level of ~rvice. This is shown in Table 30. It should be noted that this cost per
duncanl aSSOCIaI(?S/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACT FEE STUDY, Decambar 18, 2006111tA1~T', Page 43
student is representative of costs in the Honolulu area, and will need to be modified by regional cost
favors
Table 30
ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT
!I
Elementary $33,230 85.4% $28,385
Middle $32,717 90.7% $29,680 ,
Hi h $58,904 87.3% $51,399
Source: Construction cost from Table 29; share of permanent
classrooms from Appendix H Table 66.
To get from cost per student to cost per dwelling unit, it is ne~sary to multiply by the expelled
number of publicschool studentsto begenerated per dwelling unit. Theschool construction costsper
dwelling unit in the Honolulu areabased on state-widestudalt generation rates are shown in Table31.
Table 31
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT
Elementary 0.2206 $28,385 $6,262
Middle School 0.0797 $29,680 $2,365
Hi h School 0.1385 $51,399 $7,119-
Total, Single-
Family` $15,746
Elementary 0.1241 $28,385 $3,523
MiddleSchool 0.0398 $29,680 $1,181
Hi h School 0.0610 $51,399 $3,135
Total, Multi-Famil $7,839
includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Students per unit from Table 19; adjusted cost per student from Table 44.
dunCanl aSSOClateS/GROUP 70 Hpwnu SCHOOL IMPACT Fee STUOV, December 18, 20n6 D¢R4 t', Page 44
Net Construction Cost
An important prinapleof impact feesisthat newdevdopment should not hateto pay morethan once
for thesamefxilities. Thus, 3ategenaa~ tax re?enuesthat will begenaated by anew residential unit
and used to fund school capital facilities and pay for outstanding debt on existing fa~lities should be
credited to new development against school impact fees. Nev school facilities are funded primarily
through the &aie's Capital Projects Fund. The Ca7ital Projects Fund axountsfor most of thefinanaal
resourcesobtainedernd used for theacquistion or construction of the3ate scapital asse#sand faalities.
The resourcesutilized for school construction and maintenancearedaived prinapallyfrom proceaJs
of general obligation bond issues. Capital projects are programmedthrough theCapital I mprovemalt
Program (CIP) as part of theSatesbudget process. Fundsareprogrammedthrough theCl Pfor both
new construction and mantenanceand rehabilitation projects.
New school capital projects programmed in the dates CIP since 2001, along with repair and
maintenanceprojedsfundedthroughbondfundssince2003,areshowninTable32. All of the new
CI P project funding wa; utilized for Went faalities or additional space for existing faalities, such ~
additional classrooms,gymnasiumsorothaandllaryfaalities Reparandmaintenanceprojedfunding
repre~nts moor feral ity r~lxsnent and repair projedsfor which bond prooeedswae utilized to fund
the construction. CI P funding for new faalities has araaged $37.7 million per year over the past five
years, while repay and maintenanceprojedfuWding has a?aa3ed $46.4 million per year since 2003.
Table 32
SCHOOL CAPITAL FUNDING, FY 2001-2005
rr. rr
New CIP Projects $75,448,234 $6,685,511 $31,772,006 $54,962,881 $19,515,825 $37,677,000
Re air and Maint. Pro'ects na na $35,357,868 $20,077,967 $83,651,000 $46,362,000
Total $75,448,234 $6,685,511 $67,129,874 $75,040,848 $103,166,825 $84,039,000
Source: New CIP Projects for 2001 and 2002 from Hawaii School Expenditure Reporting System FY 20D1 to FY 2002; new CIP
projects and repair and maintenance projects funded through bond funds from DOE Fnancial Report, Fscal Years 2003 through
2005.
Thecurrent le?el of capital fundingfor newfaalitiesamountstoerbout $212 pa student per year. Ova
the lifeof Want school fadlities, which is~stamed to be25 years, thisannua retenuestr~n isequivalent
to acurrent lump-sum payment of $3,174, as shown in Table33. The2`ryear period used in thisaedit
cafaatation is consistent with Ad 282, Hawai's impact fee enabling act for counties, which requires
aeditfordevelopacontributionsovathelastfiveycersandthenext20yeas Itisasomoregenaous
than required, in that it attributes all credit to residential development, even though a portion of sDme
of these capita funds provided from the Sates genaa fund ere genaafed by nonresidattia
development (e.g.,. corporate iho~me and franchise tares).
d Unc3ttl aSSOCIafeS/GROUP 70 Hawnn ScaooL IMVaci Fee STUDY, December 38, 20061)14.41"I', Page 45
Table 33
STATE CAPITAL FUNDING PER STUDENT
Annual Capital Funding $37,677,000
Current Enrollment 177,455
Annual Capital Funding per Student $212.32
Present Value Factor (25 years 4.42%) 14.95
Ca ital Fundin Credit er Student - $3,174
Source: Annual capital funding from Table 32; current enrollment from
Table 66; net present value discount rate is the average interest rate on
state antl local bonds for the last three months (July through September,
2006) from the Federal Reserve al http://www.federalreserve.gov
/releases/h15/data/M Onthly/H15_SL_Y20.txt
The Sate of H awaii issues general obligdion debt for a variety of purposes and earmarks a portion of
nev debt for DOE capital improvgrtent projeds approved as part of the Sates budget process. As
mentioned earlier, this debt may be utilized for nEw faalities or for major maintenance and repair of
existing facilities. Based on a~ailabledatar, DOE acoountsfor approximatdyone-third of theS~es
total debt service cost. I n 2005, the Sateof Hawaii haj total outstanding debt of $4,256.6million;the
amount of total outstanding debt attributableto school fadlitieswas approximately $1,300.7 million in
2005 as shown in Table 34.
Table 34
TOTAL OUTSTANDING SCHOOL FACILITY DEBT
DOE Debt Service Cost $98,377,766
Total State Debt Servibe Cost $321,948,000
DOE Share of Total Debt Service 30.6%
Total Hawaii Outstandin Debt, 2005 $4,256,633,000
DOE Share of Outstanding Debt $1,300,700,875
Source: DOE tleht service from DOE, FY 2005 Rnancial Report, p. 4, 2005;
total State debt service cost and outstanding debt from Slate of Hawaii
Comprehensive Annual nnancial Report, pp. 126 -127, July 2005.
A credit only needs to be provided for the portion of otrtstanding debt attributable to ne+v facility
construdion. A portion of the outstanding debt is attributable to maintenance and rehabilitation
projedsof ~cisting fa~lities As shown in Table35, over thepast threeyears, the shareof total bond
issues for repay and maintenance of existing faalities has accounted for 56.7 perartt of D OE's d~t-
funded projects, while construdion of nt~nr faalities has accounted for 43.3 percent.
dunCanl as50Clafes/GROUP 70 Hawan SCaoorlnnaaCr Fee STUDY, December 16, 2006 llIt.dFf, Page 46
Table 35
NEW FACILITY SHARE OF SCHOOL DEBT, 2003-2005
New Facility $31,772,006 $54,962,881 $19,515,825 $106,250,712 43.3%
Re air/Maint. $35,357,868 $20,077,967 $83,651,000 $139,086,835 56.7%
Total $67,131,877 $75,042,852 ~ $103,168,830 $245,337,547
Source: Hawaii DOE, Mnual Flnancial Report (FY 2003 to 2005), "Summary of Capital Improvement Projects "
Thetota debt credit related to existing school faalitiesba~i on thetota DOE share of outstanding
debt and theshareof debt issues attributableto new facilities is$3,174' per student, a; shown in Table
36.
Table 36
SCHOOL FACILITY DEBT CREDIT
DOE Share of Outstanding Debt $1,300,700,875
New Facility Share of DOE Debt 43.3%
Total New Facility Outstanding Debt $563,203,479
Enrollment - 177,455
Total NewFacility Debt per Student $3,174
Source: DOE share of outstanding debt from Table 34; new facility share of DOE
debt from Table 35; enrollment from Table 66.
Multiplying the number of students expected to be generated by a dwelling unit by the Sate capital
funding and da3t re?enue credit per student yiddsthe revenue credit per dwelling unit. As shown in
Table37, anew single-family unit can be expected to contributetheequivaent of about $2,786 in Sate
ongoingcapita school fundinga-tddebt serviceforoutstandingdebt on existingfaalities,whileamulti-
familyunit will contribute about $1,428.
Table 37
TOTAL CREDIT PER DWELLING UNIT
Capital Funding per Student $3,174 $3,174
Debt Fundin per Student $3,174 $3,174
Total $6,348 $6,348
Students per Unit 0.439 0.225
Credit er Unit $2,786 $1,428
Source: Capital funding. credit per student from Table 33; debt funding per
student from Table 36; students per unit tram Tabte 1g.
9noe most capital funding expatditures and debt issues for new schools are utilized for construdion
costs, the credit t~lculated in this section of the report is applied fully to the net cost schedule for
construction. Table 38 shows the net cost schedule by region. This statewide schedule may be u~d
to update DOE's Far 91are construction cost schedule, or for establishment of a new school
construction impact fee.
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006IIIEAP'i', Page 47
Table 38
STATE-WIDE CONSTRUCTION COST SCHEDULE
Oahu Honolulu 1.00 $15,746 $2,786 $12,960 $7,839 $1,428 $6,411
Oahu Ewa 1.00 $15,746 $2,786 $12,960 $7,839 $1,428 $6,411
Oahu Wahiawa 1.05 $16,533 $2,786 $13,747 $8,231 $1,426 $6,803
Oahu Waialua 1.10 $17,321 $2,786 $14,535 $8,623 $1,428 $7,195
Oahu Koolaupoko 1.00 $15,746 $2,786 $12,960 $7,839 $1,428 $6,411
Oahu Koolauloa 1.10 $17,321 $2,786 $14,535 $8,623 $1,428 $7,195
Oahu Waianae 1.10 $17,321 $2,786 $14,535 $8,623 $1,428 $7,195
Hawaii Hilo 1.15 $18,108 $2,786 $15,322 $9,015 $1,428 $7,587
Hawaii Puna 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Hawaii Kona 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Hawaii Hamakua 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Hawaii South Kohala 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Hawaii North Kohala 1.25 $19,683 $2,786 $16,897 $9,799 $1,428 $8,371
Hawaii Pohakuloa 1.25 $19,683 $2,786 $16,897 $9,799 $1,428 $8,371
Hawaii Kau 1.30 $20,470 $2,786 $17,684 $10,191 $1,428 $8,763
Maui Wailuku 1.15 $18,108 $2,786 $15,322 ~ $9,015 $1,428 $7,587
Maui M akawao 1.25 $19,683 $2,786 $16,897 $9,799 $1,428 $8,371
Maui Lahaina 1.30 $20,470 $2,786 $17,684 $10,191 $1,428 $8,763
Maui Hana 1.35 $21,257 $2,786 $18,471 $10,583 $1,428 $9,155
Molokai Molokai 1.30 $20,470 $2,786 $17,684 $10,191 $1,428 $6,763
Lanai Lanai 1.35 $21,257 $2,786 $18,471 $10,583 $1,428 $9,155
Kauai Lihue 1.15 $18,108 $2,786 $15,322 $9,015 $1,428 $7,587
Kauai Koloa 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Kauai Kawaihau 1.20 $18,895 $2,786 $16,109 $9,407 $1,428 $7,979
Kauai Waimea 1.25 $19,683 $2,786 $16,897 $9,799 $1,428 $8,371
Kauai Hanalei 1.25 19 683 $2 786 $16 897 9 799 $1 428 $8 371
Source: Cosl factors from Table 28; cost per single-fatuity and multifiamily units is base cost from Table 31 times cost factor; cretlit
per unit from Table 47.
duncanl aSSOClaleB/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECember 18, 2006 BILA1'f, Page 48
. - - s -
Thissection of ther~ort analyzesthecurrent and futurede-nand for additional school fadlitiEsrd~ed
to additional resdential growth in the Central Oahu cd~ study arm and identifies the school
infrastrudureand fundi ng nryto meet theneedsof planned residential de?e~opment. ~edfidly,
thisanalyssfocuseson theGentry Waiawaand Ca?tleand CookeKoaRidgeprojedsinCentral Oahu.
The Central Oahu care study area is illustrded in Figure 2.
The Central Oahu area provides a basis for applying the impact fee prindplas developed in this report
toa"greenfield" area A"greenfield" areaisoneinwhichoneormoredevelopersplanondeueloping
large undeveloped tracts of land over a period of years. Greenfield development area; indude
contiguous residential developments with more than 5,1X10 units on rtes with little or no existing
development. 9~ch developments will typically require their own high school complex and will not
share school fadlitieswith alr~ly existing development d final build-out.
Central Oahu wasfiistorically dominated by the sugar and pin~pple agricultural industry. As a result
of this agricultural history, the contiguous land holdings r~nain large and are suitable to large scale,
multi-phasedevdopment. Large-scaler~identialdevdopment in Central Oahu began inthelate1960s
when Castle& Cooke began development of Mililani Town, a 3,500 acreplanned community of low-
density snglefarilyhousing. Additional major residential development has occurred above Waipahu
and the H-1 Freeway in Gentry Waipio, Waikele, Village Park, Royal Kunia, and other development
projects'
TheHonolulu CityCoundf designat~l C~tral Oahuasoneof Oatiu'sprindpal residential deve'opment
areasin1989. Hncethen,CerttralOahu,alongwiththePrimayUrbanCenter(PUC)andthe~condary
Urban Center and urban fringe areas i n Ewa, have provided the bulk of the new hour ng developed on
the island a
~Cityof Honolulu D~atment of Plainingaid Permitting, Ceir~l Oatxi SlSar~leCamuitie;Plai, Dessnba
2002.
el bid.
duneanlBSSOC18tB5/GROUPJO HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDV,DeCembef18,2006D1t9f'f,Page49
Figure 2
CENTRAL OAHU CASE STUDY AREA
.~;t b~~ii:Janf#~9auka
n.,.,_ Jr
Fl t& ~Y ~ . .
,,r
r j{ -t
I. ~
T~ f y+ ~ Al kCyM9 J
t
~ 1.,.._,~.f M
r
IAxuuSl ~ r.
. X31$9
t ~b~ €2~:hGt~ ~'Q1Ji . M~"~(y
F/l'%rl#gyai _
d 51 lrp n., J - ~
s ~ ~I
_ :
' a:~ ~rxJ,7t Fily ~ 1 i ? 3+-. S ~\.~1~ R~.,~:.~= l `r-~'~ _ -
' 51 L1
_ 1 Ji
_ - ,J - ti -
i
/ V
I
i -rr ~d,iF,r,u k
= M1~i
r ~ . ~ '
duneanl associates/Gaour 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECembEf 18, 2006 IH1Ai~T, Pege 50
Service and Facility Standards
~rviceand fadlitydandadsin Central Oahu should med the Figure 3
saviceda+dardsedabiished bytheDq~artmenf of Education US CENSUS PUMA 307
for both steszeandschool construction. Ideally, school gtes
should meet the desgn guidelines established by the DOE.
However, in developing the impact fee chaged for new ~
development,theexidinglevelofs,?rviceforthea6ainwhidi ~
thegrcenfield de?elopmentsaeto occur must beconsdered ~ c`
in order to satisfythe legal requirement that n6w development ~ «M-
not payfor ahigher le?el of servicethan existing development. :H3b7"
~ Y..
The analyss of the Cettral Oahu case study utilizes the Iotxl
student generation rates in Central Oahu. The U.S Census
student generation rates for Central Oahu are inducted in the U.S Ca~sus sample data for the
Ewa' Central Oahu ace (see Figure 3). The 2000 Census sample data by housing type are drown in
Table39. Thedudent generation ratesfor Central Oahu aceaehigher than thedate-wideaveragefor
both single-family and multi-family housing. The datasuggedsthat student generation ratesfor new
housing in Central Oahu aeawill behigher than the stele-wide average.
Table 39
EWA/CENTRAL OAHU STUDENT GENERATION RATES, 2000
Elementary 10,857 36,986 0.2935
Middle School 6,798 36,986 0.1838
Hi h School 7,944 36,986 0.2148
Total, Single-Family' 25,599 36,986 0.6921
Elementary 3,450 16,800 0.2054
Middle School 2,752 16,800 0.1638
Hi h School 2,090 16,800 0.1244
Total, Multi-Family 8,292 16,800 0.4936
All Housin T es 33,891 53,786 0.6301
` includes single-family detachetl, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, weighted 2000 PUMS 5h sample tlata for PUMA 307;
stutlenfs per unit is ratio of public school students to total dwelling units (occupied plus
vacant); public school students are definetl as persons attending preschool through 12'"
gratle in public school.
Sncethereisno existing development in theCentral Oahu co`estudy ace, it is not possbleto calibrate
the2000Censusstud6nt generation rates basal on actual sudait enrollment and houdng in thisaea
One possbilitywould beto estimate actual student generation ratl=sfor the Central Oahu care study ae
bated on the sta`e-wide ratios of xtua' to eYpECt~l students. However, a bctter a~ternativewould be
to ajjust the2000 Census rates by adjudment fadorsderived from similar dEVeloprnent in theregion.
I t is r~sonableto assumethat student generation ratios i n Central Oahu would be smiles to those in the
dunean~ associates/Geouv 70 Hnwau SCHOOL IMPACr Fee Siuov, December 78, 2006 I11WN'1', Page 51
- -
Ewaa~,whichwaederivedfromthesaneCensusgexxJraphy. Consequently,theEwa'CentralOahu
rates hale been calibrated by adjusting then based on the Ewa casestudy adjustment factors, a; shown
in Table40.
Table 40
EWA/CENTRAL OAHU CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES
rrl
Elementary 0.2935 1.1493 0.3373
Middle School 0.1838 0.6216 0.1143
Hi h School 0.2148 1.0105 0.2171
Total, Single-Family' 0.6921 0.6687
Elementary 0.2054 1.1493 0.2361
MiddleSchool 0.1638 0.6216 0.1018
High School 0.1244 1.0105 0.1257
Total, Multi-Family 0.4936 0.4636
All Housin T es 0.6301 0.9348 0.5890
` includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: 2000 students per unit from Table 39; C-wa case study adjustment factors from Table 54.
3udent galeration rates by housng unit age for the Ewa' Central Oahu sample area are consder~ in
order to establish theapplicability of thecalibrated student genaation ratesfor new housng in thecase
study area As shown in Table41, the public school generation rate by housng unit age confirm that
nEw dwdling unitsin theEwa' Central Oahu aeahavesightlylower studeit generation ratesthan units
that ae older than 11 yeas. However, the ryes for nenr housng are smilax to the calibrated student
generation rates for the Ewaf Central Oahu area.
Table 41
EWA/CENTRAL OAHU PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT GENERATION BY AGE OF UNIT
I r r I
Single-Family' 0.692 0.705 0.756 0.713 0.652
Multi-Fami - 0.494 0.296 0.290 0.670 0.677
All Housing Types 0.630 0.583 0.545 0.703 0.658
Sample Size 2,206 338 467 427 974
' includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Unadjusted multipliers from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 PUMS 5% sample data for Hawaii
Puma 307; multipliers are ratios of public school students to total dwelling units; public school
students are defined as persons attending preschool through 12'" grade in public school; age of unit
based on year built, with 0-5 years old being units built 1995 through 2000, etc.
dunean~ associates/GeouP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, ZOO6lllt.41'1', Page 52
Existing Central Oahu School Facilities
TheCentral Oahu casestudyarmiswithin orbordered bythreeDOEhigh school complex ar~sin two
school districts The complexes indude Pmrl City and Waipahu in the Lel~vard Distrid and Mililani
in the Central District. Of these, most of the current growth is concentrated in the Waipahu High
~ctlool complex, with futuregrowth likely to occur with n~o residential development planned in area;
induded in the Mililani and Pmrl City complex areas. However, the r,~e study arm is expelled to
become its own complex area oncethe Hero schools Irving the developments are completed.
I n the Mort-term, development in the Central Oahu case study arm will be served by existing schools
in neighboring complexes. The inventory of sdlool fadlities, current enrollment and current design
capacity for eadi school in the Central Oahu planning arm are shown in Table 42. I n total, each
complex is near or above total capacity based on current enrollment and design capadty. All of the
Central Oahu planning arm high schools and dl but one of the middle schools are above capadty.
There is consderably more variation in the enrollment and capacity avalabie in elementary schools.
However, sinoeela~rlentaryschoolsservemuch smaller galgraohicarea;than middle or high schools,
the overall aralability of elementary school dassroom spacz in one part of a complex arm may not be
fe3vblefor neov growth.
Table 42
CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY
r.. r
Elementary 4,425 3,917 89% 218 26 10.7%
Middle 1,005 1,021 102% 46 7 13.2%
Hi h School 1,734 2,007 116% 96 4 4.0%
Total, Pearl City Complex 7,164 6,945 97% 360 37 9.3%
Elementary 4,900 4,890 123% 203 61 23.1%
Middle 1,293 1,361 105% 63 7 10.0%
Hi h School 2,071 2,458 119% 89 25 21.9%
Total, Waipahu Complex 8,264 8,709 105% 355 93 20.8%
Elementary 4,229 3,596 80% 183 42 18.7%
Middle 1,821 1,833 101% 63 8 11.3%
Hi h School 2,190 2,411 110% 82 27 24.8%
Subtotal, Mililani 8,240 7,840 95% 328 77 19.0%
Elementary 13,554 12,403 92% 604 129 17.6%
Middle 4,119 4,215 102% 172 22 11.3%
High School 5,995 6,876 115% 267 56 17.3%
Total, Central Oahu 23,668 23,494 99% 1,043 207 16.6%
Source: State of Hawaii Public School current enrollmentfrom Hawaii Department of F~ucation (DOS, Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; capacity from "Student Capacity and Fsrollment Comparison, 2004-05 ° and
classroom data from DOE "Classroom Report, 2004 °
I t should be not6d that impact fees cannot be used to addresstheocisting d~idendes, such as repladng
portableda~roomswithpermanentbuildingsoraddres5ngovercrowdinginexistingfadlitim. Aswith
dunc8ttl aSSOCIafCS/GROUP 70 Hawnu SCHOOL Inneacr Fee Sruor, December 18, 2006 BItAF'[', Page 53
all impact f~ revenue, impact fee revenuecollected in the Central Oahu restudy areawould need to
be utilized for nE+v school fa~lities located within the cage study area
Central Oahu Impact Fee Schedule
Theland cost sdiedulein Table43 reFlectstheEwa' Cattral Oahu areastudent generation ratesand the
stye-wide provison of axes per studait. The total cost of tand will vary based on marks ryes;
however, DOE has utilized a land value a~itmption of $350,000 per aaefor Central Oahu in recent
Far9iareanalyses,whichwillbeutilizedforthisanaly~s B~edontheassurr>Edcostperacre,theland
cost component of the impact feewould rangefrom $3,028 for multi-family unitsto $4,606 for single-
familyunits. -
Table 43
EWA/CENTRAL OAHU LAND COST SCHEDULE
Fementary 0.3373 0.0156 0.00526 $350,000 $1,841
Middle School 0.1143 0.0110 0.00126 $350,000 $441
Hi h School 0.2171 0.0306 0.00664 $350,000 $2,324
Total, Single-Family" 0.01316 $4,606
Elementary 0.2361 0.0156 0.00368 $350,000 $1,288
MiddleSchool 0.1018 0.0110 0.00112 $350,000 $392
Hi h School 0.1257 0.0306 0.00385 $350,000 $1,348
Total, Multi-Family 0.00865 $3,028
" Cost per acre for Central Oahu case study area would be determined based on fair market value
includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Students per unit from Table 40; acres per student from Table 25; cost per acre assumed.
Asdiscus~d ea-tier, ne~rdevelopment should not be charged for ahigher le?el of servioethan isbeng
providsi to existing dEVelopment. I n this study, the level of service is measured by the percent of
d~sroomsthat arein permanent structutes, as opposed to portablebuildings Thestate-widecost per
student is based on "brick and morta" sdlool construction, not on the much lower cost of port~le
buildings The state-wide cost per student should be multiplied by the percent of dassrooms in
permanent st ructures in Central Oahu schoolsto d~ivetheadj usted cost per student station that ref leds
the®cistinglerelof~-viceinthec~sestudyarea Theadjustedstadewideconstructioncostpastudent
isshown in Table44.
dunCanl asSOCiates/GROUP 70 Hnwnu SCHOOL Imvac7 Fee STUDY, December 18, 2006 INtAf'P, Page 54
Table 44
CENTRAL OAHU ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT
Elementary $33'230 82.4% $27,382
Middle $32,717 88.7% $29,007
Hi h $58,904 82.7% $48,692
Source: Construction cost from Table 29; share of permanent classrooms from Table 42.
