HomeMy WebLinkAboutIPFNA_Final_Sept_06
Infrastructure and
Public Facilities
Needs Assessment:
Impact Fee Study
prepared for
County of HawaiÓi
Planning Department
prepared by
D A
UNCAN SSOCIATES
in association with
H H & F , P
ELBER ASTERT EE LANNERS
September 2006
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................... ..........................1
Overview of the Project.........................................
Organization of the Report......................................
Policy Recommendations..........................................
Impact Fee Summary..............................................
Impact Fee Revenue Projections.................... ...........................4
Impact Fee Comparisons..........................................
PART I: POLICY ANALYSIS.........................................
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.........................................
Current Fair Share Contributions............. ...........................7
Background......................................................
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK......................................
General Principles..............................................
State Enabling Act..............................................
CHAPTER 3: POLICY ISSUES.................... ..........................15
Treatment of Existing Lots......................................
Affordable Housing..............................................
Progressive Residential Fees....................................
Time of Collection.......................... .........................17
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Pre-Ordinance Credits...........................................
Post-Ordinance Reimbursements...................................
Phase-In Period.................................................
Maximum Impact Fees.............................................
CHAPTER 4: AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................
Overview........................................................
CHAPTER 5: LESSONS LEARNED......................................
CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS/IMPLEMENTATION............................
Action Items If Impact Fees Not Adopted.........................
Action Items if Impact Fees Adopted.............................
PART II: IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS................................
CHAPTER 7: ROADS................................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Major Roadway System............................................
Methodology.....................................................
Travel Demand...................................................
Roadway Capacity................................................
Cost per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
CHAPTER 8: PARKS AND RECREATION.................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Cost Per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost Per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
CHAPTER 9: FIRE/EMS.............................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Cost per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
CHAPTER 10: POLICE..............................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Cost per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
CHAPTER 11: SOLID WASTE.........................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Cost Per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
CHAPTER 12: WASTEWATER..........................................
Assessment and Benefit Districts................................
Service Unit....................................................
Wastewater System Capacity................. ..........................94
Cost Per Service Unit...........................................
Net Cost per Service Unit.......................................
Maximum Fee Schedule............................................
Capital Improvement Plan........................................
PART III: APPENDICES................................ ........................101
APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY......................................
APPENDIX B: GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT............................1
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA....................................
APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION..............................1
APPENDIX E: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY...................1
APPENDIX F: WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY.....................12
APPENDIX G: STATE IMPACT FEE LAW................................
APPENDIX H: STATE ACT 197.......................................
APPENDIX I: NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS..............................1
APPENDIX J: JANUARY VIDEO CONFERENCE...........................1
APPENDIX K: MARCH WORKSHOPS SUMMARY. .........................147
APPENDIX L: AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY .........................165
APPENDIX M: PARTICIPANTS........................................
APPENDIX N: IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY.................................
APPENDIX O: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS........................18
Prepared by Duncan Associates
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208, Austin, TX 78750
(512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanplan.com, www.impactfees.com
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1:POTENTIAL IMPACT FEE SUMMARY............................
Table 2:POTENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE.....................
Table 3:POTENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS PLANNED EXPENDITURES...........
Table 4:COMPARATIVE IMPACT FEE PER SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT...........
Table 5:HYPOTHETICAL FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2000-2005 ..........................8
Table 6:COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH BY DISTRICT, 1990-2000 ....................9
Table 7:HAWAIÓI COUNTY POPULATION AND VISITORS..................
Table 8:RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 2000-2006 ............10
Table 9:OWNERSHIP OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS....................
Table 10:ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ..........................................31
Table 11:SINGLE-FAMILY TRIPS BY BEDROOMS........................
Table 12:SINGLE-FAMILY TRIPS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE..................
Table 13:ESTIMATED ACTUAL VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL...............
Table 14:TOTAL DAILY TRIPS......................................
Table 15:AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH....................................
Table 16:AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE....................
Table 17:TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE.................................
Table 18:DAILY VEHICLE CAPACITIES...............................
Table 19:EXISTING SYSTEM-WIDE CAPACITY/DEMAND RATIO.............
Table 20:RECENT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS...............................
Table 21:ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT.............................
Table 22:PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING, 2006-2008 ......................45
Table 23:STATE AND FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT ............45
Table 24:ROAD DEBT CREDIT.......................................
Table 25:ROAD GENERAL FUND HISTORICAL CAPACITY EXPENDITURES.....
Table 26:ROAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT...............................
Table 27:ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.........................
Table 28:ROAD NET COST SCHEDULE.................................
Table 29:ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.......................
Table 30:PARK EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT MULTIPLIERS..............
Table 31:EXISTING PARK SERVICE UNITS............................
Table 32:PARK LAND REPLACEMENT COST.............................
Table 33:STANDARD PARK FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS...............
Table 34:SPECIAL PARK STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES.................
Table 35:PARK COST PER SERVICE UNIT.............................
Table 36:PARK DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT......................
Table 37:DIRECT PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ..................57
Table 38:TOTAL PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ...................57
Table 39:PARK PROPERTY TAX CREDIT...............................
Table 40:PARK GRANT FUNDING, 2000-2005 ......................................58
Table 41:PARK GRANT FUNDING CREDIT..............................
Table 42:PARK NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.........................
Table 43:PARK NET COST SCHEDULE.................................
Table 44:PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.......................
Table 45:FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION COST.........................
Table 46:EXISTING FIRE/EMS FACILITY COSTS.......................
Table 47:EXISTING FIRE/EMS VEHICLE COST.........................
Table 48:EXISTING FIRE/EMS EQUIPMENT COST.......................
Table 49:FIRE/EMS COST PER SERVICE UNIT.........................
Table 50:FIRE/EMS DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT..................
Table 51:FIRE/EMS GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ............68
Table 52:FIRE/EMS PROPERTY TAX CREDIT...........................
Table 53:FIRE/EMS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANTS, 2001 to 2005 .....................69
Table 54:FIRE/EMS GRANT FUNDING CREDIT..........................
Table 55:FIRE/EMS NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.....................
Table 56:FIRE/EMS NET COST SCHEDULE.............................
Table 57:FIRE/EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM...................
Table 58:EXISTING POLICE FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS.............
Table 59:POLICE VEHICLE AND MAJOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST........
Table 60:POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT...........................
Table 61:POLICE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005 ...................................76
Table 62:POLICE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT............................
Table 63:POLICE DEBT CREDIT.....................................
Table 64:POLICE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ..............77
Table 65:POLICE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT........................
Table 66:POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.......................
Table 67:POLICE NET COST SCHEDULE...............................
Table 68:POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.....................
Table 69:EXISTING SOLID WASTE SERVICE UNITS.....................
Table 70:SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION COST......................
Table 71:SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST..............................
Table 72:SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT COST.............................
Table 73:SOLID WASTE COST PER SERVICE UNIT......................
Table 74:SOLID WASTE OUTSTANDING DEBT ALLOCATION................
Table 75:SOLID WASTE DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT...............
Table 76:SOLID WASTE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-20 ........86
Table 77:SOLID WASTE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT...................
Table 78:SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005 .............................87
Table 79:SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT.......................
Table 80:SOLID WASTE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT..................
Table 81:SOLID WASTE NET COST SCHEDULE..........................
Table 82:SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................
Table 83:METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS..............................
Table 84:WASTEWATER SERVICE UNIT MULTIPLIERS....................
Table 85:WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY.............................
Table 86:WASTEWATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST...................
Table 87:WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT.......................
Table 88:WASTEWATER FACILITY DEBT PER SERVICE UNIT..............
Table 89:WASTEWATER GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 .................97
Table 90:WASTEWATER PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT....................
Table 91:WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT...................
Table 92:WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE...........................
Table 93:WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.................
Table 94:EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY..........................
Table 95:ORIGINAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT.........
Table 96:ALLOCATION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT....
Table 97:OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT......
Table 98:EXISTING DWELLING UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE................
Table 99:AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE, 2000 .....................109
Table 100:AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY BEDROOMS .............................110
Table 101:SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY SQUARE FEET ......................111
Table 102:NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE, 2005 .....................................111
Table 103:RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS ............................113
Table 104:NONRESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS ........................114
Table 105:TOTAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS ..................................115
Table 106:EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY ..................................117
Table 107:NON-STANDARDIZED PARK FACILITY INVENTORY ........................121
Table 108:WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY .................................123
Figure 1:JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.....................................
Figure 2:PROPOSED BENEFIT DISTRICTS.............................
Figure 3:MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM...................................
Figure 4:ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA................................
Figure 5:DAILY TRIPS BY UNIT SIZE...............................
Figure 6:EXISTING COUNTY PARKS..................................
Figure 7:FIRE STATION LOCATIONS.................................
Figure 8:POLICE STATION LOCATIONS...............................
Figure 9:LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION LOCATIONS....................
Figure 10:WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.......................
Figure 11:SEWER SERVICE AREAS...................................
this page intentionally left blank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study calculates the maximum impact fees that the County of HawaiÓi could charge based on the
existing levels of service for roads, park and recr eation facilities, fire/emerg ency medical service (EMS)
equipment and facilities, police equipment and facilitie s, residential solid waste facilities and equipment
and wastewater facilities.
Overview of the Project
The County of HawaiÓi Planning Department contra cted with Helber Hastert and Fee to conduct an
Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessm ent (IPFNA) study and draft ordinance. Helber
Hastert & Fee subcontracted with Duncan Associates , impact fee experts of Austin, Texas, and Alice
Moon and Co., a community and public relations firm of Hilo, HawaiÓi to achieve the project outcomes.
Funding was provided by the HawaiÓi County Council.
The Infrastructure and Public Facility Needs Assessm ent project was divided into two phases. The first
phase focused on policy analysis, and the second phase focused o
The first phase of this project was a policy analys is that culminated in the preparation of an Ordinance
Issues Memorandum (October 2005) and a Policy Analysis Memorandum (January 2006). The first phase also
included an extensive public participation process, including November 2005 focus groups in Hilo and
Kona, a January 2006 video conference with particip ants in Kona, Hilo and Honolulu, and March 2006
workshops in Hilo and Kona.
This report represents one of two major work prod ucts of the second, implementation phase of the
project. This report provides the detailed analysis and calculations needed to support the adoption of
an impact fee ordinance. It also summarizes the major policy recommend ations resulting from the first
phase. The other major work product of this phase is a draft ordinance, which is provided separately.
Organization of the Report
This Executive Summary begins the report. It summarizes the policy recommendations for both this
study and the ordinance, the maxi mum impact fees that could be adopted by the County Council, the
revenue that could be generated if the fees are ad opted at the full amount, and a comparison of impact
fee amounts calculated for HawaiÓi County with th e current fair share assessments and average fees
charged by jurisdictions on the mainland.
The remainder of the report is divided into three parts. Part I: Policy Analysis includes five chapters:
Introduction, Legal Framework, Policy Issues, Agency and Public
Steps/Implementation. Part II: Impact Fee Calculations consists of six chapters devoted to Roads,
Parks, Fire/EMS, Police, Solid Waste and Wastewater facilities. Part III: Appendices contains
additional detail on the legal framework, public partic ipation and impact fee calculations, as well as a
glossary of terms and answers to frequently asked questions abou
Part I: Policy Analysis begins with Chapter 1: Introduction . It summarizes the current fair share
assessment system that would be replaced by impact fees. This chapter also describes growth trends
on the Big Island.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 1
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Chapter 2: Legal Framework follows. This chapter describes th e specific requirements of the State
impact fee enabling act. It also explains the fund amental principles that govern impact fees. These
principles guide the recommendations to base the im pact fees on the existing le vels of service, and to
reduce the fees to account for other revenues that will be generated by new development and used to
provide the same level of service that the fees are intended to
Chapter 3: Policy Issues summarizes the public participation process and the recommendat
major issues that came out of the first phase of the project. The policy issues deal primarily wi
to structure the impact fee ordinance, rather than with the impact fee study that is the major focus of
this report.
Chapter 4: Agency and P ublic Participation describes the participation of County and State agency
staff in providing data and input and the outreach efforts used
Chapter 5: Lessons Learned describes some of the lessons learned during the agency and pub
sessions .
Chapter 6: Next Steps/Implementation outlines action items if impact fees are not adopted, and
other action items if impact fees are adopted.
Part II: Impact Fee Calculations contains the remaining chapters of the report, which calculate
net cost to accommodate new development at the exis ting level of service for each of the following
facility types: Chapter 7: Roads , Chapter 8: Parks and Recreation , Chapter 9: Fire/EMS , Chapter
10: Police , Chapter 11: Solid Waste and Chapter 12: Wastewater .
Policy Recommendations
Based on the analysis conducted for Phase I, the County should c
assessments with a true impact fee system that follo ws the requirements of the State impact fee enabling
act. An impact fee collected from all new development would be more legally defensible, more equit
and generate significantly more revenue than the curre nt Ñfair shareÒ system. This additional revenue
would translate into capital improvements that would benefit all
1. Treatment of Existing Lots. The concern about how to treat existing lots is rooted in a
concern about affordable housing. It is reco mmend that affordable housing be addressed
separately, with no special treatment of existing lots.
2. Affordable Housing. It is important to mitigate the effects of impact fees on lower-income
residents. Therefore, impact fees for afford able housing projects (e.g., Habitat for Humanity
or self-help housing) should be paid by the County from othe r funding sources. To promote
housing affordability more generally, the County could provide grants or loans to eligible
homebuyers at closing to cover the amount of the impact fees pai
3. Progressive Residential Fees. This report presents the option of progressive single-family
fees that vary by the size of the dwelling as one way to address
this option will not be available if the County d ecides to collect fees for new single-family lots
at the time of subdivision approval, since the size of the unit will not be known at that time.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 2
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
4. Time of Collection. To promote the provision of infrastr ucture concurrent with the impact
of development, the County could establish a two -tier system and collect impact fees from new
single-family residential development at the time of final subdivision approval. Other types of
development (commercial, industrial), including existing lots subdivided prior to the effective
date of the impact fee ordinance, would pay impact fees at the time the building permit is issued.
5. Assessment and Benefit Districts. It is recommended that all of the proposed impact fees
be calculated county-wide, and that the county be divided into f
the proposed impact fees. To facilitate projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that the
County allow up to 20 percent of the impact f ees (40 percent for solid waste fees) collected in
any district to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that significant benefit
will be provided to new development in the district in which the
6. Pre-Ordinance Credits. If developers have paid fair share assessments or made in-kind
contributions for projects that have not been completed, impact
eliminated for any remaining development in those projects.
