HomeMy WebLinkAboutFiscal Impact & Development Patterns - Smart Growth America (2019)THE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
County of Hawai’i
June 2019
Prepared for the County of Hawai’i
2 | Smart Growth America
Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms...............................................................................................................3
Background and Objectives...............................................................................................4
County of Hawai’i Population.............................................................................................6
Development Scenarios.....................................................................................................8
Land Constraints..............................................................................................................13
Methodology....................................................................................................................18
Results............................................................................................................................22
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................26
Appendix A - Technical Output...........................................................................................28
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 3
Glossary of Terms
24-Hour Population: An aggregate of the population, jobs, and visitors in the County. It is assumed
that this metric encompasses all people that will generate demand for infrastructure and services.
Infill: For the purposes of this analysis, infill is defined as development within existing built fabric
that can take advantage of existing infrastructure. The cost of infill development can vary greatly,
but based on discussions and work with several municipalities, SGA finds that the costs of infill
development to the government can be around 35 percent of what the same development would
cost in a greenfield.
Marginal Density: The density of new development that will occur as a result of the growth in
population, jobs, and visitors. The marginal density does not take into account the density of existing
development.
Net Fiscal Impact: The tax revenue associated with new residents and jobs less the cost of
providing infrastructure and services for development to accommodate those new residents and
jobs. A negative net fiscal impact indicates that the County would lose money in accommodating
the new growth; a positive net fiscal impact indicates that the County would generate net revenue in
accommodating the new growth.
Regression Analysis: A statistical model that estimates the relationship between variables. In this
report, regression analyses are used to model the relationship between population and job density
and the units of infrastructure needed per acre per capita (ex. “roads per acre per person”), and
then to create estimates of the total amount of infrastructure needed in each scenario. It is this
consideration of density that distinguishes this analysis from prior “average cost analyses” that simply
divide infrastructure and service costs by new population.
4 | Smart Growth America
Background and Objectives
The connection between land use development patterns and the costs
of providing public infrastructure and services has long been a topic
of study, particularly since The Cost of Sprawl: A Detailed Analysis
was published in 1974. Since that time, dozens, if not hundreds of
studies have been conducted related to this topic. Most of these
have concluded that “smart growth” – more compact patterns of
development – is associated with reduced local government spending
on a per capita basis relative to sprawl (recognizing that the definition
of each of those terms is not entirely consistent). Smart Growth
America’s Building Better Budgets report, published in May 2013,
summarizes the results of 17 of these studies.
Yet these findings are not often included in the typical fiscal impact
analysis done in connection with new development proposals. There are
many reasons for this, but the inconsistent methodologies used in the
above-referenced studies, as well as the time-consuming data collection
efforts they involve, have likely slowed the filtering of these advanced
academic findings into “practice.” Instead, most, though not all, fiscal
impact analyses rely on a simple average cost approach, which implicitly
assumes that each new resident or job will add the same amount of
public costs, regardless of whether they live and work in a sprawling,
low-density development, or a high-density, walkable urban one.
Smart Growth America (“SGA”) aims to apply a fiscal impact
methodology that accounts for the increased cost efficiencies
associated with denser development patterns. This report applies that
fiscal impact methodology to the County of Hawai’i.
This analysis considers how Hawai’i might accommodate a forecasted
98,442 new residents, 12,585 new jobs and 8,180 new visitors by the
year 2040. The density of this new growth matters in terms of how
much infrastructure and service provision would cost the County.
We assessed four scenarios that align with the County’s recent Trend
Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report and the General
Plan 2040 process. All four scenarios assume the same amount of
population, job, and visitor growth, but at different densities. The details
of each scenario are discussed in further depth in subsequent sections:
1. A “Trend Zoning” scenario with growth at existing
allowable densities under the current zoning code.
2. A “Trend LUPAG” scenario with growth based on existing
general plan policies.
3. A “General Plan 2040” scenario with growth based on
proposed updates to the County’s general plan.
4. A “Smart Growth” scenario, which uses a density of 10
residents per acre and 30 jobs per acre, and assumes
50% infill development.
THE COST OF SPRAWL
The Cost of Sprawl, published
by the Real Estate Research
Corporation in 1974, was the
first study to show that providing
infrastructure to low-density,
sprawling development costs
more than for compact, dense
development. Low-density
development’s greater distances
among homes, offices, shops,
etc., requires more road and
pipe infrastructure than would be
required to serve the same number
of homes and businesses in a more
compact development pattern.
Looked at another way, one mile
of infrastructure costs roughly the
same to build no matter where it is,
but that mile can serve many times
more people in a high-density place
than in a low-density place.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 5
SGA found that in the Trend Zoning, Trend LUPAG, and General Plan
2040 scenarios, new development would have a negative fiscal impact
on the County, requiring more spending to provide infrastructure
and services than it gains in tax revenue. Under the Trend Zoning
scenario, the least dense scenario of the four, the County would face
the greatest 20-year fiscal impact of $557 million to provide additional
infrastructure to accommodate growth. In contrast, under the Smart
Growth scenario, the County has a positive net fiscal impact, gaining
nearly $1 billion in tax revenue over a 20-year time horizon after taking
into account infrastructure spending.
The cost savings are a result of reduced roadway, water, wastewater,
electricity, septic, and emergency services costs at higher densities and
with infill development. When we consider the average tax revenues
of the new residents, the Smart Growth scenario results in a positive
net fiscal impact of $50 million per year, compared to a negative net
fiscal impact of $28 million per year under the Trend Zoning scenario.
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
FIGURE 1
Comparison of 20-Year Net Fiscal Impact Across Development Scenarios
6 | Smart Growth America
County of Hawai’i Population
As of 2017, the County of Hawai’i has a population of 200,381
people.1 Historically, Hawai’i’s population has grown at a steady
pace, having increased by 30 percent since 2000. The forecasts for
this analysis are taken from the General Plan Comprehensive Review
Trends & Forecasts Final Report, prepared by SMS for the County of
Hawai’i in September 2016. Hawai’i’s residential population is slated
to grow to 296,322 by 2040, a 48 percent increase in 23 years.
Employment within the County is projected to grow from 56,080 jobs in
2017 to 69,189 in 2040.2 For number of jobs, SGA utilized 2015 LEHD
LODES data to represent jobs at the block group level, and therefore
estimates differ from those provided by the Hawai’i Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations.
In addition to population and jobs, the average daily visitor census
estimates that in 2013 there were approximately 29,000 visitors in Hawai’i
per day – an amount equal to 15 percent of the County’s population.