The construction cost per dwelling unit for Central Oahu deddopment is based on the Ewa' Central
Oahu student genera ion rate and the adjusted construction per student. The Central Oahu area
construction cost factor is the sane a; Honolulu. The school construction cost per dwelling unit is
shown in Table45.
Table 45
CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT
Elementary 0.3373 $27,382 $9,236
Middle School 0.1143 $29,007 $3,316
Hi h School 0.2171 $48,692 $10,571
Total, Single Family' $23,123
Elementary 0.2361 $27,382 $6,465
Middle School 0.1018 $29,007 $2,953
Hi h School 0.1257 $48,692 $6,121
Total, Multi-Family $15,539
' includes single-family detached, single-family attached antl duplex units
Source: Students per unit from Table 40; cost per student from Table 29.
Aswith the state-wide calculation, the construction cost per dwdling unit must be adjusted to reflect
thet~italfundingandd~tfundingaedits Whileth~ecreditswerecalculatedonaperstudentbass,
theaedit actually runsto theunit, and, thus, thea6dit for all areas of thestateshould bethesanea;
those calculated statewide. The nd impact feeschedulefor Central Oahu isshown in Table46. The
fee schedule combinesthe land and construction elenents and subtractsthe credit per unit.
dunCanla550dafeS/GROUP70 HnwnuSCnoorlrvtpaciPeeSTUDV,December18,2006UttAI°I',Page55
Table 46
CENTRAL OAHU MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Fee in-Lieu of Land' $4,606 $3,028
Construction Cost per Unit $23,123 $15,539
Revenue Credit per Unit $2,786 $1,428
Maximum Impact Fee Per Unit $20,337 $14,111
Total Contribution er Unit $24,943 $17,539
' based on assumed average land cost of $350,000 per acre
Source: Land fee in-lieu per unit from Table 43; construction cost
per unit from Table 45; credit per unit from Table 37.
Demand for New School Facilities
Based on expeded de?elopm6rtt, DOE forecast theneed for seien new elementary sd5ools, three new
middle schools and two new high schools i n Central Oahu by 2025 ~ part of the Certral Oahu Sl tai rtable
Camtutiti~sPlan. AspartoftheplanningprocessinCaltralOahuandderelopa~fair-sharea3reanents,
oneelenentarysdiool hasbeen construded in Mililani I ke, and siterequirementsharebeen established
for four additional elementary schools, two middle schools and two high schools.
Central Oahu is expelled to experience moderate growth through 2025. The Central Oahu ~airlatte
CaTnuutie;Plan antidpatesthat the population will grow from 149,000 people in 2000 to over 173,000
in 2025.9 I n orderto accommodafetheprojeded growth through 2025, theR>dairtableCmminiti~Plan
antidpeles the construdion of 11,000 new housing units, or approximately 450 units per year.
Howc rer, higher rates of growth are possble depending on local economic ~nditions and housing
demand, with absorption rates of more than 1,000 units per year possble as experieno3d during the
1990 to 1995 period.
Thetwo planned dclreloprrrattsinduded in thist~estudy contain alargealTtount of development for
theCentralOahuPlanaea Castle&CookesKoaRidgeprojedcallsforamixofapproximately6,200
angle and multi-familyhomFS. Gentr~lsWaiawadEVelopment plan indudessereral phaseswith atotal
of 12,680sngle-and multi-fa~rlilyhomes The Koa Ridgeprojedisstillintheplainingphaseandh~
not received all of the regulatory approval; the Waiawa development ha; been approved with. initial
oca~patcy ocpeded in 2009.
Table47 illustrates the nel~sary nafv school facilities related to planned developmalt in Waiawa and
Koa Ridge bared on student generation rates per unit calculated in this report. It ise5cpeded that the
developmetts in Waawa and Koa Ridge would likely generate 10,543 students. The total number of
new schools needed to axommodatethestudentswouldvary based on thedesigned school capadty.
However, it isexpeded that theWaawadevelopment would need fiveelementay schools, threemiddle
schools, and one or two high schools New schools in Koa Ridge would include two elementary
9Cetrd Odu Ral Chester 21.
duneanlaSSOCiafeS/GROUP70 HawAnSCHOOLImrncrFeeSNOY,December18,2006INL4I~I',Page56
schools, one middleschool and one small high school. It should be noted that thefort~t nced for
need school facilities does not axount for existing defitaendes in ntighboring distrids, snce such
facilities could not be constructed from impact fee funds if the d~iaency is due to existing
deddopment.
Table 47
CENTRAL OAHU DEMAND FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
Elementary 6,090 6,590 0.3373 0.2361 3,610 550 7
Middle School 6,090 6,590 0.1143 0.1018 1,367 600 2
Hi h School 6,090 6,590 0.2171 0.1257 2,151 1,000 2
Subtotal, Waiawa 6,090 6,590 7,128 11
Elementary 2,640 3,560 0.3373 0.2361 1,731 550 3
Middle School 2,640 3,560 0.1143 0.1018 664 600 1
Hi h School 2,640 3,560 0.2171 0.1257 1,021 1,000 1
Subtotal, Koa Ridge 2,640 3,560 3,416 5
Total 8,730 10,150 10,543 16
Source: New units based on development plans, share otsingle-family and multi-family based on proportion of units in early phases
of developments; students per unit from Table 40; new demand a factor of total units times student/unit; students per school based
on current DOE school facility design standards; new schools based on total need divided by students per school.
Table 48 shows the total number of acres necessa~y for nlanr schools bassi on the demand for nEVo
school fadlities. Based on theland component calculationsupdated in thisreport, Waadoawould neat
137 acres and Koa Ridge would require 66 acresto accommodate demand for Hero schools rdated to
neov residential construction. Ba~cl on thetotal acres require) to accommodate nEw student demand,
thetotal cost of land component isestimded to be$70.9 million. Thetotal cost of land isba~d on the
land cost assumption of $350,000 per aa-e utilized in d6veloping the land t~mponent of the impact fee
schedulefor Central Oahu; the actual valueof land would need to bedeterminei through apprasalsof
the market value of art improved school site.
d UnCanl a550CIateS/GROUP 70 HaWall SCHOOL IMPACT PEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 DRAt'1', Page 57
' Table 48
CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION AND FEE-IN-LIEU SCHEDULE
Elementary 3,610 0.0156 56 $350,000 $19,710,906
Middle School 1,367 0.0110 15 $350,000 $5,262,754
Hi h School -2,151 0.0306 66 $350,000 $23,031,876
Subtotal, Waiawa 7,128 137 $48,005,536
Elementary 1,731 0.0156 27 $350,000 $9,451,194
Middle School 664 0.0110 7 $350,000 $2,557,016
High School 1,021 0.0306 31 $350,000 $10,931,012
Subtotal, Koa Ridge 3,416 66 $22,939,222
Total 10,543 203 $70,944,758
Source: New students from Table 47; acres per student from Table 24; cost per acre based on $350,000 per acre.
The total estimated cost of mnstrudion per unit calculated bassi on recent school construdion costs
would be $359.6 million, as shown in Table 49.
Table 49
CENTRAL OAHU SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST
Elementary 3,610 $27,382 $98,850,553
Middle School 1,367 $29,007 $39,651,090
Hi h School 2,151 $48,692 $104,712,243
Subtotal, Waiawa 7,128 $243,213,886
Elementary 1,731 $27,382 $47,397,913
Middle School 664 $29,007 $19,265,289
Hi h School 1,021 $48,692 $49,696,808
Subtotal, Koa Ridge 3,416 $116,360,011
Total 10,543 $359,573,897
Source: New students from Table 30; construction cost per student from Table 44.
Based on theantiapated student airollment, land cost and construdion cost, thetotal capital cost per
student in Central Oahu would be $40,833, as shown in Table50.
duncan~ associates/Gaoup 70 HAWAl15CHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, D¢C¢mber 18, 200611{5.4{~L, Pag¢ 58
Table 50
CENTRAL OA¦¦HU NET CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT
¦I
Land Cost $70,944,758
Construction Cost $359,573,897
Total Capital Cost $430,518,655 -
- Anticipated Students - 10,543 ,
~ ~ - Cost per Student $40,833
Source: Land cost from Table 48; construction cost from Table 48;
anticipated students from Table 47.
Comparison with Existing Fair Share Contributions
The impa~ fee construction cost schedule calculated in this report is based on the most current oust,
student generation rate and credit data and repres6nts the maximum fee that could be charged, while
the construction cost component of the existing Fair Slarefee represents only half of theorigina net
construction cost calculates in the 2001 report.
A comparison of theFar 9iarebaed developer contribution and theimpact feecalculaion areshown
inTable51. Thelandcomponentfortheimpa;tfeewouldcoverthefullcostofland,whilethecurrent
Far 9iarecalculation covers56.5 percent. Under theimpa~ fee, 89.2 peroerlt of theestimated cost of
faality construction would be coversi by the impact fee schedule calculated for Central Oahu, while
thecurrent Far 9larecalculationfor theconstructioncost component would cover one-tenth thecost
of new fadlities As with the current Far 9iare t~lculaion, a de?eloper would hare the option of
paying an impact feefor land bred on thefar market value of suitable land or providestesfor new
school facilities.
Table 57
CENTRAL OAHU FAIR SHARE COMPARISON
Single-Family 6,090 54.7 $19,145,000 $15,474,690 80.1 $28,050,540 $123,852,330
M ul[i-Family 6,590 23.5 $8,225,000 $6,570,230 57.0 $19,954,520 $92,991,490
Total, Waiawa 12,680 78.2 $27,370,000 $22,044,920 137.1 $48,005,060 $216,843,820
Single-Family 2,640 23.7 $8,295,000 $6,708,240 34.7 $12,159,840 $53,689,680
Multi-Family 3,560 12.7 $4,445,000 $3,549,320 30.8 $1Q,779,680 $50,235,160
Total, Koa Ridge 6,200 36.4 $12,740,000 $10,257,560 65.5 $22,939,520 $103,924,840
Total 18,880 114.6 $40,110,000 $32,302,480 202.7 $70,944,580 $320,768,660
Source: Current Fair Share agreement from Stale of Hawaii Department of Education, Facilities Development Branch, April 10, 2006;
land impact fee calculation based on total units by type and acreslunit or fee/unit from Table 43; construction share of fee based
on total units by type, construction fee less credit per unit for Central Oahu from Table 46.
Thecalculationsfor ~ de?elopment in Table51 rctlectsthetota fee at build-out. To date, only one
dEUeloper has negotiated agreementswith DOE for thar Far 9iare contribution for initial pha~sof
durfC0ill aS50Clates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 16, 2006 I)RAI"P, Page SB
ther derdopments The Koa Ridge devveopment Far 9iare contribution a3reanent will not be
negotiated until the devvdopment h~ gone through the Sae Land Use Commission.
The Waavadevdopment hasreoaved 3ateapprova and hasnegotiated aFar 9iareagreement with
DOE. Thea3ree~rrent requiresthedevelop~ toprovide52.4arxesforschool sitesormakeafee-in-lieu
payment equal to the far market value of such lands, and also requires an additional 31.6 aces to be
made avalable for purchase by DOE at far market value. I n addition to the land contribution, the
developer hasagreed to aconstruction contribution of $997 per multi-family unit and $2,541 per single-
familyunit, payable upon completion and saeof each unit. I n order to account for futureconstruction
cost ina~es, the developer has agreed to a fee escalation louse that inaeeses the construction
contribution fee for each unit Ater January 2006 bythe year-over-year change in the Honolulu Area
Consumer Price I ndex issued by the Bureau of Labor 3atistics.
Under an impact feesysten, DOE could tolled agnificantlymoremoneyfrom development to offsd
thecost of new school construction. An impact feewould applyegualyto all development in thetarget
area, regardless of the need for a development to gct Sate Land Use Commission approval and
potentially inconsist~t application of negotiated Far 9iareagreements.
dune011'2SSOCI8l05/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHODLInnppci FeE SSUOV, December 18, 2006 D11NtP, Page 60
. - -
Thiss~cond casestudy ar~wasdevdop~.i Figure 4
inordertodemonstratehowanimpactfee EWAPLANNINGAREA
could be~plied to ar~wherenew" non-
gr~nfield" dEVelopment isoaxirring. For
this study, non-greenfieJd development is
n~vresidentialdevelopmentoccurringon Oahu
scattered sites among existing
dEVelopments. 9adi development may
include individual units in older
naghborhoodsorlargeresidentialprojeds
adjao?ntfoexistingdevelopment. Thekear _ k'`_"
characteristicofthenon-greenfiddgrowth J 1 ii'
areas, or "school impact districts," is that
nc~ devdopment esmntialiy shares the 'i~~ ~ ,
,N,; I~
existing and new facilities with existing
r
housngunits. " `
~
There are se+reral areas of the stcte where ,rr . ~ t r''`
sc~tered site development in areas with `~_E~Na -
existing development may contribute to ..e.w.~ ` Y
inaa~ed enrollment and theneed for new , t n
school facilities. Bach seas indude the
Campbell and Kapolei high school
complexareasintheEwaareaof Oahu,theWaluku/ Kahului areaon Maui and.theKau areaof Hawaii.
The Ewa area was chossa ~ a focus for the se;.ond case study. Overall, the two Ewa high school
complexes, Campbell and Kapolei, are both projected to haresignificant housing development and a
futureneed for nenrschools. I n addition, both Campbell and Kapolei contain areasth~ weredevelopecl
prior to 2000, existing school fadlities and sc~tered new residential development.
The Ewa case study area provides a broad range of types of development, inducting large, contiguous
"greenfield"-like projects, smaller scattered development projects, redevelopment and infill in
established residential area and resort residential development. Anyareasuitableforthenon-greenfidd
approach to school impact fees will present thesame kinds of issuesthzt aisefrom thefact that nev
development will besharing school fadlitieswith existing development. Theseissues indudeexisting
defidendesor excesscapadty, aswell asthepotential for someexisting capadtythat iscurrently utilized
to bewmeavailablein thefutureto servene~rdeuelopment asstudent enrollment fromexistinghousing
dedines
This section will develop a model non-greenfield methodology through an analysis of the Ewa care
study area in order to a9dress the issues that will be confronted when applying this mdhodology to
other suitable non-greenfield school impact districts.
duncan~ associates/Gnouv 70 HAWAl15CHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Decembef 78, 2006111SAt'1', Page 61
Study Area
On Oahu, Ewa r~ersto pat of the Le~vdad Coast aeaof the idand; however, for planning purposes,
the City and County of H onolulu defines Ewa as the southwest corner of the island. The Ewa a~ s
planning boundaie6aeillustr~ed in Figure4. Theaeaiscestern boundayisdefined bytheWest Loch
of Peal H arbor and K unia Road, with the northern boundary defines by the urban growth boundary
that follows the H-1 Freenray and Farington H ighway to the own. The study aea indudes Campbell
Industrial Pak, Makakilo, Ewa Beach, Kapolp, Ko Olinaand theforma Baber'sPoint U.6 Air Force
base
Historically, the Ewa oreawas important to the states sugor industry as well ~ support center for the
U.S military. The Campbell I ndustrial Pak opened in theeorly 1960s, followed by residential growth
in M2kakilo 2nd Ewa Burch. In 1977, the Honolulu City Couna{ designated the Ewa orea ~ the
IocationforaSecondaryUrbanCenterforOahutobeoenteredintheKapoleiaea Snce1990theaea
has experienced rapid development, and is ocpeded to continue its rapid growth trend through 2030,
a; shown in T2b1e52.
Table 52
EWA PLANNING AREA GROWTH, 1990-2030
1990 42,931 NA
2000 66,452 4.5%
2005 84,355 4.9%
2010 95,665 2.5°/a
2020 140,313 3.9%
2030 182,628 2.7%
Source: City and County of Honolulu Planning Department,
October 27, 2006.
Planned development in the area is illustrated in Figure 5. I n addition to the development of nedd
neighborhoods and communities, additional development within existing orears will continue in the
future. AocordingtoHonoluluCity/County planning st~f,futuredclrelopmaltwillindudemorethan
57,000 housing units. Major future devdoprrlents indude East Kapolei, Deportment of Hawaii
Homelands, EwaMakai, Kapolei WestatdMakaiwaHills Theexistingd~relopmentscurrentlyunder
development indudeGentry EwaMakai, Ocean Pointe, City of Kapolei, Villagesof Kapolei, Makakilo
Extension, and Ko Olina Theold Nadel Air 3ation housing is also bang converted to dvilian use.
~meaeaswithin thecasestudyaea such astheaeanorth of EwaVillages, may ultim2tdybesuitable
far the"greenfield" approach used in the Central Oahu ~ study. There may be other lage aeas of
grcenfiE?d dev6lopment, such ~ Makaaa Hills, where because of topography, children ore likely to
attend ~ I~ high schoolsthat are locked in developed aeas, so that thegreenfietd approach would
not be appropriate, Resort residential development in someaeas, such as Ko Olinati mar need to be
exduded from the impact feeon thegroundsth~ it is not likely to generate school children.
duncanl8560CI81e5/GROUP70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDY,December18,20061H:AI`I',Page62
The areas that are determi ned to be suitabl e for " greenfield" impact fees may be different enough that
it is determined that separate analysis Mould be used to de?dop different fees. This anaiyss develops
an impact fee schedulefor theenti re Ewa area which includestheenrollment ar~for the K apola and
Campbdl complex areas.
Figure 5
EWA AREA EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
V
w >.Fy
~
D ~ o~
~
K Maoio~; G~ .w 1 s.r'~xi
J N ( E G
lco
t
x a,: o ,
A Gt8 of ~ ~~r R Q ~ ~
S 1 1.1k .i3+ .v
~ x `r ~ BPNAS~z~ f~
4 t z 4 Ar,}t,, iz..
LEGEND Y °p'~ Phase III (2016 aad Beyond)
Phase I (1995-2005) R Pelfxe/s Resideniiol T HFDC (Stole Lvnd Rvnkl
P Evsi Kvpvlei (ScAukrl Y Kvpolel Emt (Cmnpbelli
Rreroreb ApDSnred 0 Lvulvm Cvmme«ivl X Kapvki LOA
h Berbers Point Nmbvr R Lvuloni Resideniid
8 City vi Kvpvlei 5 K{vkvklo Edension
C Exv by DerAry T HFDC (Siv1e Land Rvnl.)
R Exv 4tvrinv OHvn-Urbon Arevs
R Exv Vilvges
P Kvpvki Business Pork phase II (2006-2015) Erisling Urbon Arevs
6 Kvpvki Knolls U Uvkvcnv Hills Urbon ErDansion 1995-1DD5
tl Kapvki Nvukv y Kvpvlei Evst (Cvmpbell)
I Kvpoki Shopping Center Y Kvpvlei tivrih O Urbon Espvnsion 1DD6-1D15
~ Ko DRne T Kvpvlei IDA
~ Hvkvixe Hills P Eest Kapoki (Sehulul ~Urbvn EeDonsivn 2D16 end Beyond
Y Nvkvkdv T HFDC Sivie Lvnd Ronk ~ , Urbon Givxih Roundvry
Villvges of Kvpvlei R Lvuleni Residentiol 0
dunean~ associates/GROUP 70 Hawau Ser+ooe Irvsnncr Fee STUDV, December 18, 200611RA1>T, Page 63
Service and Facility Standards
The impact fee for areas with existing development is bated on local student generation rates The
analysis of student generation ratesindudesexaminingthe2000 U.fi Census student generation rates
for the area that indudes Ewa and Centra Oahu compared to aqua student generation in 2000 and
2006fortheEwaplanningarea ThelocalgaierationratFSaecomparecJwithstuda~tgenerationrates
for the Ewa planning area by age of the housng unit and repent student generation rates for new
development compiled by DOE in order to determine if the new derdopmerlt generates a smilax
number of new students a; existing development.
Adua student generaion ratesin Ewa can bedetermined based on publicsdtool enrollment in thetwo
complex areas that comprise the Ewa case study area As shown in Table 53, the actual student
generation raefor all typesof housng in Ewa was 0.537 per unit. The actual rate ishigher than both
the current DOE assumption utilized in thecurrent Far 9iare calculation (0.412 for all housng) and
thestate-wide rate calculated based on U.S Census data (0.422 for all housng); however, the rate is
lower than the Ewa' Central Oahu Census area (0.630 for all housng). The higher actual student
generation rate in Ewacompared tostate-widea?erages is likely the result of a predominance of sngle-
family housng, fewer vacation homes and development that is predominately occupied by full-time
residents and families.
Table 53
EWA STUDENT GENERATION RATE, 2000
Campbell Complex Enrollment - 7,665
Kapoiei Complex Enrollment 3,525
Total Enrollment, 2000 11,190
Housing Units, 2000 20,854
Student Generation Rate 0.5366
Source: School enrollment from DOE; housing units from Honolulu
Department of Planning and Permitting, Planning Division, "General
Demographic Characteristics: 2000~wa.'
To develop thecurrent student generation ra`.esin theEwacasestudyareas, theexpeded publicsdiool
students bared on the number of estimated dwelling units in 2006 and the student genaation rates
derived from the 2000 U.& Census sample data are compared to the aduai public school enrollment
in the Campbell and Kapolei complexes for the currait school year. As Table 54 shows, the Census
multipliersunder-estimateelementaryenrollmentnnd over-predid middlescYtool enrolllrtent,duetothe
differencesbetween definitions of grade levels, asdiscussed in thesfaewideanayss
dunean~ aSSOCIateS/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMaacrFEe Sruov, December 18, 2006 nitAt'1', Page 64
Table 54
EWA AREA EXPECTED AND ACTUAL STUDENTS, 2006
rt.
Single-Family:'
Elementary 15,548 0.2935 4,563
Middle 15,548 0.1838 2,858
High 15,546 0.2148 3,340
M u Iti-Family:
Elementary 9,868 0.2054 2,027
Middle 9,868 0.1638 1,616
High 9,868 0.1244 1,228
All Dwelling Units:
Elementary 6,590 7,574 1.1493
Middle 4,474 2,781 0.6216
Hi h 4,568 4,616 1.0105
Total 15,632 14,971
' includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: Total 2006 units based on 2000 units plus new unit permits from CitylCounty of Honolulu Department of Planning, Mnual
Report, "Status of Large Pdvate Housing Projects," 2001 to 2005; new units allocated to single-family and multi-family based on
allocation of 2000 units (61.2% single-family and 38.8% multi-family); student generation rates from Table 39; actual enrollment from
Hawaii Department of Education.
The student generation ryes for the Ewa' Central Oahu sample data hale been calibrated by adjusting
them bythefactorscalculatedintheprevioustable,asshowninTable55. Thesearethesarnesludent
generation rates use for the Central Oahu cage study.
Table 55
EWA/CENTRAL OAHU CALIBRATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES
rrr
Elementary 0.2935 1.1493 0.3373
Middle School 0.1838 0.6216 0.1143
High School 0.2148 1.0105 0.2171
Total, Single-Family' D.6921 0.6687
Elementary 0.2054 1.1493 0.2361
Middle School 0.1638 0.6216 0.1018
Hi h School. 0.1244 1.0105 0.1257
Total, Multi-Family 0.4936 0.4636
All Housing Types 0.6301 0.9348 0.5890
' inclutles single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex units
Source: 2000 stutlents per unit from Table 39; adjustment factors from Table 54.
d U(IGaltl a5SOC18teS/GROUP 70 Hnwnn SceooL IMPACT Fee Siuor, December 18, 2006 I/1t.4P'1', Page 65
DOE has surveyed new derelopm6nt and matched student enrollment by address in several Ewa area
dEVdopmelts in order to establish astudent generation ratefor new development in the Ewa am As
shown in Table 56, the DOE data provides further evidence in support of the calibrated student
generation ratecalculated in Table55. ThestudaTt generation ratesfortheEwat~sestudyarmwill be
based on the t~librated rates.
Table 56
EWA AREA NEW DEVELOPMENT STUDENT GENERATION RATE
West Loch 1,593 793 0.4978
Ewa by Gentry (above Iroquois Rd.) 1,501 906 0.6036
Ewa by Gentry (below Iroquois Rd.) 892 650 0.7287
Total 3,986 2,349 0.5893
Source: Slate of Hawaii Department of C-ducation, Information Technology Services, October 2006.