7. Post-Ordinance Reimbursements. If developers are required, or agree, to dedicate land or
make eligible improvements for impact fee fac ilities after the effective date of the ordinance,
they should be reimbursed from impact fees for the value of thos
8. Phase-in Period. The phase-in period provides the public with notice that impac
forthcoming. It also gives the County administ ration time to develop administrative procedures
to implement the ordinance. The recommended effective date of the impact fee ordinance is
one year after the adoption date. During the one-year phase-in
assessments would continue to be in effect.
9. Maximum Fees. The County can charge any percentage of the maximum fees calcu
this report, up to 100 percent, as long as the same percentage is applied to all land use
categories. The percentage of the maximum fees charged could vary by benefit district. With
the exception of solid waste fees, which have a large county-wide component (the landfill),
individual fees could be charged in some districts but not other
Impact Fee Summary
The maximum potential fees calculated in this repor t for all six facilities an d all land use types are
presented in Table 1. All fees represent the ma ximum impact fee calculated based on the existing
county-wide level of service and should be assesse d through a uniform county-wide fee. The maximum
road fee shown in this table does not include State roadsÏthe Co
maximum fee with State roads included. If State ro ad costs are included, the road fees would be much
higher. The County can charge less than 100 percent of the full amount that could be charged, as long
as the fees are reduced proportionately for all land use types. For new single-family homes, the County
has the option of charging a flat rate for all single-f amily homes, or charging fees that vary between six
dwelling unit size categories based on living area.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 3
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 1
POTENTIAL IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Unit of Fire/ Solid Waste-
Land Use Type MeasurementRoads*Parks EMSPolice Waste water** Total
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.Dwelling$4,190$6,369$533$637$235$3,672
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.Dwelling$4,758$6,763$566$677$250$3,899 $1
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.Dwelling$4,979$7,026$582$696$257$4,050 $1
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.Dwelling$5,232$7,420$621$742$274$4,277 $1
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.Dwelling$5,481$7,879$659$788$291$4,542 $1
4,000 sq. ft or moreDwelling$5,675$8,404$703$841$310$4,845 $20
Single-Family (flat rate)Dwelling$4,758$6,566$549$657$242$3,785
Multi-FamilyDwelling$3,338$5,187$429$512$0$2,990 $12,456
Hotel/MotelRoom$4,767$3,086$258$309$0$1,779 $10,199
Retail/Commercial1,000 sq. ft.$8,114$0$830$992$0$606 $10,541
Office1,000 sq. ft.$6,187$0$467$558$0$606 $7,817
Industrial1,000 sq. ft.$3,909$0$291$348$0$606 $5,154
Warehouse1,000 sq. ft.$2,287$0$187$223$0$606 $3,302
Church/Synagogue1,000 sq. ft.$3,121$0$467$558$0$606 $4,752
Elem./Sec. School1,000 sq. ft.$1,134$0$467$558$0$606 $2,765
Hospital1,000 sq. ft.$9,875$0$467$558$0$606 $11,505
Nursing Home1,000 sq. ft.$2,780$0$467$558$0$606 $4,410
Other Institutional1,000 sq. ft.$6,187$0$467$558$0$606 $7,817
* County roads only; potential fee if State roads are included w
** Wastewater fees will only be assessed for land uses served by County wastewater facilities.
Source: Potential fees for roads, parks, fire/EMS , police, solid waste and wastewater fac ilities from Tables 28, 43, 56, 67, 81 and
92; wastewater fees for nonresidential uses are estimates based
Impact Fee Revenue Projections
If adopted at the maximum levels calculated in this report, it is estimated that impact fees could generate
approximately $45.6 million annually, as shown in Tabl e 2. To put this in perspective, the road impact
fee revenue would allow the County to construct about 1.7 miles of two-lane road per year. The park
fees would fund the acquisition and development of 54 acres of new parks annu ally. The fire/EMS fees
would allow the construction of a fire station with two fire engines and one tanker each year. The po
fees would fund the construction of one police substation annually. The solid waste fees would fund
the construction of about one transfer station ever y two years. The wastewater fees would fund the
construction of a new treatment plant ev ery three years to replace cesspools.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 4
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 2
POTENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Single- Multi-
Family Family Retail Office IndustrialTotal
Unit of MeasurementDwellingDwelling1000 sf1000 sf1000 sf
Annual Growth1,88156636125628
Roads*$8,947,487$1,889,268$2, 927,825$1,584,471$110,917$15,459,967
Parks$12,348,702$2,936,096$0$0$0$15,284,799
Fire/EMS$1,032,506$242,835$299, 509$1,585,727$8,256$3,168,834
Police$1,235,623$289,817$357, 967$142,911$9,874$2,036,191
Solid Waste$455,742$0$0$0$0$455,742
Wastewater$7,118,465$1,692, 487$218,544$155,109$17,183$9,201,788
Total Revenue$31,138,525$7,050,503 $3,803,845$3,468,218$146,230$45,607,321
* County roads only; potential re venue if State roads are included would be much higher.
Source: Projected annual growth based on 2000 to 2005 building permit data; potential facility fees from Table 1.
Another way to put the potential revenues in perspective is to c
programmed in the CountyÔs capital improvements program for growth-related improvements. As
shown below, the potential revenue at the maximum fee levels calculated in this report would exceed
planned capacity expenditures programmed in the current 5-year capital improvements program for
parks, fire/EMS and wastewater. Other projects would need to be
impact fees for these facilities. Potential revenue from road and solid waste impact fees, on the other
hand, would fund only a small fraction of planned projects.
Table 3
POTENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS PLANNED EXPENDITURES
Annual CIP % Funded
Planned by Impact
Annual Impact
Type of Facility Fee Revenue Expenditures Fees
Roads*$15,460,000 $87,740,00018%
Parks$15,285,000 $12,015,800127%
Fire/EMS$3,169,000 $4,742,00067%
Police$2,036,000 $2,752,00074%
Solid Waste$456,000 $3,275,00014%
Wastewater$9,202,000 $4,806,000191%
Total$45,608,000 $115,330,80040%
* County roads only; potential revenue if St ate roads are included is much higher.
Source: Potential revenue from Table 2; annual expend itures is one-fifth of eligible CIP funding
from the table at the end of each chapter in Part II..
Impact Fee Comparisons
The maximum impact fees calculated in this report are compared with HawaiÓi CountyÔs existing fair
share assessments and California and national averag e impact fees in Table 4. The potential single-
family impact fee is higher than the current fair sh are assessments for all facilities. The potential road
impact fees for roads (County roads only) are very sim ilar to the current fair share assessments and the
California average (although the road fee would far ex ceed these if it included State road costs). The
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 5
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
potential park fees are considerably higher than th e current fair share assessments, and somewhat higher
than the California average. The other impact fees are on par with current fair share assessments and
what the average jurisdiction on the mainland charges for the sa
Table 4
COMPARATIVE IMPACT FEE PER SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT
Maximum Current Fair California National
Facility Impact Fee Share Assess. Average Average
Roads*$4,758 $4,281 $4,210 $2,270
Parks$6,566 $4,818 $5,890 $2,055
Fire$549 $459 $633 $365
Police$657 $232 $861 $345
Solid Waste$242 $201 na $189
Total$12,772 $9,991 $11,594 $5,224
Wastewater$3,785 na $4,716 $2,587
* County roads only; maximum fee if State roads are included is
Source: Maximum impact fee for single-family unit from Table 1; HawaiÓi County fair share
assessments as of November 2005; California and national average
Associates survey, August 5, 2006
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 6
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
PART I: POLICY ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to calculate the maximum impact fees that HawaiÓi County can charge
on the existing levels of service for the Big Island Ôs major road network, parks and recreation facilities,
police, fire/EMS, wastewater treatment and solid waste facilities. If adopted, impact fees would replace
the CountyÔs current system of Ñfair shareÒ assessment.
This project has been divided into two phases. Phase I previously identified facilities for which it would
be feasible to develop impact fees based on availa ble data and other factors. This Phase II report
presents detailed impact fee studies necessary to im plement the policy decisions made in Phase I and
develop an impact fee ordinance.
Current Fair Share Contributions
Since the early 1990s, the County of HawaiÓi has impos ed Ñfair shareÒ assessments on applicants for new
residential (including agricultural lots zoned one acre or less in size) and hotel zoning. The fees, which
are imposed as a condition of zoni ng approval, are collected prior to securing final subdivision approval
for newly created lots or prior to obtaining final pl an approval for multi-family or hotel development.
The fees, which are adjusted annually for inflat ion based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (CPI),
currently (as of November 2005) total approxim ately $9,991.20 per dwelling unit; $6,411.25 for
multi-family; and $10,994.22 for re sort, per rental unit. The assessm ents are collected for roads, parks,
fire, police and solid waste facilities.
The CountyÔs fair share assessments have never been adopted as an ordinance, although the County
Council did pass a general authorization in 1992 for the collection of such fees as a condition of
development approval in 1992 (HawaiÓi County Cod e §2-162). The fees are based on an impact fee
study that was prepared by a consultant in 1990, but was never f
1
County. The fees calculated in that report are adj usted annually based on the change in the Honolulu
Consumer Price Index.
Many of the zoning ordinances passed by the HawaiÓi County Council in recent years contain a
provision requiring that in the even t an impact fee ordinance is adopted, it will give credit for th
share contributions. A typical provision reads as follows: ÑShould the Council adopt a Unified Impact
Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposit ion of exactions or assessment of impact fees,
conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees
2
Ordinance.Ò
While the fair share assessments are substantial, they have not
done in 2004 determined that over $74 million had been assessed on new approved rezonings in the ten
years of the program, but only $3.6 million had b een collected in cash and another $15.2 million had
1
Ann Usagawa, Development Impact Fee Pricing Technical Report , August 1990
2
Ordinance No. 05-74, adopted on May 18, 2005
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 7
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
3
been provided by developers in the form of in-kind contributions This is because
most of the land that has been subject to fair share assessments
been subdivided. If the fair share assessment amounts had been
at time of building permit, they would have generated $103 million in cash and credits since January
2000, and if they ha d been assessed on nonresidential as well as residential develop
have generated $170 million in less than six years, as shown in
Table 5
HYPOTHETICAL FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2000-2005
FacilityResidential NonresidentialTotal
Roads$44,176,556$58,813,053 $102,989,609
Parks$50,038,557$0 $50,038,557
Police$2,273,269$2,743,975 $5,017,244
Fire$4,783,316$3,618,026 $8,401,342
Solid$2,102,646$1,812,255 $3,914,901
Total $103,374,344$66,987,309 $170,361,653
Source: Estimated revenue based on building permits issued from January
2000 through August 31, 2005 and annual fair share rates based o
ContributionsÏAdjustments for inflatio n using the Honolulu Consumer Price
Index.Ò
Impact fees would essentially replace the fair shar e contributions. Lots that had paid fair share
contributions would get credit against the impact fees or be exempt from having to pay impact fees for
the same type of facilities. Fair share contributions made at zoning but not yet collected at the time of
the effective date of the impact fee ordinance (beca use the property had not yet been subdivided) would
become void; instead of paying fair share contribu tions, the properties would pay impact fees. A major
difference is that impact fees would be assessed on all new deve
development and residential development in areas with existing z
Background
The County of HawaiÓi encompasses the entire island of HawaiÓi (the ÑBig IslandÒ). The land area of
the county is approximately twice the combined land area of all
Traditionally, agriculture has played an important role in the CountyÔs economy and much of the
CountyÔs population growth and development was tied to the growt
agricultural economy. The islandÔs population declined after World War II with the decreasing need for
agricultural workers. Since the 1960s, however, tourism has emerge d as the primary economic activity.
In addition, the County has seen substantial popula tion growth beyond what would be expected from
economic opportunities in the CountyÔs primary industries; such
due to in-migration of people drawn to the quality of life in th
3
HawaiÓi County Planning Department, Fair Share Contributions Annual Report 2004 , May 21, 2004
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 8
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The County of HawaiÓi is currently the second most populous coun
Figure 1
HawaiÓi. The 2000 U.S. Census recorded the CountyÔs population
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
148,677. The County of HawaiÓiÔs population growth has remained
relatively constant over the last two decades, with a slight decline from an
annual rate of 2.71 percent in the 1980s to 2.14 percent in the
According to population projections provided in the medium serie
projections in the HawaiÓi County General Plan , HawaiÓi CountyÔs
population is expected to grow at a bout 1.9 percent a year over the next
two decades. Under this growth assumption, the CountyÔs population is
expected to be about 217,718 in 2020.
As shown in Table 6, certain districts experienced much more rap
growth during the 1990s than the county as a whole. The bulk of
growth occurred in the districts of Puna, South Kohala and North
The districts of North Kohala and KaÓu at opposite ends of the i
also grew at a faster rate than the is land average, but they started from a
relatively small population base.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the County allowed many subdivisions with minimal improvements, mostly in
Puna and KaÓu, with a few in South Kona. Today, there are about
which about 40,000 are vacant. KaÓu has about 16,000 residential lots, of which about 13,000 are vacant
(mostly in HawaiÓian Ocean View Estates). Thir ty-seven percent of the islandÔs population increase
in the 1990s occurred in Puna, almost entirely in these older su
Table 6
COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH BY DISTRICT, 1990-2000
Judicial Growth Growth
District 1990 2000 Growth Share Rate
1-Puna20,78131,33510,55437.21%4.19%
2-South Hilo44,63947,3862,7479.69%0.60%
3-North Hilo1,5411,7201790.63%1.10%
4-Hamakua5,5456,1085631.99%0.97%
5-North Kohala4,2916,0381,7476.16%3.47%
6-South Kohala9,140 13,1313,99114.07%3.69%
7-North Kona22,28428,5436,25922.07%2.51%
8-South Kona7,6588,5899313.28%1.15%
9-KaÓu4,4385,8271,3894.90%2.76%
Total 120,317148,67728,360100.00%2.14%
Source: County of HawaiÓi Data Book, Section 1 <http://www.hawaii-county
In addition to the development potential on zoned and subdivided lots, there is also significant
development that can occur by subdivision of la nd under current zoning. According to County
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 9
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Planning Department staff, eight areas outside of major resorts could be subdivided to accommodate
4
11,000 dwelling units without additional rezoning.