That number is expected to rise to 36,320 people by 2040. This analysis
combined the projected number of residents, jobs, and visitors into a
24-hour population, or simply a number of people expected to be on
the Island in 2040. The aggregate 119,207 new 24-hour persons are
assumed to encompass all of the unique infrastructure needs that will
be provided by the County. Further discussion of the 24-hour population
metric can be found in the Methodology section of this report.
A number of important trends are worth noting regarding the County
of Hawai’i’s current and projected 24-hour population. First, population
growth estimates vary considerably across different areas of the
County. The Trends & Forecasts Report represents this variation by
examining trends at the level of “Forecast Analysis Zones” (FAZ). While
the population in all of these areas is expected to grow by at least 20
percent between 2015-2040, the growth rate ranges up to over 100
percent in Hawaiian Paradise Park and Orchidland.
Several areas with higher projected growth rates are also exposed to
significant environmental hazards, such as high-risk lava flow hazard
zones. Defined by the USGS, “lava flow hazard zones” classify the
entire County into zones between 1 and 9, with 1 being the highest-
risk zone. This analysis assumes that zones 1 (summits and rift zones
of Kilauea and Mauna Loa) and 2 (areas adjacent to and downslope
of zone 1) can be considered the “highest risk” areas.3 Many of these
areas are concentrated in Lower Puna, South Kona, and Ka’u.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Population Estimates
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Origin-
Destination Employment Statistics, 2015.3 Volcano Lava Flow Hazard Zones, Hawai’i Statewide GIS Program,
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/volcano-lava-flow-hazard-zones
Hawai’i County’s additional 24-
hour population will consist of...
98,442 NEW RESIDENTS
12,585 NEW JOBS
8,180 NEW VISITORS
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 7
FIGURE 2
Source: SMS, General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends & Forecasts Final Report, September 2016;
Smart Growth America, 2019
Hawai’i County Population, Employment, & Visitor Forecasts
Second, the County has a relatively low population density in both
its urban clusters and rural areas, with 2 residents/acre and 0.03
residents/acre, respectively.4 This is important when considering
potential development scenarios, particularly with regard to the
County’s significant amount of protected land. About half of the land
area of the County is made up of National and State Parks and Forest
Reserves that are protected from future development. This fact,
coupled with the County’s low population density and exposure to
natural hazards, has significant implications for where the development
to accommodate 119,207 additional residents, jobs, and visitors can
be situated. This analysis considers the question of what it will cost to
accommodate these additional persons. As our approach suggests,
the answer depends on choices the County makes about the density
of development.
4 SMS, General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends & Forecasts Final Report,
September 2016.
8 | Smart Growth America
AVERAGE JOB DENSITY
0.02 jobs/acre
Development Scenarios
SGA worked with the County of Hawai’i to develop four alternative
scenarios to evaluate the cost of developing at different densities.
We used geographic information systems (GIS) analysis to divide the
County into 40-acre grid cells, and to identify population, job, and
visitor density in each cell.
Based on the GIS analysis, the existing average 24-hour population density
in the County of Hawai’i is 0.14 people per acre (90 people per square
mile). Uninhabited lands such as national and state parks, forest reserves,
and open space were excluded from the average density calculations.
Despite a generally low level of population density in the County, there
are areas of the County that have a more urban density. For example, the
highest population density in the County is 9.5 people/acre and the highest
job density is 10.3 jobs/acre. The Trends & Forecasts Report identifies
eight urban clusters in the County, with population densities ranging from
6 people per acre to 1 person per acre. The average density level for the
entire County is much lower due to rural and agricultural development.
Summing the density of population, jobs, and visitors yields a combined
24-hour population density. For the purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that this metric encompasses all people that will generate
demand for infrastructure and services. “Visitor density” is calculated
with visitor accommodations including hotels, condo-hotels, timeshares,
and visitor rental units (including VRBO, AirBnB, etc.)1 As can be seen in
Figures 4-7, looking at population, jobs, and visitors individually shows
different areas of concentration. For example, each map demonstrates
hotspots in Downtown Hilo and Kona. However, there is a higher
population density in HPP, Upper & Lower Puna, and Waikoloa Village; a
higher job density in Puako and Waikoloa; and a higher visitor density in
Volcano. Figure 7 illustrates densities aggregated across analysis cells.
This analysis assesses four potential development scenarios, each of
which accommodate the additional 119,207 combined residents, jobs,
and visitors. The intent of the two baseline scenarios was to emulate
allowable densities based on the County’s existing regulations. The
intent of the third scenario was to explore the impact of the General
Plan 2040.
1. A “Trend Zoning” scenario assumes growth under
existing zoning rules, which yields a marginal population
density of 2.85 people/acre and a marginal job density of
21.6 jobs/acre for new development.
2. A “Trend LUPAG” scenario assumes growth under
current general plan policies, which yields a marginal
population density of 4.32 people/acre and a marginal
job density of 21.6 jobs/acre for new development.
1 SMS, General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends & Forecasts Final Report,
September 2016.
HAWAI’I KEY FACTS
AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY
0.08 people/acre
AVERAGE 24-HOUR POPULATION
DENSITY IN HAWAI’I
0.14 people/acre
AVERAGE DAILY VISITORS
28,140
AVERAGE VISITOR DENSITY
0.04 visitors/acre
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 9
Added Population, Employment, & Visitors by Forecast Analysis Zone, 2040
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019; SMS, General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends & Forecasts Final Report, September 2016
FIGURE 3
10 | Smart Growth America
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
FIGURE 6
Hawai’i County Visitor Density, 2015
FIGURE 5
Hawai’i County Job Density, 2015
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
FIGURE 4
Hawai’i County Population Density, 2015
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
FIGURE 7
Hawai’i County 24-Hour Density, 2015
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 11
3. A “General Plan 2040” scenario assumes growth under
the proposed General Plan 2040, which yields a marginal
average density of 4.54 people/acre and a marginal job
density of 21.6 jobs/acre.
4. A “Smart Growth” scenario assumes a marginal
population density of 10 people/acre and a marginal job
density of 30 jobs/acre, and 50 percent infill development.
The first two scenarios, Trend Zoning and Trend LUPAG, were
created using data from the County’s recent Trend Scenario and
Land Use Allocation Technical Report, written by Placeways LLC.2
These two scenarios examine the County’s capacity under current
zoning regulations and general plan land use policies and create
allocation models to estimate where population growth will occur. For
the purposes of this analysis, marginal density levels were calculated
at the level of Forecast Analysis Zones and then averaged to the
County-level.