Existing Ewa School Facilities
As pre~riously mentioned, the Ewa tie study arm indudes the Campbdl and Kapolei High ~Ftool
compl~c ~lrollrrlelt areas. The inventory of school facilities, current enrollment and current design
capa~ty for each school in the Ewa complexes are shown in Table 57. I n total, mch complex is near
total capadty basil on current enrolllltertt and design capacty. Both of the Ewa arm high schools and
one of the middleschoolsareabovec~artity. Thereisoonsiderablymorevariationintheenrollmatt
and capacty arailable in elementary schools However, since eJenentary schools serve much smaller
geographic areas than middle or high schools, it likely would not be ft?asible to utilize available
elanentary school classroom space in one part of a complex arm for new growth.
Overall, the existing school fadlitiesprovidean adequ~e Ic~el of servicebased on total enrollment and
existing capacity. However, an adjustment to acGOUnt for portable classrooms will be provided in
Calculating the impact feeoonstrudion cost schedulefor Ewa
duncanl aS50CIateS~GROUP 7O ' - HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeeelTlber 16, 200611{iAf'r, Page 66
Table 57
EV(IA SCHOOL FACILITY INVENTORY
~
Ewa Beach 611 665 109% 31 1 3.1%
Ewa Elem 844 933 111% 39 1 2.5%
Holomua 1,185 1,442 122% 40 8 16.7%
Iroquois Point 935 563 60% 36 19 34.5%
Kaimiloa 729 679 93% 28 14 33.3%
Ocean Pointe ('07)` na na - na na na na
Pohakea 681 551 81% 30 6 16.7%
Ilima Inter 1,230 1,201 98% 59 6 9.2%
Ewa Makai ('09) na na na na na na
Cam bell High 2,199 2,283 104% 107 13 10.8%
Total, Campbell Complex 8,414 8,317 99% 370 68 15.5%
Barbers Point 636 529 83% 54 27 33.3%
Kapolei Elem 1,291 1,126 87% 36 7 16.3%
Makakilo 566 509 90% 38 12 24.0%
Mauka Lani 669 577 86% 34 5 12.8%
Kapolei II Elem ('10) na na na na na na
Kapolei Middle 1,501 1,580 105% 41 10 19.6%
Kapolei Hi h 1,953 2,333 119% 63 7 10.0%
Total, Kapolei Complex 6,616 6,654 101% 266 68 20.4%
Elementary 8,147 7,574 93% 366 100 21.5%
Middle 2,731 2,781 102% 100 16 13.8%
Hi h School 4,152 4,616 111% 170 20 10.5%
Total, Ewa 15,030 14,971 100% 636 136 17.6%
'Ocean Pointe will open as Keoneula ~ementary School in January 2007.
Source: State of Hawaii Public School capacity and current enrollment from Appendix H.
Ewa Impact Fee Schedule
Aswith thegreenfidd impact fee, theimpad feecalculation forthe Ewacacestudyutilizeslocal student
generation ratesand le?el of serviceto determinetheland and construction impact feeschedulebased
on local reel estate and construction costs in the Ewa area.
The land dedication requirements and i Ilustr~ivef~s-in-lieu for the Ewa cue study arethe same asfor
theCentral Oahu casestudy, si noeboth rasestudies usethesaneEwa' Central Oahu student generation
rates and state-wide arxes per student ratios. The schedule is present in Table 48.
I n order to develop the construction cost schedule for Ewa, thestate-wide cost p~ student must be
adjusted by local student generdion rates and le?eJ of service. The Ewa area construction cost factor
isthesame a; Honolulu.
dun Ganl a550daie5/GROUP 70 Hawal SCaoou IMVacr Fee SNDV, December 18, 2006 i11iA!"r, Page 67
As disatss°d earlier, near de?dopment should not be chaged for a highs level of servicethan is being
provided to existing derrelopment. I n this study, the le~rd of service is measured by the percent of
dassroomsthat aein permanent structures, as opposed to portablebuildings. Thestate-widecost per
student is based on "brick and mortar' sdtool construction, not on the much lower cost of portable
buildings. The state-wide cost per student Mould be multiplied by the percent of dass{ooms in
permanent structures in Ewa complex schools to derive the adjusted cost per student station that
reflects the existing level of service in the Ewa case study sea The adjusted construction cost pa
student is shown in Table 58.
Table 58
EWA ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT
Elementary $33,230 78.5% $26,099
Middle $32,717 86.2% $28,204
Hi h $58,904 89.5% $52,704
Source: Construction cost from Table 29; share of permanent classrooms from
Table 57.
The construction cost per student per dwelling unit for the Ewa rase study sea is based on the local
student generation rateand theadjusted construction per student. The Ewaschool construction cost
per dwelling unit is shown in Table 59. Thecost/ unit for Ewa is higher than thestate-wide average
becatase of the sea s higher student generation rate.
Table 59
EWA SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER DWELLING UNIT
Elementary 0.3379- $26,099 $8,803
Middle School 0.1143 $28,204 $3,224
Hi h School 0.2171 $52,704 $11,442
Total, Single Family' $23,A69
Elementary 0.2361 $26,099 $6,162
Middle School 0.1018 $28,204 $2,871
Hi h School 0.1257 $52,704 $6,625
Total, Multi-Family $15,658
' includes single-family detached, single-family attached and duplexunits
Source: Students per unit from Table 39; adjusted cost per student from Table 58.
As with the state-wide calculation, theconstrudion cost per dwelling unit musf be adjusted to r~lect
thecapitalfundinganddr3Ttfundingcredits Whitethaecreditswerecalculatedonastudentbais,the
cr6dit actually runs to the unit, and, thus, the credit for all a~ of the state ae the sane ~ those
calculated state-wide The net impact fee scfedule for the Ewa care study is shown in Table 60. The
fee schedulecombinesthelandandconstrudionelementsandsubtradsthecreditperunit. Theimpact
fee schedule would replaar the existing Fa r 9iae conditions in the Ewa sea
duncanl associates/GROUP 70 Hawaii SCHOOL IMPACT fEE S7uov, December 18, 2006 IIltAt'1', Page 68
Table 60
' EWA MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Fee in-Lieu of Land' $4,606 $3,028
Construction Cost per Unit $23,469 $15,658
Revenue Credit per Unit $2,786 $1,428
Maximum Impact Fee Per Unit $20,683 $14,230
Total Contribution per Unit $25,289 $17,258
' based on assumed average land cost of $350,000 per acre
Source: Land fee per unit from Table construction fee per unit
from Table 59; credit per unit from Table 37.
For dEVelopmentswithprtor Feir 9iarecontributionsor agreerr>ertts, a-1 exaTtption or credit based on
the developer's prior contributions of land and cash would be n6cessary. DOE has negotiated and
settled Far 9iareconditionsand a3rcementsforland and/ or r~el1 from several Ewa areaderelopments.
The existing agreartents include the following:
o Gentry Ewa Makes--18 axes for school site;
o Ocean Pointe--12 aces for school site;
o Kapolei Knolls--$850 per angle-family unit; and
o Mehana--5.5 acres and $2,541 per single-family unit and $997 per multi-family unit.
The de?eioper of Ko Olina has set aside six acres for a sdiool site; howe?er, the school sitewas not
required by DOE. DOEiscurrentlynegotiatingFar5tareagree~rtentswithCampbdlEst~eforthe
West Kapolei project and has received a prepaation notice in antiapation of an environmental impact
statement for the Makawa H i Its projed.
dunces O~ a550date5/GROUP 70 Hawnn SCHODI Imracr Fee 57uov, December 18, 2006 11RAI"r, Page 69
• - .
This report has beat prepared to support the deliberations of the School I mpad Fee Working Group
established by the 2005 Hanrai 3a`e Legislature Ad 246, ceS510n Lavs of 2005, s°t forth the intent
of theprojed asfollows:
A srefidertia dedtaxrad a7ttirtuatopro~f intheStated H anai at a de3dypa~toaaurrrtrJate
theganth d Kanmi ro fartiliES and theirditnc d rtan,~T73$ it hearts irto-~rt~y irrpa-tart that
ad~uateinfra~rudurebec~gteitosa~i~tFisnav~rudioti Whilethisindud~sdidaieus
dera~dsasroada via, tdgdta~ cabletderism and inland, anddefridty, it as~indud~
tnktat isarg.ddytherrr~ irrpatant dared, e}~eialyasra~rcisthefuttde-shod fadlities
Today far ~a-e¢rttriFxatiarsha„et~t ails3ei brthed~-tma-d daluc#irn frmrinciud,~al
da~cprart firnstoc~raya potim dthea>#sthar rtar?dadgxradsv~ill ha„ern thedg~rtrratt
dalx~irn. The~re~a~ dtetinthefamcfca~anddoiatatrml h~etracitia>Ltllybert
u~i todths irtlxo~and ecpand ecisingsftod fadlitie;Q totxdld atog~hs rta~vfadlities
Beth partied theD~trrstt d Edudim (DOE) and thededgarad rumwroty, v~add liketo
adtiaea g~a led d preida'dlitytothe~arrartgsra~ts TbthisexJ, ~-a irr~d fe?mm~rrs
veaeintrod~iduringthe2004arxi2005lajdati~es~ats It isthe~ssdtheda<dxidas
~ thistirrG hanea, that m7eirdo-rr>3tim n~tobeg~thaai andrruekJarutingdmetoari~.eat
an etuitadesiutio~ts~idadoytoal a~to3-neipartia
I n 2001, tMIo~I planning o-gartiz~im GraQ 70, l rdartatia-taf and Dtxtran A Coate; pr~erai
a riot srtitlai"Sdiod Far ShaeCadributim Stud,!' vJrdt ecarrirtai theecistingdpartnsd d
eitdim pradi~d aa~ngfar s`tarea7ttributims Arx#ha r~a~t mrpldai in 1992 e~titlai
" I ~ Fey in H anaii: I rrpleradingtheStateL anY , proedai srreirts~k irdotheu~d irrped
fasfo• ptklicfadlitie; Th~r~atscan s~,easa ba3stpm wkvdt tobuld; hcv~ee-, thaybdh rtesi
to beupdaai and in mtan irtdarto~ecpandai
Thepurp~o` thisA d istoe#a'didt a shod itr~d fe=_v~vki ngga~ to prgsaretheszpecf ~nvk
fQ:
(1) A n tpdaaio„e~iarodaltartati~,efinandngtrr#hod;fo• a>~rudim cf navartdecFsndngecidirx~
ei.~ttimaf faolitiea inducingartal~asdhan~shod ci~ridsaonrtrrr~ategonihindud3rt pgxtlatim
and raisritxrtia-t d dttded paxdatiar;
(2)A rte£ls~rartdud~rusngCadralOahuastheca9edud~and
(3) Dadgrrad d ~ficrm7matd~iais, ba~i m therer~rdt and rt~a~srad, toirrFierad
rt~hodsfcr firtandrtgnanrv ecpancirgecidingd~ttrad o`~im akxatioial farilitie~ Wiidt
rrayindudebut nct belirritaftoprc~t
(A) Lajdatim;
(B) Cardya'cinana~ and
dunean~ associateslGeouP70 HgwgnSCHOOtIMaqCT FE6Siuov, December S8, 2006 DRAFP, Page 70
Ag3xy 7'Id Cffml~Ql rUlES and raylatlal5
The Ad established the membership of aten-member ~hool Impact Fee Working Group, and
desgnated the ~~eAuditor's Office to provide staff support. I t set forth thefollowing taslcsfor the
Working Group:
(1) Exarrinethebad<gamddthesalie~t i~ v~kiidi~all indu~but nd r~rilybelirriteito
an irr,~ig#im and eialuatirn d:
(A) The2001 Grail 70, I ntatrdiad grid D urxan A ~date;r~t artitled" Sdiod Fai r
SiareCmtritutimStud~l' and itsrderancytoda~!
(B)The1992dudrartitlai"In}~dFesinHan~aii:Irrptarartingthe~ateLa~;" audits
rAe2rxytaday
(C) Tt>rdffaings~nd faolityiriFradrudurer~isp~ib~!
(i) Irfill andnavdadgxrait;
(ii) Coida»rtiurn dydec, dAadiai srx,Jefarrily harms, and dh3 type; d
~rudim; grid
(iii) Thevaries na~kfl pri0~targ#es byciffairx~typ°; d dsdgm att$
(D) V arias firxjrtg rr~~nisrs and dha bra fxadio~ utilizes by dh3 jurisidios
r~iai-~nidti
(E) Current pra3i0~e>g~ in bythtrrait d ai. ~tim toaa~and aslet fair-dare
a7rtributiozsand anydha rderart itmr~sd renircEaasuistim;
(F) Pctartial m~nsdfuncing indudrg
(i) Irrpad fes aa~ thrax~ dndadiols d aq~atiax-fie ~r6 d oaall
d~garart a~$ and
(i i) A nY dha m~nsas rrey beds apprgxiatet~ the~no-kingga p; ad
(G) H cwto irrtxaetheD~rtrrart d Ed~irn prcjasiasfa- futurefadlitie;tobebdta
aligias vuth vaiasaaurty plansarid prix-itiea
(2) Caidud a ca~dudy, usrxd Geary, Waane and Koa Ridg=plarr~al dadcpYeits in a3rtral
Oahu, mhanrthe~i~andprq~lsrrayaffes a~fiG a~rtig~ousg~g~hicareathat isdates
fQ ox,~ing arrplec, and vases da~gxrgrt vhidi vull prdx~hly resit in the r?a~s fa- inae~s
d~trre~ dedurrfion faolitycapaoty. Theca3?dudy~all indudea" r>s;ka~raii" vhich del
at a rrinirnmindudethefdlan+ng
(A) De~garxs~via;andfadlitydarxsarc~
d U1iC3I1l aa50Clate$/Gaour 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Detembef 18, 2006 111IA1'r, Page 71
(B) Idartifyingandprgefingrla~fvrtlpital faolitya~oty,
(C) Ddirtirg arrad d~ioaloES v eca~ r~ity in eciding aptal faoliti~
(D) Sq~ratingthecal-atal o~sd navga~th anddadgxrart frorecidirlgcapital rle~
(E) Edirretingcaptal ~smapa-uryt-cfdarar>c(
(F) Agxrtia~ingtheapital ¢r#sd navde~gxrart tovariaastyp~sd land t~
(G) Cala.fatirlgaeitsfa• ~ andfuttuetax pay+rsrtstonerd gdtal fa5lityr~xity, and
(H) Dedgdng laj~atim, a-drlar>a~ and nee; cr ra}~latiais arrtairong pdide; and
proialue;fa• irrpad fe?~rart, ailefim, a3rirlidratim and and
(3) Raidethelajdatrr~ axxltie~ anddha intae#al pldicard privateartitie;vuth rr~raF.l~
~ficddiee-a61ESV~hid1 rray indix~but rld n~arily belirritaJ to
(A) Nan~a~ reris3idatute~
(B) Nerov ree~Ja-dnana~
(C) N eNCr reuisaid~ertrrart cfed~tim praair~.sfa• a7sd3atim and pa~ldeagxord
bythebo~rd deit~#im
dancan~associates/GaouP70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDV,DeCembef18,2006T1Ii.8FP,P39272
Section X. SCHOOLIMPACTFEES
(a) Findings
(1) Nev resdentia subdivisionswithin identified school impact distridscredeadditiona
danand for public school facilities and aneed-for more land on which to construct
school faalities.
(2) New residential subdivisons should provide land or a pay a fee in-lieu of land
dedic~ion prior to ~bdiviaon approval proportionatetotteeir impact.
(3) New residential de?elopmentsshouldpay aschool impact fee prior to building permit
issuance proportioneleto their impact on the need to construct additional facilities.
(4) A study commissioned by the Sate of Haxai has identified the land dedication
reauiranent that tsconastent with proportionelefar-shareprindples.
(5) A study commissioned by the State of Hawai has identified the net capital cost of
school facilities, exduding land costs, that is consistent with proportionate far-share
prindples.
(6) The 3ele of Hawai hereby determines that new residential subdivisions within
designated school impact districts steal provide land for schools or pay afee in-lieu of
land proportionateto thelr impart.
The State of Hawai hereby determines that nev residential developments within
desgnated school impact districts shall pay school impact fees proportionate to their
impacts.
(b) Definitions
Thefollowingwordsand terms, when used in thissedion, steal havethemeaning a~xibed to
than, except when the context dearly indicatFS a different meaning.
(1) "County'or"counties'mmnstheCityandCountyofHonolulu,theCountyofHavai,
the County of Kaua, and the County of Maui.
(2) "Developer" mcens a person, corporation, organization, partnership, assodelion, or
other legal entity constructing, erecting, enlaging, altering, or engaging in any
development activity.
(3) "Dwelling Unit" means a room or rooms connected together, constituting an
independent houseke~ing unit for afanily contaning asingle kitchen.
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 Hnwan SGHOOI Imaacr Fee Siuor, December 18, 2006 DItAC"1', Page 73
~.r,.
(4) ° Hawai School I mpact FeeStudy' meansthestudypr~ared byGroup 701 nterriationa
and Duncan Assodates for the Sdiool Impact Fee Working Group in 2006, or a
sub~quent similar report.
(5) "School impac3 district" means a geographic area designated by the Sate Board of
Education aselther agrsenfield school impact district oranon-greenfield school impact
district.
(A) "Greenfield school impact district" is a largely undeveloped, formerly
agricultural areawhereantidpated growth will createtheneecJ for nev schools
within thenod ten yea sthat will located within theareaand will primarilyserve
new housing units within the area
(B) "Non-Greenfield school impact district" is an arce that already ha; some
existing residentia development whereantidpated growth will cxeatetheneed
for new schools or expanded schoolswithin the noel ten years.
(6) "Multi-family' meansanydwellingunitotherthanasingle-familyunitaherelnde#fined.
"Owner" meansthe owner of record of rml property or the owner's arthorized agent.
(8) "Plat" means the map or drawing on which the subdivider's plan of subdivison is
presented and which he submits for approval.
(g) "School facilities' mcens the fa~lities owned or operated by the Department elf
Education, or the facilities inducted in the Department of Education capita budget
and/ or capital facilities plan.
(10) " 9ngle-farnil~' means a delayed dwelling unit not oonneded to any other dwelling
unit, or adetached building containing two dwelling units.
(c) Applicability and Exemptions
(1) Agdidalityd Land Deiralim Re~irera>t. Except as provided below, any person or
person(s) who seelcsto develop residential land by applyingto acounty for theissuance
of asubdivision approval within adesignated school impact district shall berequired to
d~icate land for school fadlities or pay a fee in lieu of dedicating that land to the
Department of Education beforefinal subdivision approval.
(2) AppliddlitydSdadlrrpadFe~ Exoepta;providedbelow,anypersonorperson(s)who
seelcsto develop resdentia land within adesgnated school impact district by applying
to any county for a building permit shall be required to pay a school impact fee.
Assessment of impact fees shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of a building
permit and shall be pad in full to the Department of Education be#ore issuanceof the
permit.
(3) ExeTptims Thefollowing shall be ocempt from the provisions of this section:
duncanl 85SOCiafeS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DEL2fnb2f 78, 20061111Ai"1', P0g2 74
(A) Any form of housng permanently dedic~ed exdusvdy for senior dtizens,
defined a; 55 yeas of a3e or over, with the nec~ary covenants or dedaati ons
of resrictions recorded on the property,
(B) All nonresidential development; and
(C) Any development with arl executed developer agreement with the Deportment
of Education for thecontribution of school stesor payment of feesfor school
land or school consrudion.
(d) Designation of Scholl I mpact Districts
(1) Deiso~ by Board d` Edudim. The Boad of Eduction shall desgnate a school impact
district for school impact fees only after holding a public hearing. A written analysis
prepored by the Deportment of Eduction supporting the designation of the school
impact district asrequired in thissubsedion shall bemadeavalableto thepublicat least
30 days prior to the public hearing. N otioe of the public heoring shall be posted in a
newspaper of general dreulation in the oreaproposed for designation at least two weeks
prior to the public hexing. The notice shall indude a neap of the proposed school
impact district and thedate, timeand placeof thepublicheaing.
(2) Graglfidd ~ Irrpad Dis:rid Arlalyss Prior to the desgnation of a greenfield school
impact district, the Depatmerlt of Education shall prepae a written analysis that
contai ns the following.
(A) A map and legal description describing theboundoriesof theorea
(B) A finding that existing resdential development in the aea is insgnificorlt, and
in no dent grl>2terthan oneperarlt of theantidpated numberof dwellingunits
at build-out of the aea
(C) Analysstosupporttheneatfortheconstrudionofanelementayschoolinthe
aea within the next ten years, based on antidpated development in the aea
Analyssto support theultimateneecJfor ahigh school to belocctedwithin the
a~ to primaily servethe antidpated housng in the aea
(D) Analysstoidentifytheperoorltagesofexistingstudentstationsatthedementary
school, middle school and high school levels that ore located in permanent
structures, as opposed to portable buildings, in ~rrounding high school
comploces.
(E) Analysis to support appropriate student generation rates by housng type and
gradeleud that aerepresentativeof thetypeof development antidpated in the
aea
(F) Analysstodeterminetheaveragevalueperacxeofimprovedlandintheaea
suitable for school construction, after typical subdivison improvements such
~ roads, drainage and utilities.
duneanle550C18tB5/GROUP70 HAWAIISCHODLIMPACTFEESTUDY,DecelTlhefi8,20061/R.AI'1',Page 75
(3) Nm-Gre~fidd~Irrpa~fDidridAnalyss Prior tothedesgnationofanon-greenfidd
school impact district, theDepartment of Education shall prepaeawritten analysisthat
contains the following.
(A) A map and legal description describing the boundaies of the sea which will
indude one or more high school complexes.
(B) Analysisto support the need to construct or expand school facilities in the sea
within the next ten ye~rsto accommodate projected growth in theses
(C) Analysstoddermineappropri~estudentc,~enerationrctesbyhousngtypeand
gradeleveJ the aerepresentativeof thetypeof de?dopment antidpated in the
a~ I n the event that analysis determines that student generation rates ae
fall ing for existing housing unitsin theaea4 thestudent generation ratesfor new
housing should reflect the net ctfed of growth, after accounting for capacity
.likely to befreed up by dedining enrollrr~nt from existing housing.
(D) Analysistoidentifytheperoentagesofexistingstudentstationsattheelenentay
school, middle school and high school levels that ae located in permanent
structures, ~ opposed to portable buildings
(E) Calculation of thecurrent level of servioein them which shall bether~io of
current student capacity of all grade levelsto theaurent enrollment at all grade
IevErs, provided that the ratio shall not exceed one.
(F) Analysis to deferminetheaveragevalueper aG-eof improved land in theses
suitablefor school construction, after typical subdivision improvements such
~ roads, dranage and utilities.
(e) School Land or Fee I n-lieu Required
Theprocedurefor determiningwhether thededicafion ofland isrequired or apayment of afee
in-lieu is required for new schooling faalities isasfollows
(1) Prq~l d Cvuia. At the time of filing an application for any residential subdivision
contai ni ng f fifty or more acres of land, the owns or de?eJoper of the property, as a part
of thefiling, shall designztetheaea proposed to be dedicated for aschool on the plat
submitted.
(2) Land 511 be Usatle When land is proposed to be dedicated for the purpose of
providing a school ste, it shall be land that is usable to the Department of Education
for such purpose. The Department of Education shall havethefinal determination as
to whether a particular piece of land is usable.
(3) Adim bi'the D~rtrrart d Edudim Within sxty days of the completion of an
application for aresidentiai subdivison containingfiftyor moreaxes, theDepartment
of Education, ass pat of such approval, shall determinewhe#her to requireadedicdion
dunean~ associates/Gaour 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Decembef 18, 2006 DRdi"C, Page 76
of land, the payment of afee in-lieu thereof, or a combination of both. Only payment
of afee in-lieu shall be required in subdivisions contaning lessthan fifty axes
(4) Daic~Qirn Proalue When dedication is required, theland Jiall beconveyed to the~ate
of Havai prior to final subdivision approval.
(5) Fe;ln-IiaaPrco~u-e When the payment ofafeein-lieu is required, thefeein-lieushal
be paid prior to find subdivision approva.
(6) Crite-iafer Dsarrirraim. Whether the Department of Educelion determinesto require
land dedication or the payment of a fee in-lieu, or a combination of both, shall be
guided by thefollowing criteria
(A) Thetopography, geology, xcess, and locztion of the land in the development
avalablefor dedication.