In addition to the resident population, HawaiÓi Coun ty has a significant daily tourist population. Table
7 shows the resident population and visitor industry projections through 2020. Based on data from the
HawaiÓi County General Plan , there were 1,265,700 visitors and 10,041 hotel rooms in the Co
The average daily visitor census data illustrates the significance of tourism. The average daily number
of visitors is projected to increase by 2.00 percent annually, f
Table 7
HAWAIÓI COUNTY POPULATION AND VISITORS
Resident Avg. Daily Hotel
Year Population Visitors Rooms
1985105,900 8,040 7,511
1990120,317 16,970 8,952
1995137,290 18,650 9,575
2000148,677 21,831 10,041
2005159,908 24,103 10,513
2010176,937 26,612 10,892
2015195,965 29,382 11,200
2020217,718 32,440 11,452
Source: HawaiÓi County General Plan , Table 1-5; Average Daily Visitor Census,
1985 to 2000, from HawaiÓi County Data Book , Table 7.3, data from 2005-2020
derived used total visitor growth rate projected increase of 2% per year from
HawaiÓi County General Plan .
Nonresidential growth appears to be at least as strong as residential construction, based on building
permit data. Since the year 2000, the number of housing units h
annually, while nonresidential square footage has been increasing by almost seven percent annually.
Table 8
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 2000-2006
2000 2000-2005 2006 Annual
Land Use Census Permits Estimate Increase
Single-Family Detached48,23110,12758,3583.2%
Multi-Family/Other14,4433,12417,5673.3%
Total Residential Un its62,67413,25175,9253.2%
Total Nonresidential Sq. Ft.17,233,6266,727,88123,961,5076.8%
Source: Residential data from 2000 U.S. Census and January 1, 2000 thro
data; 2005 nonresidential square footage estimate from HawaiÓi C
assessment date for 2005 tax year); 2000-2005 nonresidential per
2000 through August 31, 2005; 2000 nonresidential estimate is di
4
The areas are Waikoloa Village, Bridge Ainalea, Kohala Ranch Project IV, former ÑY.O.Ò property,
University Terrace, Wilder Road property, Parker Ranch 2020 Plan in Waimea, former Haseko property south of Kona
Palisades, per HawaiÓi County Planning Department memorandum, March 9, 2005
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 10
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Impact fees are one of the most direct ways for loca l governments to require new developments to pay
a larger portion of the costs they impose on the commu nity. In contrast to traditional ÑnegotiatedÒ
developer exactions, impact fees are charges that are assessed on new development based on a standard
formula and objective characteristics, such as the numb er of dwelling units constructed or vehicle trips
generated. The fees are one-time, up -front charges. Essentially, impact fees require that each deve
of a new residential or commercial project pay its pr o-rata share of the cost of new infrastructure
facilities required to serve that development.
General Principles
Since impact fees were pioneered in states that la cked specific enabling legislation, such fees have
generally been legally defended as an exercise of local governmentÔs broad Ñpolice powerÒ to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the community. Over time, various state courts have developed
guidelines for constitutionally valid impact fees, base d on a Ñrational nexusÒ that must exist between the
regulatory fee or exaction and the activity that is being regulated. The standards set by court cases
generally require that an impact fee or other developer exaction
1)The need for new facilities must be created by new development (first prong of the dual rational
nexus test); and
2)The expenditure of impact fee revenues must provide benefit to the fee-paying development
(second prong of the dual rational nexus test).
A Florida district court of appeals described the du al rational nexus test in 1983 as follows, and this
5
language was quoted and followed by the Florida Supreme Court in St. Johns County decision:
In order to satisfy these requirements, the local government must demonstrate a reasonable connection,
or rational nexus, between the need for addition al capital facilities and the growth in population
generated by the subdivision. In addition, the gove rnment must show a reasonable connection, or rational
nexus, between the expenditures of the funds collecte d and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In
order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinanc e must specifically earmark the funds collected for
use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents
In addition to the dual rational nexus test, impact fees may als
requirements for developer exactions. The most important recent legal development regarding
6
development exactions is the 1994 decision of the U.S. Supreme C Dolan v. City of Tigard . In
Dolan , the Supreme Court expanded upon the rational nex us test, adding to it a requirement that there
be a Ñrough proportionalityÒ between the impact of a proposed development and the burden of the
exaction imposed on it. While this case involved an ad hoc land dedication requirement and may not
apply to legislatively-adopted fees, impact fees are more likely to comply with this standard than ot
types of developer exactions.
5
Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County , 431 So. 2d 606, 611-12 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 440 So.
1983), quoted and followed in St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders AssÔn , 583 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1991)
6
Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994)
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 11
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
State Enabling Act
To date, 26 states, including HawaiÓi, have adopted im pact fee enabling legislation. Like most other state
enabling acts, HawaiÓiÔs impact fee enabling act for counties re
enumerated above. HawaiÓiÔs impact fee enabling a ct, adopted in 1992, authorizes counties to adopt
impact fees for any Ñtypes of public facility capital improvemen
comprehensive plan or a facility needs assessment stud y.Ò A copy of the enabling act is provided for
reference in Appendix G. The only use of this aut hority to-date has been the adoption in 2002 of a road
7
impact fee by the City and County of Honolulu for the Ewa region
Counties in HawaiÓi are authorized by State law to enact impact fee ordinances, provided that they
follow the requirements of Chapter 46, Part VIII of HawaiÓi Revised Statutes (Section 46-141 throug
46-148). This section provides a brief summary of those requirements most relevant to HawaiÓi Cou
Generally, developers prefer to pay impact fees as late in the development process as possible, and most
state acts prohibit the collection of impact fees prio r to the time of issuance of a building permit or
certificate of occupancy. HawaiÓiÔs act states in Section 46-146 that ÑAssessment of impact fees shall
be a condition precedent to the issuance of a grading or buildin
before or upon issuance of the permit.Ò HawaiÓ i CountyÔs Corporation Counsel has interpreted this
language to mean that the County may assess and co llect impact fees at the time of subdivision approval
or building permit issuance.
A fundamental principle of impact f ees is that new development cannot be charged for a higher level
of service than is provided to existing developmen t. Section 46-142(b) states that an impact fee study
Ñshall specify the service standards for each type of facility subject to an impact fee; provided that the
standards shall apply equally to existing and new pu blic facilities.Ò If, for example, a County currently
provides five acres of parkland pe r 1,000 residents, it cannot base pa rk impact fees for new development
on a standard of ten acres of park land per 1,000 residents, unless certain conditions are met. Fi
another source of funding other than park impact f ees would have to be identified and committed to
fund the capacity deficiency created by the higher level of service. Second, the park impact fees must
generally be reduced to ensure that new developmen t does not pay twice for the same level of service,
once through impact fees and again through genera l taxes that are used to remedy the capacity
deficiency for existing development. Section 46-143 (d)(1) requires counties to consider the Ñmeans,
other than impact fees, by which ex isting deficiencies will be elimin ated within a reasonable period of
time...Ò in formulating an impact fee. One way to avoid these kinds of complications is to base the
impact fees on the existing level of service.
A corollary principle is that new development should not have to pay twice for th e same level of service.
As noted above, if impact fees are based on a higher-than existing level of service, the fees shoul
reduced by a credit that accounts for the cont ribution of new development toward remedying the
existing deficiencies. A similar situation arises when the existing level of service has not been fully paid
for. Outstanding debt on existing fa cilities that are counted in the existi ng level of service will be retired,
in part, by revenues generated from new developmen t that will also pay impact fees to maintain the
existing level of service. Consequently, impact fees should be
payments that will retire outstanding debt on existing facilities. The HawaiÓi enabling act addresses this
issue in Section 46-143(d)(6), which provides that one of the seven factors that shall be considered in
7
Chapter 33A of the Revised Ordinances of Honol ulu (the fee for a single-family unit is $1,836)
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 12
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
determining Ña proportionate sh are of public facility capital improvem ent costsÒ is the Ñextent to which
a developer required to pay impact fees over the next twenty yea
contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements throug h user fees, debt service
payments, or other payments, and any credits that may accrue to a development because of future
payments ...Ò
The State act implies that credit may also be due fo r other types of revenues besides those used to pay
debt service on existing capital facilities. Section 46-143(d)(2) states that another factor that shall be
considered is the Ñavailability of other funding for public facility capital improvements, including but
not limited to user charges, taxes, bonds, inter governmental transfers, and special taxation or
assessments ...Ò Also, Section 46-141 defines Ñpropor tionate shareÒ to mean Ñthe portion of total public
facility capital improvement costs that is reasonably a ttributable to a development, less: (1) Any credits
for past or future payments, adjusted to present va lue, for public facility capital improvement costs made
or reasonably anticipated to be contributed by a developer in the form of user fees, debt service
payments, taxes, or other payments...Ò
Aside from debt service payments, credit against impact fees may not be re quired for other types of
funding that have historically been used for growth -related, capacity-expanding improvements, or which
may even be committed to be spent in the future for such purpose
contribute toward such funding, so does existing development, and both existing and new development
benefit from the higher level of service that the additional fun
historical capacity funding patterns must be contin ued after the adoption of impact fees, and that new
development is entitled to a credit for its contribution to thos
local governments cannot require Ñgrowth to pay for growthÒ unless they have always done so. Local
funding that is committed to be used for capacity expansion in t
only in cases where there is no reasonable need for or benefit from higher levels of service than the
existing level of service embodied in the impact fee calculations. As long as the fees are based on new
development paying to maintain existing levels of se rvice that have been paid for in full by existing
development, and additional funding can reasonably be used to raise the level of service for existing and
new development alike, no additional revenue cred its are warranted. Nevertheless, credit will be
provided in this study for dedicated revenue (e.g., motor fuel t
improvements) and State and Federal grants.
HawaiÓiÔs statute is one of only a ha ndful of state enabling acts that re quire credit for past property tax
payments. Section 46-143(d)(5) states that the Ñex tent to which a developer required to pay impact fees
has contributed in the previous five years to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements and
received no reasonable benefit therefrom, and any cr edits that may be due to a development because
of such contributionsÒ shall be taken into consideration in the impact fee calculation. And the defin
of Ñproportionate shareÒ cited above makes clear that this refers not just to developer exactions, but also
to past property tax payments. Prior to developmen t, the owners of a vacant parcel of land paid
property taxes that may have been used, in part, to construct ca
impact fees are being assessed. Consequently, it will be necessary to reduce impact fees by the present
value of property tax payments over the last five years that were used to construct existing capital
facilities of the type for which the fees are being charged.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 13
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 14
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 3: POLICY ISSUES
The first phase of this project was a policy analysis that culmi Ordinance
Issues Memorandum (October 2005) and a Policy Analysis Memorandum (January 2006). The first phase also
included an extensive public participation and education process
November 2005 focus groups in Hilo and Kona (see summary in Appe
"
January 2006 video conference with participan ts in Kona, Hilo and Honolulu (see summary in
"
Appendix H),
and March 2006 workshops in Hilo and Kona (see summary in Append
"
A list of participants in these public meetings can be found in
Based on the analysis conducted fo r Phase I, the County should consider replacing its fair share
assessments with a true impact fee system that follo ws the requirements of the State impact fee enabling
act. An impact fee collected from all new developmen t would be more legally de fensible, more equitable
and generate significantly more revenue than the curre nt Ñfair shareÒ system. This additional revenue
would translate into capital improvements that would benefit all
More specific recommendations are provided for detailed policy i
Treatment of Existing Lots
A major issue in the development of an impact fee system for HawaiÓi County is how to treat existing
lots of record. In most jurisdictions that have adopted impact fees throughout the United States, how
to treat existing lots is a minor issue. Generally , the supply of such lots is limited, and if they are
grandfathered or otherwise exempted from impact fees the overall effect on impact fee revenues is
short-lived and relatively minor. However, this is not the case
indicates that there are about 64,000 undeveloped resi dential lots in the county. This exceeds the total
number of housing units on the island at the time of the 2000 census (62,674). Many of these lots are
accessed via private substandard roads, have priva te water catchment systems, and are serviced with
cesspools or septic tanks. Of the roughly 2,000 pe rmits of single-family deta ched units issued by the
County annually, it has been estimated that about one-third of these new homes are being built on lots
that were created in the 1950s and 1960s.
The perception exists that many of these lots are owned by local residents who intend to build a h
for themselves in these older subdivisions. While this is undoubtedly true to some extent, it is far from
the typical case. An analysis of property tax reco rds indicates that only about 14 percent of existing
vacant residential lots are owned solely by Big Island residents, and two-thirds are under the exc
ownership of non-Big Island residents (see Table 9). The remaining 17 percent are owned by multiple
owners with some Big Island resident participation, but it is likely that most of these lots are bei
as an investment, rather than as a future home si te. The investment motive probably holds for a good
number of the Big Island owners as well. So the number owned by
build a home on them is probably considerably less than 9,000 lots. To put that number in perspective,
it represents less than five years of single-family building permit activity in HawaiÓi County at current
development rates.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 15
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 9
OWNERSHIP OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS
Ownership# of LotsPercent
Big Island-Single Owner9,12314.20%
Big Island-Multiple Owners1750.30%
Mixed Big Island/Oth er Owners10,74716.70%
No Big Island Owners44,17568.80%
Total Vacant Residential Lots64,220100.00%
Source: HawaiÓi County Real Property Tax Administrator, January 7, 2006
(data base excludes lots that are (1 ) over 20 acres, (2) already improved
with $10,000 or more worth of yard or outbuilding improvements, or (3)
commercial, industrial or resort hotel tax classifications or zo
roadway, governmental and utility parcels.
One option that was considered for this study was to allow any existing lot of record to be developed
with one dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwelling units or any nonresidential
development on the lot would be required to pay an impact fee. This approach has the appearance of
even-handednessÏafter all, every existing lot is gi ven the same development right. However, exempting
one dwelling unit amounts to a 100 percent exemption for an existing single-family lot, but a negligible
exemption for a 500-acre parcel that will be subdivi ded and developed with 2,000 single-family homes.
There are several alternatives for dealing with the la rge number of existing lots. Five options are
outlined below.
Option 1: Fee Waiver for First Dwelling. Allow any existing lot of r ecord to be developed with one
dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwel
development on the lot would be required to pay an im pact fee. A concern here is that if the amount
of development not paying the fee is large, the impa ct fees will not be sufficien t to provide the level of
service that the fees are intended to provide.