The third scenario was created with new projected population
densities as proprosed by the General Plan 2040. This scenario
presents a slight population density increase when compared to the
Trend LUPAG scenario, and would require approximately 300 fewer
acres to accomodate population growth over the next 20 years.
The fourth scenario presents a “smart growth” development alternative,
with higher marginal density levels and 50 percent infill development.
The Smart Growth scenario assumes that 50 percent of development
will occur in existing built fabric in urban centers, while 50 percent will
occur on greenfield land.
This infill assumption builds off of the recent Development Pattern
Adjustment Analysis conducted by Placeways LLC, which assumes
that 10-20 percent of development on obsolete subdivision lots can
be diverted to infill properties.3 The report suggests that using an
“aggressive financial incentive/disincentive program” including tools
2 DeBay, Amy, Ian Varley, and Doug Walker, Placeways LLC, Trend Scenario and
Land Use Allocation Trechnical Report, April 18, 2016. 3 Placeways LLC, Development Pattern Adjustment: Update, January 9, 2017.
An aggregation of
population, job,
and visitor density
comprise the
County’s “24-hour
population density”
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040
Smart
Growth
Adjusted Population Density*2.85 4.32 4.54 10
Adjusted Job Density*21.6 21.6 21.6 30
Total Acres 36,512 24,370 24,070 5,132
TABLE 1
Density Scenarios
* Adjusted densities include proportional visitor population (see Methodology)
12 | Smart Growth America
such as TDR, rationing of building permits, and retiring county-owned
properties could increase the diversion rate to 30-35 percent. This
diversion rate was calculated solely for obsolete subdivisions, and
therefore SGA increases that number to 50 percent of development
diverted away from all greenfield areas and into existing urban cores
to account for potential suburban development outside of these
subdivisions. Furthermore, the County has initiated a “(Re)Development
Feasibility Assessment” to define criteria for assessing redevelopment
opportunities, and to identify and prioritize parcels. This effort will
further identify community development initiatives and funding and
financing mechanisms that will continue the forward momentum of infill
development in the County.
SGA uses the concept of “marginal density” in each of the four
development scenarios. The marginal density in each scenario is
the average density of new development. For example, the Smart
Growth scenario does not suggest that the average density of the
entire County would rise to 10 people per acre by 2040, rather that
development to accommodate new population would have an average
density of 10 people per acre. While each of the four scenarios are
defined by their marginal density, this number is aggregated to the
County-level and therefore there are broad variations in density levels
within each scenario. In the Trend Zoning scenario, marginal density of
new development in Forecast Analysis Zones ranges from 1.1 to 6.6
people per acre. In the Trend LUPAG scenario, marginal density ranges
from 2.3 to 16.4 people per acre. In the General Plan 2040 scenario,
the marginal density ranges from 1.1 to 15.2 people per acre. In the
Smart Growth scenario, marginal density of people in urban centers is
estimated to be approximately 15 residents per acre, compared with 5
residents per acre outside urban centers.
Accommodating the 119,207 new residents, jobs, and visitors at
these marginal density levels would lead to vastly different physical
footprints. The Trend Zoning scenario would require 36,512 acres of
development, the Trend LUPAG scenario would require 24,370 acres
of development, the General Plan 2040 scenario would require 24,070
acres of development, and the Smart Growth scenario would require
5,132 acres of development.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 13
Land Constraints
The density of new residents, jobs, and visitors in the County directly
impacts the number of acres that will be developed. In addition to fiscal
costs of providing infrastructure across a greater land area, developing
across a larger land area has significant environmental costs. This
report examines two types of land constraints that will impact future
development in Hawai’i, lava flow risk hazards and loss of productive
agricultural land. Neither of these costs are taken into account in the
net fiscal impact assessment of the four scenarios, but they serve
as a supplement to highlight the potential costs associated with land
constraints in the County.
Volcano Lava Flow Hazards
There are two active volcanoes on the Big Island, Mauna Loa and
Kilauea. Kilauea has been erupting nearly constantly since 1983, but
on May 3, 2018 a major eruption began that destroyed upwards of
700 homes.1 Going forward, the County plans to conduct a volcanic
risk assessment that will examine hazard exposure, vulnerability, and
coping capacity, and the necessary policy responses to the eruption in
greater depth. However, this analysis sought to quantify the probability
in each scenario that an acre developed would be in one of the
County’s “lava flow hazard zones,” as previously defined.
To conduct this analysis, SGA used GIS to calculate the number
of acres in each Forecast Analysis Zone that are protected and the
number of acres within lava flow hazard zones. Protected land for
these purposes included national parks, state parks, open space, and
forest reserves, which were assumed to not allow development in the
future. This analysis assumed that lava flow hazard zones 1 & 2 as the
highest risk areas and buffered them according to USGS guidance (see
Figure 8).2 Then, SGA calculated the probability that an acre within the
high-risk lava flow zones would be developed under each of the four
scenarios. That probability metric was multiplied by the total number of
acres developed for each scenario to estimate a number of acres and
households at-risk of lava flow.
This estimate includes marginal households in each development
scenario, not any existing households that may be damaged by a lava
flow event. Therefore, the monetary impact of risk includes the possible
marginal cost of a lava flow event on top of cost of damage to existing
development. To quantify the monetary impact of lava-flow risk, the
number of at-risk households was multiplied by the 2016 median home
1 USGS, Volcano Hazards Program,
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/.
2 Volcano Lava Flow Hazard Zones, Hawai’i Statewide GIS Program,
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/volcano-lava-flow-hazard-zones
LAND CONSTRAINTS
CONSIDERED
Volcano Lava Flow Hazards
Loss of Productive Agricultural
Land
14 | Smart Growth America
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040
Smart
Growth
Total Acres (residential) 35,676 23,534 23,234 4,922
Probability developed acre is in lava flow
hazard zone 0.5%0.3%0.3%0.1%
Acres in lava flow hazard zone 76 41 28 3
At-risk homes (new development)86 57 44 12
Value of at-risk homes $23,337,975 $13,856,436 $11,086,783 $3,616,047
At-risk population (new development)235 154 119 34
Emergency Response Costs (marginal)$141,583 $92,591 $71,924 $20,593
Total Costs (marginal)$23,479,557 $13,949,028 $11,158,708 $3,636,640
TABLE 2
Lava Flow Hazard by Scenario
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
value in each FAZ, which ranged from $156,000 to $475,000.3 This
cost estimate simply represents the replacement value of new homes
within the lava flow hazard zones. Additionally, the County estimated
that in the recent eruption event, it has incurred approximately $7.5
million in labor, fringe, material, and other costs for emergency
response. Dividing that amount by the population impacted yields a per
person emergency response cost of approximately $600 per person,
not including police and fire.4 Together, the property replacement costs
for at-risk homes and emergency response costs for at-risk population
were assumed to total the marginal cost of eruption risk.