(B) The size and shape of the development and the land avalable for dedication.
(C) The location of existing or proposed schooling facilities
Ddarrirratirn Final. The determination of theDepartment of Eduction astowhether
land shall bededicated, or whether af~ in-lieu shall be pad, or a combination of both,
shall befina and exdusve.
(f) Determination of the Amount of Land or the Fee I n-lieu
(1) DEterrirr~#im d theAnnmt d Laid to beDeir~ei The size of the tract of land to be
dedicated by the developer shall be delermined using the following formula:
(elementary school student generation rate per unit x 0.1056 acres) student + x
middle school student generation rzte per unit x 0.0110 arx~/ student + high
school student generation rate per unit x 0.0306 axes/ student) x number of
dwelling units provided for on the subdivision plat.
(2) De#arrirrdimcftheAnwwitdtheFerln-liaa. Thedollaanountofthefeein-lieu shall be
determined using thefollowing formula
acres of land calculzted axordingto subsection (f)(1) timestheaveragecost per
a:xe of land of the subdivision determined pursuant to subsection (f)(3).
(3) Deterni~ioncfA~ag:Cca`paAQe
A. The fee in-lieu of land dedication for residential subdivisions of fifty axes or
moreshall be based on thevaueof theimproved land, after typical subdivison
improvementssuch a; roads, dranageand utilities. A MA.I. appra~ who is ,
selected and paid for bythedeveloper shall determinethevalueof theland. If
the Department of Education doesnot agreewith thedevelopersapprasal the
D~artment of Eduction may engage another M.A.I. appraser at its own
duneanl 85SOCI8Ye5/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPAtt FEE STUDY, DCCembef 18, 20061Ht.4 F'I', P29e 77
expense, and the value shall be an amount equal to the arerage of the two
appraisals If ether party does not accept the a~era3e of the two appraisals, a
third appraisal shall be obtained, with the cost of such third apprasai bang
shared equallybytheDepartment of Education and thede?aoper. Thefirst two
apprasersshall select thethird appraiss, and thethird appraisal steal I be binding
on both parties.
B. R~identiai subdivisons of less than fifty acres shall pay a standard fee in-lieu
based on an a?era3e land value determined for the arm pursuant to susbection
(d)(1)F or subsection (d)(2)D. At least every three years, the Department of
Education shall pr~arean analyssto updatethea7propriatearerageland value,
and shall submit sameto the3ateBoard of Education with arecommendation
to updatethea~erageoos# per aVre.
(g) Impact Fee Calculation
(1) As~rart Districts The state shall be divided into the following twenty-sx (26)
geographically limited cost districts. The locaion of the cost districts is illustrated in
Exhibit A [seeAppetdix I].
Honolulu Honolulu 1.00
Ewa Leeward/Central 1.00
Wahiawa Central 1.05
-Waialua Central - 1-.10
Koolaupoko Windward 1.00
Koolauloa Windward 1.10
Waianae Leeward 1.10
Hilo Hawaii 1.15
Puna Hawaii 1.20
Kona Hawaii 1.20
Hamakua Hawaii 1.20
South Kohala Hawaii 1.20
North Kohala Hawaii 1.25
Pohakuloa Hawaii 1.25
Kau Hawaii 1.30
Wailuku Maui 1.15
M akawao Maui 1.25
Lahaina Maui 1.30
Hana Maui 1.35
Molokai Molokai 1.30
Lanai Lanai 1.35
Lihue Kauai 1.15
Koloa Kauai 1.20
Kawaihau Kauai 1.20
Waimea Kauai 125
Hanalei Kauai 125
duneanl aSSOdateS/GROUP 70 - Hnwan SCHOOL Imeacr Pee Sruov, December 18, 2006 DRAt'f, Page 78
(2) • Co#spa Studait. School impart foes shall be based on the following costs per student
in theHonolulu gent district. Thecost per student in other as~ssment districts
shall be the cost per student in the Honolulu assessment district multiplied by the
appropriatecostfactor insubsection (d)(1). At least e~rerythreeyears, theDepa-tment
of Education shall updatetheoostsper student in the H onolulu aa3essme~it district and
present thewritten anaiysisto the Sate Board of Eduction for rc-~ienr. Upon approval
by the State Board of Education, the updated costs per student shall replace the costs
shown below.
(A) Elementary school cost per student in the Honolulu ass~snent district is
$33,230.
(B) Middleschool cost per student in theHonolulu as~ssrr>ent district is$32,717.
(C) High school cost per student in theHonolulu as~ssrnent district is$58,904.
(3) Cn# p3 D~ndlingUnit. Theoostsper dwdling unit for angle-family detached and multi-
familyhousing in each designat~J school impact district shall becalculate~ aaording
to the following formulas where the costs per student stz#ion are determined in
subsection (g)(2) and the student g~eration rates, percentages of studa~t stallions in
permanent buildings and current level of service are determined in subsection (d). In
greenfield area, thecurrent lend of servioeshall be one.
(dementary school student generaion rcteper unit timeselementaryschool cost
per student times percentage of existing elementary school student stations in
permanent buildings
plus
middle school student generation rate pa unit times middle school oast pa
student times percentage of existing middle school student stations in
permanent buildings
plus
high school student generation rate per unit times high school cost per student
times percentage of existing high school student stations in permanent
buildings)
times
the current lend of_sgyice _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(4) ReeiueCreit Pe Unit. Thefollowing rclrenueaeditsshall be utilized on the effective
date of this section. At I~ e?ery three years, and concurrent with any update of the
costs per student, the Department of Education shall update the revenue credits and
present thewritten analysisto the~~e Board of Education for revier?. Upon approval
dunean~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 IIIiAi''f, Page 79
by the State Board of Education, the updded revenue credits shall replace the ones
shown below.
(A) 9ngle-family ddadied dwelling unit: $2,786.
(B) Multi-family dwelling unit: $1,428.
(5) I nod F~Calalatim. The impald fees per dwelling unit shall be _ pero~t of the
amounts cala~lated according to the following formula [A percentage less than 100°/0
could be spedfied in the legislation, or the percentage to charge could be left to the
Sate Board cf Education, or amancimum percentagecould bespedfied in thelegislation
with the option for the Sate Boad of Education to impose a lower percentage in
individual school impact districts.]
Cost per unit from subsection (g)(3) minus revenue credit per unit from
subredion (g)(4)
(h) Accounting and Expenditure Requirements
(1) Befit DidridsEsablishai Eadt designated school impact district shall beasepaate
benefit district. Fees in lieu of school laid dedication wlleded within earh benefit
district shall be spent only for the alaluistion of school sites within the same benefit
district. ~hool impact feescolleded within each benefit district shall bespent onlyfor
theexpalnsion of existing school or construction of new schools located within thesane
benctit district.
(2) Used Deidej Land Land dedicated by the de?eloper shall be used only as a site for
theconstrudion of anewschool or fortheexpansion of existingschool fadlities. If the
land is sold theproceecls shall be used to acquire land for school facilities in thesame
school impact district.
(3) UszdtheF~lrrliea. Fezin-{ieu fundsshall only beusECi for the acquisition of land for
school purposes. Funds may be u~d for expenses related to acquiring a pieoeof land,
induding but not limited to, surveying, appraisals, and assodated legal fees. Feein-lieu
funds shall not be used for the maintenance or operation of existing schools in the
district, construction costs, induding architectural, permitting or finandng costs, or
administrative expenses
(4) U~cf I rr}xi Few Impact fees shall be used only for the costs of school construction
tha# expands the student capacity of existing schools or adds student capadty in new
school. Schoolimpadfeesma~rnotbeusa'ttoreplaaeanexistingschoollocatedwithin
the sane benefit district, either on the sane ate or on a different ate. I n the event of
thedosure, dgnolition or converson of an existing permanent DOE faralitywithin a
benefit district that h~ the dfed of redudng student capacity, an amount of new
. student capacty in permanent buildings equivalent to the lost capadty~all befunded
with non-school impact fee revenue. Eligible construction costs indudes, but are not
limited to,planning, engineging, architectural, permitting, finandng, and administrative
expenses, and anyother capital equipment expens?spertaningto educational facilities.
duncanl 85SDCI81¢S/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STODY, DeGem6er 78, 2D06 IIItA I~'f, Pege 80
I mpact feefundsshal not beexpended for anycostsrdated to theacxluistion of land.
Impact fee funds shall not be expended for the mantenance or operation of existing
schools in thedistrict. Impact feefundsshal not be expended on portable buildings
(5) TirreLirritfvExpaxiture Impadfeeandfe~in-lieushalbeexpendedorencumbered
within ten (10) y~rs of the dcte of collection. Fees shall be consdered spent or
encumbered on afirst-in/first-out bads
(g) Refunds
I f the fee in-lieu or impact fee is not expended within ten yeas of the date of collection, the
Department of Education shall refund to thede?eloper or thedeveJoper'ssucoessor in titlethe
amount of fees in-lieu pad and any interest accrued. Application for arefund shall besubmitted
to theDepartment of Education within oney~r of thedateon which theright to dam arises.
Any undamed refund shall be retaned and expended ~ lad out in thissection.
(i) Credits for Land Dedication) Fee-in-Lieu
(1) CraitsAvailatte Any person subject fo the land dedication or feein-lieu requirts
pursuant to this section may apply for credit for any similar dedication or payment
arc~oted and received bytheDepartment of Education for thesamesubdivison subject
to this section.
(2) fae~t V dueBa9s Any credit provided for under thissubsECtion shall be based on the
present value of the dedication or payment.
(3) PreOrdnarxsCraitsLirritai. Creditsforcontributionspriortotheeffectivedateofthis
section shall be based on the present value, howeve ,the credited amount shal not
exc~d that value of the dedication or fee in-lieu r~uired under this SECtion.
(4) Pc>#-Ordna~ Ex~ Crafts If a dedic~ion is proposed by a developer after the
effedivedafeof thissection, and isacoeptabletotheDepartment of Education, and it
exceedsthededic~ion requirementsfor thesubdivision, the Department of Eduction
d,all executewith thedereloper an agregncot to provide rembursement for theexo~s
land dedication from thefees in-lieu collected from other developerswithin the same
benefit district.
(i) Creditsfor I mpad Fees
(1) CraitsAvailableAnyapplicantsubjedtotheschoolimpactfeerequiranentspursuant
to this section may apply for credit for any similar contribution, payment or
construction of public school facilities ax~pted and received by the Deportment of
Education for the same subdivision subject to this section. No credit shall be
authorized aganst the impact feesfor dedication of land or payment of afee in-lieu of
land dedication.
(2) PreOrcina~Crafts Creditsforcontributions,paymentsorconstructionmadepriorto
the effective date of this section shall be provided if the subdivison for which the
duncattl 85SOCi2f0S/GROUP 70 Hnwan SCHOO~IMrncr Fee Sruov, December 18, 200611it.4t~7', Page 81
contribution, paymsit or construction wasmadehasnot best completed. Thecurrent
owns of thepropstyfor which such contribution, payment or construction wasmade
asacondition of dEUelopmsit approval shall filean application for credit within one
year of theeffectivedateof thissection. If theapplication is not madewithin oneyear
fof{owingthee4fedivedateofthissection,noaeditshallbeprovided. Theapplirdion
for credit shall be submitted and reviewed a; provided in thissection. Theamount of
the credit for acontribution, payment or construction madeprior to the~fedivedate
of thissedion shall bethecurrent value of thecontribution, payment or wnstrudion,
lessthetotal amount of school impact feesthat would ha?ebeen owed for thebuilding
psmits already issued for the project had those psmits been subject to the fees
specified in subsection (g). Thea~rrent vaiueshall bedetsmined usingtheEngr~ing
NensRezrd Construction Cost Indoc, or an equivalent index if such index is
discontinued. Creditsforpaymentsorwntributionspriortotheeffectivedateofthis
section mall not exosad thevalue of the impact fee required unds this section.
(3) U~d Crafts A credit may be applied only aganst school impact fees that would
otherwise be due for building psmits issued within the subdivision for which the
payment or contribution was required as a condition of development approval. The
Department of Education shall maintain an accounting of the amount of the credit
applicableto the~bdivision, and shad reducetheamount of theaedit by the amount
of thesdiool impact feesthat would otherwisebeduefor each building permit is~ed
in thesubdivison. Aftsthecredit baianceisexhaasted, no additional aeditsJiail be
applied to subs+~uent building psmits issued within the subdivison.
(4) Ex~Creits If private construction of school faalities is proposed by a develops
alts the effective date of this section, and is acceptable to the Department of
Education, and thevalueof theproposed construction exeeedsthetotal impact fsesthat
would be duefrom thedevelopment, the Department of Education shall executewith
the develops an agresnent to provide rembursement for the excess credit from the
impact fees collected from oths dEVelopsswithinthe same benefit district.
duneanl BsSOd8f8S/GROUP 70 HAWAO SCHOOL ir~ppci Fee S7uov, December 18, 2006 112AI'1', Page 82
Section X. 9CH OOL I M PACT FEES
(a) Findings
[S~rne as in Alternative 1]
(b) Definitions
[Ssne ~ in Alternative 1]
(c) Applicability and Exemptions
[S~rne as in Alternative 1]
(d) Designation of Scholl I mpact Districts
[Changesfrom Alternative 1 indicated with underline'strike-out]
(1) Deism by Board d Eduratim. The Board of Education shall designate a school impact
district for school impact fees only after holding a public hmring. A written analysis
prepared by the Department of Education supporting the desgnation of the school
impact district a; required in thissubsection shall bemadearailableto thepublic at I~
30 days prior to the public hexing. N otice of the public hmring shall be posted in a
newspaper of general dreulation in thexmproposed for designation at lead two weeks
prior to the public hearing. The notice shall include a map of the proposed school
impact district and the date, timeand place of the public hexing.
(2) Gre~fidd ~ 1 rrpad Didrid A r~al~as Prior to the desgndion of a greaifieJd school
impact district, the Department of Education shall prepare a written analysis that
conta ns the following.
(A) A map and legal description describing the boundaries of the x~
(B) A finding thzt existing resdmtial dEVelopment in the xm is insignificant, and
in no Event greater than onepxcait of theanticipated number of dwelling units
at build-out of the xea
(C) Analysistosupportthene~ifortheoonstrudionofaneJtays~oolinthe
area within the next ten ymrs, bored on antiapated dEVdopment in the arm.
Analysis to support the ultimate need for a high school to be locatxt within the
arm to primarily serve the antidpated housng in the xea
(D)
dU11CatlI BSSOdBtBS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE Sruov, December 18, 20061)it§i~'I', Page 63
(H
ae~
(Fj Analysstodeterminethea?eragevalueperarseofimprovedlandinthearm
suitable for school construction, after typical subdivision improvements such
~ roads, drainage and utilitim.
(3) Nm-Gre~fiddSdiodlrr}xdDirtridArd~s Priortothedesignationofanon-greenfield
school impact district, theDepatmerit of Education shall prepaeawritteri analyssthat
contains the following.
(A) A map and legal description describing the boundaies of the aea which will
indudeoneor more high school complexes.
(B) Anaiysisto support the need to construct or expand school facilities in theam
within the next ten years to accommodate projected growth in the aea
(C) Anatysisto ~portthecondusionthat65oercentofthe
student generatior rates by housng type
derived for the Ewa arm in the Haneii mod Im~ad FB;Sud~does not over-
estimatethe impact of thetype of development antidpated in the aea I n the
Euent that analyss determines that student generation rates ere falling for
existing housing units in the aea, the analysis of student generation rates for
new housing should reflect the net effect of growth, after accounting for
capadtylikelyto befreed up bydediningenrollmentfromexisting housing. I n
the e?ent that the analysis indides that the net impact of resdential
development in the proposed school impact district is less than 82 peromt of
t he studait generation rates derived for the Ewa am i n the H aua i Sdiod I rr~t
FB?Stud~ theland dedication requirerneritsof subsection (f)(1) shall bereduoed
proportionately and the nd cost recovery percentage of subsection (g)(2) shall
not exceed the percentage of the Ewa am st udent generati on rates determi Heel
by the analyss.
(D)
(F)--Analyss to determine the average value per arxe of improved land in the arm
suitable for school construction, after typical subdivision improvements such
a; roads, dranage and utilities.
dunCatll BSSOCIBiBS/GROUP 70 Hawan SCHOOL ImaacT Fee STUDY, December 18, 2006 DR.dI''r, Page 84
(e) School Land or Fee In-lieu Required
[Same as in Alternative 1]
(f) Determination of the Amount of Land or the Fee I n-lieu
(1) Ddarrir~atim d theArrnurt d Land to beDairattai The size of the tract of land to be
dedicated by the dcirdoper shall be determihed based on the following ratios, which
represent just over 82 peroait of the requirements calculated for the Ewa a~ in the
H aneii Sdicd I rrpad FerStudy
(A) 0.01086 acres per single-family ddached dwdling unit; and
(B) 0.00714 acres per multi-family dwelling unit.
(2) DdarrirotimdtheArmmtcftheFmlrrliea.
[S3ne a; in Alternative 1J
(3) DAarrir~irncfA~aa~Cc~paAQe
[53ne as in Alternative 1]
(g) 1 mpact Fee Calculation ,
(1) A~re~tDistridsThestateshallbedividedintotwenty-sx(26)geAgraphicallylimited
assessrnentdistrids. Thelocationsoftheasse~s~~tdistridsaeillustratedinExhibit
A [seeAppendix I].
(2) N6CcdRaA.ay.lnereryschoolimpa~districtwhereschoolimpactfeesaeimposed
pursuant to ~bsection (d), fees steal I be assessed at [spedfy percentage no more than
82%] of theba~feeamountssd forth in subsection (g)(3) below.
(3) Pha~ng schedule.
(A) For building permits issued within thefirst six months of thedesgnation of a
school impact district, thefees shall be assessed at 25 percent of the ultimate
amount.
(B) For building permits issued within theseoond six months of thedeegnation of
a school impart distrid, the fees sha'f be asses at 50 perc~t of the ultimate
amount.
(C) For building permits issued within the second yea of the designation of a
school impa~ distrid, the fees steal l be assessed at 75 percent of the ultimate
amount.
duneanl e5SOC12te5/GROUP 70 Hnwai SCHOOL imva[i FEE Siu°v, December 18, 20D6 DttAP'P, Page 85
(D) For building permits issued more than two years after the design ion of a
school impact district, the fees Mall be assessed at 100 percent of the ultimate
amount.
(4) Ba~F~Sd>taiule The impact fees shall bethe percentage specified in ~bsection (g)(2)
times the percentage speafied in subsection (g)(3) times the following base fees per
dwelling unit for the cost district in which the school impact district is loccted.
Honolulu 1.00 $20,683 $14,230
Ewa 1.00 $20,683 $14,230
Wahiawa 1.05 $21,717 $14,942
Waialua 1.10 $22,751 $15,653
Koolaupoko 1.00 $20,683 $14,230
Koolauloa 1.10 -$22,751 $15,653
Waianae 1.10 $22,751 $15,653
Hilo 1.15 $23,785 $16,364
Puna 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
Kona 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
Hamakua 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
South Kohala 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
North Kohala 1.25 $25,854 $17,788
Pohakuloa 1.25 $25,854 $17,788
Kau 1.30 $26,888 $18,499
Wailuku 1.15 $23,785 $16,364
Makawao 1.25 $25,854 $17,788
Lahaina 1.30 $26,888 $18,499
Hana 1.35 $27,922 $19,211
Molokai 1.30 $26,888 $18,499
Lanai 1.35 $27,922 $19,211
Lihue 1.15 $23,785 $16,364
Koloa 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
Kawaihau 1.20 $24,820 $17,076
Waimea 1.25 $25,854 $17,788
Hanalei 1.25 $25 854 $17 788
(h) Accounting and Expenditure Requirements
[S3rr1e a; in Alternative 1]
(g) Refunds
[~rr1e ~ in Alternative 1]
(i) Credits for Land Dedication/ Fee-in-Lieu
dunCanl a550ClaieS/GROUP 70 Hawan SCHOOL Imvacr Fee STUDV, December 18, 2006 DItAF't', Page 86
[S~neas in Alternative 1)
(i) Creditsfor I mpact Fees
[S3me ~ in Alternative 1]
duncanlaSSOC18te5/GROUP70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDY,D2Cembe118,20061111.4f'1',P89287
Thissedion desaibesthelegal framework for development exactionsand impact fees.10 Theevolution
of regulatory practices and rase law isdescribed, from earlyformsof exadionsthrough tothe new legal
environment in thewakeof recent 9tpreneCourt deacons
Early Exactions
Early exactions for schools, perks and off-site facilities potentially serving more than the subdivicon
or project on which they are levied fell into two categories: land dedication requirenentsand negotiated
exactions Land dedication requirements ultimately rased practical, legal, and policy problems; for
example, communities often wound up with large inveitories of small parcels that were ineffiaent to
de?elop and expencveto maintain if developed, and ultimatelyhad to buytheparkland or school sites
that they needed. As a matte of policy, land dedications for faalities such as trails sometimes fell
une?enlyon landownerses~eaallywhen acommunity might haveaplan for apart, aschool, or amajor
roadway affecting the site of a proposed projects I n such communities sometimes required
dedication of the site as a condition of rezoning or subdivicon approval, raising issues of equity in
publicpolicyand~ualprotectionunderthelav. See,forexample,NdlanvCalifQrraCca~alCarris3m,
483 U.S 825 (198, and Ddanv CitycfTig~rd, 114 S Ct. 2309 (1994), discussed below.
The next generation of exactions for parks, wools and off-site improvements added a layer of fees
in-lieu of dedication (oftei called simply "fees in-lieu"). All development was made subject to the
exaction requirement, but the local government could in appropriatec~essubstituteafeeequal to a
calculated or stipulated value of theiand that would othewisetiededicated.
Building on the base of "fees in-lieu" and on the long practice in some communities of charging
substantial fees for the privilege of connecting to water and sever lines, some communities began
impocng calculated impact feeson all new deveopment. Thisapproach resolvesmost of thepolicy and
equity questions at the local le?el and, if carefully done, falls squarely within the legal guidelines
ectablished by the U.S 9~prane Court and several state courts
The law related to impact foes has evolved from litigation over local regulatory measures involving
d~ication requirements, feesimposed in-lieu of dedication, and impact fees, all of which arecolledively
called"e~cadions" Thefirsfreported"impact fee'systensweedevelopedinFloridatocreateasysten
chagefor roads, similar to the common system buy-in chargesfor wale and sevve systems. fi owever,
such feesweemore difficult to implement than simile feesfor utility sgvioesfor two reasons--first,
road fees related to ageneral governmental service rather than to an enteprisethat happened to be run
by the government; second, there was no speafic, controllableeveit (likethephycral connection to
the water system) which could be conditioned upon payrrtent of the fee, exc~t for the approval of a
development or subdivicon or thel~a approval of a building permit or artificateof occupancy. That
distinction becomes more important late in this analysis, as it approaches more sophisticated and
70 This sa~ion wa; pr~aaJ by Duncai A~da~ Eric Denial Kelly, Est., FAI CP, a naionaly-recogiizej
laid use atorn~ aid past-presda~t of theAmericai Planning As~oa~ion. Givs~ the lade of sgnifirait leggy
devdopmaits in the impa~ fce field snce it w~ ori~naly dr~ted, it is substaitial ly the sane ~ it ~p~ai in the 2001
mod Far Sta'eCatritztim Study.
duneanl8550CIaleS/GROUP70 HAWA°SCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDY,Detembef18,2°061DRA1"C,Pege88
complex issu~of impa3 feelaw. Theearlyprindplesof that law, howEVer, wereapplicableto all types
of impact fees.
State Court Rulings
The Florida courts developed a detailed se'ies of legal guidelines for impact fees in the state The
Florida ~ established l aw ~ well a; policy that hate guided other courts and even legislatures in
addres<ingtheissue. Thelandmarkc~econcerningimpadfeesisCartra3QS& BuildasA~cdPir~la;
Camtyv. Citycf Dunein, 326 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976). I n that ca~the Floridaoourt struck down awater
and wastenrater capital expanson fee, but in doing so it gaveguidelinesfor desgning an axeptablefee
system. Those guidetineswerethreefold:thefeetobechargedmaynotexce~lthereasonablecostto
the system of absorbing the new users; the fees must be reserved for the purpose for which they are
charged; thef~must a~uallybeussJ for fhedesignated purposeand used in an ar~which will directly
benefit (or absorb the impacts from) the development on which the fees are imposed.