Option 2: County Grant for First Dwelling. Instead of waiving fees for the first dwelling unit on
existing lots of record, an alternative would be fo r the County to use other funding sources to pay the
impact fees for a principle single-family dwelling unit on existing lots. This approach ensures that the
funding in the impact fee account is sufficient to ma intain the level of service on which the impact fees
are based. The County would not need to pay fees for existing lots for which fair share contributions
had been paid, since the credit for such payments would likely o
Option 3: Transition Exem ption for First Dwelling. An alternative to a permanent waiver of fees
for the first dwelling unit is to make it a temporary transition provision. For example, the State impact
fee enabling act in Texas allows owners of lots th at were subdivided prior to the impact fee ordinance
to pull a building permit within one year following adoption of
to pay the fee. A longer time period than one year could be considered, but it should probably
exceed five years. The transition exemption could be a blanket one that applies to all building permits
for all existing lots, or a more limited one such as the one-uni
Option 4: Exclude Selected Areas. A fourth alternative would be to exclude the area where most of
the existing lots are located (i.e., Puna and KaÓu Districts) from the impact fee system. Exclusion means
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 16
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
that no impact fees would be collected in this area, and no impact fees would be spent there. Exclusion
would not have to be permanent. For example, Ka nsas City, Missouri, first developed arterial street
impact fees for the area north of the Missouri River, before preparin g impact fees for the southern part
of the city. In each area, the older part of th e city that was annexed prior to 1950 was excluded from
the impact fee system. Exclusion fr om the impact fee system would not be meant to penalize an area,
but to lessen the burden of paying an impact fee. Other methods of funding new infrastructure could
be explored for those areas.
Option 5: Everyone Pays. A final option is not to provide any special treatment for existing lots.
Most of the focus groups in both the Hilo and Kona workshops came up with this alternative as the
preferred option. The consensus seemed to be that if housing affordability is the concern, there should
be a separate program to address that. This is the recommended
Affordable Housing
The key characteristic of an impact fee is that th e amount of the fee is proportional to the impact on
facilities. To waive fees for affo rdable housing or other policy goal s may weaken the defensibility of the
impact fee system, since opponents could argue that it is not actually an impa ct fee, but an illegal tax
disguised as a fee. Consequently, any waiver of f ees for affordable housing or other purposes should
be paid by other funding sources.
Paying fees on behalf of existi ng lot owners as a means of encouraging affordable housing would
provide a windfall for many property owners who do not actually need assistance. The recommended
approach would provide assistance to first-time home buyers who earn less than 140 percent of the
median family income and who are purchasing or bu ilding a single-family unit that costs less than the
median home value, provided that the property is used as the buyerÔs primary residence. The assistance
could be either in the form of an outright grant, or in the form of an interest-free loan that would be
repaid when the qualifying homebuyer sells the house or ceases to live there. The loan approach would
have the advantage that it would reduce the incentive to gain public assistance that is not really needed,
and would also make the program mo re self-sufficient if the loan repayments are earmarked for futu
impact fee assistance. If the qualif ying party already owns the lot, the assistance would be used to pay
the impact fees at time of building permit. In the event of a speculative project, the builder would pay
the fees at time of building permit, and the assistan ce in the amount of the fees paid would be provided
to the qualifying homebuyer at closing to reduce the total funds
closing.
Progressive Residential Fees
One thing that can be done to mitigate the effect on a ffordable housing is to reduce fees for the smaller
and more affordable units to the extent that it can be demonstra
impact on the need for facilities. That option has been provide
would need to assess a flat rate for single-family homes if fees are collected at time of subdivision
approval since the size of the house would not be known until a building permit is issued for the
structure (see discussion below).
Time of Collection
The current fair share assessments are imposed duri ng the rezoning process, and are collected prior to
final subdivision approval for single-family lots and prior to final plan approval for multi-family and
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 17
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
hotel/motel development. While collecting at subdivision gives
improvements ahead of the siteÔs occupancy, collecti on of single-family fees at time of subdivision
would be incompatible with the option of assessing single-family homes on the basis of dwelling unit
size, since the square footage of the home is not known at that
There seem to be two reasonable alternatives for de aling with time of collection: (1) collect impact fees
from all development at the time of building permit issuance; or (2) collect fees for new single-family
lots at the time of final subdivisi on approval, and collect fees for all ot her development (including single-
family houses on existing lots) at building permit. However, since impact fees are designed to address
the developmentÔs impact on infrastructure, it may be pr eferable to assess the fees at the time of building
permit approval, if projects will develop slowly. Hist orically, in HawaiÓi County, large numbers of single-
family lots have been approved with no homes being built for an
argue that if the homes are not built, there is no impact on existing infrastructure and thus the fee
should not be collected until a building permit is issued.
Assessment and Benefit Districts
In an impact fee system, it is important to clearl y define the geographic area s within which impact fees
will be collected an d within which the fees collected will be spent. There are really two types of
geographic areas that serve different functions in an impact fee system: assessment districts and benefit
districts. An assessment district, which may also be called a service area, defines the area within which
a set of common capital facilities provides service, and for which a fee schedule based on average costs
within that district is calculated. Benefit districts, on the o
the fees collected must be spent. They ensure th at improvements funded with impact fees are
constructed within reasonable proximity of the fee-paying developments to help ensure that
developments benefit from the improvements.
The assessment district is the geographic level at which
Figure 2
the impact fee is calculated within a jurisdiction such as
PROPOSED BENEFIT DISTRICTS
a county. Calculating the fees at the county-wide level,
based on the county-wide existing level of service,
vastly simplifies the process. This was the approach
used in the 1990 study as the basis of the CountyÔs
current fair share assessments. Although some
concerns were expressed that the cost of construction
in the west is higher than in the east, cost data was not
available to support differential fees, and all of the
proposed impact fees were ca lculated on a county-wide
basis.
Concern has been expressed that a broad-based impact
fee should be restricted to internal subdivision
improvements like roads and parks, because otherwise
owners of individual lots would not feel they were
getting any benefit. However , impact fees must be used
to expand capacity, and cannot be used to pave internal
subdivision roads.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 18
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Through focus group discussions, the community has ex pressed a desire for multiple benefit districts
for the purposes of collecting and spending the impact fee revenue. Based on that input and discus
with local staff, four regional benefit districts th at conform with existing judicial boundaries are
recommended, as illustrated in Figu re 2. Under the proposal, the districts would be composed as
follows: District 1, North and South Kohala; District 2, Hamakua
Puna and Kau; and District 4, North and South Kona . These same benefit districts could be used for
most of the proposed impact fees. An exception is wastewater, where th e fees should be earmarked and
spent to improve the system to which the new customer has connec
Another suggestion from the focus groups was to a llow some of the revenue collected in each benefit
district to be used for projects with regional or isla nd-wide benefit. To fac ilitate projects of regional
benefit, it is recommended that the County allow up to 20 percent of the road, park, fire and police
impact fees collected in any district to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that
significant benefit will be provided to new developm ent in the district in which the fees were collected.
Up to 40 percent of solid waste fees could be used for out-of-district improvements, reflecting the larger
share of centralized facilities (landfill and vehicles). All wastewater fees would be restricted to be spent
on improving the system to which the new customer connects.
Pre-Ordinance Credits
Some building permits will be issued in projects for which developers have already paid fair share
contributions. To prevent double-charging, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer, or
to reduce or eliminate the impact fees that are char ged for those building permits. Since it is likely that
developers passed along the cost of the fair share c ontribution to the extent possible in the sale of the
lots, reimbursing the developers would have the effect of handin
alternative might be to reduce or eliminate the impact fees due
policy would benefit the builder of the individual dwelling.
The following approach could be used to implement th e policy of pre-ordinance credits. Prior to the
effective date of the ordinance, Cou nty planning staff would need to identify all parcels or subdivisions
for which fair share contributions have been paid, and the amounts paid for each type of facility. If the
project is built-out, no credits would be needed. If no development has yet occurred, the credit would
be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation since the ti me of payment. If building permits have already
been issued for a particular subdivision, but some development potential remains, the credit would be
the amount paid, adjusted for inflation, less what the subdivision would have generated in impact fees
had the fee schedule been in place. The resulting cr edit amounts would be ava ilable to offset impact fees
otherwise due for building permits issued for the applicable parcels or within the subdivis
first-come, first-served basis until the credits ar e exhausted. The amount of the credits would be
adjusted annually for inflation, using the same inde x that is used for the impa ct fees. A time limit, such
as ten years, could be imposed on the use of the credits.
Fair share assessments that were imposed as a condit ion of zoning approval, but have not yet been paid
by the effective date of the impact fee ordinan ce (because the property has not been subdivided or
site-planned) would be replaced by the obligation to pay impact
Another issue that must be addressed is cred its for developers who made impact fee-eligible
contributions prior to the impact fee ordinance, bu t who did not receive credit against fair share
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 19
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
contributions for the value of those contributions. It is recommended that credits be provided for these
types of improvements in much the same way as credits for fair s
Post-Ordinance Reimbursements
For fair share contributions and pre-ordinance c ontributions, credits that run with the land are
recommended rather than developer reimbursements. So it may make sense to use the same approach
when dealing with new developer exactions that occur after the impact fee ordinance is in place.
However, an alternative approach is at least worthy of consideration, since the fair share credits affect
a limited number of parcels and will expire in a certain number
The alternative approach is to reimburse developers who make eligible improvements with impact fees
collected for the same type of facility from other de velopers who do not. This approach was pioneered
by Raleigh, North Carolina when it established road and park impact fees in 1987, and although it has
not been widely emulated by other jurisdictions, it has much to recommend it . Raleigh enters into a
reimbursement agreement with each developer who ma kes an impact fee-eligible improvement. If the
improvement is an expensive one, the reimbursement is scheduled
subject to available funding. The City also categor izes each developer contribution as Priority I or
Priority II. Priority I projects include dedication of land or right-of-way and projects in the City's
five-year capital improvements plan. Each year, th e City sets aside a percentage of impact fees collected
in each benefit zone (20 percent of park fees and 27 percent of road fees) into reimbursement accounts.
If the reimbursement account has sufficient funds to pay all rei
developers with outstanding reimbursements for that year receive
insufficient to reimburse all developers, developers with Priority I improvements are reimbursed first.
If funds are still insufficient, each Priority I devel oper receives a pro rata share of his reimbursement
amount, with the unpaid amount rolled over to the next year.
The reimbursement approach used by Raleigh is considerably simpl
approach, and it also has the advantage that a predi ctable percentage of impact fee revenue is available
to the local government to program for priority improvements. T
pronounced for HawaiÓi County for the first few year s, since staff would need to track fair share
contribution credits for a number of years. Howev er, those credits would affect a limited number of
properties and would disappear after a few years. After that, the collection of fees at the building
counter would be automatic for all permits, with no need to check to see if cred its are available to offset
the fees. The second advantage would also be somewhat attenuate
share credits would reduce the amount of fees collected, but the County would be guaranteed that
subsequent developer contributions would not consume more than a
impact fee revenues.
It is recommended that the County consider using a reimbursement approach similar to Raleigh's for
post-ordinance developer contributions.
Phase-In Period
Following the adoption of the impact fee ordinance by the County Council, there needs to be a period
of time before the impact fees actually go into e ffect (the Ñeffective dateÒ). This lapse of time is a
common approach used by other jurisdictions when implementing impact fee programs. Some delay
may be desired to give development projects alre ady underway adequate time to apply for building
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 20
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
permits and otherwise complete their projects. The delay also p
addition, County staff will need some time to put th e administrative processes in place to implement
the ordinance. This includes designating an impa ct fee administrator, deve loping the collection system
and the qualifying process for a grant/loan program. After discussions with staff, it is recommended
that the collection of impact fees go into effect one year from the date of ordi nance adoption. The fair
share assessments would continue to be in effect during this period, but would be repealed on the
effective date of the impact fees.
In addition, substantial new or increased impact fees are often phased-in over a period of six to 18
months. For example, the fees might go into effect in itially at 50 percent, then go up to 75 percent after
six months and 100 percent after a year. However, HawaiÓi County is somewhat unique in that some
developments are already paying substantial fees, while others are not paying any fees at all. A phase-in
period that gradually imposes fees equivalent to the current fair share assessments would provide a
windfall for projects that had been assessed the fair share fees. To avoid thes e kinds of complications,
no additional phase-in after the one-year period following ordinance adoption is recommended.
Maximum Impact Fees
The impact fees calculated in this report represen t the maximum fee that could be adopted by the
County. The impact fees could be adopted at less th an 100 percent of the impact fee levels shown for
each facility type. The County must maintain proportionality be
100 percent. For example, if the County decided to adopt the Fire/EMS fee at 75 percent of the level
calculated in this report, it would need to charge 75 percent of the maximum fee calculated for each land
use category.
The County should recognize that the fees adopted must be high enough to ensure adequate funds are
available to reimburse developers wh en necessary. If fee revenue is in sufficient to repay developers for
improvements, the total time required for paying ba ck developers would increase with fewer funds
available for county impact fee funded projects. Road impact fe
at very low percentage of maximum net costs. This is because developers often make in-kind
contributions in the form of right-of-way dedica tion or actual roadway construction, and under an
impact fee system receive a reimbursement for the equivalent value of such contributions (above any
required dedications) against the fee. Therefore, if the fee is adopted at a very low percentage, fees
collected will be too low for a developer to be fully compensate
In general, the County has considerable flexibili ty in imposing fees geographically, whether it be
imposing fees in some areas and not others, or impos ing fees at different percentages of the maximum
rates in different areas. However, if this approach is taken, some modifications to the impact fee system
should be considered.
First of all, solid waste is an exception, since this is the only one of the impa ct fee facilities that has a
major island-wide component (i.e., th e landfill). If you are not going to charge the solid waste fee island-
wide, it will be necessary to recalc ulate the solid waste fee to remove the landfill component of the cost.
The County should also probably give up the flexib ility of spending any of the money collected in a
district outside the district. Our recommendation that the County be a llowed to spend up to 20 percent
of road, park, fire and police impact fees outside the benefit district in which the fees were collected,
provided some benefit to the paying district could be shown, assumes that the fees are applied island-
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 21
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
wide at the same percentage. If the project loca ted outside the district has significant benefits to
development in another district that is not paying that fee, or paying a lower fee, it may be difficult to
establish that the fees are meeting the tests of e quity and proportionality. Consequently, the mixing and
matching alternative to island-wide application me ans the County will probably need to give up some
of the flexibility of using fees outside th e district in which the fees were collected.