The results of this analysis show that because the Smart Growth
scenario has a lower probability of developing land in areas at high-
risk of lava flow, it has a lower potential cost of property damage and
emergency response. Furthermore, because the General Plan 2040
scenario redistributes population to FAZs with fewer lava flow hazard
zones, that scenario saves cost of property damage and emergency
response when compared to the Trend Zoning and Trend LUPAG
scenarios. It is worth noting that this analysis creates a probability
metric that is independent of land use regulations and assumes a
level of randomness regarding the location of new development.
The County’s forthcoming volcanic risk assessment will conduct a
more thorough examination of lava-flow risk, potential impacts, and
necessary responses across the County.
3 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2012-2016
4 County of Hawai’i estimate as of September 30, 2018.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 15
Source: Hawai’i Statewide GIS Program; Smart Growth America, 2019.
FIGURE 8
Buffered Lava Flow Hazard Zones 1 & 2
16 | Smart Growth America
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Acres (residential) 35,676 23,534 23,234 4,922
Probability developed acre is
on agricultural land 1.3%0.9%0.9%0.2%
Acres on agricultural land 357 125 152 9
Value of land $3,170,461 $1,111,883 $1,347,981 $80,009
TABLE 3
Loss of Productive Agricultural Land by Scenario
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
Productive Agricultural Land
Agriculture is important to Hawai’i’s economy, long-term sustainability,
and helps the County to preserve valuable green space. In 2012,
the USDA Census of Agriculture estimated that the County had
approximately 687,000 acres in use for farming. The Statewide
Agricultural Land Use Baseline Report estimated that between 1980
and 2015, the State lost 37 percent of its agricultural land. As Hawai’i
County faces significant growth of residents, jobs, and visitors, looking
ahead to 2040 this analysis considers the impact that this development
may have on productive agricultural land.
The process used to examine impact on agricultural land is similar
to that of the lava flow risk assessment. Using GIS, SGA calculated
protected land and productive agricultural land, and created a metric
of the probability that an acre of productive agricultural land will be
developed. Productive agricultural lands were defined using two
separate sources: areas defined in the LUPAG as Important Agricultural
Lands and pasture lands identified in a 2015 University of Hawai’i –
Hilo study that mapped areas of active agriculture and ranching (See
Figure 9).
The probability that land was both developed and agricultural was
multiplied by the total number of acres for each scenario to determine
the number of agricultural acres at-risk for development. The monetary
impact of the acres developed was created using the USDA Census
of Agriculture’s 2012 estimate of average land value for farms in the
County per acre, $8,892 ($ 2018).
This analysis shows that with denser development, there is a lower
probability that acres of productive agricultural land will be lost to
accommodate new residents, jobs, and visitors. However, it is notable
that the General Plan 2040 recommendations result in a slightly higher
potential for loss of agricultural land (approximately 27 acres). This is
likely due to the reapportionment of population projections to different
FAZs that has increased the overall risk of loss of farmland. Just as with
the lava flow risk analysis, this assessment does not take into account
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 17
Sources: County of Hawai’i LUPAG, Important Agricultural Lands; University of Hawai’i - Hilo, Pasture Lands; and County of Hawai’i,
Zoning; Smart Growth America, 2019.
FIGURE 9
Existing Agricultural & Protected Land
land use regulations or a broader consideration of economic production
of each acre of agricultural land. Therefore, taking into account the land
use protections and policies incorporated into the General Plan 2040,
the amount of agricultural land at risk of development may decrease.
18 | Smart Growth America
Methodology
This analysis focuses on six expenditures for development in the
County of Hawai’i: roadways, water lines, wastewater lines, electricity
poles, septic systems, and emergency response services. These
items were selected based on the data available from the County
of Hawai’i. The County has many other infrastructure and service
costs that are also essential to planning for growth. These six items
represent the costs that have the strongest observable relationship to
24-hour population density. Since this analysis does not examine all
infrastructure, the costs we present are a conservative estimate of what
future development will likely cost the County.
Two of the costs examined in this analysis—septic systems and
electricity poles—are typically incurred by private developers. However,
SGA included them in the fiscal impact model for two reasons. First,
the spatial distribution of septic systems and electricity poles have a
strong observable relationship to population density, and therefore
represent a cost of sprawl. Second, while private developers typically
cover the costs of installing these two infrastructure items, those costs
are then passed on to the residents of new development. Therefore,
just as with direct costs to the County, these development costs will
ultimately be borne by the taxpayers.
For each expenditure item, the County provided GIS shapefiles. Using
this data, SGA aggregated infrastructure items to the same 40-acre
grid cells containing population, job, and visitor estimates. This process
allowed for the calculation of unit density in each grid cell (e.g. “road
area per acre” or “feet of water pipe per acre”).
We then used these estimates of units per acre of each infrastructure
item as the basis of an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
analysis. The unit of analysis for the data set was the 40-acre grid cell.
The result is a set of models that estimate the unit density per capita
(e.g. “road area per acre per person”) as a function of population
density (“residents per acre”) and job density (“jobs per acre”). These
models allow for an estimate of the amount of infrastructure units
needed per capita as a function of population and job density. It is
this consideration of density that distinguishes this analysis from prior
“average cost analyses” that simply divide costs by new population.
When estimating the amount of infrastructure needed, population
and job density were multiplied by their corresponding coefficients
in each regression model. However, visitors are distributed more
unevenly across the Island, with many grid cells containing no visitors.