I n Hdlyrvmd, I nc v Bronard Caxrty, 440 ~o.2d 352 (1983), a pak dedication/ fee-in-lieu system wa
upheld when the Couritywas able to show that the requirement of three axes per thousand resdents
was not unreasonable, that the moneywould be went within a reasonablearnount of time and that the
expenditure would benefit the resdents of the platted area.
A Florida court upheld afeesystem in Palm Bead1 County in Hol~xiildasaxiCo-dradcrsA~c dPalm
Bead1 Co.eityv. Board d CaartyCami~oia$"finding that it passim thetestsset out in the Dunafn and
H dlyncod, t nc The Palm Beach County fee was a road fee bassi on a complex formula relat~l
to traffic generadion and road construction costs The fee was allocated to a road zone of about sx
squaremi leswhich inducted theproposed development, and it wasto beused spedficallyto build roads.
The Florida cases remain important and are often dted in litigation and artides They established the
impact feepolicythat hasguided other oourtsin consderingtheissueof impact fePSand that ha;guided
communities that have developed impa`:t fee legislation in a number of sues.
What is interesting about these new state statutes is that they have largely followed the tests evolving
from the Florida line of camas. Almost all of them r~uire a plan of some sort. The most common
requirement is for a capital improvements plan or program, although some use the phra~ "capita'
facilities plan" A couple of them actually require a land use plan a; the bags for the fadlities plan.
Most contain requiremeitsfor thecomputation of the fees, based on theactual costs of thefadlities;
some indude ddailed spedfic~tions about what planning and mana,~enlent charges can be inducted.
Se?eral prohibit theuseof thefeesto cureexisting defidendesin thesystem or to upgradethelevel of
servicein developed partsof acommunity. All requirethat thefeesbesegregated for actual usefor the
purpose for which they a e collected. Virtually all require the fees to be refunded if not actually
expended within agiv~ time period.
One of the most interesting of the recent st~ecourt cases came out of Utah, where Salt Lake County
imposed a drainage fee on a school district. The sdlool district argued that the fee was a local tax
nent,fromwhichitwouldbeexempt. Theoountyarguedthctthefeewasan"impact fee." The
"Han#xildasaxlCatra3asAa~: d' PamBsshCartyv Bcadd CanlyCamis3a~ 446 ~.2d 140 (Fla App.
1983).
duncanl associates/Gaoup 70 Hawan SCHOOL IMPACT Fee Sivov, December 18, 2006 UtLaF'1', Page a9
court ruled that thefeewas an impact feeand that theschool district had to pair it. S~It LaceCo.rtyv.
Bo2~'d d Edxatirn d GraruteSd~d Di~rid, 808 P.2d 1056 (Utah 1991). The issues in the cam predated
impact feelegislation passed in Utah whilether~ewaspmding. Thus, it is one moreof asignificant
number of cases upholding impact fees without spedfic enabling legislaion for them.
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
The most important recent legal development regading development fees is the decison of the U.S
R~premeCourt in Ddan v CitydTig~-d,114 S Ct. 2309 (1994). I n that ca?e, theCourt held that Tigard,
Oregon's, requirement tha`. Florence Dolan dedicate land to the aty for use as a floodway, a gre2nway
and abikepah amounted to an unconstitutional takingof her land. Thecaeeaosewhen Dolan applied
for abuilding permit to expand an existing hadwaeand plumbingsupplystorefrom 9,OOOsquaefed
to 17,000stuarefeetandtopavea39-car parking lot. Theprojedconformedwithexistingzoning,but
the dty imposed the exactions a; conditions on the issuance of a building permit.
Thiswasthe first exactions caseto be Bedded by the Court since N dlan v Caifar>ia Ceada Crnrri~o~,
483 U.S 825 (1987). The Nollanswanted to danolish an existing singlefa-nilydwelling and replace it
with another, lager single-family dwelling onvaluablebe3chfront property. Their proposal conformed
with local zoningand subdivision regulations, but it also required approval undertheStateswastaznne
regulaory program. The Coastal Commission was willing to approve the building permit, but it
conditionedissu2nceofthepermitonthededieationofatralacrosstheNollans beech,oonnectinginto
a lager trail system. I n that case, the U.S ,SLprane Court crested the"raiona nexus' test, suggesting
that therewa;in fact no"rational nexus," or reasonableconnection between theproposa to replaceone
house with another and the need for additional trails in the area
I n Dolan, the ~preme Court expanded upon the rational nexus test, adding to it a requirement that
there bea"rough proportionality' betwe~ theimpact of a proposed development and theburd~ of
theocaction impost on it. I n Dolan, theredealyw~araiona nexus--theexpansion of acommerda
enterprise is bound to leaf to some increase in runoff and some ina~se in traffic, probably Even in
bicyde and pedestrian traffic. Thus, Tigard satisfied the bagc requirement of the Nollan test. The
Supreme Court sought more.
The City of Tigad's goal in sedcing trail dedication was to develop a trail network ~ part of its
transportation system. That is a perfectly rea9ona51e public goal. The problem w~ not with the goal.
The prob{an waswith its implementation. TheCitydid not sedc an impact fee. It wanted land. The
amount of land it wanted had nothi ng to do with the probable tral usage of aistomers of the hadwae
store. I t was not even based on the probable traffic generation of customers of the hadwa-e store.
That might have provided a reasonablebasisfor dedication, if thetown had agued that it had apublic
policy of a»oouraging at I~ XX percait of 211 tripsto be by bicyde or foot and that some bicydeand
foottrafficwouldthusbeimputedtoeverytrafficgena2for. ThatisnotwhattheCitydid,howEVer-a
lea;tnotinitially. What itdidwastomapitstrals. TheDolans hadwaestorelayaongamappedtral.
The dty needed theland to link up thetral. The amount of 12nd and the route of the land that the dty
sought in the dedication was based on thetral routing and design, not on traffic impact.
Tigad's dty staff ultim~dy computed some traffic generation f figures for the hardware store and Even
agued that sometrips might be by bicyde. Theargument fated, ~ it should have. All of that figuring
was spurious ThereisEVeryindicationthatthedtywouldhavesoughtpreasdythesameoca~ionfor
thetral if thehadwaestoreexpansion had been 1/ 10 the proposed sizeor twicetheproposed size.
dunCanl e550Ci21B5/GROUP 70 Hawmi SCHOO~IMeacr Fee Sruov, December 78, 2006 DILAPT, Page 90
The dty wanted that land, because it provided a key link in the trait-regardless of the extent of the
impact of the proposed development.
The~apremeCourt has not invalidated all forms of exactions In Dolan, it smplydarifiecl itsearli~
holding in Nollan, adding to it a requirement that exactions should bear a"rough proportionality'
betweai the exaction and the impact of the propo~d development. The Court suggested that the
calculation of proportionality should be based on an "individualized determination" That isexadly
why an impact fee system does An impart fee syste-n takes the individualized fits of a proposed
development and computes the estimated tratfic impact of that development (an individualized
determination) and then bases the fee on that computation (giving us something that is actually bdter
than a"rough" proportionality). Although critics of the Dolan derision ha~re argued that it can be
interpreted ~ requiri ng a complete impart study of e,~ery development, there is nothing in the Court's
languageto indidethat. I n fact, given theanti-regulatory biasof some membersof theCourt, it sears
likely that they would find the simplidty of an impart fee system far pr~erable to a regulation that
required complex impact nentsof eiery project.
School Exactions and Fees
The leading case on exactions and schools is .Jsdan v V illagrd Meiarua?Falls, 28 Wis 2d 608, 137
N.W.2d 442 (1965), appeal dismissed, 385 U.fi 4 (1966). That rae involved a challenge to a $5,000
fee in-lieu of dedidion on adevelopment; thefeewasto be used to acquire park and school
sites. The court held:
We condudethct a required dedication of land for school, park or recreational sites as
acondition for approval of the subdivision ply should beupheld asavalid exerdseof
policepower if theE,ridencer~onablyestablishesthat themunidpalitywill berequireJ
to provide more land for schools, parks and playgrounds as a result of approval of the
subdivision. 137 N.W. 2d at 448.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a $448 per unit school impact fee met the" rational nexus' test
but failed a"proportionality' test. 9. JdnsCaarrtyv. N o~tha~ Flo•ida BuldasA~n Inc, 583 Co. 2d 635
(Fla 1991). Both the"rational nexus' and"proportionality' testsarediscussed below. Notethatthe
"proportionality' test in this case pre-dated Dolan, discussed blow, but was baeically a precursar to
Dolan and w~ entirely consistent with the holding of the ~preme Court in that later cue.
A California court upheld the implication of a school developrr~ent fee levied against a private wllege
when it built abusinessschool. LodaMary+mirrt Univ. v LcsArtgtESUnifiaiSdi. Dist., 53Ca1. Rptr.2d
424(1996). Theissueinthecasewasoneofconstruction,turningonwhetherthebusinessschoolwas
a"commerdal" dc-velopment under theordinanoeor whcther it fell under aschool or governmental
exemption from thefeES; the court agreed with thecounty in applying theordinanceto the project.
Candd Enters, Inc v Grc~rurt Unim Hid Sdi. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 705 P.2d 876 218 Cal. Rptr. 303
(1985) upheld school impactfeesin responseto achallengeurgingthat California's3ateschoolfirance
art implidtly preempted such afinandng mechanisn. Another Californiac~e upheld theimposition
of impart feeson aretirement homedeudopment. Md;lanW. Nn 1 v SanDia,~Copty,194Ca1. Rptr.
594 (1983).
d un CZnl 2550CI8t0S/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACT FEE STUDY, Decemb2f 18, 200611iLAf'I', PeyE 97
The Colorado SUpremeCourt struck down school impact fees levied in Boulder and Douglas Counties
in Board d Ca.eityCarrris3o~asd Dox,JasCn, Cdn v HmdnoldasAs;n d Mdrgcditan Demme, 929 P.2d
691 (Colo. 1996). Thecaseturnerl on issuce of statutory construction and wasentirdy consstent with
Colorado'slonghistoryofnarowconstrudionofcountypowers. ~eafically,Coloradolaroauthorizes
counties to l evy oertai n development chages related to schools and, under an amendment to the Sate s
school financead, prohibitsothers Thesefeesdealyfdl outsdethesropeof thestatutoryauthority.
Although the dedsion was nominally a split dedson (43), the dissent actually focused on a narow
issue; the dissent agued that the fees had been within thesoope of county powers for a short period,
before the amendment to the school finance ad, whidi even the dissmt tautly acknowledged bared
thefees
State Mandates
Most of the alternative finandng options described in the following appendix (the exceptions ore the
Mdlo-Roos spedal districts and the real estatetransfer tax) rely on the authority of local government
to regulate the development of land. I t is control over the approval of subdivisions and the issuance
of building permitsthat giveslocal governmentsthepower toconditionsuch approvaison thepayment
of afeeor thededication of land. Sdiool districtsgenerallyaeindependent of dtiesand counties and
consequently must rdy on dties and counties to do thisfor than.
Thelikelihood of finandal cooperation between school distridsand other branchesof local government
is greatly enhanced when they shore the same geographic boundaies. I n Florida school districts ore
coterminous with counties, and 12 counties have adopted school impact fees. The only county in
Coloradothat hasadopted adequatepublicfa~litystandadsforschools, DouglasCounty, isserved by
asngleschool district.
Local governments that aeserved by a multitude of school districts, or that ore only a small part of a
much lager district, tend to be less likely to cooperate with them, if for no other r~on than the
logistidproblemsinvolved. Thisisthecaseinmanypartsofthecountry,andmayhdpexpiainwhy
school impact fees ore rdativeiy core compered to the types of facilities directly provided by dties and
counties
State legislative mandates provide one way to encourage such cooperation. I n California Sate lav
authorizFS school districts to levy developrna~t fees, and requires dties and counties to require
compliancebeforeissuingbuildingpermits. I nWashington, Satelavnot onlyarthorizesschoolimpact
fees, but also requires local governmentsto take the need for school facilities into consideration when
reviewing development proposals I t is no axident that these two sues, along with Florida lead the
country in the adoption of school impact fees.
I n Hanrai, of course, the school district is a Sate agency. The Sate Legislature could mandate that
developers pay school impact fees, or individual counties could enact school impact fee ordinances
under theauthority of the Sate lauv to enact impact fee ordinances. The H a~vaii impact feeenabling art
authorizescountiestoordopt impact feesfor any"typesof publicfadlitycapital improvement specifically
identified in a county comprdiensve plan or a faality needs assessment study." To date, the only use
of this authority ha; been the adoption in 2002 of a road impact fee bythe City and County of H onolutu
for the Ewa r~ion.
dunean~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECCTbEf 78, YOD6 f11t,QI~'P, Page BY
Thissedion of thereport explorespotential alternativefinandngtechniquesto helpfundschool capital
costs in Hawaii.'Z Local governments in the U.S have used several different medianismsto secure
developer contributionsforschcol fa:ilityfunding. Theseindude:
" land dedication requirements,
" negotiated deudoper exactions,
" adequate public facility(APF) requirements,
" impact fees,
" development taxes,
" special districts, and
" real estatetransfa taxes.
Land dedication requirementsaretheoldect and most common form of dEVdoper exaction for schools.
Negotiated exactions have not been widely used for school faci lities, and although commonly employed
by local governments aaossthe n~ion for other faalities, this rndhod of de?eloper exaction has been
placed under a doud of legal uncertainty by reccet U.S Supreme Court dedsions. APF requirements
can sometimes have thesame result a; negotiated exactions, although they operate under a much more
rigorousframework of level-of-se-vicesta~dards, monitoring and technical analysis.
I mpad fees and development taxes are the most direct methods of charging nenr development for its
contribution to the need for new school facilities. A major distinction between than is that
development taxescan beassessed on both residential and nonresidential dEUelopment, whereasschool
impact fees are generally assesserJ only on new residential development.
Spedai distridshavebeen ussiextensvdyin Californiatofund publicschool construction in pa-ticula
growth areas. And real estatetransfer taxes, while not exdusively charged on new construction, areal
increasingly popular funding aiternativefor school construction.
Land Dedication Requirements
Land dedication requirements are among the oldest type of development exaction used in the United
States. They a'e also the most commonly-used method of dclrelopmertt exadionsfor school faalities.
Prior to the advent of zoning and subdivison controls in the 1920s, developers typically made only
minimal improvementsto their projects. Bythe 1940s, it had beoomewidely accgoted that developers
would provide all public improvements within a subdivision that were designed to serve that
subdivison.
The first tools by which local governments could require new development to shoulder some of the
burden placed onoff-site publicfadlitieswerede?ised duringthedevdopmatt boomfollowing World
War I I. Local governments, experiencing difficulty funding parks and schools needed to serve new
t2 This isai upd2et vason of the aiayas prestntej in the2001 Sdnd Far 9-aeCotritx.kim 8u~. Most of
the Weer maaia is in the" impa3 f~' sECtion.
dUnean 2SSOCIates/GROUP 70 Hnwan SceooUmaa[r Fee Siuov, December 78, 2006 IHtAI'P, Page 93
residentsthroughtvaditional tax-supported bond issues, began to requiremandatorydedication of park
and school rtes. For smaller subdivisionsand thosewith unsuitablesites, feesin lieu of land dedication
wererequired.
7hefeesin-lieu of dedication are superfidallysmilar to impact fees, and in fact areadired precursor
of impact fees. The distinction lies in the manner in which the fee isass~ed and the purposes of the
fee. "In lieu" fees are ba;°cl on land costs only and are ill-suited for public services not requiring
extensive a-nounts of land. Impact fees, on the other hand, are desgned to cover total capital faality
ousts and may be applied to awider variety of services
Mandatory park or school dedication requiremsits with in-lieu fee provisons typically apply only to
resdentialsubdivisons,andarebaseclonthenumberofdwdlingunitsproposed. Requirementsba~cl
on a percentage of site area have been overturned by the courts, snce they do not recognize the
differing service demands created by low and high density derdopments. Land dedic~ion usually is
required at thesubdivison sta3eof thede?eiopment proo~.s.
Land dedic~ion exa~ions hale the advantage of being dos°lyrelated to on-ste nexls created by new
development. Theyharealonghistoryofuseandaregenerallyacceptedaslegitimateexerdsesoflocal
policepower. Theyaealso relativelysimpletogdminister and treat all resdenfial subdivisonssmilarly.
A major dravbad<, however, isthai they onlycover thecost of land and.makeno contribution toward
the cost of new capital improvements required by new development. I n addition, ante they are
generally administered through the~bdivison ordinance, dere{opments not requiring land subdivison
are exempted from the requirem~tts.
Negotiated Exactions
Exadionsa-egenerally defined astheprivateprovision ofland or facilitiestoserve public infrastructure
needscr~edbynewderdopment,madeasaconditionofderelopmentapproval. Monetayorin-kind
exa~ions, other than for land or on-sitefa~lities, aregenerallythe result of open-ended negotiations
between the developer and the local governrr~t, rather than from the application of a previously
defined methodology. They magi be imposed at any stage of the development process, pa-ticulaly
during requestsfor regulatory approvals, such aszoning, special permitsor planned unit de~relopments,
where the local governing body has broad discretionary authority. Bch exactions typically involve
public improvem~ts in dose proximity to the development.
While negotiated exactions are standard procedure in many communities, they aretightly regulated in
somestates. I n North Carolina and Virginia for example, Saiegovernment has authorized two kinds
of zoningdistricts, general usedistridsand conditional usedistrids Local governmentscannot require
de?doper contributions ~ a condition of granting general use zoning, and can ~t proffers only
when conditional usezoning isrequested. I n Virginiajurisdidionsthat harenot been expresslygranted
conditional zoning authority are se?erdy limited by the types of proffers that may Dally be ao~ted.
I n compaison with land dedication requirerr~ts, negotiated exactionsharetheadvantagethat theymay
covertheca7ital cost of publicfadlities inaddition to land costs I n addition, since such exadionsare
bassi on the spedfics of at individual development propose, they can address public faality
improvanent needs, such ~ driveway turning lanes, that are directly related to the development.
duncan~ associates/Geour 70 Hawan Scxoo~ IMencr Fee Siuov, December 1a, 2006 DRAFT, Page 94
A drawbarac of negotiated exactions isthat they lads theattributesof predictability and equitythat gaped
park and school land dejication requirements their early and wide ax~tanoe. The amount of the
exaction may depend on acadentsof geography, such astheamount of land owned byade~eloperthat
happens to corrdatewith right-of-way needs, or on the political or bargaining skill of the applicant.
Seal dc~relopments, although they may cumul~ively result in the need for sgnificant capital
improvgr>ents; often escape such exaction requirements because individually they are not capable of
makingsignificantcontributions Dere~opersoftenfeelth~theyarevictimsofextortion. Negoti~ions
are often time-consuming aid expensive for both the devdopa~ aid the local permitting authority.
Finally, in light of recent U.S SapremeCourt deasions, negotiated exactionsarebecoming incr~ingly
diffia~lt to defend against constitutional challenges.
Adequate -Public Facility Requirements
Adequatepublicfaality(APF)requirerr>ents,asoknownas"conaarrencyrequirements," areintended
toensurethatoff-sitefaalitiesareavalableasimpactsoccurfromnewdcveJopment. APFrequiranents
are a means of pre?enti ng prematurededdopment in remote a easwherefa~lities are inadeau~e, or of
controlling the pace of development in areaswherefacilitiesarecongFSted. If existingpublicfaalities
are not adequateto accommodctethedevdopment, thede?eloperwill ha?ese?era options: reducethe
density of the project, wat for facilities to be improved, finance the needed improvements or select a
different site.
APF requireeentsareaforma mechanise used to enforceoneof themost fundamental tenetsof land
useplanni ng-that de?elopment should not bepermitted whereit can not bea:Jequatdya~mmodated
byaiticalpublicfaalitiesandservioes. Whilelanddevdopmentregul~ionshadehistoricallybeenused
asammnsof ensuring that resdentsand end usersof ade?elopment project can be adequately saved
by community facilities, adequate public facility regul~ions go further, by ensuring that new
deudopment will not cause an unaccgctable decline in service#or existing area residents.
APF regulations are most defensible in the context of a long-range plan for the provision of major
publicfaalities. Theyarenotde~gnedtobeameansofpreventinggrowth,orofreauiringdevelopas
tooonstruct majorsystanfaalitiesha~ringcommunity-widebenefit. I ntheedentthat adevdopa offers
to construct or contributeaportion of thecost of such afaality in order to hareit in placeearlia than
would be possble with existing funding sources, rembursaeent agreeeents, pro rata agreements or
other mechanisms should be used to ensure that the derelopa is not forced to contribute a
disproportionateshare of the cost.
APF regulations should be based on quantifiable standards that ran be measured, mapped and
monitored. This necessitates background studies to ensure the such standards are realistic and
mantanable. second, the regulations should be backed by a capital improv~ts plan (CI P) thct
identifiesprojedsand fundingsourcestomeet thesestanda-ds Third, de?elopment re~riew procedures
should involvetheissuanceof a"oertificateof adequ~efaalities' after anaysisof aproposed project's
impacts and mitigation. Fourth, service levels should be monitored over time to ensure that public
facilities are keeping paoewith developma~t.
Floridaha;pioneaedaformofadequatepublicfa~lityregul~ionsknowna;"concurrency" Under
theprovisonsof theLocal Government ComprehensivePlanning and Land De?dopment Regulation
Act (Chapter 163 of theFlorida3~utes), dtiesand countiesmust adopt"ad~uatefaalities' regulations
requiring the all futurederdopment be saved by infrastructureopa~ing ~ or above adopted levels
dunean~ associates/Gaouv 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Detembef 78, 2006 DRAI''P, Page 95
ofservioe. According totheprovisionsoftheAdanditsaccompanyingadministrativerules(9J-5 and
9J-24), no new dwelopment can be permitted unless it is first determined that public faalities are in
placeatthetimethefacilitiesarene~ledforthederelopment. However,schoolswerenotindudedin
the list of fardlitiesfor which concurrency was mandated in Florida until passage of ~ 360 in 2005.
The 1990 Washington Safe Growth Manage'neit Ad and the 1991 amendment to theAd requirelocal
governments in that state to make appropriate provisions for schools in reviaving development
proposals, and grant counties and dtiestheauthorityto imposeschool impact fees. King County, the
most populouscountyinthestate, established concurrencystandardsandimpadfcesforpublicschool
distridsin 1991. The School Mitigation and Impact Feesordinancewascodified as Chapter 21A.43 of
the King County Code. The key code provisions indudethefollowing:
o The formation of a Spool Technical Review Committee;
o Annual County Coundl re?iews;
o An impact fee program; and
o Concurrency.
Thepurposeof concurrency, asdefined bytheKingCountyCode, isto ensurethatschool distridshave
sJffident capacityto axommodatestudent populationsgenerated by new residential development. For
this reason, a finding of concurrency must be made for all preliminary residential plats, preliminary
planned unit developments, siteplan approvalsfor mobilehomeparks, requestsfor multi-familyzoning
and building permits for multi-family projects If it is determined that school capaaty will not be
avalable at the time development impacts occur, the proposal may bedenied or mandatory phasing or
other mitigation may be required. The King County system entailscoordinationwith 11 independent
Sd1001 dlStrldS13
Mme of the advanta3es of school APF or concurrency programs indude the following:
" They can be used to paoederelopment to match desired leuelsof service.
" They can help direct development to areas where ocisting school c~adty is available.
" The,~provideastrudureandresourcesforimpl~tationofthecommunitysClP.
Some of the disadvantages of APF or concurrency programs indudethefollowing:
" ~di programsrequiresystemsof datacolledion and monitoring.
" They can cause some over-building during the initial implementation period from fear that
availablec~padtywill be consumed.
" Such programs mayaeeteabiasinfavoroflargeprojedsthatareabletomarshalresourcesand
managetheir timing.
13 K ing County D~artmsit of D evdopmsit aid Envi ronms~t~ SaVICes, " D D ES Customs I nfom~ion
Bulletin #46; ,6nuay 2D06.
dunCanl eSSOC18t85/GROUP 70 Hgwmi SCHOOL IMPACT Fee Sruov, December 18, 2006 IriL1!>r, Page 96
Special Districts
A type of special district, known ~ Mello-Roos, ha; been widely used in California to finance ne~v
school construction. Thisuseof thespecla district techniquewasaresponseto (a) limited propertytax
funding dueto Proportion 13 and (b) aderrefor an aternativeto high up-front lump sum paymalts
intheformofschoolimpadfees Proportion13wa;enadedinCaiforniain1978.Withthene~rc~
on property taxes, public agerlaes found that ability to finance new projects to be severely limited.