Finally, the County would probably want to show th at the impact fee money is not simply being used
to allow the County to take property tax money it ha d been spending in the areas that now have fees,
and spending it instead in areas where no fees are be ing charged. If the fees can be shown to provide
benefits to the fee-paying areas that they would not otherwise have seen, any equity concerns with this
approach could be avoided.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 22
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 4: AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The subject of impact fees is complex, and requires a detailed understanding of many issues, including
the legal requirements that test the validity of any adopted impact fee ordinance. Impact fees have been
the subject of a large number of court cases thro ughout the United States, and the issues that have
constituted these legal challenges are nationally reco gnized in terms of crafting defensible impact fee
legislation at the county or municipa l level. It is also important to understand that impact fees can
crafted to reflect important county values related to affordable housing and financial impact on builders
and property owners, among others.
It might be advantageous to hire consultants to consider a local
and handing over a completed product in a relati vely short period of time. However such a view is
short-sighted and does not allow a community to educate itself in the nuances of an impact fee
ordinance by engaging in the discussion and debate of such an important policy program. Impact fees
oftentimes produce strong emotions (both pro and con) during the consideration of impact fees by any
community. Consequently, it is important for communi ties to educate themselves about impact fees,
and educate consultants about the issues important to them, in order to reach a point where the adopted
policy clearly reflects the personality of the community.
A summary of the agency and public participation events and participants in those events are presen
in the Appendices.
Overview
The process of developing an impact fee progra m for HawaiÓi County purposefully included a
component that provided for community and public agency input and education. This aspect of the
project included public agency briefings and collecti on of data, focus group meetings, regional meetings
with small group break-out discussions, a video c onference, additional disc ussions with a group of
individuals (the ÑLocal Resource TeamÒ) who were knowledgeable a
provide a Ñbig pictureÒ sounding board for the pr oject team, and use of the HawaiÓi County website to
circulate information and work products.
The various elements of the agency and public part icipation and education effort are discussed in more
detail below.
Agency Liaison Team
In order to provide the consultants with the necessary informati
an Agency Liaison Team, consisting of representati ves from County and State agencies, was formed to
provide data on the following type of infrastructure and public facilities: transportation, parks, po
fire, solid waste and wastewater. A large volume of information needed to be compiled and organized
by the agency liaisons for the consultants to compl ete the needs assessment. Without their assistance
the needs assessment could not have been prepared.
Public Participation and Education
Public participation and education in the study pro cess was determined to be a critical component for
this study. Initially, the contract allotted for only one stakeholder meeting, however, as the effort
progressed, it became obvious, that without public education, preparing an ordinance that could be
implemented would be difficult. The contract was amended twice
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 23
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
education would continue throughout the process. The subject material is not simple, but through a
collaborative effort between the consultants and th e county, several opportunities were provided to
inform and keep the public involved through video conferences, the Internet, the distribution of a fact
sheet, email communication and workshops.
Informational Meetings: Key stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in two initial focus
group meetings in Hilo (November 18, 2005) and Kona (November 20, 2005) as an introduction to the
consultants.
County Council: The consultants held an initial works hop with the County Council on November 21,
2006, to introduce themselves, present the time lin e for the project, present their initial memorandum
and an Impact Fee 101 PowerPoint presentation.
Video Conference: A video conference was held on Januar y 17, 2006 that linked Kona, Hilo,
Honolulu, and Duncan Associates in Austin, Texas. The consultant
PowerPoint presentation on impact fees and to answer questions f
Planning Commission: The consultants also held a workshop with the Planning Commissio
March 9, 2006 in Hilo with a PowerPoint presentation to introduc
conversation on impact fees.
Ordinance Issues Workshop: Focus group meetings where held in Kona (March 8, 2006) and Hilo
(March 10, 2006) to introduce and create a dialogue on those critical issues that needed to be decided
on for the impact fee ordinance. Community participants brought
valuable insights for the consulta nts; in particular, the idea that a portion of the impact fee fu
collected be used on an island-wide basis.
Final Public Meetings: Two final public meetings were held in Hilo (August 15, 2006) and Captain
Cook (August 16, 2006) to provide an overview of th e final needs assessment and draft ordinance. The
consultants were present with the Planning Director to field questions. The public was also informed
that final work products would be forwarded to the County Counci
submitted.
Local Resource Team
A Local Resource Team (LRT) was created to supplement the public
by the IPFNA Project Team (Planning Department ; Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc.; Duncan
Associates; Alice Moon & Co). The primary intent of the LRT was to discuss problematic issues that
were highlighted during the larger public Group Meetings being conducted in Kona and Hilo, and to
brainstorm with the Project Team on how to deal with these issues during formulation of an ordinance
to establish an impact fee system within the County HawaiÓi.
The solicitation of ÑindividualsÒ was based on a numb er of factors, including organizational affiliation,
presence in the development industry, participation in community
issue. The goal was to obtain a wider perspective on the issues facing the adoption of an impact fee
ordinance in HawaiÓi County. Overa ll, it was hoped that the LRT: (1) provided a more granular look at
problem issues and concerns; (2) provided a Ñbig pi ctureÒ perspective; and, (3) introduced a creative
approach to problem solving. Composition of the LRT was based on
including previous experience with and knowledge of impact fees,
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 24
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
familiarity with the development process from a public, private
ability to provide a local and island-wide perspective. The LRT assisted in advising the project team and
in reviewing the final work products.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 25
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 26
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 5: LESSONS LEARNED
Although the agency and public participation meeting s provided opportunities for participants to gain
a better understanding of impact fees, impact fees are a complex funding mechanism intended to help
solve even more complex infrastructure problems. The following are some of the lessons learned
during the agency and public sessions:
oEducation for all participants is an ongoing process. It is a
successful project. Plan and prepare to provide mult iple opportunities to address questions and provide
answers.
oUnderstand that it is impossible to reach every stakeholder, in our case , the large percentage of
vacant lot owners who do not reside on HawaiÓi Island. Given that, seize the opportunity of ongoing
community planning efforts and initiatives, such as Community De
neighborhood boards and other grassroots efforts, as they serve as perfect venues for bringing the
dialogue to the community.
oImpact fees alone will not solve the County's in frastructure problems; they are one source for
partial financing of new infrastructure and public facilities.
solution in perspective with all financing options, which need to be identified and implemented by
decision-makers and agencies.
oThe County of HawaiÓi needs to take a more comprehensive look a
share that vision with the public, and encourage creative public & pr ivate efforts to ensure completion
of specific improvements.
oThere are no easy answers on how to address im pact fees and their effect on affordable housing.
Fees cannot be waived, but may be paid from gran ts or other funding sour ces. Funding sources for
grants should be explored and identified early on in the process
oShould an impact fee ordinance be implemented, current administrative procedures need to be
retooled and additional staff may be needed to admi nister the impact fee sys tem. Existing systems do
not necessarily meet the needs of this new program. This has bee
discussion among the agency liaisons.
oFees may be imposed at less than 100 percen t the maximum allowable amount, provided they
are applied proportionately to all land uses.
oFees may be tailored to reflect the unique circumstances, needs
communities. Specific fees can be applied to a di strict or community that is more ready and prepared
to implement impact fees.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 27
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 28
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS/IMPLEMENTATION
The County has a choice to adopt an impact fee ordina nce based on this study or not to adopt an impact
fee ordinance at this time and continue to fund new infrastructu re and public facilities with existing
planning and budgetary processes. Infrastructure financing options currently utilized by the Coun
include bond issues, current revenues, state and fe deral funding, and the Ñfair shareÒ contribution
program. The County needs to d etermine the adequacy of current funding sources with the need f
new facilities along with the legality of the current Ñfair shar
Action Items If Impact Fees Not Adopted
Should the County of HawaiÓi decide not ad opt an impact fee ordinance, the following
recommendations are suggested:
A more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options
"
public facilities should take place, with the cons ideration of impact fees in the context of other
financing tools. This was an overarching them e that permeated all aspects of public discussion
during this project.
An Impact Fee Working Group shou ld be established to receive an overview and education of
"
the CountyÔs present budgetary and planning process for funding new infrastructure and
informed of existing financing tools availabl e to government. The Working Group would be
tasked with considering and exploring new and cr eative financing options, including impact fees.
A collaborative approach involving developers , businesses, non-profit organizations, local
impact fee ÑexpertsÒ and government agencies would provide an opportunity to work on
specific infrastructure improvements. The Working Group could also be tasked with identifying
specific infrastructure projects with cons ideration of the General Plan, Community
Development Plans and Capital Improvement Pr oject (CIP) budget and proceed to implement
a collaborative resolution to the planning, impl ementation and construction of specific projects.
Action Items if Impact Fees Adopted
Should the County of HawaiÓi decide to adopt an im pact fee ordinance there are also several options for
implementing a fair and legally-defensible system. A full-fledged impact fee program could be imposed
using maximum fees island-wide for roads, parks, fire, police so
options and variations could also be implemented.
The maximum fees could be used as a guide for establishing a low
reasonable impact fee. A single benefit district coul d be selected as a test case or impact fees could be
collected for a particular type of infrastructure, such as for r
Whichever options are selected, should the impa ct fee ordinance proceed to adoption, it is
recommended that the Mayor immediately proceed with the followin
Designate an appropriate agency to be the overa ll administrator of the impact fee program. In
"
other jurisdictions, this responsibility has falle n on the building permit department (which is
responsible for collection of the fee), the finance department (
administration of the impact fee accounts), or the planning depa
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 29
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Form an Impact Fee Implementation Committee (IFIC) consisting of affected agencies to assist
"
in developing the administrative procedur es for implementing the Impact Fee Program.
The decisions/responsibilities for the IFIC would include, among
Review the options and decide the course of a ction for the critical policy issues listed in the
"
Executive Summary.
Identify a source of funding for a grant system to be implemented that would provide relief for
"
qualifying residents, and design procedures to determine who receives a grant to address
affordability and affordable housing concerns.
Develop a collection process and identify agencies involved, system for tracking of funds and
"
pre-ordinance offsets.
Develop a system for annual reports so that fu nds are disbursed within 6 years, in accordance
"
with HRS, Chapter 45, Impact Fees.
Identify specific projects that impact fees would be applied to in consideration of the General
"
Plan, Community Development Plans, and Capital Improvement Proje
Produce a Manual of Operations.
"
Depending on how far into the future the County d etermines the effective date of the Ordinance, a
consultant could be contracted to assist with formul ating, developing and expediting the design of the
program and the above tasks so that the Ordinance is implemented
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 30
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
PART II: IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
CHAPTER 7: ROADS
This section of the study discusses road impact fees fo r HawaiÓi County. One of the most costly impacts
associated with new development is on the road sys tem. Road impact fees are designed to rationalize
the process of ad hoc, negotiated ex actions and Ñlevel the playing fiel dÒ by requiring all developers to
pay an impact fee based on their impact on the major roadway sys
developers who are required to make improvements to the major roadway sy stem will receive credit
against their impact fees for the value of their cont ributions. Credit provisions and other issues will be
addressed in the impact fee ordinance.
The 1998 HawaiÓi Long Range Land Transportation Plan , prepared by the State in association with the
County, identifies the islandÔs major transporta tion improvement needs to support anticipated growth
to the year 2020. The major highways on the isla nd are the HawaiÓi Belt Highway and the Mamalahoa
Highway, which together link the major towns of all of the districts except North Kohala. Major
improvement needs identified by the Transportation Plan include the reconstruction of the Saddle Road
(Highway 200) and the widening of Queen Kaah umanu Highway (Highway 19) to four lanes between
Waikoloa Road and Kona International Airport at Keahole.
Many of the islandÔs road capacity improvement needs are on the State road system (see Table 10).
Previously, State law had restricted road impact fees ou tside of Oahu from being used to help fund State
road improvements, but this restriction was lifted in the last l
8
provided in Appendix H). Nonetheless, this report provides th e option of implementing a road impact
fee for County roads only, or both County and State roads.
Table 10
ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
PriorityCounty RoadsState RoadsTotal
Tier 1 (1998-2005)$112, 400,000$291,000,000$403,400,000
Tier 2 (2006-2010)$49, 300,000$155,100,000$204,400,000
Tier 3 (2011-2020)$103, 100,000$307,800,000$410,900,000
Tier 4 (Unfunded) $173,900,000$124,200,000$298,100,000
Total$438,700,000$878,100,000$1,316,800,000
Source: Frederick R. Harris, Inc., HawaiÓi Long Range Land Transportation Plan , May 1998.
Assessment and Benefit Districts
Concern has been expressed that a broad-based im pact fee should be used to facilitate internal
subdivision improvements like roads and parks, because otherwise owners of individual lots would not
feel they were getting any benefit from the expend iture of the impact fees collected. However, road
impact fees must be used to expand capacity, an d cannot be used to pave internal subdivision roads.
8
2006 Act 197 (Senate Bill 2901), effective July 1, 2006, amends Part VIII, Impact Fees of Chapter 264,
Highways, to delete the definition of county, which was defined as counties having more than 500,000 residents.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 31
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Many of the capacity needs identified in Hawa iÓi County are on State roads and major County roads,
in which case they could reasonably be county-wide . Based on available road cost data and the
integrated nature of the road major road network, it is recommended that the proposed road impact fees
be calculated county-wide.
Based on focus group discussions, the community has expr essed a desire for multiple benefit districts.
For the purposes of collecting and spending the im pact fee revenue it is recommended that the County
establish four road impact fee benefit districts (see Figure 2 in the Policy Issue s section). To facilitate
projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that up to 20 percent of the impact fees collected in any
district be allowed to be used for projects located outs ide the district, provided that significant benefit
will be provided to new development in the district in which the
Service Unit
A service unit creates the link between supply (roadw ay capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new
development). An appropriate service unit basis for road impact fees is vehicle-miles of travel (VMT).
Vehicle-miles is a combination of the number of vehi cles traveling during a given time period and the
distance (in miles) that these vehicles travel.
The two time periods most often used in traffic an alysis are the 24-hour weekday (average daily trips
or ADT) and the single hour of th e weekday with the highest traffic volume (peak hour trips or PH
Average daily trips are the best mea sure for the amount of motor fuel tax that will be generated by new
development, which may be used to calculate a revenue credit. In addition, aver age daily trip data are
less variable than peak hour trips, which can vary considerably based on the size and demographic make-
up of a community. For these reasons, it is reco mmended that average daily VMT be utilized as the
service unit for the road impact fee.
Major Roadway System
A road impact fee program should in clude a clear definition of the majo r roadway system that is to be
funded with the impact fees. In the context of a consumption-based road impact fee methodology, the
definition of the major roadway system affects th e average trip length, as well as the types of
improvements for which revenue and construction credit s against the fees must be given to developers.