Therefore, to estimate how much infrastructure would be required per
additional visitor, 60 percent of projected visitors were added to the
projected jobs and 40 percent of the projected visitors were added to
COUNTY-PROVIDED
INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Roadways
Water Lines
Wastewater Lines
Emergency Response Services
DEVELOPER-PROVIDED
INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Electricity Poles
Septic Systems
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 19
FIGURE 10
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
Road Area per Capita, by Density (Hawai’i County)
the projected residents. These percentages were taken from the visitor
census, which observes that 60 percent of visitor accommodation
units are hotel rooms, while the remaining 40 are timeshare and visitor
rental units.1
Figure 10 plots the relationship between 24-hour population density
and road area captured by the regression analysis. SGA created a
regression model for each infrastructure item and each exhibited a
similar relationship. Regression outputs, plots, and cost itemization for
each infrastructure item can be found in Appendix A.
1 SMS, General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends & Forecasts Final Report,
September 2016
20 | Smart Growth America
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040
Smart
Growth
Road Area Needed per Resident (sqft)506 433 425 317
Road Area Needed per Job (sqft)257 257 257 229
Total Road Area Needed (sqft)55,955,081 48,577,600 47,779,527 36,274,833
Price per Square Foot of New Road $24 $24 $24 $24
Total Cost of Road Needed (millions)$1,343 $1,166 $1,147 $588
TABLE 4
Results - Hawai’i Development Costs per Capita (Marginal Costs)
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
A c r e s i n New Scenario
Average
Distance
to EMS Added
Distance
in Each
Scenario
FIGURE 11
Average Distance to Emergency Response Services
Table 4 illustrates how “road area per capita” needed decreases as a
function of population and job density. This is due to the fact that at
higher densities, roads can be shared and distributed among more
people.
Each model estimates the total quantity of infrastructure needed, as
well as the quantity of infrastructure per capita. Then, cost factors
were developed for each infrastructure item based on SGA research in
coordination with the County of Hawai’i. The infrastructure quantities
and item-specific cost factors were then used to calculate the cost of
providing infrastructure for each of the four development scenarios.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 21
FIGURE 11
Average Distance to Emergency Response Services
Infrastructure &
Service Costs
Financing
Costs
Operations &
Maintenance
Costs
Total
Cost
FIGURE 12
Components of Total Cost
Calculating the costs of emergency response services involved a
different method. First, using GIS, SGA estimated the distribution of
population at the census block-group level. Then, we calculated the
existing average distance to a police or fire station as a baseline, which
was 2.9 miles. We created a 2.9-mile buffer zone around each of the
police and fire stations, and assumed that new development in each
scenario would occur in a ring surrounding that average distance. This
method makes the assumption that new development would require
emergency services to travel a further distance to respond to calls that
is proportional with the density of that development.
SGA used the number of acres developed under each scenario
and the existing 2.9-mile radius to calculate the added emergency
response radius under each scenario (See Figure 12). Adding that
new distance to the current average distance yielded a new average
distance to police and fire stations, assuming new development
outside of current service areas. SGA used the current 24-hour
population and the number of 911 calls in 2016 to create a calls per
capita metric, which was scaled proportionally to estimate the number
of 911 calls that the new 24-hour population would generate.
This analysis assumes that many costs of providing emergency
service are fixed regardless of development density. However, traveling
additional miles to respond to calls would affect maintenance costs
of police and fire vehicles. Using annual vehicle maintenance cost
estimates from the 2018-2019 Operating Budget and the Hawai’i
Police Department, SGA created a cost of emergency response
per mile metric. Using the new average distance to a police and fire
station in each scenario, SGA calculated the added miles required for
the new 911 calls. Multiplying the new miles by the average cost per
mile created an annual cost for providing emergency service to the
additional 24-hour population.
The final step in this analysis was to add the financing, operations,
and maintenance costs to the infrastructure and service costs.
Infrastructure items are long-term capital investments, and
governments typically issue bonds to pay for these investments. This
analysis assumes that the financing cost to the County would be 4
percent interest over 20-years. Finally, the analysis adds operations
and maintenance cost of 5 percent. Together with the estimated cost
of infrastructure, the financing, operations, and maintenance costs
represent the estimated total cost of providing infrastructure and
services under each development scenario (See Figure 12).
22 | Smart Growth America
Results
The fiscal impact model for future development in Hawai’i County
yielded two key results for each of the four scenarios. The total
20-year costs can be seen in Table 5, along with an annual cost as
compared to the County’s 2018-2019 annual budget.
The second result is the net fiscal impact of each development
scenario. The net fiscal impact takes the total 20-year cost and
compares it against potential revenue from new residents and jobs.
Here, we use an average revenue of $1,643 per person based on the
County’s 2018-2019 General Fund budget.1 The four scenarios all plan
for the same level of 24-hour population growth, therefore they each
generate the same estimated tax revenues, which are $2.4 billion over
20 years. However, due to their varying levels of density, the scenarios
differ in their cost to the County. When we compare the revenue of
each scenario against its costs, the difference is the net fiscal impact.
A negative net fiscal impact indicates that the County would lose
money in accommodating the new growth; a positive net fiscal impact
indicates that the County would generate net revenue.
The results of this analysis show that the Trend Zoning, Trend LUPAG,
and General Plan 2040 scenarios result in a negative net fiscal impact
over 20 years, and the Smart Growth scenario results in a positive net
fiscal impact (see Table 6). The Trend Zoning scenario, which allows
for development consistent with current zoning regulations in Hawai’i
County, would cost approximately $2.96 billion over 20 years. This
equates to $148 million per year, which is equivalent to 27% of the
County’s 2018-2019 total budget. Applying the estimated potential tax
revenues from the new 24-hour population yields a 20-year net fiscal
impact of -$557 million, or -$28 million annually.
The Trend LUPAG scenario, which assumes density levels consistent
with current general plan policies, would reduce the 20-year costs
to $2.60 billion, which is $130 million per year. The 20-year net fiscal
impact is -$193 million, or -$10 million annually.
The General Plan 2040 scenario improves upon the Trend LUPAG
scenario, increasing population density and reapportioning population
projections amongst FAZs. The 20-year costs of the General Plan 2040
scenario are $2.56 billion, which amounts to $128 million per year.
Over the 20-year period, the net fiscal impact of the General Plan 2040
scenario is -$154 million, or -$8 million annually.