Relator H eery M6tlo and Asserrlblyman Mike Roosfacllitated the passage of the Community Facilities
District Ad in 1982, which enabled local governments and dcwelopers to create Community Facllity
Districts (also known as Mello-Roos Districts) for the purpose of selling tax-exailpt bonds to rase
money for public improvements
Establishment of a new M6ilo-Roos District requires a-two-thirds margin of qualified voters in the
district. Upon approval, aMello-Roos District has all the legal privileges of a legally sanctioned
government body. A Mello-Roos District has the legal right to implement severe penalties and
foreclosure priorities in the e?ent the payment of district asszssrnent foes is delinquent. District
assessrrlents are levied in the form of spedal charges on the owner's property tax bill.
Mello-Roos Districts can levy netlt fees on undedetoped land, ~ well ~ developed resdentia,
commercla, industrial, and rd igious propertieswithin the D istrict. The a~ssnentsto be levied on the
taxablepropertywithin the D istrid arebas~i on lot rzeor squarefootageof thehomeand thebenefits
expected to be reoaved by each parcel from thevarious public improvements to befinanced with the
proce~Jsof thedirrid bonds.
The Cityof Antioch, California, established aMello-Roos assecvr>slt program in a developing part of
thecommunitytofundthebuildingofeghtne?~schoolsandaparktoservethearm Bondsweresold
f i Hance these costs, and the spea a taxes cot laded are used to make the bond payments or pay di redly
for thefacilities. Construction on thefirst school began in 1992, and construction on the eighth and
final school began in 2004. 9nce1995, therehasbeen an option alowingtheMello-Roostac to bepad
off cerly by the homeowner.t4
If a builder's project is subject to Mello-Roos, the per unit cost could be built into the pridng of the
home, a;would bethecase if thefinandngtool wasan impact fee, rather than thesameamount bang
finanari through annual district assessments. But builders don't generally deal with the Mello-Roos
obligation this way, primarily because the interest rates for financlng Mello-Roos levies ~ general
obligation bonds are low. Rich bonds are exempt from both Rate and Federal income taxes on the
interest theyearn, and thereforearesoldto investorsastax-freemuniclpa bonds,with interest-ratesd
about half thegoing ratefor residential mortgage loans. For example, if the lump sum per unit amount
of a Mello-Roos bond obligation wa; $11,000, the annual interest ~ a general obligation bond might
cost the homeowner $846 at 4.5% annual interest rate ~ a municipal bond. However, the very same
amount could cost $1,20.5 at 9°/D interest finanoad ~ r~ular market rates.
Thespeclai district finanang mechanism represented by Caifornia'sMello-Roos D istridsis not entirely
appropriatefor Hawai school finance,rnceHavuai hasastatewideschool district and does not need
to aedeaspecla purposegovernmenta entityto es~pepropertytax limitationssuch asthoseimposed
http:/ / wtwd.a.antioch.caus~ CityGov/ Finalce' MdloRooy dEfault.htm, on Decenba 16, 2006
dunean~associales/GaouP70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDY,DeLert1b2f18,200611lt$f*1',Pege97
by Californi~s Proportion 13. However, one of the key features of the Mello-Roos D istrict may be
applicableto Havaii. Thisfeatureistheabilityto allowtheschool construction cost obligation of anew
residence to be paid in annual installments over an extended period of time.
Thus, while Mello-Roosspectal districtsarenot needed in Hawaii to escapepropertytax limitationson
theissuanceof government bonds, theydo offer theconcept of theextended payment option the could
be incorporated into any impact fee or development tax syst~n. However, since impact fees, unlike
district t~ces, cannot generally be pledged to retire bonds, the extended payment option is less
appropriatethan it is for spedal districts.
Real Estate Transfer Taxes
Another schoolfundingaternativeisareal~statetransfert~c. Arealestatetransfertaxisnotaproperty
tax, butisanexa~taxontheprivile3eofsellingproperty. Liketheotherfinanangalternativesunder
consderation, areal estatetransfertaxwould haveto beauthorized bythe3ateLegisla'ure. Real estate
transfer taxesareinaeadnglybeingturned to assn alternativeto development feesor taxesasameans
of finandng school construction in growing areasof the country.
Thirty-fivestatesplus Wallington, D.C. impo~areal estatetransfer tax; California Louisianaand Ohio
permit local governments to impose and collect real estate transfer taxes. Localities in Delanrare,
Marylahd, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Washington and West Virginia may impose a local
transfer tax in addition to the 3atetransfer tax. The amount of transfer tax rangesfrom a low of 0.01
perccet in Colorado to ahigh of 2.2 percent in Wallington D.C. Most statereal estatetransfer tax reles
are lower than 0.5 percent of the value of the transfer.15 Local governments that ha~re a transfer tax
cha-ge more varied rates.
I n some rte, modifications to the flat percentage rate ha~re been made to make the tax more
progressive and to encourage affordable housing. Hawaii enacted a sliding scae for the transfer tax
underAd156inthe2005Legislative~on. The3ate'sslidingscaleisbasedontheamountofthe
conveyance:
0 0.1% (0.15% for single-family or condominium residences that do not qualify for a
homeowner's ocemption) on amounts up to $600,000;
0 0.2% (0.25% for non-exempt) on the amounts from $600,000 up to $1,000,000; or
0 0.3% (0.35% for non-exempt) on amounts in excess of $1,000,000.
RBI estate transfer taxes can obviously be used to fund many other thi ngs besdes school construction.
Hawaii dedicates a portion of the Sate transfer tax to the land conservation fund and rental housing
trust fund.
Mme advantages of the real estate transfer tax over impact fees or development t~ces indude
significantlygreder rerenuepotential and lessdependenceon building cyder, sincetheresaleof existing
real estate is subject to the tax. Like the developmcet tax, the reel estate transfer tac to fund schools
could be charged on both resdential and nonresdential development, whereasschool impact feesare
generally charged only on residential development. Likethe development tax, the real estaietransfer
75 Fej~~ion of Tac Admini~r~ors, FTA Bi11Eti~ ° Sae R~ E~~eTraisFa Taces,° Februay 16, 2006.
dunCanl 85SOdet85/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHO°IIMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCEfY~bEf 78, 200611fiAr'I', Page 98
taz hasthedisadvantageof beeringthetaz label. It also lad<sthededicated natureof an impact feeand
could be used to fund a varidy of things other than new school construction.
Impact Fees
I mpact feeswerepioneered by local governmentsin the Figure 6
absence of explicit state enabling legislatiori. IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS
Consequently, such fees were originally ddended ~ an
exeraseof local government's broad "police power" to
protect the health, safely and welfare of thecommunity.
The courts gradually developed guidelines for
constitutionally valid impact fees, based on a"rational
nexus' that must exist bdween the regulatory fee or
enaction and the activity that is bang regulated. The `
standards set by court cases generally require that an ° o
impadfeemeetatwo-part test: 4~ 5`J.:ImPZnFeeActs
1) The need for new faalities must be created by ne~v development; and
2) The expenditure of impact fee rEVenues must provide bandit to thefee-paying development.
Impact fees for vaious types of developments should be proportional to the impact of each
development on theneed to construct additional or expanded facilities. Thefeesdo not ha~eto recover
the full cost, but if the fees are reduced by a percentage from the full cost, the percentage reduction
should ~plyevenlyto all types of developments.
Texas adopted thefirst general impact feeenablingactin 1987. To date, 27statesha~reatopted impact
fee enabling legislation (for other than water and wastewater fees). These acts haietended to embody
the constitutional standardsthat hale been developed by the courts.
ff UTC21tl BSSOCI8fB5/GROUP 7O HAWAII SCHOOLIMPACT FEE STUOV, December 18, 2006 IIRAI'1', Page 99
- "
Table 61
STATE IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS
Arizona 1988 Ariz Rev. Stat. Ann., § 9-463.05 (cities), § 11-1102 et seq. (counties)
Arkansas 2003 Arkansas Code, § 14-56-103 (cities only)
California 1989 Cal. Gov't Code, § 66000 et seq. (mitigation fee act); § 66477 (Quimby Act
for park dedication/fee-in-lieu); § 17620 et. seq. (school fees)
Colorado 2001 Colo. Rev. Stat., § 29-20-104.5; § 29-1-801804 (earmarking requirements);
§ 22-54-102 (school fee prohibition)
Florida 2006 Fla. Stat., § 163.31801
Georgia 1990 Ga. Code Ann., § 36-71-1 et seq.
Hawaii 1992 Haw. Rev. Stat., § 46-141 et seq.; § 264-121 et seq.
Idaho 1992 Idaho Code, § 67-8201 el seq.
Illinois 1987 605 III. Comp. Stat. Ann., § 5/5-901 et seq.
Indiana 1991 Ind. Code Ann., § 36-7-4-1300 et seq.
Maine 1988 Me. Rev. State. Ann., Title 30-A, § 4354
Montana 2005 Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 6, Part 16
Nevada 1989 Nev. Rev. Stat., § 2788
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., § 674:21
New Jersey 1989 N.J. Perm. Stat., § 27:1G1 et seq.; § 40:55D-42
New Mexico 1993 New Mexico Stat. Ann., § 5-8-1 et seq.
Oregon 1991 Or. Rev. State, § 223.297 et seq.
Pennsylvania 1990 Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 53, § 10502-A et seq.
Rhode Island 2000 General Laws of Rhode Island, §45-22.4
South Carolina 1999 Code of Laws of S.C., § 6-1-910 et seq.
Texas 1987 Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann., Title 12, § 395.001 et seq.
Utah 1995 Utah Code, § 11-36-101 et. seq.
Vermont 1.989 Vt. Stat. Ann:, Title 24, § 5200 et seq.
Virginia 1990 Va. Code Ann., § 15.2-2317 et seq.
Washington 1991 Wash. Rev. Code Ann., § 82.02.050 et seq.
West Virginia 1990 W. Va. Code, § 7-20-1 et seq.
Wisconsin 1993 Wis. Stats. 66.0617
I n some states, such ~ Maryland, Tennessee and North Carolina, impact fees and dereopment taxes
aregenerally arthorized for individual jurisdidionsthrough speaal adsof the legislature. I n Tennessee,
ma~/or-aldermanic charter dties have very broad home-rule powers of taxation and spedfic grants of
authorityforfees,whichhavebeeninterpretedasindudingtheauthoritytoleryimpadfees Although
Tennessee does not have a general enabling ad, 13 counties and 15 dties have evaded impact fees or
adequatefaalitiestaxes, based ether on home-rule authority or spedal local ads.
Oneof thethingsthat most enabling adsdo isrestrid thetypesof faalitiesfor which impact feesmayr
be imposed. The types offadlitiesthatareeigibleforimpadfeesinthevariousstateadsaelistedin
Table 62. I t is noteworthy that only eight states authorize school impact fees. ~hool impact fer~ are
found almost exdusiv6iy in Florida, California, Washington and Maryland (wherethey areaathorized
in some counties by speaal ads of the legidature). ~hool impact fees tend to be high fees that are
imposed only on resderltial dereopm~lt and face political opposition from horrl~uilder and reeltor
organizations; a; a result, many states prohibit the impostion of school impact fees.
duncan~ associates/GBOUe 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeLember 18, 2006 I)Rlll"f, Pale 700
Table 62
FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
Arizona (cities) # # #
Arizona (counties) ~ ~ # # ~ # #
Arkansas (cities) # # # # # # #
California - ~ # # - # # # # # #
Colorado # _ # # # # # # #
Florida # # # # # # # # #
Georgia # - # # # # # # #
Hawaii - # # # # # # # # # #
Idaho # # # # # #
Illinois
Indiana # # # #
Maine # # # # # #
Montana ~ # # - # # # # # # #
Nevada # # # # # # #
New Hampshire - # # - # # # # # # #
New Jersey # # - # -
NewMexico # # # # # #
Oregon - # # # #
Pennsylvania #
Rhode Island ~ ~ - # # # # - # # # #
South Carolina - # - - # # # # #
Texas (cities) ~ # # #
Utah ~ # # # # # # #
Vermont # # # # # # # # # #
Virginia #
Washington # # # #
West Virginia # # # # # # # #
Wisconsin cities ~ # # # # # # # # #
Floridacan now besaid to hate an impact feeena5ling act, although local governmentsin Florida hale
long had theirauthoritytoimposeimpadfeesconfirmsibythecourts The"FloridalmpadFeeAd,"
which becamedfediveon June 14, 2006, imposesse?eral minor requirements on local governments
adopting or arrleiding impact fee ordinances The fees must be bored on the most "reoalt and
localized" data, administrativechargESmay not exceed actual administrative costs, and notice must be
provided at I~ 90 days prior to the effe~ive date of an impact fee ordinance. Local governments,
however, remain concerned that a future legislature will impose more onerous restridions
A renew of the state enabling adsrereelsthat, outside of the general prinaplesof rational nexus and
rough proportionality laid down by the courts, there is little agreement about what form state regulation
shouidtake. ~ededchara~eristicsofstateimpa~feeenablinga:tsaresummariz~linTable63. The
first column, showingthelength of thevariousads, illustratesthat enabling adsrangefrom brief grants
of authority and state+Tlents of general prinaples (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Vermont,
Wieronsin) to theexhaastive, confusing and confliding provisions of Califcrniaslegislation.
tt UriCat7l associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 tilt It i'r, Page 101
About onethird of the enabling ads allow impact few to be collected at any time during the
development proo~s. Most of the others provide that impact fees cannot be collected prior to the
building permit or artificateof occupancy.
One of the I~t ~tled issues in impact fee practice iswhether or how impact fees should be raiuced
to axount for pat or future revenuesthat will be genereled by new development and potentially u~d
to the sane typal of capital improvements for which the imps
rt foes ae imposai. Sta`e enabling acts
provide little consensus or guidance on this matter. A majority of existing state enabling acts require
the ~ I~ consideration begiven to revenueaetlits, but aminority aecompfetelyslent on thisissue.
A m~ority of state arts require that impact fee revenues be spent within aspedfied number of years or
be rdunded to the fee payer. These requirements range from fiveto 15 years, with sx years bang the
most common.
~vera steles, following Texas' cerly lead, hanre impo~d a rather onerous recalculation requirement,
which manddes that the local government recalculate the impact fees after completion of the capital
improvgnentsplan,than refund anyexcerscolleded if actual costswerelessthan projedeci costs. This
provisonw~intheoriginalTex~actandwasoopiedalmostverbatiminse?eralotheracts. Texas has
since repceled theprovision.
Another typeof provision pioneer~t bytheTexasad stipulatesthat feesareassessed at platting rather
than at the time of construction. I n the Texas act, the fce schedule in effect at time of platting is the
macimum fee that may be charged to development within the subdivision, regardless of when
development actually occurs. Two other states hale this same provision, while another four lode the
fee in for one to four ycers.
While about half of the ads are silent on the issue of waivers or exemptions, the other half explidtly
authorize local governments to wave impact fees for oertan types of projects Most of them limit
waves to affordable housng or, to a lesser extent, economic development projects. Of the adstha:
authorize waivers, about half require that the local government reimburse the impact fee fund from
some other, non-impact fee revenue source.
Thefinalcolumnindicatesthefrequencywilhinwhichthefe~mustbeupdated: Most adsaesilent
on this issue (see Table 63.). Of the less than one-third that require periodic updates, every five years
isthemost common requirement.
duncanl 2550CI8IB5/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECem bEf 78, 2006 DI2A1'i', Page 102
Table 63
' SELECTED ENABLING ACT CHARACTERISTICS
,
Arizona 1,068 anytime yes none no no none - n/a none
Arkansas 1,634 certocc no 7 years no no none n/a none
California 22,907 bldg pmt no 5 years no no none n/a none
Colorado 3,980 anytime no none no no afford hsg no none
Florida 307 anytime no none no no ~ none n/a none
Georgia 3,757 bldg pmt yes 6years no 180 days econ devt yes none
Hawaii 2,017 bldg pmt yes 6years no no none n/a none
Idaho 7,124 bldg pmt yes 10 years no 1 year afford hsg yes 5 years
Illinois 5,670 bldg/CO yes 5 years no no none n/a 5 years
Indiana 9,705 bldg pmt yes 6years no 3 years afford hsg no 5 years
Maine 465 anytime no none yes no none n/a none
Montana 1,809 bldg pmf yes none no no none n/a none
Nevada 4,685 bldg pmt no 10 years yes no schools no 3 years
New Hampshire 2,356 cert occ no 6years no no none n/a none
New Jersey 8,670 bldg pmt no none no no none n/a none
New Mexico 6,575 bldg pmt no 7 years yes 4 years afford hsg unclear 5 years
Oregon 4,111 anytime no none no no none n/a none
Pennsylvania 6,115 bldg pmt yes none yes - no afford/other no none
Rhode Island 1,942 cert occ no 8 years no no general no none
South Carolina 4,571 bldg pmt yes 5 years no forever afford hsg yes none
Texas 8,641 bldg pmt yes 10 years no forever afford hsg no 5 years
Utah 4,818 anytime yes 6years no no afford hsg yes none
Vermont 1,229 anytime no 6years yes no general no none
Virginia 1,893 certocc yes 15 years yes forever none n/a 2 years
Washington 2,064 anytime yes 6years no no general yes none
West Virginia 3,105 anytime yes 6years no no general yes none
Wisconsin 1 167 bld mt no 7 ears no no afford hs no none
HaNaii'simpad fee'erfabling ad, adopted in 1992, aathorizescountiestoadopt impact feesfor all "types
of publicfaclity caQital improvementsspecficallyidentified i n acountycomprehensive plan or afadlity
needs assessrr>erlt study." The only use of thisauthority to-date ha; been by the City and County of
Honolulu, which adoptedaroadimpadfeeordinanoefortheEwaaeaofOatiu. Hanrai'slegislature
recently removed the restriction that pre?iously allowed only oountieswith a population of greater than
500,000 to impose impact. fees for Sate highways (mate Bill 2901 wa; effective on July 1, 2006).
School impact feesha?ebeen explicitly authorized in Californiasinoe 1987, when thelegislaturepassed
AB 2926, authorizing school distridsto levyadevdopment feeon all new construction forthepurpose
of paying ther shaecf school building condrudion. Thesdlool district, upon adoption of such afee,
must notify ctyand countybuilding officals, who must then requireproof that such feesha~ebeen paid
before issuing building permits The fee is le?ied based on the squae footage of construction. The
maximum fees ae established by law and ae adjusted annually for inflation. In Januay 2006, the
duttCatt~aSSOC12f25/GROUP 70 HAWAIIScHOOLIMPACTFEESTUOV,December18,20061)3tA1'1',Page103
maximum feesw~e raised to $2.63 per square foot for resdential buildings and $0.42 per square foot
for comme-dat buildings
The Caiiforniaimpact feead isuniquein that it spedficallyantidpa`estheimposition of school impact
feFSOn nonresidattial developrrtent. 1t requiresthat, if school feesareto bead on nonresidential
development, the school district must first conduct a study of the impact of the increased number of
employeeson the need for school fadlities. N o other state impact feeact specifically addressesthis issue.
The consultant team isnot aware of any adopted school impact feeoutsdeof Californiathct appliesto
nonresdential development. The rea~n is that it is more difficult to establish the link between
commerdal development and the need for new school capacity. For example, while an employee of a
manufaduringfaalitymay havechildrenthat go to publicsdtool, theemployeemay not livein thesame
school district wherethefactoryislocated. ThiswouldbelessofaprobleminHawaii,wheredistrids
are large and geographically isolated. I n addition, a school impact fee that charges both residential and
nonresidential development must find awayto allocateschool costs between the residential unitswhere
the childrce live and the employment centers wha~e ther parents work.
Unlike developer exadionsthat typically addressonly on-siteor nearbyfadlities, impact feescan be used
to cover the broad range of capital fadlitiesrequired to serve new development. Impact fees are more
predictable and equitable than informal systens of negotiated exactions and are likely to generate
considerably more rEVenue I mpad foes cai also be used to fund a wider vaiety of services and types
of fadlitiesthai ispossiblewith ecadions
The primary strengths of impact few indude applicabi lity to a wide range of public fad lities, ability to
recover thefull net costs of growth-related infrastructure, proportionality to impacts, predictability for
both the public and private sectors and ax~tability due to a dear linkage with the needs of new
development. Their limitations indude the necessity for detailed studies and accounting procedures,
inability to fund operating or defidency costs, d~endence on growth cyder and lade of bonding
capability.
The requirement the impact fees be spent to benefit the fee-paying development is typically mel by
earmarking revenuesfor expenditure in thezone in which they are collected. If impact fees cannot be
used to finance bonds, enough fees must accumulate before construction on a project can begin. The
requirenent that feerevenuesbespent within areasonableperiod of timefollowingfeepayment imposes
an additional constraint. However, proper design of benefit zones, provisionsfor pooling re?enuesfrom
adjacent zones and supplementing impact fee revenues with funds from other sources can overcome
obstadesto suul fee implan~ttation.
Development Taxes
Development tares, which are also called impact, exdse or privilege taoces, are spedal taxes levied on
development. Development taxesareaspedal type of exdsetax,which ingeneral refersto anytaxthat
is not an ad valorem tic or an incometax. Development taxes are local taxes imposed on the burners
or occupation of real estate development in general (or a part of that business) in order to raise monies
to pay for the added costs that development imposes on the community.
Because they are an exerdse of the taxi ng power, rather than the pol ice power, development taxes must
be speafidly authorized by sta`.e law. Most states reserve the right to levy exdse taxes to the state
dunean~ associates/GROUT 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT TEE STUDY, DeCembef 78, 2006 Di[AFI', Paye 704
government. I n the 1960s, home rule dties in California becarie the first in the nation to mess
development taxes several other sues, including Colorado and Arizona authorize munidp2litiesto
impose exdse tares, and some communities in those states have used this authority to impose _ _
development exdce taoces on the ocaupation of building.
Development taxesdiffer from ad valorem property tacos in sweral important ways. They are not taxes
on property at all, but tares on the exerdse of an occupation. They aretherefore generally not subject
to constitutional and statutory requirements of uniform real property tacation. They areseldom baste
directly on thevalue of a property, they are usually calculated ba~cJ on some measure of the amount of
construdionitself,suchasbuildingsquaefeet. Whendcvelopmenttacesarediredlybaseclonthevalue
of real property, they havesometimesbeen held to be unconstitutional ad valorem taxes, and havebeen
overturned. Finally, unpad ad valorem property taxes are generally secured by a lien on the property,
while paymeht of the e~cdse tax is not secured by a lien. I nstced, it is usually collected el the time of
building permit issuance.
Development taxes also differ from impact fees in important ways. First, they ae primarily atool for
raising revenue, a; opposed to a land use regulation designed to finance facilities for specific
developments ~cond,theydonotha~retobe~rmarkedorsegreg~edora:countedforseparatelyfrom
general revenues. Third, theycan be uced to payfor operationsand maintenanceof faa;dlities, a;well ~
for their construction. Fourth, they generally do not need to be bared on either general or specific
studies to document a r~sonable relationship of burdens and benefits. For all of thece reasons, the
exdsetax mechanism offersmunidpalitiessubstantially moreflexibility inraising rerenuesto cover the
costs of development.
Perhaps most importantly, development taxes are adopted pursuant to munidpal taxation powers, and
not police powers. As a result, they are generally not subject to the body of la?v dealing with the limits
of police power regulations and exactions Court-defined standards for "nexus;' "reasonable
relationships," and "rough proportionality' generally do not apply. While development tares must be
rationally related to a corporate purpose, that is generally e~y to show, since revenues are generally
needed from sorrtewhereto fund publicfacilitiesmaden~ary bythe nev development activity subject
to the tax.
De?elopment taxes are not without disadvantages. I n spite of thefact that they ae not subject to the
strict nexus) rational relationship test, studiesmay still need to be compiled. Generally, it isgood practice
to calibrdedevelopment taxesca-efully, based on thetypesof expensesthat theyare intended to cover.
In addition, the adoption of new faces is generally more unpopular than the adoption of new
development fees or special assessrnents, c~en though the practical results and burdens of the different
tools may be the same.