Currently, the County directly funds growth-related improvements only to County roads and indirectly
funds improvements to State and County roads through motor fuel
generated by County residents and businesses. County roads that function as arterials or collectors are
entirely the responsibility of the County, while State Highways
The County currently may require developers to de dicate right-of-way (ROW) or make improvements
to major roads as part of the development approval process. The cost of the improvement or value of
the ROW may be utilized to offset fair share contribu tions. Similarly, to the extent that a developer is
required to make an improvement to the major road network or purchase ROW, the impact fee would
be offset by a credit for the improvements.
The functional classification system for major Sta te and County roads in HawaiÓi is defined by the
CountyÔs General Plan (see Figure 3). For the purpose of the road impact fees calculated for this study,
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 32
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
the major roadway system is proposed to be defined as existing State and Cou nty primary and secondary
arterial roads and collector roads.
Figure 3
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 33
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
An inventory of the existing major roadway system wa s prepared as part of th is project and is presented
in Table 94 in Appendix A. The major purpose of the inventory is to determine the total amount of
travel on the major roadway system, expressed in vehicle-miles o
capacity, expressed in vehicle-miles of capacity (VMC).
Methodology
The recommended methodology is to base the road impact fees on the existing level of service. As
discussed in the Phase I policy memorandum, basing the impact fees on a higher -than-existing level of
service creates existing deficiencies that must be funded and requires credit against the impact fees for
the revenue generated by new development and used to remedy the
complications, the recommended approach is to base all impact fees on the existing level of service.
The proposed road impact fee methodology relies on a Ñconsumption-basedÒ model, which basically
charges a new development the cost of replacing th e capacity that it consumes on the major roadway
system. That is, for every vehicle-mile of travel (VMT) generated by the development, the road impact
fee charges the net cost to construct an additional vehicle-mile of capacity (VMC).
Since travel is never evenly distributed throughou t a roadway system, actual roadway systems require
more than one unit of capacity for every unit of demand in order
acceptable level of service. Suppose for example, that the County completes a major widening project.
The completed road is likely to have a significant amount of excess capacity for some period of time.
If the entire system has just enough capacity to a ccommodate all of the vehicle-miles of travel, then the
excess capacity on this segment must be balanced by another segment being over-capacity. Clearly,
roadway systems in the real world need more total aggregate capacity than the total aggregate demand,
because the traffic does not always precisely match the available capacity. Consequently, the standard
consumption-based model generally underestimates the full cost of accommodating new development
at the existing level of service.
In most rapidly growing communities, some roadways will be exper
congestion at any given point in time. One of the principles of impact fees is that new development
should not be charged for a higher level of service th an is provided to existing development. In the
context of road impact fees, this has sometimes b een interpreted to mean th at impact fees should not
be spent on roadways that are already over-capacity. A variant of this approach is that impact fees
should only be used to fund a percentage of the pr oject that can be attributed to providing additional
capacity beyond what is needed to remedy any existing deficiency
These approaches for dealing with existing deficien cies create several types of problems. A major one
is that impact fees are restricted from being spent on roadways that are most in need of improvement.
The approach that allows a percentage of the cost to be funded complicates impact fee administration
by requiring that the portion of th e cost of each improvement that is attributable to remedying
deficiencies be funded from a different revenu e source. Finally, these approaches ignore the
interconnectedness of the major roadway system. For example, road impact fees could not be spent
directly to improve a deficient segment, but could be spent to improve or construct a parallel roadway
that would also relieve the congestion.
The most important objection, however, is that it is not necessary to address exis ting deficiencies in a
consumption-based system, which, unlike an improv ements-driven system, is not really designed to
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 34
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
recover the full costs to maintain the desired LOS on all roadwa
consumption-based method is only designed to maintain a minimum one-to-one overall ratio between
system demand and system capacity. Consequently , under a standard consumption-based system, the
level of service standard is really a systemwi de VMC/VMT ratio of one. Since the CountyÔs major
roadway system currently operates at better than this LOS (see Table 19), the consumption-based
method assumes a one-to-one ratio.
The consumption-based methodology is recommended for use in the
HawaiÓi County. While the actual VMC/VMT ratio is much higher than one-to-one, this approach
utilizes the more conservative ratio in evaluating the system-wi
fees are based. The recommended impact fee formula is presented
Figure 4
ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA
IMPACTFEE= VMT x NET COST/VMT
Where:
VMT =TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH ÷ 2
NET COST/VMT =COST/VMC x VMC/VMT - CREDIT/VMT
TRIPS=Trip ends during an average weekday
% NEW=Percent of trips that are primary trips, as opposed to pas
LENGTH=Average length of a trip on the major roadway system
÷ 2=Avoids double-counting trips for origin and destination
COST/VMC=Average cost to add a new daily vehicle-mile of capacit
VMC/VMT=System-wide ratio of VMC to VMT on the major roadway system (assumed 1:1)
CREDIT/VMT0DEBT/VMT + PAST/VMT + GRANT/VMT
DEBT/VMT=Outstanding debt used for capacity improvements on exis
divided by total existing VMT
PAST/VMT=The net present value of property taxe s paid over the
land for road capacity improvements, including general fund expe
as debt service payments, per VMT
GRANT/VMT=The net present value of future Federal and State roadway capacity funding
anticipated to be forthcoming per VMT over the next 20 years
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 35
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Travel Demand
The travel demand generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors: 1) trip generation;
2) percent new trips; and 3) trip length. The result is the vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated by a
unit of development.
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates are based on information published in the
Transportation EngineersÔ (ITE) Trip Generation manual. Trip generation rates represent trip ends, or
driveway crossings at the site of a land use. Thus, a single one-way trip from home to work counts as
one trip end for the residence and one trip end for the work pla
over-counting, all trip rates have been divided by two. This places the burden of travel equally between
the origin and destination of the trip and elim inates double-charging for any particular trip.
To date, few road impact fees have been adopted that vary by the size of the dwelling unit. This is
largely because road impact fees are generally ba sed on national trip generation rate data, and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual does not provide rates by dwelling
unit size. However, the fact that trip generation ra tes for residential uses vary by the size of the
household is actually well documented in the transportation plan
This study gives the County the option of establishi ng impact fees for single-family housing based on
the size of the dwelling unit. The size of the dwelling unit is related to the number of residents, and the
average number of vehicle trips generated is strong ly related to the number of people living in the
dwelling unit.
The average household size of sing le-family detached units by number of bedrooms is available from
2000 Census five-percent sample data, which is presen ted in Appendix C. This information is combined
with the trip rate data by household size presented in the previous table to derive daily trip rates by the
size of the unit, represented by bedrooms, as shown in Table 11.
Table 11
SINGLE-FAMILY TRIPS BY BEDROOMS
Avg. Daily
Bedrooms HH Size Trips
Up to Two2.558.45
Three2.979.72
Four3.4911.04
Five or more4.2212.82
Average2.929.57
Source: Average household sizes from Table 100; daily trips derived
from Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 365, ÑTravel
Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning,Ò Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, Table 9 (for areas with populations of
50,000 to 199,999), 1998.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 36
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
To determine a relationship between the Figure 5
DAILY TRIPS BY UNIT SIZE
average square footage of single-family
detached units, the number of bedrooms and
trip generation, the consultant analyzed a
sample with compiled data on all 630 single-
family homes listed for sale in HawaiÓi County
from the National Association of Realtors
website (www.realtor.com) on October 19,
2005. To this data base, variables for daily
trip rates were added, consisting of the trip
rates by number of bedrooms presented in the
previous table. Regression analysis was then
performed to determine the relationship
between unit size in square feet and trip rates.
Linear, semi-logarithmic and logarithmic
regressions were performed, and the
logarithmic equation was determined to
9
provide the best explanation of the data.
The curve described by the equation for peak hour trips is shown
relationship between size and trip generation is pos itive but modest. Many large homes are occupied
by empty-nesters or used as second homes. Nevert heless, on average larger homes do have somewhat
more impact on the road system. Using the regressi on equation, average daily trip rates were derived
for five size categories based on square footage. The results a
Table 12
SINGLE-FAMILY TRIPS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE
Dwelling Size CategoryMidpointDaily Trips
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.500 8.44
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1,250 9.58
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.1,750 10.03
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.2,500 10.54
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.3,500 11.04
4,000 sq. ft. or more4,500 11.43
Source: Daily trips derived using the regression equation formula and t
midpoints of the size categories.
New Trip Factor
Trip rates also need to be adjusted by a Ñnew trip factorÒ to exclude pass-by and diverted-link trips.
This adjustment is intended to reduce the possibili ty of over-counting by only including primary trips
generated by the development. Pass-by trips are thos e trips that are already on a particular route for a
different purpose and simply stop at a particular de velopment on that route. For example, a stop at a
convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass-by t
9
The equation for average daily trips is Ln (y) =0.138385 * Ln(x) + 1.272444, where y is average daily trips and
2
x is the floor area of the unit in square feet; the R is 0.42863 and the t-statistics ar e 21.705 for the x-coefficient and
27.119 for the y-intercept.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 37
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
pass-by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be
counted in the assessment of impact fees. A diverted-lin k trip is similar to a pass-by trip, but a diversion
is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. The reduction for pass-by and diverted-link
trips was drawn from ITE and other published information.
Average Trip Length
In the context of a road impact fee based on a consumption-based methodology, we are interested in
determining the average length of a trip on th e major roadway system within HawaiÓi CountyÔs
jurisdiction. An inventory of the CountyÔs major ro adway system was prepared as part of this project
(see Table 94 in Appendix A). Traffic counts were available for about forty percent of the major road
network. It is likely that roads for which counts are available have higher traffic volumes than roads for
which no counts were available. To take this into account, volu
assumed to have, on average, only three-quarter the volumes on roads with counts. Based on these data
and assumptions, the total demand on the major Coun ty and State roadway system is estimated to be
about 3.5 million VMT, with total demand on County roads accounting for 1.0 million VMT, as shown
in Table 13.
Table 13
ESTIMATED ACTUAL VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL
Ln-Mi Observed 3/4 Trips/ Ln-Mi w/o Estimated
Road Class w/Counts VMT Lane Counts VMT Total VMT
Prim. Arterial125.2 872,711 5,228 3.0 15,684888,395
Sec. Arterial461.0 1,280,814 2,084 3.8 7,9191,288,733
Major Collector109.2 128,996 886 4.8 4,253133,249
Minor Collector 1.8 3,164 1,318 133.2 175,558178,722
State Roads697.2 2,285,686 9,516 144.8 203,4142,489,099
Prim. Arterial22.4 195,868 6,558 0.0 0195,868
Sec. Arterial104.3 136,339 980 0.0 0136,339
Major Collector187.7 599,138 2,394 34.3 82,114681,252
County Roads314.3 931,344 9,932 34.3 82,1141,013,459
Total1,011.5 3,217,031 19,448.0179.1 285,5283,502,558
Notes: ÑLn-Mi w/CountsÒ is lane-miles of road segments with recent traffic counts; ÑObs erved VMTÒ is averag e annual daily travel
on road segments with counts; Ñ3/4 Trips/ LaneÒ is 3/4 times the ratio of observed VMT to lane-miles with counts; ÑLn-Mi w/o
CountsÒ is lane-miles of segments without recent traffic count d ta; ÑEstimated VMTÒ is estimated average daily VMT on segments
without counts (product of 3/4 VMT and lane-miles without co unts); ÑTotal VMTÒ is sum of observed and estimated VMT.
Source: Table 94 in Appendix A.
The average length of a trip on the CountyÔs major roadway system can be es timated by dividing the
total vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) on the major road system by the total number of trips that are
generated by existing land uses in HawaiÓi. Multiply ing trip generation rates by existing land use results
in an estimate of 0.51 million daily trips generated by existing development, as shown in the following
table.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 38
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 14
TOTAL DAILY TRIPS
Existing Daily Trip Daily
Land UseUnit Units Generation Trips
Single-FamilyDwelling58,7724.79 281,518
Multi-Family/OtherDwelling17,1533.36 57,634
Hotel/MotelRoom10,5133.45 36,270
Shopping Center/General Retail 1,000 sq. ft.5,30713.31 70,636
Office/Other Institutional1, 000 sq. ft.4,5515.51 25,076
Medical Office1,000 sq. ft.26918.07 4,859
Industrial1,000 sq. ft.4173.48 1,451
Mini-Warehouse1,000 sq. ft.2481.25 310
Warehouse1,000 sq. ft.7,9562.48 19,731
Church/Synagogue1,000 sq. ft.4024.56 1,833
Elementary/Secondary School 1,000 sq. ft.6086.85 4,165
Nursing Home1,000 sq. ft.2163.05 659
Hospital1,000 sq. ft.2458.79 2,154
Total Daily Trips506,296
Source: Existing housing units from Table 98; existing nonresidential
hotel/motel rooms based on 2000 hotel room count of 10,041 from HawaiÓi County Data Book , Table
7.3, data for 2005 derived from total visitor growth rate projec HawaiÓi
County General Plan ; daily trip generation from Institute of Transportation Enginee Trip
th
Generation , 7 Ed., 2003 (shopping center rate has been multiplied by a 0.62 n
Dividing total VMT on the major roadway system by the estimated trips generated by existing
development yields an average trip length. As shown in Table 15, the average trip length on the
CountyÔs major road system is approximately 2.00 miles on County roads and a total of 6.92 miles on
all major roads, including State roads.
Table 15
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
Total Estimated Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel, County Roads (VMT)1,013,397
Total Daily Trips506,288
Average Trip Length, County Roads (miles)2.00
Total Estimated Daily Vehicle- Miles of Travel (VMT)3,502,681
Total Daily Trips506,288
Average Trip Length, County and State Roads (miles)6.92
Source: Total daily trips from preceding table; VMT from Table 13.
The national average trip lengths derived from the U.S. Department of TransportationÔs 2001 National
Household Travel Survey for a variety of trip purposes, including home-to-work trips, d
school/church, shopping, and other personal trips ar e shown in Table 16 below. The average trip
length on HawaiÓi CountyÔs major roadway system, incl uding State roads, is 70 percent of the national
average. This is not surprising, since the trip length calculation excludes travel on the CountyÔs
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 39
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
unclassified local roads. Reducing all of the nationa l trip lengths by purpose by this adjustment factor
yields the following estimates of local trip lengths by trip pur
Table 16
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE
County RoadsAll Major Roads
National Local Local Local Local
Trip Length Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment Trip Length
Trip Purpose (miles) Factor (miles) Factor (miles)
Visit Friends/Relatives 14.99 0.203.000.7010.49
To or from Work12.19 0.202.440.708.53
Residential*10.77 0.202.150.707.54
Doctor/Dentist9.890.201.980.706.92
Average9.820.202.000.706.92
School/Church7.50 0.201.500.705.25
Family/Personal7.430.201.490.705.20
Shopping6.610.201.320.704.63
* weighted based on 40% work trips and 60% average trips
Source: National trip lengths from US. Department of Transportation, Na
average trip length from Table 15.