The Smart Growth scenario assumes a density slightly higher than
traditional neighborhood development of 10 people per acre, along
with 50 percent infill development. Both by increasing density and
exploiting existing infrastructure through infill development, this
scenario substantially reduces costs and results in a positive net fiscal
1 County of Hawai’i, “Operating Budget, FY 2018-2019, Ordinance No. 18-68.”
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 23
Millions ($)Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Capital Costs - 20 years $1,944 $1,706 $1,680 $925
Amortized Costs - 20 years (4%
Rate)$2,862 $2,510 $2,472 $1,361
Maintenance Costs - 20 years $97 $85 $84 $46
Total Costs - 20 years $2,959 $2,595 $2,556 $1,407
Total Costs Annually $148
(+27% to budget)
$130
(+24% to budget)
$128
(+24% to budget)
$70
(+13% to budget)
TABLE 5
Results - Hawai’i Development Costs Summary
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
Millions ($)Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Costs - 20 years $2,959 $2,595 $2,556 $1,407
Estimated Tax Revenue - 20
years $2,402 $2,402 $2,402 $2,402
Net Fiscal Impact - 20 years -$557 -$193 -$154 +$995
Total Costs Annually $148 $130 $128 $70
Estimated Tax Revenue Annually $120 $120 $120 $120
Net Fiscal Impact Annually -$28 -$10 -$8 +$50
TABLE 6
Results - Hawai’i Net Fiscal Impact Summary
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
24 | Smart Growth America
impact. In this scenario, 20-year costs would be $1.41 billion ($70
million per year). The 20-year net fiscal impact is +$995 billion (+$50
million per year).
Another way of examining costs is to consider the marginal costs per
new resident, job, or visitor. This measure tells us, on average, how
much the County is spending to provide infrastructure and services to
each new person. Under the Trend Zoning scenario, each new person
would cost the County $1,241 per year. This compares to $1,089
annually per person under the Trend LUPAG scenario, $1,072 annually
per person under the General Plan 2040 scenario, and $590 annually
per person under the Smart Growth scenario. It is worth noting that the
marginal cost per resident results differ from net fiscal impact, because
it does not consider that new residents, jobs, and visitors do not arrive
all at once. Net fiscal impact over a 20-year time frame accounts for that
variation.
The fiscal impact model tells us that development under current zoning
and regulations and guidelines in the current and proposed general
plans would cost the County considerably more money than it would
cost to build under a Smart Growth scenario.2 The infrastructure and
service items analyzed in this model consist only of items with a clearly
demonstrable relationship to population density, and therefore are most
likely a conservative estimate of costs to the County.
The net fiscal impact adjusts results for the County’s tax revenues,
and the discrepancy between costs and revenues shows that in each
scenario the County will have to make up for additional costs. For
example, under the Trend Zoning scenario, each person would cost
the County approximately $1,241 annually. These costs will have to be
covered somewhere – be it by members of the new 24-hour population,
the existing population, businesses, or external funds (See Table 7).
Finally, we convert the costs of each scenario into “cost savings” relative
to the Trend Zoning scenario (See Table 8). From this standpoint, the
Trend LUPAG, General Plan 2040, and Smart Growth scenarios offer
significant potential savings to Hawai’i County. The Trend LUPAG
scenario would save the County $18 million per year and $364 million
over 20 years. The General Plan 2040 scenario would save the County
$20 million per year and $403 million over 20 years—a $39 million
savings over the Trend LUPAG scenario. The Smart Growth scenario
would generate net revenue for the County, with a $78 million annual
savings and a $1.6 billion savings over 20 years when compared with
the Trend Zoning scenario.
2 For the infrastructure items examined in this report, including roadways, water
lines, wastewater lines, electricity, septic, and emergency response.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 25
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Costs per Additional
Resident, Job, and Visitor - 20
years
$24,821 $21,770 $21,443 $11,805
Annual Costs per Additional
Resident, Job, and Visitor $1,241 $1,089 $1,072 $590
TABLE 7
Results - Hawai’i Development Costs per Capita (Marginal Costs)
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
Millions ($)Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Savings - 20 years NA $364 $403 $1,552
Annual Savings NA $18 $20 $78
TABLE 8
Results - Hawai’i Development Cost Savings
Source: Smart Growth America, 2019
26 | Smart Growth America
Conclusion
This analysis considers how Hawai’i County might accommodate
98,442 new residents, 12,585 new jobs and 8,180 new visitors by the
year 2040. Density of development matters in terms of how much it will
cost the County to provide infrastructure and services. This analysis
examined two scenarios consistent with existing County zoning
regulations and land use guidelines, one scenario consistent with the
proposed General Plan 2040, and one denser scenario consistent with
the principles of smart growth.
Under the Trend Zoning scenario—the least dense of the four, which
allows for development consistent with Hawai’i’s zoning regulations—
the County would accommodate new growth at 2.85 residents per
acre and 21.6 jobs per acre. To do so would cost the County $2.96
billion over 20 years for the provision of infrastructure and services,
with a net fiscal impact of -$557 million when considering potential tax
revenues from new residents and jobs.
Under the Trend LUPAG scenario, which aligns with the County’s
existing land use policies, the County would accommodate new
growth at 4.32 residents per acre and 21.6 jobs per acre. This would
cost the County $2.60 billion over 20 years, with a net fiscal impact of
-$193 million.
The General Plan 2040 scenario is consistent with the proposed
General Plan update. This plan slightly increases the density allowed in
the Trend LUPAG scenario up to 4.54 people per acre and maintains
the scenario’s 21.6 jobs per acre. Furthermore, the population
projection associated with the General Plan 2040 update reapportions
population amongst FAZs in order to encourage development in areas
that are at less risk of natural hazards. The General Plan scenario
would cost the County $2.56 billion over 20 years, with a net fiscal
impact of -$154 million.
While the General Plan 2040 scenario represents an improvement
to the Trend LUPAG scenario, a fourth, more aggressive scenario
was created based on the principles of smart growth. This scenario
would allow for development at 10 residents per acre and 30 jobs per
acre. Furthermore, the Smart Growth scenario assumes that 50% of
development is infill and takes advantage of existing infrastructure. The
Smart Growth scenario illustrates the potential savings to the County
if it were to continue to encourage dense development patterns.
This scenario would cost the County $1.41 billion over 20 years, and
would results in a positive net fiscal impact of $995 million. The Smart
Growth scenario would save the County $1.6 billion over 20 years
when compared with the least dense scenario. Furthermore, examining
land constraints demonstrates that the County can minimize the risk of
lava flow hazards and loss of agricultural land by accommodating new
people, jobs, and visitors with a denser development pattern.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 27
In short, accommodating growth at higher density levels would save
the County and its taxpayers in terms of reduced costs for roadways,
water lines, wastewater lines, electricity lines, septic systems, and
emergency response services. This is a set of hypothetical development
scenarios for Hawai’i County, using population, job, and visitor forecasts
that may not come to be. However, this analysis highlights the financial
consequences of land-use decisions over a 20-year time frame. The
costs of low-density, sprawling development are significant and add
up over time. Planners and policymakers should take note that smarter
growth, with more compact development patterns, would reduce long-
term costs.