Development taxes tend to be more popular than other kinds of taxes because they are levied on ne?v
construction rather than existing development. However, re-roofing, remodeling and alterelions to
existing structures may also be subject to such a tar. Remodeling activities may account for over one-
third of total building permit valuation even in rapidly-growing communities.
duncan~ associates/Grtoup 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCZmbef 18, 2006 DIIAITI', Page 105
Impact Fees Versus Development Taxes
Impact fees and development exdse taxes are different mechanises for achieving the same broad goal
of shifting more of the cost of growth onto the dereloprnaits creating the need-for expanded
infrastructure. The key differences bctweat the two may be summarized a; the "legitimay and
predictability' of impact fees versus the"flexibility and smplidty' of development exdse taxes.
Impactfeesha~eacertanlegitimaryth~derivesfromthestrong,requiredlinkagebctweentheanount
of the fee and the actual costs required to save the new development with new or expanded capital
fatalities. Their legitimacy also derives from theeven-handed treatment of all development projects
according to their impacts This sense of fairness is reinforced by the fact that developers who are
required to makeimproverriartsfor thesametypeof faxlities~acondition of dEVelopmerit approval
must be given credit against their impact fees for the value of the improvements Finally, the
constitutional standards developed by the courts to ensure that local governments do not abuse their
reguldory authority over development providedevelopers a1 assuranceth~ the local government must
treat than fairly or end up in court.
Thesecharataeristicsmay 1~ developersto prefer impact fee;over development taxes, Even when the
impact fees are higher than the development taxes would be Duncan Assodates has worked with
munidpaiitiestoctevelop both impact fevered development tax aitana`.ives Generally, thedevelopment
tax alternative sprEads the cost of fatalities over both resdenti2l and nonresidential dEVdopment and
results in a lower feefor residential development than an impact fee if the impact feefor such facilities
cannot be charged to nonresdantial dEVdopmernt. I n one community it had been assumed that the
residential homebuilderswould prefe a Power development tax to the higher impact fee. ~rprisngly,
thehom~uildersa;sodctionexpr~sedastrongpreferenceforthehigherimpadfee. Therre~oning
was that e?ern if the deveopment tac was initially calculated in the same manner ~ an impact fee, it
4ataced the safeguardsthat would prevent futuregoverning bodiesfrom arbitrarily incrf~ing thetax.
The impact fee approach is gener~ly indicated for fatalities that, by their nature, are the subject of
re3ulatoryacactionsth<tshoutdbeaeditabteagainsttheimpadfees. Developers,fore~cample,areoften
required to oversize water and saver lines and drainagefadlities, and to construct or widen internal or
ajjacent arterial strects These types of required improverrnents benefit the community at large, and
developersshouldeot berequiredtoprovidesuch improvenentsand paydevelopment chagesintended
to fund thesametypes of improvernents, without somecreditsor other form of compensation. ~ctnool
facilities, howe?er, do not fall in this category, because developers are rarely required to construct
schools
Whilelegitimacy and predictabilityma~r bethemajor advantageof impact fees, devdopmernt exdsetaxes
wouldprovidemuchmoref{ocibi{ityzndaresmplertodevelop,administerandupdate. Detailed studies
would not have to be performed to determine the appropriate amount of the tax, development taxes
would not ha?eto besegregated from other revenue sources, and revaiuescould fund mantenanceas
well ~ capital costs
Whilethediffeencesbctweern impact feesand development exdsetaxesseen fairly dear in that typical
manifestation, things gct murkier when development taxes are calculated and assc~ed in wan+sthat are
virtuallyidenticaltoimpactfees. Mostc~elawonthedistindionbe#weenimpadfeesanddenielopment
taxes has involved impact fees being struck down by the courts ~ an unlawful tax. I t is undear how the
wurtswould look upon adevelopment exdsetaxthat in most respectsfundionslikean impadfee. One
dunean~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCembef 18, 2006 UEIAITI', Page 706
Iegat observer advises munidpaiities considering adoption of an exdse tax on the business of
development to take pains to ensurethat thefee is not interprcted by the court as being an impact fee,
by, for example, avoiding earmarking the revenues collected.
Onecommunitythat hasdesigned adevelopment tax that looksvery much likean impact feeistheCity
of Boulder. I n 1 g96, the City commissioned a study that usai impact fee methodologiesto calcul~ethe
maximum fees for a wide vaidy of public facilities, but adopted them ~ a Development ExdseTaY
(D ET). The D ET, which was most recently updated in 2004, has most of the other trappings of an
impact fee, inducting theearmarking of revenuesfor ca~itai faalities, segregatingfundsaccordingtotha
type of facility and a provision for credit against thetax for required deraoper contributions.
The more a development tax is d~gned to function I ike an impact fee, the more it loces the advantages
of the development tax approach. I t is not dear, for example, what advantage there is to the City of
Boulder to aioptingwhat a{~pearsto bean impact feea;adevelopment ocdsetax. 3ncethisapproach
takes the risk that the courts may decide it is an impact fee after all, it would appear the more prudent
courseto develop an exdsetaxthat takesadvantageof not havingto complywith all of therequirements
attendant to impact fees.
Oneremronfor choosing development taxes over impart feesfor certain fadlitieswould beto promote
housing ~fordability. Impact f~for schools, parks, librariesand cultural facilities, for example, must
generally be only on residential development. The cost of these facilities could be addressed
with a much lower development tac thel applied to nonresidential as well ~ residential deveopment.
Another situation favoring ade?elopment tacwould beafadlitylikestormwater drainageforwhich there
may beinadequatedatatosupport defensibleimpad feecalculations. Finally, adevelopment tax can be
more aaraily designed to be progressive by bang assesses per square foot of residential development,
without theburden of havingto show how theimpactsof thedevelopment aredirectly related to thesize
of the dwelling.
I n summary, impact feesand development exdsetaxeshaveverydifferent characteristics, and oneshould
not try to get the advantages of both. The impact fee approach has the advantages of legitimacy and
predictability that come from the constitutional ra7uirements for delaled studies to delermine
attributablecosts, earmarking of funds, expenditureonlyfcrcapital expansion, provison of aeditsfor
required developer contributions, etc. I n contrast, the development exdse tax approach offers the
advantages of flexibility andsimplicitythatcomewiththeuseofthet~cingaathority. Consequently,the
development tax approach, if forthrightly done, is generally immune from legal challenge, does not
reauiredelailsi studies, issmpler to administer and updele, and can be used to promote goals, such a;
affordable housing or progressive taxation, that are more difficult to address within an impact fee
framework.
dutlC2nl 25SOCI8125/GROUP 70 Hawnn SCHOOL Innrnci Fee Siuov, December 78, 20061>ltRl'T, Page 107
Table 64
NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, 2006-2015
Ewa Makai Middle Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2006
Kapolei Makai Elementary Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2007
Koa Ridge Elementary Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2008
Koa Ridge Middle Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2008
Central Oahu High Nanakuli-Pearl Gity-Waipahu Leeward 2008
Waiawa Elementary Nanakuli-Pearl Ciiy-Waipahu Leeward 2009
Lahaina III Elementary Hana-Lahainaluna-Lanai-Molokai Maui 2009
Wailuku II Elementary Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Maui 2010
Kakaako Elementary McKinley-Roosevelt Honolulu 2010
Waimea Elementary (New) Honokaa-Kealakehe-Kohala-Konawaena Hawaii 2010
HLIPOahu Honolulu 2011
Kihei High Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Maui 2011
Waiawa Middle Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2011
Royal Kunia Elementary Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2011
Central Maui Middle Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui Maui 2012
Ko Olina FJementary Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2012
Waiawa Elementary II Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2013
Koa Ridge Elementary II Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2013
Kealakehe II Elementary Honokaa-Kealakehe-Kohala-Konawaena Hawaii 2013
East Kapolei Elementary Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2013
East Kapolei Middle Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2014
East Kapolei High Campbell-Kapolei-Waianae Leeward 2014
Central Oahu High II Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2014
Lihue II Elementary Kapaa-Kauai-Waimea Kauai 2014
Waiawa Middle II Nanakuli-Pearl City-Waipahu Leeward 2015
Waiawa Elementar III Nanakuli-Pearl Cit -Waipahu Leeward 2015
Source: Hawaii Department of Education, 2005-07 Biennium Budget and Six Year CIP Plan.
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, Decembef 18, 2006 DIIIIP'P, Page 708
~ • • - • - • ~ _ • • 1 1 1 .
Table 65
ENROLLMENT AND HOUSING TRENDS, 1990-2006
1990 1989/1990 169,193 0 169,193 33,446 202,641 196,903 389,563 356,296
1991 1990/1991 171,056 0 171,056 33,584 204,640
1992 1991/1992 174,249 0 174,249 33,289 207,538
1993 1992/1993 176,923 0 176,923 33,108 21D,031
1994 1993/1994 179,876 0 179,876 33,577 213,453
1995 1994/1995 182,456 708 183,164 33,534 216,698
1996 1995/1996 185,835 746 186,581 33,042 219,623
1997 1996/1997 187,641 844 188,485 32,550 221,035
1998 1997/1998 188,473 808 189,281 32,566 221,847
1999 1998/1999 186,560 835 187,395 32,358 219,753
2000 1999/2000 184,252 784 185,036 33,062 218,098 217,604 460,542 403,240
2001 2000/2001 182,179 1,341 183,520 33,694 217,214 466,300
2002 2001/2002 180,563 3,066 183,629 33,226 216,855 470,792
2003 2002/2003 179,448 3,350 162,798 34,815 217,613 476,380
2004 2003/2004 177,932 4,502 182,434 34,998 217,432 210,004 482,873
2005 2004/2005 176,730 5,167 181,897 35,981 217,878 208,744 491,071
2006 2005/2006 175,759 5,596 181,355 35,981 217,336 502,285
Source: Enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education, 2005 Superintendent's 16th Annual Report, 2005, Table 1; schoolaged
children 5-17 years old tram 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census and from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community SLrvey, 2004 and 2005;
total housing from 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census and U.S. Census Bureau, housing estimates as of Julyt; occupied housing units for
1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
duncanl associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 1S, 2006 D1111PI', Page 1O9
Table 66
DISTRICT INVENTORY SUMMARY
r r. r
Elementary 20,682 16,339 79% 14,985 72% (1,354) 1,206 ,12 1.0%
Meddle 7,714 6,271 81% 5,580 72% (691) 442 9 2.0%
HI h 9,755 9,679 99% 8,400 86°/a (1,279) 519 19 3.5°J°
Total, Honolulu 38,151 32,289 85% 28,965 76% (3,324) 2,167 40 1.8%
Elementary 20,854 17,884 86% 16,716 80% (1,168) 1,009 166 14.1%
Middle 6,300 5,764 91% 5,424 86% (340) 273 36 11.7%
High 9,088 9,567 105% 8,939 98% (628) 428 68 13.7%
Total, Central 36,242 33,215 92% 31,079 86% (2,136) 1,710 270 13.6%
Elementary 11,733 9,408 80% 8,687 74% (721) 614 91 12.9%
Middle 3,421- 2,094 61% 1,721 50% (373) 164 1 0.6%
High 4,174 3,779 91% 2,879 69% (900) 212 21 9.0%
Other 1,551 1,879 121% 1,728 111°!0 (151 75 25 25.0%
Total, Windward 20,879 17,160 82% 15,015 72% (2,145) 1,065 138 11.5%
Elementary 23,225 21,057 91% 23,047 99% 1,990 1,004 236 19.0%
Middle 5,979 6,243 104% 6,928 116% 665 277 31 10.1%
High 11,022 12,511 114% 12,196 111% (315) 537 74 12.1%
Total, Leeward 40,226 39,811 99% 42,171 105% 2,360 1,818 341 15.8%
Elementary 12,785 11,000 86% 12,798 100% 1,798 582 150 20.5%
Middle 6,648 4,931 74% 4,638 70% (293) 317 49 13.4%
High 9,091 8,066 89% 7,512 83°/a (554) 450 76 14.4%
Other 1,330 598 45% 683 51% 85 67 10 13.0%
Total, Hawaii 29,854 24,595 82% 25,631 86% 1,036 1,416 285 16.8%
Elementary 10,757 9,393 87% 10,440 97% 1,047 457 149 24.6%
Middle 4,288 4,313 101% 4,235 99% (78) 182 53 22.6%
High 5,188 6,112 118% 5,483 106% (629) 215 74 25.6%
Other 2,041 972 48% 730 36°I° (242) 86 3D 25.9%
Total, Maui 22,274 20,790 93% 20,888 94°1° 98 940 306 24.6%
Elementary 5,634 4,238 75% 4,332 77% 94 249 70 21.9%
Middle 2,886 2,131 74% 1,875 65% (256) 143 5 3.4%
HI h 3,617 3,226 89% 2,591 72% (635) 166 37 18.2%
Total, Kauai 12,137 9,595 79% 8,798 72% (797) 558 112 16.7%
Elementary 105,670 89,319 85% 91,005 86% 1,686 5,121 874 14.6%
Middle 37,236 31,747 85% 30,401 82% (1,346) 1,798 184 9.3%
Hlgh 51,935 52,940 102% 48,000 92% (4,940) 2,527 369 12.7%
Other 4,922 3,449 70°!° 3,141 64°Ja 308) 226 65 22.2%
Total, All Districts 199,763 177,455 89% 172,547 86% (4,908) 9,674 1,492 13.4%
Source: State of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOS,
Facilities Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Student Capacity and Fsrollment Comparison, 2004-05," and classroom
data from DOE "Classroom Report, 2004"
duncan~associates/GROUP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDY,DECember18,20D6111iA1~[',Page110
Table 67
HONOLULU DISTRICT INVENTORY
~
Kaahumanu Elem 716 557 78% 503 70% (54) 34 3 8.1%
Kaiulani Elem 416 414 100% 411 99% (3) 30 0 0.0%
Kauluwela Elem 508 398 78% 334 66% (64) 28 0 0.0%
Lanakila Elem 520 28B 55% 281 54% (7) 31 0 0.0%
Likelike Elem 509 455 89% 470 92% 15 30 0 0.0%
Royal Elem 411 388 94% 373 91% (15) 23 0 0.0%
Central Middle Middle 709 489 69% 369 52% (120) 43 0 0.0%
Mckinle High Hi h 2,191 1,945 89% 1,665 76% (280) 105 10 8.7%
Total, McKinley Complex 5,980 4,934 83% 4,406 74% (528) 324 13 3.9%
Anuenue Elem 461 354 77% 279 61% (75) 25 0 0.0%
Lincoln Elem 647 449 69% 419 65% (30) 35 0 0.0%
M aem ae Elem 744 724 97% 635 85% (89) 37 0 0.0%
Manoa Elem 692 635 92% 609 88% (26) 39 0 0.0%
Noelani Elem 473 526 111% 476 101% (50) 20 3 13.0%
Nuuanu Elem 352 389 111% 313 89% (76) 16 1 5.9%
Pauoa Elem 543 440 81% 415 76% (25) 30 0 0.0%
Kawananakoa Middle 960 815 85% 714 74% (101) 48 0 0.0%
Stevenson Middle Middle 833 604 73% 533 64% (71) 49 1 2.0%
Roosevelt Hi h Hi h 1,506 1,672 111% 1,481 98% (191 76 1 1.3%
Total, Roosevelt Complex 7,211 6,608 92% 5,874 81% (734) 375 6 1.6%
AlaWai Elem 590 473 80% 402 68% (71) 34 3 8.1%
Aliiolani Elem 427 276 65% 244 57% (32) 31 0 0.0%
Hokulani Elem 438 409 93% 372 85% (37) 22 0 0.0%
Jefferson Elem 603 474 79% 342 57% (132) 42 0 0.0%
Kuhio Elem 439 337 77% 355 81% 18 24 0 0.0%
Lunalilo Elem 692 579 84% 570 82% (9) 37 0 0.0%
Palolo Elem 450 262 58% 265 59% 3 39 0 0.0%
Waialae Elem 542 na 0% na 0% 0 30 0 0.0%
Jarrett Middle Middle 634 314 50% 255 40% (59) 41 0 0.0%
Washington Middle Middle 1,008 1,066 106% 764 76% (302) 54 0 0.0%
Kaimuki High High 1,478 1,297 88% 1,163 79% (134) 82 4 4.7%
Total, Kaimuki Complex 7,301 5,467 75% 4,732 65% (755) 436 7 1.6%
Kahala Elem 577 538 93% 540 94% 2 32 0 0.0%
Liholiho Elem 450 333 74% 330 73% (3) 27 0 0.0%
Liliuokalani Elem 267 123 46% 99 37% (24) 24 0 0.0%
Waikiki Elem 426 346 81% 383 90% 37 24 0 0.0%
Wilson Elem 531 607 114% 575 108% (32) ~ 28 0 0.0%
Kaimuki Middle Middle 994 744 75% 704 71% (40) 69 0 0.0%
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 Hnwmi SwooUMrnCrFee S7uov, December 18, 2006Ii6Ai>t', Page 111
.
Kalani Hi h Hi h 1,220 1,161 95% 1,021 84% (140 71 0 0.0%
Total, Kalani Complex 4,465 3,852 86% 3,652 82% (200) 275 0 - 0.0%
Fern Elem 589 555 94% 507 86% (48) ~ 33 0 0.0%
Kaewai Elem 404 250 62% 222 55% (28) 30 0 0.0%
Kalihi Elem 496 210 42% 189 38% (21) 31 0 0.0%
Kalihi-Kai Elem 876 706 81% 598 68% (108) 45 0 0.0%
Kalihi-Uka Elem 381 252 66% 207 54% (45) 25 0 0.0%
Kalihi-Waena Elem 601 556 93% 509 85% (47) 33 0 0.0%
Kapalama Elem 680 728 1Q7°f° 686 101°f° (42) 37 0 0.0%
Linapuni Elem 231 205 89% 220 95% 15 16 0 0.0%
Puuhale Elem 450 355 79% 291 65% (64) 26 2 7.1%
Dole Middle Middle 745 769 103% 696 93% (73) 49 2 3.9%
Kalakaua Middle Middle 1,071 1,009 94% 926 86% (83) 48 6 11.1%
Farrington Hi h Hi h 2,339 2,579 110% 2,220 95% 359) 126 3 2.3%
Total, Farrington Complex 8,863 8,174 92% 7,271 82% (903) 499 13 2.5%
Aina Haina Elem 578 458 79% 555 96% 97 35 0 0.0%
Hahaione Elem 577 436 76% 335 58% (101) 36 0 0.0%
Kamiloiki FJem 646 400 62% 314 49% (86) 32 0 0.0%
Koko Head Elem 543 293 54% 217 40% (76) 37 0 0.0%
Waiiupe Valley Elem 208 161 77°I° 140 67% (21) 18 0 0.0%
Niu Valley Middle Middle 760 461 61% 619 81% 158 41 0 0.0%
Kaiser Hi h Hi h 1,021 1,025 100% 850 83% (175) 59 1 1.7%
Total, Kaiser Complex 4,333 3,234 75% 3,030 70% (204) 258 1 0.4%
Elementary 20,682 16,339 79% 14,985 72% (1,354) 1,206 12 1.0%
Middle 7,714 6,271 81% 5,580 72% (691) 442 9 2.0%
Hi h 9,755 9,679 99% 8,400 66% (1,279) 519 19 3.5%
Total, Honolulu District 38,151 32,289 85% 28,965 76% 3,324 2,167 40 1.8%
Source: State of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Student Capacity and Enrollment Comparison, 2004-05 " and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Report, 2004," schools in italics are public school facilities owned by the Slate that have been converted to charter schools.
duncan~associates/Grsouv70 HAWAIISGHOOLIMPACTFEESTUDV,Deoember18,2006))tt11P'I',Page112
Table 68
CENTRAL DISTRICT INVENTORY
r. ~
Aiea Elem na 390 na 327 na na na na na
Alvah Scott Elem 727 567 78% 556 76% (11) 40 2 4.8%
Pearl Ridge Elem 560 576 103% 609 109% 33 22 6 21.4%
Waimalu Elem 797 617 77% 601 75% (16) 30 13 30.2%
Webling FJem 496 526 106% 544 110% 18 26 0 D.0%
Aiealnter Middle 973 577 59% 538 55% (39) 43 0 0.0%
Aiea High High 1,531 1,280 84% 1,143 75% (137) 73 0 0.0%
Subtotal, Aiea 5,084 4,533 89% 4,318 85% (215) 234 21 8.2%
Moanalua Elem Elem 715 690 97% 732 102% 42 28 6 22.2%
Red Hill Elem 669 467 70% 399 60% (68) 30 3 9.1%
Salt Lake Elem 855 789 92% 796 93% 7 39 6 13.3%_
Shaffer Elem 278 205 74% 225 ~81% 20 20 0 0.0%
Moanalualnter Middle 772 831 108% 706 91% (125) 35 6 14.6%
Moanalua Hi h Hi h 1,640 2,016 123% 1,822 111% (194 75 12 13.8%
Subtotal, Moanalua 4,929 4,998 101% 4,680 95% (318) 227 35 13.4%
Aliamanu Elem 878 766 87% 800 91% 34 40 6 13.0%
Hickam Elem 750 792 106% 928 124% 136 31 9 22.5%
Makalapa Elem 671 612 91% 577 86% (35) 27 9 25.0%
Mokulele Elem 670 508 76% 492 73% (16) 30 4 11.6%
Nimitz Elem 729 553 76% 523 72% (30) 40 0 0.0%
Pearl Harbor Elem 751 617 82% 641 85% 24 40 2 4.8%
Pearl Harbor Kai Elem 705 639 91% 760 108% 121 38 0 0.0%
Aliamanu Inter Middle 1,121 880 79% 799 71% (81) 44 6 12.0%
Radford Hi h Hi h 1,581 1,343 85% 1,257 80% (86) 72 9 11.1%
Subtotal, Pearl Harbor 7,856 6,710 85% 6,777 86% 67 362 45 11.1%
Hale Kula FJem 901 479 53% 584 65% 105 40 14 25.9%
Helemano Elem 566 594 105% 593 105%' (1) 25 14 35.9%
Iliahi Elem 486 435 90% 426 88% (9) 30 0 0.0%
Kaala Elem 430 429 100% 497 116% 68 30 - 1 3.2%
Solomon Elem 1,098 743 68% 917 84% 174 42 19 31.1%
Wahiawa Elem 568 409 72% 443 78% 34 40 2 4.8%
Wheeler Elem 868 658 76% 591 68% (67) 45 2 4.3%
Wahiawa Middle Middle 842 957 114% 829 98% (128) 47 9 16.1%
Wheeler Middle Middle 771 562 73% 546 71% (16) 41 7 14.6%
Leilehua Hi h Hi h 1,227 1,878 153% 1,628 133% 250 78 11 12.4%
Subtotal, Leilehua 7,757 7,144 92% 7,054 91% (90) 418 79 15.9%
Kipapa Elem 798 615 77% 694 87% 79 32 12 27.3%
d unc8nl aSSOCIaf85/GROUP 70 Hawgil SCHOOL IMrncr FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 IlItAI*I', Page 113
1 1 . 1
Mililani Ike Elem 728 685 94% 816 112% 131 36 0 0.0%
Mililani-Mauka Elem 866 1,872 216% 1,996 230% 124 43 - 6 12.2%
Mililani-Uka Elem 1,039 760 73% 786 76% 26 40 12 23.1%
Mililani-Waena Elem 798 598 75% 657 82% 59 32 12 27.3%
Mililani Middle Middle 1,821 932 51% 596 33% (336) 63 8 11.3%
Mililani Hi h Hi h 2,190 2,421 111% 2,542 116% 121 82 27 24.8%
Subtotal, Mililani 8,240 7,883 96% 8,087 98°/° 204 328 77 19.0%
Haleiwa Elem 348 225 65% 188 54% (37) 31 0 0.0%
Waialua Elem 600 513 86% 550 92% 37 29 4 12.1%
Waialua Inter/Hi h High 919 677 74% 515 56% (162) 48 9 15.8%
Subtotal, Waialua 1,867 1,415 76% 1,253 67% (162) 108 13 10.7%
Elementary 20,854 - 17,884 86% 16,716 80% (1,168) 1,009 166 14.1%
Middle 6,300 5,764 91% 5,424 86% (340) 273 36 11.7%
Hi h School 9,088 9,567 105% 8,939 98% (628) 428 68 13.7%
Total, Central District 36,242 33,215 92% 31,079 86% (2,136) 1,710 270 13.6°/a
Source: Slate of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Depanment of Education (DOS, Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Stutlent Capacity and Enrollment Comparison, 2004-05 ° and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Report, 2004."