Travel Demand Summary
The result of combining trip generation rates, primary trip factors and localized average trip lengths is
a travel demand schedule that establishes the daily VMT during the average weekday on the major
roadway system generated by various land use types per unit of development in HawaiÓi County. The
recommended travel demand schedule is presented in Table 17. The schedule provides the option of
assessing single-family detached development based on the overall average trip generation or on trip
generation rates that vary by the size of the dwelling unit. In addition, the schedule provides the option
of basing the fee on major County roads only, or including both
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 40
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 17
TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE
County RoadsAll Major Roads
ITE Primary Length Daily Length Daily
Land Use Type CodeUnitADT Trips (miles) VMT (miles) VMT
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.210Dwelling4.22100% 2.159.097.5431.81
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.210Dwelling4.79100% 2.1510.327.5436.11
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.210Dwelling5.02100% 2.1510.807.5437.81
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.210Dwelling5.27100% 2.1511.357.5439.73
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.210Dwelling5.52100% 2.1511.897.5441.62
4,000 sq. ft. or more210Dwelling5.72100% 2.1512.317.5443.09
Single-Family Det. Avg.210Dwelling4.79100% 2.1510.327.5436.11
Multi-Family220Dwelling3.36100% 2.157.247.5425.33
Hotel/Motel310/320Room3.45100% 3.0010.3410.4936.20
Retail/Commercial8201000 sq. ft. 21.4762% 1.3217.604.6361.59
Office 7101000 sq. ft.5.51100% 2.4413.428.5346.97
Industrial Park1301000 sq. ft.3 .48100% 2.448.488.5329.69
Warehouse1501000 sq. ft.2.48100% 2.004.966.9217.16
Church/Synagogue5601000 sq. ft.4.56100% 1.496.775.2023.69
Elementary/Sec. School520/5301000 sq. ft.6.8524% 1.502.465.258.62
Hospital6101000 sq. ft.8.79100% 2.4421.428.5374.96
Nursing Home6201000 sq. ft.3.05100% 1.986.036.9221.12
Other Institutional7101000 sq. ft .5.51100% 2.0011.016.9238.09
Source: ÑADTÒ is 1/2 of daily trips from Institute of Transportation En Trip Generation , 7th ed., 2003; other institutional
ADT based on office ADT rate; single-family trip rates by sq. footage categories from Table 12; primary tri
retail/commercial uses from ITE, Trip Generation Handbook , March 2001 (additional 10% deducted from non-passby percentage
for shopping centers to account for diverted-link trips); percen tage for elementary/secondary school based on Preston Hitchens,
ÑTrip Generation of Day Care Centers,Ò 1990 ITE Compendium ; local average trip lengths from Table 16.
Roadway Capacity
Nationally-accepted level of service (LOS) categorie s have been developed by the transportation
engineering profession. Six categories, ranging fr om LOS A to LOS F, qualitatively describe driving
conditions in terms of such factors as speed and trav el time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort and convenience, and safety. LOS A re presents free flow, while LOS F represents the
breakdown of traffic flow, characterized by stop-and-go conditio
Service volume capacity is a quantitative measure, expressed in terms of the rate of flow (vehicles
passing a point during a period of time). Servi ce volume capacity represents the maximum rate of flow
that can be accommodated by a particular type of ro adway while still maintaining a specified LOS. The
service volume capacity at LOS E represents that maximum volume
the flow breaks down into stop-and-go conditions that characteri
ultimate capacity of the roadway.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 41
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The capacity of an individual roadway depends on a nu mber of factors, including number of lanes, lane
width, topography, percent of truck traffic, etc. In impact fee anal ysis, generalized capacity estimates
are typically used based strictly on number of lanes. The Florida Department of Transportation has
done extensive work developing generalized capacity estimates to be used for planning purposes based
on Highway Capacity Manual procedures, and their work will be use d to develop planning-level capacity
estimates for use in this analysis. As can be seen in Table 18, major roadways tend to be able to
accommodate about 6,500 vehicles per lane per day.
Table 18
DAILY VEHICLE CAPACITIES
Total Capacity/
Capacity Lane
2-Lane Undivided13,0006,500
2-Lane Divided or 3-Lane17,1005,700
4-Lane Undivided25,9006,475
4-Lane Divided or 5-Lane34,5006,900
Source: Data for Class II arterial roads (2.0-4.5 signalized intersecti
per mile) from Florida Department of Transportation, 2002 Quality/Level
of Service Handbook , 2002, Table 4-1: Generalized Annual Average Daily
Volumes for FloridaÔs Urbanized Areas.
The inventory of HawaiÓiÔs major roadway system, including segment descriptions, segment lengths in
miles, number of lanes, number of lane-miles, generalized daily ca pacity and average daily volumes, is
presented in Appendix A, Table 94. The estimated existing system-wide demand based on available
traffic count data is presented in Table 13.
Dividing the system-wide capacity (VMC) by sys tem-wide demand (VMT) yields the VMC/VMT ratio.
As shown in Table 19, the major roadway system cu rrently has about 121 percent more capacity than
demand. This represents the current system-wide leve l of service. However, th is level of service may
not be sustainable as the community grows, and ins tead may represent some amount of excess capacity.
For this study, a conservative system-wide VMC/VMT ratio of 1.00 will be used as the level of service
in the impact fee calculations.
Table 19
EXISTING SYSTEM-WIDE CAPACITY/DEMAND RATIO
County RoadsAll Roads
Total Vehicle-Miles of Capa city (VMC)2,265,510 7,738,770
Total Estimated Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT)1,013,4593,502,558
Existing VMC/VMT Ratio2.242.21
Assumed VMC/VMT Ratio for Impact Fee Calculation1.001.00
Source: Actual VMC from Table 94 of Appendix A; estimated VMT from Tabl
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 42
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Cost per Service Unit
Expanding the capacity of the CountyÔs major roadway system is p
existing roadway cross-sections to accommodate additional throug
and bridges. While impact fees can be used for in tersection improvements and other types of capacity
enhancements, it is more difficult to quantify th e capacity added by these types of improvements in
terms of vehicle-miles of capacity.
In a consumption-based transportation impact fee sy stem, roadway improvement costs are entered into
the formula as an average cost for providing n ew roadway capacity. Assuming there are no dramatic
changes to the mix of the type of improvements, it is not necessary to revisit impact fees each time that
the capital improvement program changes. Updates at reasonable periodic intervals are sufficient to
analyze potential changes to average costs.
The current cost to add additional capacity to the ex isting major roadway system can be estimated using
historical costs as well as planned projects for wh ich bids have been received. Table 20 below
summarizes the CountyÔs capacity-expanding improvem ents to its major roadway system from 2000 to
2005, including the cost and the vehicle-miles of ca pacity (VMC) added by each improvement. Projects
for which it was impossible to quantify the vehicl e-miles of capacity added by the improvement were
excluded. Based on available cost data, the CountyÔ s road cost is approximately $4.4 million per lane-
mile, excluding bridge construction, and $5.8 million including
Table 20
RECENT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
No. of Lanes Capacity
New Added
ProjectMi. BeforeAfterBeforeAfter Ln. Mi. VMC Cost
Mamalahoa Hwy0.79241.5813,00026,00010,270$7,258,964
Mohouli Street Extension1.35022.70013,00017,550$11,207,098
Puainako Street Extensio n4.50029.00013,00058,500$32,310,000
Kuakini Hwy, Palani to Hualal ai0.49240.9813,00026,0006,370$12,574,000
Subtotal, Segment Improvemen ts7.1314.2626,00078,00092,690$63,350,062
Komohana St./Alenaio Stream 0.02240.0413,00026,000260$5,871,625
Oshiro, Kalopa/Aliipali & Kaumoa li0.03120.036,50013,000195$2,314,450
Honomu Bridge Replacement0.02120.026,50013,000130$2,516,264
Inoino Gulch Bridge Replacem ent0.01120.016,50013,00065$1,129,238
Onomea Camp Rd Bridge Replace0.01120.016,50013,00065$585,005
Kawailani Street Bridge Repl ace0.02240.0413,00026,000260$7,786,710
Subtotal, Bridge Replacemen ts0.110.1552,000104,000975$20,203,293
Total14.41 93,665$83,553,355
Source: Road segments, miles, lanes and costs from HawaiÓi County; total cost includes actual construction cost or bid cost if final
cost not available, design cost and right-of-way cost if applicable; costs have been adjusted by Engineering News-Record
Construction Cost Index from date of completion to January 2006;
added capacity (difference between before and after capacity) times segment length.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 43
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The calculation of the cost per service unit can be derived from the recent thoroughfare improvement
project costs. As shown in Table 21, the average cost per service for new road construction inclu
bridges is $892. However, since the bridge cost per VMC is much higher than general road construction
costs per VMC, the cost per VMC excluding bridges may more accurately reflect the average cost of the
entire road system. The average cost per VMC is $683 if bridge projects are excluded.
Table 21
ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Excluding
Road Costs Bridges
Recent Road Improvem ent Costs$83,553,355$63,350,062
Added Lane-Miles14.4114.26
Average Cost per Lane-Mile$5,798,290$4,442,501
Recent Road Improvem ent Costs$83,553,355$63,350,062
Added VMC93,66592,690
Average Cost per VMC$892$683
Source: Recent road improvement cost, added lane-miles and added VMC fro
Net Cost per Service Unit
In the calculation of the impact of new development on roadway infrastructure, credit should be giv
for taxes that will be paid by new development an d used to retire outstand ing debt for past major
roadway improvements. Credit will also be provided in this stud
property, as well as motor fuel taxes that will be generated by new devel opment and used to pay for
capacity-related major road improvements.
Roadway systems in HawaiÓi County are generally fina nced through Federal, State and County programs.
The County fuel tax and vehicular taxes are deposited to the Cou
10
the HawaiÓi County General Plan , fuel tax and vehicular taxes collected in the county are deposi
the Highway fund for maintenance of County roads. As a result, credit for the future contribution of
development to these funds is not necessary since the fund is used exclusively for the maintenance of
County roads. Federal aid is generally provided for the mainten
of Federal-aid County highways. The County allocates 50 percent
maintenance of Federal-aid County highways, and the ba lance of the fuel tax is used to maintain the
non-Federal-aid local roads. In addition to mainten ance funding, the County receives Federal and State
aid for capacity-enhancing projects.
Based on a review of the 2006 to 2008 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), it is anticipated
that $61.5 million in Federal funds and $6.3 million in State funds will be available to pay for capacity
related improvement programs on major roads in HawaiÓi County over the next three years. The
current list of Federal- and State-funded eligible improvements from the State of HawaiÓi Department
of Transportation TIP is shown in Table 22.
10
HawaiÓi County General Plan In frastructure Assessment Study , Ch. 3.3.5, 2004
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 44
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 22
PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING, 2006-2008
State Federal
ProjectSegment LimitsImprovement Funding Funding
HawaiÓi Belt RdWaimea BypassNew Road$0$1,200,000
Konoelehua Ave (Design)Kameha meha to PuinakoWiden$70,000$280,000
Kealakehe ParkwayKeanalehu Dr to KealakaaRoad Extension$100,000$1,200,000
Queen Kaahumanu HwyKealakehe Pkwy to Keahole Widen$6,000,000$24,000,000
Volcano RoadKulani Rd Inte rsectionIntersection$100,000$400,000
Subtotal, State Ro ads$6,270,000$27,080,000
Puainako StreetKomohana to KawiliWiden$0$4,000,000
Saddle Roadn/aRoad Extension$0$2,400,000
Alii Hwy, Phase 1Kamehameha III Rd to KuakiniWiden$0$24,000,000
Kuakini HwyHualalai Rd to Alii HwyWiden$0$40,000
Palani-Kealakaa Intersection n/aIntersection$0$4,000,000
Subtotal, County Roads$0$34,440,000
Totals $6,270,000$61,520,000
Source: HawaiÓi Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2006 to FY 200 , 2005.
Dividing the capacity-related share of anticipated annual Federal and St ate funding by existing travel on
the major roadway system yields the annual Federa l and State capacity funding per VMT. Multiplying
that figure by the appropriate net present value provides the eq
stream of funding over the next 20 years, a period that roughly corresponds to the life of roadway
improvements. The result is a Federal and State fu nding credit of $151 per VMT for County roads and
$78 per VMT for all roads, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23
STATE AND FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT
County RoadsAll Major Roads
Federal Capacity Improvement Fund ing, FY 2006 to FY 2008$34,440,000$61,520,000
State Capacity Improvement Fund ing, FY 2006 to FY 2008$0$6,270,000
Total State and Federa l Funding$34,440,000$67,790,000
Total Years in Transportation Plan33
Annual Funding$11,480,000$20,506,667
Daily VMT on Major Road way System1,013,3973,502,681
Annual Capacity Funding per VMT$11.33$5.85
Present Value Factor (20 years at 4.25%)13.2913.29
Federal and State Funding Credit per VMT$151$78
Source: Federal and State funding from Table 22; existing VMT fr om Table 13; discount rate for net present value factor
is based on average rate on 20-year, tax exempt AAA municipal bo
The thoroughfare facility fees must also take into consideration that new development will be generating
future revenues that will be used to retire ou tstanding debt for past capacity-related roadway
improvements. An analysis of GO debt is provided in Appendix B. This analysis assumes that all the
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 45
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
outstanding road-related debt was issued for capa city-enhancing projects. As shown in Table 24, total
outstanding road-related debt is $68.8 million.
A simple method that ensures that new development is not required to pay for existing facilities, through
property tax or other funds used for debt retirement, as well as
to subtract the outstanding debt from the replacement cost of existing road fa cilities. Essentially, this
defines the existing level of servi ce that new development is required to maintain as the equity va
the existing road system. While it may be somewhat difficult to quantify the replacement value of the
existing thoroughfare system, the same result is obt ained by dividing the outstanding debt by existing
service units. The CountyÔs road-related debt credit is $68 per service unit when prorated over travel
on County roads, and $20 per service unit when base d on all major road travel, as shown in Table 24.