There are a few caveats to note along with the results of this analysis.
First, while the analysis evaluates population, job, and visitor forecasts
within Forecast Analysis Zones, it does not incorporate location-
specific scenarios. Therefore, the magnitude of numbers may vary
and a defined geography would allow for more accurate estimates of
cost for emergency response services and land constraints, along with
transit, schools, and other location-sensitive factors.
Second, it is likely that in any scenario the future development in
Hawai’i will comprise some infill and some greenfield development. This
analysis uses infill in the Smart Growth scenario to illustrate the cost
savings that can occur through prioritizing infill, as new development
can often take advantage of existing infrastructure. The cost of infill
development can vary greatly, but based on discussions and work with
several municipalities, SGA finds that the costs of infill development
to the government can be around 35 percent of what the same
development would cost in a greenfield.
Third, it is important to note that there are many cases in which the
County is not responsible for the cost of new infrastructure. Often,
infrastructure provision is a condition of development, and therefore
is funded by developers. However, regardless of who pays for the
construction of infrastructure, the County is often responsible for the
cost of maintenance. Furthermore, regardless of which entity pays for
new infrastructure, denser development is more cost-efficient. Whether
the cost of infrastructure is paid directly by the County or by developers,
these costs are passed along to property owners and tax payers.
28 | Smart Growth America
Finally, SGA conducted this analysis for the County of Hawai’i using
data particular to that area. These factors and magnitudes differ
from community to community, representing the various policy and
spending decisions that differ across the country. Infrastructure
provision, especially on a per-capita basis, can vary widely from one
place to another, even at similar density levels. Thus, it is best to
understand these cost estimating models as best suitable for Hawai’i.
The parameter estimates themselves are not suitable for application
to other communities, although the trends of higher density requiring
fewer units of infrastructure per capita do hold.
This analysis should be used as a guideline for Hawai’i to consider the
fact that context-sensitive higher density levels are not only beneficial
from an economic, social equity, and environmental standpoint, they
also make financial sense. The County stands to gain nearly $1 billion
in revenue over 20 years by building at higher density levels. Continuing
to build at low-density levels would yield heavy capital costs for major
infrastructure items, and these costs can be mitigated with a “smart
growth” approach to new development.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 29
Appendix A - Technical Output
Roadways
Dependent Variable log(Road Area per Capita)
Mean 13,780
Standard Deviation 23,914
OLS log(Road Area per Capita) = 6.616 + -0.372 * log(Population Density)
+ -0.347 * log(Job Density)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio
Constant 6.616***0.07 94.06
log(Population Density)-0.372***0.024 -15.33
log(Job Density)-0.347***0.021 -16.44
Observations 2,216
R2 0.354
Adjusted R2 0.354
Residual Standard Error 1.234
F-Statistic 607.6***
Log-Likelihood -3608.586
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Roadways Regression Results
30 | Smart Growth America
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Unit Cost ($/square foot)$24 $24 $24 $24
Est. Road Area per Capita
Population (sqft)506 433 425 317
Est. Road Area per Capita
Jobs (sqft)257 257 257 229
Est. Road Area Needed 55,955,081 48,577,600 47,779,527 36,274,833
Est. Cost of Road Area Needed $1,342,921,934 $1,165,862,408 $1,146,708,650 $587,652,297
Savings Compared to Baseline
Scenario NA $177,059,526 $196,213,284 $755,269,638
Roadway Area Needed by Scenario
Water Service Lines
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 31
Dependent Variable log(Water Line Linear Feet per Capita)
Mean 140.18
Standard Deviation 216.49
OLS log(Water Line per Capita) = 2.68 + -0.399 * log(Population Density) +
-0.243 * log(Job Density)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio
Constant 2.68***0.076 35.23
log(Population Density)-0.399***0.035 -11.351
log(Job Density)-0.243***0.027 -8.830
Observations 967
R2 0.371
Adjusted R2 0.369
Residual Standard Error 1.193
F-Statistic 284***
Log-Likelihood -1540.986
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Water Service Line Regression Results
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Unit Cost ($/linear foot)$100 $100 $100 $100
Est. Water Pipe per Capita
Population (ft)10 8 8 6
Est. Water Pipe per Capita Jobs (ft)7 7 7 6
Est. Water Pipe Feet Needed 1,097,639 948,258 932,202 703,600
Est. Cost of Water Pipe Needed $109,763,879 $94,825,767 $93,220,161 $47,492,981
Savings Compared to Baseline
Scenario NA $14,938,112 $16,543,718 $62,270,898
Water Service Line Linear Feet Needed by Scenario
32 | Smart Growth America
Wastewater Pipes
Dependent Variable log(Wastewater Line Linear Feet per Capita)
Mean 26.48
Standard Deviation 50.46
OLS log(Wastewater Line per Capita) = 2.213 + -0.424 * log(Population
Density) + -0.211 * log(Job Density)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio
Constant 2.213***0.126 17.560
log(Population Density)-0.424***0.098 -4.331
log(Job Density)-0.211**0.079 -2.678
Observations 133
R2 0.276
Adjusted R2 0.265
Residual Standard Error 1.246
F-Statistic 24.794***
Log-Likelihood -216.4561
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Wastewater Line Regression Results
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 33
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Unit Cost ($/linear foot)$350 $350 $350 $350
Est. Waste water Pipe per Capita
Population (ft)5.86 4.92 4.81 3.44
Est. Waste water Pipe per Capita Jobs
(ft)4.78 4.78 4.78 4.46
Est. Water Pipe Feet Needed 680,090 583,640 573,335 428,361
Est. Cost of Water Pipe Needed $238,031,592 $204,273,965 $200,667,129 $101,200,394
Savings Compared to Baseline
Scenario NA $33,757,627 $37,364,463 $136,831,198
Waste Water Line Linear Feet Needed by Scenario