Table 69
LEEWARD DISTRICT INVENTORY
1 1. 1
Ewa Beach Elem 611 665 109% 514 84% (151) 31 1 3.1%
Ewa Elem FJem 844 933 111% 891 106% (42) 39 1 2.5%
Holomua Elem 1,185 1,442 122% 1,887 159% 445 ~ 40 8 16.7%
Iroquois Point Elem 935 563 60% 423 45% (140) 36 19 34.5%
Kaim iloa Elem 729 679 93% 776 106% 97 28 14 33.3%
Ocean Pointe EJem 725 na na 1,079 na na na na na
Pohakea Elem 681 551 81% 706 104% 155 30 6 16.7%
Ilima Inter Middle 1,230 1,201 98% 1,335 109% 134 59 6 9.2%
Ewa Makai Middle na na na 814 na na na na na
Campbell Hi h Hi h 2,199 2,283 104% 2,535 115% 252 107 13 10.8%
Total, Campbell Complex 9,139 8,317 91% 10,960 120% 2,643 370 68 15.5%
Barbers Point Elem 636 529 83% 501 79% (28) 40 0 0.0%
Kapolei Elem Elem 1,291 1,126 87% 1,682 130% 556 37 13 26.0%
Makakilo Elem 566 509 90% 578 102% 69 30 0 0.0%
Mauka Lani Elem 669 577 86% 643 96% 66 16 17 51.5%
Kapolei Middle Middle 1,501 1,580 105% 1,754 117% 174 - 56 3 5.1%
Ka olei Hi h High 1,953 2,333 119% 2,554 131% 221 98 0 0.0%
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 Hawnu SCHOOL Imvacr Fee Siuov, December 18, 2006 DIUiF'f, Page 114
r
Total,•Kapolei Complex •6,616 6,654 101% 7,712 117% 1,058 277 33 10.6%
Kamaile Elem 729 649 89% 594 81% (55) 31 9 22.5%
Leihoku Elem 855 737 86% 705 82% (32) 38 13 25.5%
Maili Elem 868 607 93% 842 97% 35 34 15 30.6%
Makaha Elem 776 597 77% 564 73% (33) 30 14 31.8%
Waianae Elem 846 591 70% 504 60% (87) 41 9 18.0%
Waianaelnter Middle 1,041 1,131 109% 948 91% (183) 53 8 13.1%
Waianae Hi h Hi h 1,802 2,068 1.15% 1,777 99% 291 81 28 25.7%
Total, Waianae Complex 6,917 6,580 95% 5,934 86% (646) 308 96 23.8%
Nanaikapono Elem 1,134 964 85% 919 81% (45) 58 0 0.0%
Nanakuli Elem Elem 681 511 75% 424 62% (87) 24 10 29.4%
Nanakuli Hi h/Inter Hi h 1,163 1,303 112% 1,074 92% (229) 66 4 5.7%
Total, Nanakuli Complex 2,978 2,778 93% 2,417 81% (361) 148 14 8.6%
Kanoelani Elem 774 834 108% 796 103°10 (38) 26 14 35.0%
Lehua Elem 578 397 69% 445 77% 48 30 0 0.0%
Manana Elem 461 378 82% 321 70% (57) 22 0 0.0%
Momilani Elem 334 405 121% 385 115% (20) 16 0 0.0%
Palisades Elem 474 338 71% 257 54% (81) 33 0 O.D%
Pearl City Elem Elem 625 333 53% 298 48% (35) 37 0 0.0%
Pearl City Highlands Elem 474 547 115% 767 162% 220 30 0 0.0%
Waiau Elem 705 608 86% 529 75% (79) 24 12 33.3%
Highlandslnter Middle 1,005 1,011 101% 925 92% (86) 46 7 13.2%
Pearl City Hi h High 1,734 1,980 114% 1,832 106% (148) 96 4 4.0%
Total, Pearl City Complex 7,164 6,831 95% 6,555 91% (276) 360 37 9.3%
August Ahrens Qem 1,479 1,270 86% 1,266 86% (4) 54 27 33.3%
Honowai Elem 787 791 101% 841 107% 50 36 7 16.3%
Kaleiopuu Elem 970 967 100% 1,132 117% 165 38 12 24.0%
Waikele FJem 796 724 91% 720 90% (4) 34 5 12.8%
Waipahu Elem 868 1,035 119% 1,058 122°h 23 41 10 19.6%
Waipahu Inter Middle 1,293 1,320 102% 1,152 89% (168) 63 7 10.0%
Waipahu Hi h Hi h 2,071 2,544 123% 2,424 117% 120 89 25 21.9%
Total, Waipahu Complex 8,264 8,651 105% 8,593 104% (58) 355 93 20.8%
Elementary 23,225 21,D57 91% 23,047 99% 1,990 1,004 236 19.0%
Middle 5,979 6,243 104% 6,928 116% 685 277 31 10.1%
Hi h 11,022 12,511 114% 12,196 111% 315) 537 74 12.1%
Total, Leeward District 40,226 39,811 99% 42,171 105% 2,360 1,818 341 15.8%
Source: Slate of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "SYudent Capacity and Enrollment Comparison, 2004-05," and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Report, 2004"
duncanl a550CIateS/GROUP 70 Hawnu SCHOOL IMPACT Fee STUDY, December 18, 2006 Dttpt'r, Page 115
Table 70
WINDWARD DISTRICT INVENTORY
~ r. r ~
Enchanted Lake Elem 601 373 62% 382 64% 9 36 •0 0.0%
Kaelepulu Elem 288 179 62% 195 68% 16 16 1 5.9%
Keolu Elem 278 181 65% 163 59% (18) ~ 26 0 0.0%
Maunawili Elem 509 419 82% 437 86% 18 30 0 0.0%
Olomana Elem 185 202 109% 194 105% (8) 0 12 100.0%
Pope Elem 383 279 73% 258 67% (21) 26 0 0.0%
Waimanalo Int/Elem Middle 816 537 66°!0 475 58% (62) 44 0 0.0°fo
Kailua Hi h Hi h 1,253 972 78% 815 65% (157) 77 0 0.0%
Total, Kailua Complex 4,313 3,142 73% 2,919 68% (223) 255 ~ 13 4.9%
Aikahi Elem 584 580 99% 531 91% (49) 30 2 6.3%
Kailua Elem Elem 578 444 77% 439 76% (5) 31 0 0.0%
Kainalu Elem 723 536 74°!° 484 67% (52} 40 5 11.1%
Lanikai Elem- 359 331 92% 330 92% (1) 15 4 21.1%
Mokapu Elem 982 759 77% 677 69% (82) 41 9 18.0%
Kailualnter Middle 1,475 793 54% 622 42% (171) 62 0 0.0%~
Kalaheo Hi h High 1,246 1,060 85% 809 65% (251) 60 0 0.0%
Total, Kalaheo Complex 5,947 4,503 76% 3,892 65% (611) 279 20 6.7%
Ahuimanu Elem 507 437 86% 394 78% (43) 22 6 21.4%
Heeia Elem 672 533 79% 511 76% (22) 36 3 7.7%
Kahaluu FJem 394 207 53% 198 50% (9) 24 0 0.0%
Kaneohe Elem 634 630 99% 610 96% (20) 35 0- 0.0%
Kapunahala Elem 590 612 104% 631 107% 19 30 0 0.0%
Parker Elem 647 362 56% 272 42% (90) 42 0 0.0%
Puohala Elem 543 279 51% 162 30% (117) 30 0 0.0%
Waiahole Elem 231 99 43% 86 37% (13) 11 2 15.4%
King Inter Middle 1,130 764 68% 624 55% (140) 58 1 1.7%
Castle Hi h High 1,675 1,747 104% 1,255 75% (492) 75 21 21.9%
Total, Castle Complex 7,023 5,670 81% 4,743 68% (927) - 363 33 8.3%
Hauula Elem 451 262 58% 200 44% (62) 22 5 18.5%
Kaaawa Elem 162 142 88% 113 70% (29) 4 11 73.3%
Kahuku Elem 474 572 121% 516 109% (56) 28 0 0.0%
Laie Elem 566 599 106% 548 97% (51) 32 13 28.9%
Sunset Beach FJem 393 391 99% 356 -91% (35) 7 18 72.0%
Kahuku Hi h/Iner Other 1,551 1,879 121% 1,728 111% 151) 75 25 25.0%
Total, Kahuku Complex 3,597 3,845 107% 3,461 96% (384) 168 72 30.0%
Elementary 11,733 9,408 80% 8,687 74% (721) 614 91 12.9%
Middle 3,421 2,094 61% 1,721 50% (373) 164 1 0.6%
High 4,174 3,779 91% 2,879 69% (900) 212 21 9.0°/a
Other 1,551 1,879 121% 1,728 111% (151) 75 25 25.0%
Total, Windward District 20,878 17,160 82% 15,015 72% (2,145) 1,065 138 11.5%
Source: State of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment antl projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOES, Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity trom "Student Capacity and Enrollment Comparison, 2004-05," and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Repon, 2004," schools in italics are public school facilities owned by the State that have been converted to charter schools.
duncan~ assodateslGBOUV 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 DRAI"P, Page 116
Table 71
HAWAII DISTRICT INVENTORY
I .
Honokaa Elem Elem • 415 366 88% 408 98% 42 19 4 17.4%
Waikoloa Elem 624 566 91% 738 118% 172 32 0 0.0%
Waimea Elem Elem 671 638 95% 908 135% 270 34 2 5.6%
Paauilo Elem/Inter Middle 312 241 77% 239 77% (2) 15 2 11.8%
Waimea Middle Middle 384 516 134% 565 147% 49 15 9 37.5%
_ Honokaa Hi h/Inter Hi h 818 835 102% 885 108% 50 45 9 16.7%
Subtotal, Honokaa 3,224 3,162 98% 3,743 116% 581 160 26 14.0%
Holualoa Elem 427 448 105% 623 146% 175 9 15 62.5%
Kahakai Elem 819 618 75% 703 86% 85 35 7 16.7%
Kealakehe Elem Elem 960 960 100% 1,118 116% 158 33 20 37.7%
Kealakehelnter Middle 1,055 965 91% 874 83% (91) 48 8 14.3%
Kealakehe Hi h Hi h 1,480 1,530 103% 1,395 94% (135 73 2 2.7%
Subtotal, Kealakehe 4,741 4,521 95% 4,713 99% 192 198 52 20.8%
Kohala Elem Elem 474 409 86% 439 93% 30 19 6 24.0%
Kohala Middle Middle 289 214 74% 214 74% 0 13 3 18.8%
KohalaHi h Hi h 460 285 62% 279 61% (6) 23 1 4.2%
Subtotal, Kohala 1,223 908 74% 932 76% 24 55 10 15.4%
Honaunau Elem 357 124 35% 158 44% 34 11 12 52.2%
Hookena Elem 278 133 48% 153 55% 20 12 10 45.5%
Konawaena Elem Elem 658 573 87% 609 93% 36 33 0 0.0%
Konawaena Middle Middle 710 446 63% 399 56% (47) 30 5 14.3%
Konawaena High High 1,107 929 84% 786 71% (143) 54 16 22.9%
Ke Kula Other 196 146 74% 260 133% 114 1 9 90.0%
Subtotal, Konawaena 3,306 2,351 71% 2,365 72% 14 141 52 26.9%
Desilva - Elem 255 346 736% 325 127% (21) 18 1 5.3%
Haaheo Elem 104 161 155% 128 123% (33) 8 5 38.5%
Hilo Union FJem 648 520 80% 518 80% (2) 33 2 5.7%
Kapiolani FJem 510 407 80% 339 66% (68) 31 0 0.0%
Kaumana Elem 289 502 174% 579 200% 77 13 6 31.6%
Keaukaha Elem 543 250 46% 260 48% 10 19 8 29.6%
Hilo Inter Middle 1,145 637 56°h 570 50% (67) 61 0 0.0%
Kalanianaole Middle 864 371 43% 276 32% (95) 46 0 0.0%
Hilo HI h Hi h 7,426 1,558 109% 1,408 99% (150) 77 5 6.1%
Subtotal, Hilo 5,784 4,752 82% 4,403 76% (349) 306 27 8.1%
Laupahoehoe Other 456 225 49% 196 43% (29) 28 0 0.17%
duncan~ associates/GROUT 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 2006 DI[AI'i', Page 117
. r
Waiakea Elem Elem 833 815 98% 1,083 130% 268 ~ 43- ~ - 6 12.2%
Waiakeawaena Elem 786 695 88% 812 103% 117. 37 4 9.R%
Waiakea Inter Middle 1,058 908 86% 882 83% (26) 44 8 15.4%
Waiakea Hi h Hi h 1,918 1,312 68% 1,341 70% 29 ~ 74 32 30.2%
Subtotal, Waiakea 4,595 3,730 81% 4,118 90% 388 198 50 20.2%
Naalehu Elem 268 358 134% 429 160% 71 18 8 30.8%
Kau-Pahala Other 678 227 33% 227 33% 0 38 1 2.6%
Subtotal, Kau 946 585 62°!0 656 69°l° 71 56 - 9 13.8°!°
Keaau Elem Elem 900 743 83% 821 91% 78 45 0 0.0%
Mt. View Elem 762 419 55% 577 76% 158 33 11 25.0%
Keaau Middle Middle 831 633 76% 619 74% (14) 45 14 23.7%
Keaau Hi h Hi h 1,178 867 - 74% 852 72% 15 59 0 0.0%
Subtotal, Keaau 3,671 2,662 73% 2,869 78% 207 182 25 12.1%
Keonepoko Elem 580 610 105% 714 123% 104 32 3 8.6%
PahoaElem FJem 624 339 54% 356 57% 17 15 20 57.1%
Pahoa Hi h/Inter Hi h 704 750 107% 566 80% (184 45 11 19.6%
Subtotal, Pahoa 1,908 1,699 89% 1,636 86% (63) 92 34 27.0%
Elementary 12,785 11,000 66°!° 12,798 100°1° 1,798 582 150 20.5°1°
Middle 6,648 4,931 74% 4,638 70% (293) 317 49 13.4%
High 9,091 8,066 89% 7,512 83% (554) 450 76 14.4%
Other 1,330 598 45% 683 51% 85 67 10 13.0%
Total, Hawaii District 29,854 24,595 82% 25,631 86% 1,036 1,416 285 16.8%
Source: Slate of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Depanment of F~ucation (DOE), Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Slutlent Capacity antl Fsrollment Comparison, 2004-05," and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Report, 2004," schools in italics are public school facilities ownetl by the State that have been converted to charter schools.
duneanl aSSOCiate6IGROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, December 18, 20D6 DRAt'P, Page 118
Table 72
MAUI DISTRICT INVENTORY
r.
Keanae Elem 46 0 0% 0 0% 0 4 0 0.0%
Hana High/Elem Other 552 356 64% 222 40% (134) 21 8 27.6%
Total, Hana Complex 598 356 60% 222 37% (134) 25 8 24.2%
Kamehamehalll Elem 669 744 111% 1,077 161% 333 23 ti 32.4%
N ahienaena Elem 681 649 95% 653 96% 4 31 7 18.4%
Lahainalnter Middle 596 578 97% 490 82% (88) 27 10 27.0%
Lahainaluna Hi h Hi h 794 1,033 130% 796 100% (237) 34 12 26.1%
Total, Lahainaluna Complex 2,740 3,004 110% 3,016 110% 12 115 40 25.8%
Waihee Elem 751 850 113% 1,021 136% 171 32 10 23.8%
Wailuku Elem 1,132 953 84% 1,324 117% 371 51 9 15.0%
lao Inter Middle 945 830 88% 1,053 111% 223 39 7 15.2%
Baldwin Hi h High 1,542 1,574 - 102% 1,776 115% 202 61 24 28.2%-
Total, Baldwin Complex 4,370 4,207 96% 5,174 118% 967 183 50 21.5%
Haiku Elem 428 421 98% 266 67% (135) 13 14 51.9%
Kula Elem 565 439 78% 334 59% (105) 19 12 38.7%
M akawao Elem 579 469 81% 386 67% (83) 26 11 29.7%
Paia Elem 300 195 65% 152 51% (43) 20 0 0.0%
Pukalani Elem 555 457 82% 352 63% (105) 24 11 31.4%
Kalama Inter Middle 1,118 945 85% 600 54% (345) 49 11 18.3%
King Kekaulike High Hi h 1,339 1,388 104% 782 58% (606) 63 9 12.5%
Total, Kekaulike Complex 4,864 4,314 88% 2,892 59% (1,422) 214 68 24.1%
Kahului Elem 936 865 92% 897 96% 32 38 13 25.5%
Kamalii Elem 853 703 82% 765 90% 62 39 0 0.0%
Kihei Elem Elem 957 810 85% 845 88°/ 35 40 15 27.3%
Lihikai Elem 1,074 1,102 103% 1,026 96% (76) 32 23 41.8%
Maui Lani Elem na na na 546 na 546 na na na
Lokelanilnter Middle 621 762 123% 807 130% 45 25 13 34.2%
Maui-Waenalnter Middle 1,008 1,017 101% 1,112 110% 95 42 12 22.2%
Maui Hi h Hi h 1,513 1,709 113% 1,861 123% 152 57 29 33.7%
Total, Maui Complex 6,962 6,968 100% 7,859 113% 891 273 105 27.8%
Elementary 9,526 8,657 91% 9,664 101% 1,007 392 136 25.8%
Middle 4,288 4,132 96% 4,062 95% (70) 182 53 22.6%
High 5,188 5,704 110% 5,215 101% (489) 215 74 25.6%
Other 552 356 64% 222 40% 134 21 8 27.6%
Subtotal, Maui 19,554 18,849 96% 19,163 98% 314 810 271 25.1%
duncanl a550ClafeS/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT PEE STUDY, DBCember 18, 2006 DRAFT, Page 119
Kaunakakai Elem 464 218 47% 218 47% 0 24 2 7.7%
Kilohana Elem 210 98 47% 87 41% (11) 17 1 5.6%
Kualapuu Elem 437 363 83% 420 96% 57 14 9 39.1%
Maunaloa Elem 120 57 48% 51 43% 6 10 1 9.1%
Subtotal, Molokai Elementary 1,231 736 60% 776 63% 40 65 13 16.7%
Molokailnter/Hi h Other 936 589 63% 441 47% (148) 35 13 27.1%
Total, Molokai 2,167 1,325 61% 1,217 56% (108) 100 26 20.6%
Lanai Hi h/Elem Other 553 616 111% 508 92% (108 30 9 23.1%
Total, Lanai 553 616 111% 508 92% (108) 30 9 23.1%
Elementary 10,757 9,393 87% 10,440 97% 1,047 457 149 24.6%
Middle 4,288 4,313 101% 4,235 99% (78) 182 53 22.6%
High 5,188 6,112 118% 5,483 1D6% (629) 215 74 25.6%
Other 2,041 972 48% 730 36% (242) 86 30 25.9%
Total, Maui District 22,274 20,790 93% 20,888 94% 98 940 306 24.6%
~urce: Stale of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOl7, Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Student Capacity and Fsrollment Comparison, 2004-05," and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Repod, 2004," schools in italics are public school facilities owned by the Slate that have been converted to charter schools.
duncan~ associates/GnouP 70 HAWAIISCHOOLIMPACTFEE STUDY, DeCamber 19, 2006 DFIAPI', Pege 120
Table 73
KAUAI DISTRICT INVENTORY
r ~
Hanalei Elem 277 217 78% 202 73% (15) 8 6 42.9%
Kapaa Elem 1,268 872 69% 893 70% 21 53 21 28.4%
Kilauea Elem 358 335 94% 343- 96% 8 15 7 31.8%
Kapaa Middle Middle 946 719 76% 620 66% (99) 49 2 3.9%
Ka as Hi h Hi h 1,166 1,108 95% 894 77% (214 53 14 20.9%
Total, Kapaa Complex 4,015 3,251 81% 2,952 74% (299) 178 50 21.9%
Kaumualii Elem 707 532 75% 431 61% (101) 39 5 11.4%
Koloa Elem 358 175 49% 203 57% 28 15 10 40.0%
Wilcox Elem 1,039 888 85% 964 93% 76 45 10 18.2%
KamakaheleiMiddle Middle 1,271 926 73% 844 66% (82) 60 0 0.0%
Kauai Hi h High 1,493 1,290 86% 1,074 72% (216) 65 18 21.7%
Total, Kauai Complex 4,868 3,811 78% 3,516 72% (295) 224 43 16.1%
Eleele Elem 520 464 89% 451 87% (13) 25 5 16.7%
Kalaheo Elem 634 503 79% 589 93% 86 26 5 16.1%
Kekaha Elem 404 233 58% 240 59% 7 20 1 4.8%
Niihau Elem 69 19 28% 16 23% (3) 3 0 0.0%
Waimea Canyon Middle 669 486 73% 411 61% (75) 34 3 8.1%
Waimea Hi h Hi h 958 828 86% 623 65% (205) 48 5 9.4%
Total, Waimea Complex 3,254 2,533 78% 2,330 72% (203) 156 19 10.9%
Elementary 5,634 4,238 75% 4,332 77% 94 249 70 21.9%
Middle 2,886 2,131 74% 1,875 65% (256) 143 5 3.4%
High 3,617 3,226 89% 2,591 72% (635) 166 37 18.2%
Total, Kauai District 12,137 9,595 79% 8,798 72% (797) 558 112 16.7%
Source: Slate of Hawaii Public School Facilities current enrollment and projected enrollment from Hawaii Department of Education (DOS, Facilities
Development Branch, June 2006; school capacity from "Student Capacity and Enrollment Comparison, 2004-06," and classroom data from DOE
"Classroom Report, 2004."
d tlneatil aSSOClateS/GROUP 70 Hnwan SCHOOIIMPacr FeeSTUDY, December 18, 2006 I)ttAl*i', Page 127
~
Figure 7
OAHU CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRICTS
.l--..
`7
I'~ huhu
F.
rHi Mll_11'ULi
/ ~ ~ ~IS11aL1'a
)r._
5~ r
J£Ji~vF ~SY 't I]lat Sl rt ~ d
1f
yf~'~~~ I~~kh ~
4x t'. tr«~Ft rte.
S~ x A ~ f -
y r
~Ita' ~ Hfi'fILeZ ITI'll l~rl Iv'31ar11•(~
~JdilFlpl ~r Tf,t ~71iU f,~~ /
r / ~
~ 'Y' ' ~
~it ~ 1. t ~ ~*;F~"f.i ~ ~~e( r ~FgMr/~i fx(~ /J1~UJ
I S ez .rltl~lJ IF-:; HF,GViIiS IMP,/!', !~~firi: EUGM 1:~::,-..
1..,.'. Y.ai~a .W
Ii0\OLI 11 ??~sYi
I'a'rrrul i/ f
dunean~ associates/Gaoup 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DeCefnbCf 18, 2006 1)IG11Tr, Page 122
Figure 8
HAWAII CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRICTS
f.
xontLa
naalaxaa
ti. KIIMI:~I~t
~
I'e_~'1alirlur: Y.ilr, I111A1
i 1'illlriNl'lAl:! J
r KI11A ~ 'J
- ~.r
r ~r / r ~
~ - fJdaial-~N~
r.' ~ j m r". _ r
i ~ i-(~r Jd 5
a.... r ~-.~f
1:,, v .
l y
i / ~~J~I /41~I~rllH ~ Y~ ~Jll ~l3 /Y
r
r.l rJ r ~
jj, ~ y/:~ - ~~l
I1/ hl~ll J/
f//lJ !
:fie If 1! / A-i
,l/
. _ ;r;
,.;t i, :i
dUneanl 8550Ci21B5/GROUP 70 Hawnn SCHOOL IMPACT Fee Siuov, December 78, 2006 DIIAI''f, Page 723
~
Figure 9
MAUI CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRICTS
`..,I r
l ~ ~ r
L,~fII.~llll'11 '~;~I~ JJIFI
Ial
irJfJr~J~~irP~ -
~ W~IILUKU
4
r. ~.~~/~?LJI ~~-,r.
~ . ,
.
' rlarr;J
1IAKz1Wf~0 >i~~~T11
J
J'.
- 1 ~
Figure 10
KAUAI CONSTRUCTION COST DISTRKTS
r J9 ~ ~ Y l
~ -
QAJI'ALI;I
ifJ~J'J
W11•I~IP.A - BAWAIIIJIIJ,,
=''l,~dllfJxJ
.:I J J
.'r., y:
. j. ;
i:. ~
duncan~ associates/GROUP 70 HAWAII SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDY, DECertlbEf 78, 2006 DINI"1', Page 124