Electricity Poles
34 | Smart Growth America
Dependent Variable log(Electricity Poles per Capita)
Mean 0.91
Standard Deviation 1.42
OLS log(Electricity Poles per Capita) = -2.441 + -0.292 * log(Population
Density) + -0.29 * log(Job Density)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio
Constant -2.441***0.067 -36.337
log(Population Density)-0.292***0.025 -11.669
log(Job Density)-0.29***0.021 -114.07
Observations 1,754
R2 0.319
Adjusted R2 0.319
Residual Standard Error 1.079
F-Statistic 411***
Log-Likelihood -2620.758
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Electricity Poles Regression Results
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Unit Cost ($/each)$13,087 $13,087 $13,087 $13,087
Est. Electricity Poles per Capita
Population 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04
Est. Electricity Poles per Capita Jobs 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03
Est. Electricity Poles Needed 7,148 6,401 6,319 5,089
Est. Cost of Electricity Poles Needed $93,539,871 $83,775,553 $82,699,036 $44,958,100
Cost Compared to Baseline Scenario NA $9,764,318 $10,840,836 $48,581,772
Electricity Poles Needed by Scenario
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 35
Septic Systems
Dependent Variable log(Septic Systems per Capita)
Mean 0.66
Standard Deviation 1.49
OLS log(Septic System per Capita) = -2.789 + -0.070 * log(Population
Density) + -0.031 * log(Job Density)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio
Constant -2.789***0.091 -30.529
log(Population Density)-0.070*0.032 -2.204
log(Job Density)-0.031***0.028 -11.095
Observations 1,692
R2 0.1279
Adjusted R2 0.1269
Residual Standard Error 1.365
F-Statistic 124.1***
Log-Likelihood -2,931.4
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Septic System Regression Results
36 | Smart Growth America
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Unit Cost ($/system)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Est. Septic Systems per Capita
Population 0.057 0.055 0.055 0.052
Est. Septic Systems per Capita Jobs 0.452 0.452 0.452 0.415
Est. Septic Systems Needed 13,716 13,549 13,530 12,570
Est. Cost of Septic Systems Needed $137,158,162 $135,491,812 $135,298,251 $125,699,525
Savings Compared to Baseline
Scenario NA $1,666,350 $1,859,911 $11,458,637
Septic Systems Needed by Scenario
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 37
Emergency Response Services
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Additional 24-Hour Population 119,732 119,732 119,732 119,732
Additional 911 Calls 178,126 178,126 178,126 178,126
Scenario Square Miles 57.1 38.1 37.6 8.0
New Average Distance to EMS (miles)8.1 7.5 7.5 6.3
Added Emergency Response Miles 1,440,297 1,329,512 1,326,580 1,113,016
2040 Annual Cost $2,197,313 $2,028,300 $2,023,827 $1,698,014
Total Cost (scaled annually to 2040)$23,071,788 $21,297,152 $21,250,182 $17,829,144
Metric Source
Number of 911 Calls (2015)189,973 County of Hawai’i Police Dept.
Average Distance to Police & Fire Station (2019)2.92 GIS
911 Calls per Capita (2016)1.5 24-hour population / 911 calls
Public Safety Vehicle Maintenance Budget
(2018-2019)$846,281
County of Hawai’i 2018-19
Budget; County of Hawai’i Police
Department
Cost per Call (2016)$4.45 Budget / # of Calls
Cost per Mile (2016)$1.53 Budget / (Calls x Miles)
Emergency Response Services Data
Emergency Response Services by Scenario
38 | Smart Growth America
Land Constraints
Land and Value Characteristics by Forecast Area Zone
Forecast Analysis
Zone
Total
Acres*
Protected
Acres*
All Other
Acres*
Hazard
Acres**
Ag
Acres**
Median
Home
Value***
Median
Farm Acre
Value****
Hilo 190,179 131,575 58,604 3,696 17,020 $299,395 $8,893
North Hilo 265,775 159,475 106,300 8,484 44,830 $271,249 $8,893
Honoko-Paauilo 370,883 205,167 165,716 1 157,541 $337,823 $8,893
Waimea 129,425 52,263 77,162 - 62,186 $386,900 $8,893
North Kohala 90,285 11,440 78,845 - 67,030 $365,800 $8,893
Waikoloa 90,444 13,039 77,405 - 45,105 $405,300 $8,893
North Kona 310,935 152,520 158,415 5,170 71,034 $475,017 $8,893
South Kona 211,623 67,560 144,063 106,168 83,186 $430,381 $8,893
Ka’u 598,081 378,537 219,544 87,211 107,298 $156,700 $8,893
Keaau-Kurtistown 32,700 58 32,642 - 14,811 $283,500 $8,893
Upper Puna 97,875 35,482 62,393 74 17,654 $185,098 $8,893
HPP-Orchidland 97,894 302 97,592 - 351 $220,789 $8,893
Lower Puna 171,463 68,907 102,556 58,129 20,433 $206,118 $8,893
Total 2,657,562 1,276,325 1,381,237 268,932 708,479
*Calculated in GIS using Hawai’i Zoning shapefile.
**Not including protected land
***US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016
****USDA’s Census of Agriculture, adjusted to 2018 dollars.
The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns: County of Hawai’i, Hawai’i | 39
Loss of Productive Agricultural Land by Scenario
Lava Flow Hazard Zones by Scenario
*Calculated by multiplying the probability that an acre is developed by the probability that an acre is in a high-risk lava flow hazard zone
and not on protected land.
**Calculated by multiplying the probability metric by the residential number of scenario acres.
***Cost estimate of emergency response costs per person (including labor, fringe, material, and other costs, excluding police and fire)
provided by the County of Hawai’i.
*Calculated by multiplying the probability that an acre is developed by the probability that an acre is productive agricultural land and not
on protected land.
**Calculated by multiplying the probability metric by the number of residential scenario acres.
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Acres (residential) 35,676 23,534 23,234 4,922
Probability developed acre is in lava flow
hazard zone*0.5%0.3%0.3%0.1%
Acres in lava flow hazard zone**76 41 28 3
At-risk homes (new development)86 57 44 12
Value of at-risk homes $23,337,975 $13,856,436 $11,086,783 $3,616,047
At-risk population (new development)235 154 119 34
Emergency Response Costs
(marginal)***$141,583 $92,591 $71,924 $20,593
Total Costs (marginal)$23,479,557 $13,949,028 $11,158,708 $3,636,640
Trend Zoning Trend LUPAG General Plan
2040 Smart Growth
Total Acres (residential) 35,676 23,534 23,234 4,922
Probability developed acre is
on agricultural land*1.3%0.9%0.9%0.2%
Acres on agricultural land**357 125 152 9
Value of land $3,170,461 $1,111,883 $1,347,981 $80,009