Table 24
ROAD DEBT CREDIT
County RoadsAll Major Roads
Total Outstanding Road Relate d Debt Principa l $68,846,141$68,846,141
Percent Attributable to Capacity100%100%
Attributable Outstanding Road Debt Principal $68,846,141$68,846,100
Daily VMT on the Major Ro adway System 1,013,4593,502,558
Debt Credit per VMT$68$20
Source: Total outstanding debt from Appendix B, Tabl e 97; percent attributable to capacity assumed;
existing VMT from Table 13.
Prior to development, the owners of a vacant par cel of land paid property taxes that may have been
used, in part, to construct capital facilities of the type for which impact fees are being assessed.
law requires the provision of an additional credit in order to reduce impact fees by the value of property
tax payments over the last five yea rs that were used to construct existing capital facilities of th
which the fees are being charged. Pursuant to State law, this credit must represent the present value of
the past five years of property taxe s paid by vacant land for capital facilities funded through the general
fund.
Based on a review of the CountyÔ s CIP status report, nearly all of the CountyÔs road cap
improvements over the past five years have been funded through Federal and State funds and County
GO bonds with maintenance and operations funded through the CountyÔs Highway Fund. Since newly-
developing properties were undeveloped in the past , they did not generate any revenue for the highway
fund or any other type of general fund revenues except for property taxes. As a result, a credit
necessary to account for the portion of property taxes from vacant and agricultural land that has been
utilized over the past five years to pay principal an d interest for outstanding road-related debt. In the
absence of a detailed principal and interest schedule for road-r
assumed to be the same for all five years. As show n in the table below, the estimated annual principal
and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for roads
million.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 46
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 25
ROAD GENERAL FUND HISTORICAL CAPACITY EXPENDITURES
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Roads Share of Total Outstanding Debt25.2%
Annual Road Debt Service$6,280,127
Years5
Total General Fund Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$31,400,634
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County,
2005-06 Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; road share of debt from Table 96.
An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past pro
only County roads are considered, or $3 per VMT if the road impact fees are based on travel on all
major roads, as shown in Table 26.
Table 26
ROAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
County RoadsAll Major Roads
Percent of General Fund from Pr operty Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%66.5%
Percent of Property Taxes from Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%32.5%
Percent of General Fund fr om Vacant/Ag. Land21.6%21.6%
Total General Fund Capacity Funding, 2000-2005$31,400,634$31,400,634
Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Pa st Capital Cost$6,786,462$6,783,544
Replacement Cost of Existing Road System$1,547,343,330$5,285,579,910
Percent of Existing Cost Paid by Vacant/Ag. Land, 2000-20050.4%0.1%
Road Cost per VMT$683$683
Past Property Tax Credit per VMT$3$1
Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from HawaiÓi County 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; percent
of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from HawaiÓ
fund capacity funding from preceding table; replacement cost is product of existing VMC from Table 94 in Ap
per VMC; cost per VMT (assumed same as cost per VMC) from Table 21.
Reducing the cost per service unit by the road debt credit, past property tax payments and the
anticipated annual Federal/State funding per service unit leaves a net cost of about $461 per VMT for
county roads and about $584 per VMT for all roads to replace cap
development, as summarized in Table 27.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 47
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 27
ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
County RoadsAll Major Roads
Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Travel (VMT)$683 $683
Federal/State Funding Credit per VMT$151 $78
Debt Service Credit per VMT$68 $20
Property Tax Credit$3 $1
Net Cost per VMT$461 $584
Source: Cost per VMT from Table 21; Federal/State funding credit from T
service credit from Table 24; property tax credit from Table 26.
Maximum Fee Schedule
Using the formula and the inputs calculated in this section of the impact fee report, the maximum
potential road impact fees per unit of developmen t for various land uses are shown in Table 28. The
fee schedule provides the option of charging single-family detached development based on a flat rat
per unit or on a variable schedule depending on the si ze of the dwelling unit. The fee schedule provides
the option of implementing the ro ad impact fee based on major coun ty roads or both State and county
major roads. In addition, impact fees could be ad opted at less than 100 percent of the level shown in
the net cost schedule, provided that the reduction is applied un
order to retain the proportionality of the fees.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 48
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 28
ROAD NET COST SCHEDULE
County RoadsAll Major Roads
Net Net Net Net
ITE Daily Cost/ Cost/ Daily Cost/ Cost/
Land Use Type CodeUnit VMT VMT Unit VMT VMT Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.210Dwelling9.09$461$4,19031.81$584$18,577
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.210Dwe lling10.32$461$4,75836.11$584$21,088
1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft.210Dwe lling10.80$461$4,97937.81$584$22,081
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.210Dwe lling11.35$461$5,23239.73$584$23,202
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.210Dwe lling11.89$461$5,48141.62$584$24,306
4,000 sq. ft. or more210Dwelling12.31$461$5,67543.09$584$25,165
Single-Family (flat rate)210Dwelling10.32$461$4,75836.11$584$21,
Multi-Family220Dwelling7.24$461$3,33825.33$584$14,793
Hotel/Motel310/320Room10.34$461$4,76736.20$584$21,141
Retail/Commercial8201000 sq. ft.17.60$461$8,11461.59$584$35,969
Office 7101000 sq. ft.13.42$461$6,18746.97$584$27,430
Industrial Park1301000 sq. ft.8.48$461$3,90929.69$584$17,339
Warehouse1501000 sq. ft.4.96$461$2,28717.16$584$10,021
Church/Synagogue5601000 sq. ft.6.77$461$3,12123.69$584$13,835
Elementary/Sec. School520/5301000 sq. ft.2.46$461$1,1348.62$584$5,034
Hospital6101000 sq. ft.21.42$461$9,87574.96$584$43,777
Nursing Home6201000 sq. ft.6.03$461$2,78021.12$584$12,334
Other Institutional7101000 sq . ft.13.42$461$6,18746.97$584$27,430
Source: Net cost per VMT from Table 27; daily VMT from Table 17.
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $90.5 million is proposed for transporta tion infrastructure improvements in the CountyÔs
2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity-
expanding improvements to the major roadway system. A detailed breakdown of each project
component cost was not available; c onsequently, the identification of eligible projects is prelimin
subject to verification. It is esti mated that eligible improvements a ccount for $87.4 million of the total
CIP costs. The current list of e ligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 29.
improvements are currently planned specifically fo r the proposed 4-Puna/KaÓu benefit district. Some
impact fee-eligible improvements should be identified for this benefit districts prior to the adoption of
a road impact fee.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 49
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 29
ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Proposed
Benefit Total Impact Fee
Judicial
Project District District Cost Eligible
Mamalahoa-Kawaihae Connector Koha la1-N/S Kohalano est.no est.
Kalopa Sand Gulch Bypass RoadHa makua2-Hilo/Hamakua$2,500,000$2,500,000
Waianuenue Ave ImprovementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$8,675,000$8,675,000
Hilo Roads Guardrail & Re taining Walls (FHWA)S. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$600,000$0
Kamehameha Avenue Resurfacing (F HWA)S. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,000,000$0
Kuakini Highway Improvements (FHWA) S. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,500,000$1,500,000
Kawailani/Pohakulani/Ainaola/Iwalani Inte rsect.S. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$4,886,000$4,886,000
N./ S.
Mamalahoa Highway Improvements (FHWA) Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$528,000$528,000
Mohouli Street Improvement (FHWA) S. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,575,000$1,575,000
Laupahoehoe Gulch Access Road Improv ementsN. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$100,000$0
Plani-Kealakaa Intersection (FHW A)N. Kona4-N/S Kona$1,316,000$1,316,000
Alii Drive Improvements (FHW A)N. Kona4-N/S Kona$800,000$800,000
Kahului-Keauhou Parkwa y (FHWA)N. Kona4-N/ S Kona$15,830,000$15,830,000
Alii HighwayN. Kona4-N/S Kona$49,321,000$49,321,000
Bridge Inspection & ApprisalsVarious$60,000$0
Land Acquisition for PW FacilitiesVarious$450,000$450,000
East Hawai'i Drainage ImprovementsVarious$700,000$0
West Hawai'i Drainage ImprovementsVarious$700,000$0
Total $90,541,000$87,381,000
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program , June 2006.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 50
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 8: PARKS AND RECREATION
Recreational facilities can be generally classified as resource-based or facility-based. Most resource-
based parks on the island are provided by the Federal and State governments (231,400 and 800 acres
respectively), with the County primarily providing re source-based parks along th e coast in beach parks
(260 acres).
The County provides a variety of facility-based parks, ranging from small neig hborhood parks that serve
relatively small geographic areas, di strict parks that serve an entire di strict, and larger regional parks with
a county-wide scope. The location of existing parks and recreation facilities is graphically illustr
Figure 6, and the inventory of parks and park fac ilities is shown in Table 106 of Appendix E.
This study bases the proposed park im pact fees on the existing level of service, and measures that level
of service in terms of the ratio of the replacement value of existing facilities to existing residential
development expressed in service units.
Figure 6
EXISTING COUNTY PARKS
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 51
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Assessment and Benefit Districts
The concept of assessment and benefit districts wa s described in the Policy Issues section. Assessment
districts are geographic areas subject to a single fee schedule. Assessment districts may be divided into
multiple benefit districts, which are areas wher e fees collected are earmarked to be spent.
While construction and land cost data are likely to vary between urban and rural locations and different
parts of the County, sufficient cost data are not ava ilable by district that would provide a legal basis for
calculating separate fees for each benefit district. Consequently, a single county-wide assessment district
is recommended for calculating park and recreation impact fees, which provides a uniform park impact
fee schedule throughout the county.
However, it is further recommended that the County cr eate several benefit districts for park impact fees.
The County currently restricts the expenditure of fair share contributions to the judicial district in which
they were collected. The nine judicial districts have b een aggregated into the proposed four park benefit
districts (see Figure 2 on page 18). To facilitate pr ojects with wider benefit, such as regional parks, it
is recommended that the County allow up to 20 per cent of the park impact f ee collected in a district to
be used for projects outside the district, provided th at significant benefit can be shown to the district
in which the fees were collected.
Service Unit
While most impact fees are assesse d on all uses, park impact fees ar e usually assessed only on residential
uses. This is because a park nexus is generally easier to establish for residential uses than for
nonresidential. Some jurisdictions, however, do asse ss park fees on non-residential uses. Jurisdictions
that charge non-residential uses fo r park impact fees are generally less populated central cities within
major metropolitan areas with a high day-time, or fu nctional population, than night-time, or residential
population since the added influx of daytime population places extra demand and strain on park facilities
and services, such as parks. Similarly, communities such as HawaiÓi County, with a significant tourist
population, assess park impact fees for hotel/motel accommodations since the users of those units also
benefit from the communityÔs parks and recreational facilities.
Disparate types of development must be translated into a common unit of measurement that reflects
the impact of new development on the demand for park facilities.
a Ñservice unit.Ò Population is th e most common service unit used in park impact fee analysis. Si
the level of service for park facilities is measured in terms of population, dema nd for park facilities is
proportional to the number of people in a dwelling un it or hotel room. Consequently, data on average
household size for various types of units is a critical component of a park impa ct fee. These data are
presented and analyzed in Appendix C.
Population estimates are based on three factors: the number of dwelling units, average household sizes
for various types of units and occupancy rates. The number of d
some degree of precision, and average household size has been declining somewhat predictably but has
been stabilizing in recent years. Occupancy rates, on th e other hand, tend to vary significantly over time,
and not in predictable directions.
Consequently, this report recommends the use of a service unit that avoids the need to make
assumptions about occupancy rates. This service unit is the Ñequivalent dwelling unitÒ or EDU, which
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 52
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
represents the impact of a typical single-family dwelling. By defini tion, a typical single-family unit
represents, on average, one EDU. Other types of un its each represent a fraction of an EDU, based on
their relative average household sizes. The EDUs associated with each housing type and unit size
category are shown in Table 30.
Table 30
PARK EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT MULTIPLIERS
Land UseAvg HH SizeEDUs/Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.2.780.97
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.2.951.03
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.3.061.07
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.3.231.13
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.3.451.20
4,000 sq. ft or more3.681.28
Single-Family Detached Average2.871.00
Multi-Family2.260.79
Hotel/Motel1.340.47
Source: Average household size for single-family average and multi-fami
units from Table 99 in Appendix C; average household sizes by si
categories from Table 100 in Appendix C; average occupancy for h
rooms estimated to be one-half of average vehicle occupancy on v
trips, as reported by U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Hou
Survey, 2001; EDUs/unit is ratio of average household size to si
detached average household size.
In order to determine the existing level of service, it is necessary to estimate the total number of EDUs
in the county. This is accomplished by multiplying the number of existing residential units by the EDUs
per unit calculated above based on relative average household sizes. As shown in Table 31, there are
77,264 park service units (EDUs) in HawaiÓi County.
Table 31
EXISTING PARK SERVICE UNITS
Existing EDUs/ Total
Land Use Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family Detached58,772 1.0058,772
Multi-Family17,153 0.7913,551
Hotel/Motel10,513 0.474,941
Total Park EDUs77,264
Source: Existing units from Table 98 in A ppendix C; EDUs per unit from Table
30; hotel/motel units from Table 7.
Cost Per Service Unit
As noted earlier, this study bases the park and recr eation impact fee on the existing level of service, and
measures that level of service in terms of the rati o of the replacement value of existing facilities to
existing residential development expressed in equiva lent dwelling units. A full inventory of HawaiÓi
CountyÔs parks and specialized recreational facilitie s is shown in Table 106 and Table 107, respectively
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 53
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
of Appendix E. As shown in A ppendix E, HawaiÓi CountyÔs existing open space sites total 1,898.4 acres,
with 991.6 acres of developed parkland.
The previous 1990 impact fee study utilized agricu lture land value per acre in the County for
determining the replacement value for park acreage. Agricultural land value pr ovides a reasonable proxy
for parks that are located in rural inland locations ; however, it does not accurately reflect the value of
parkland located in urban or shoreline areas where land costs ar
County acquisitions for parks have been infrequent in recent years and do not provide a good basis for
determining current average park land costs. An alternative approach was to analyze the cost of
residential land offered for sale ba sed on an analysis of 2,147 parcels of residential land were offered for
sale in HawaiÓi County and were posted on the web si te of the National Associat ion of Realtors. Costs
per acre vary considerably by size and location, but location is
variation by parcel size is used. Applying the av erage cost per acre for residential property based on
current asking prices by existing park acreage in each parcel size category yields a reasonable estimate
of current park land replacement costs of $72.6 million, as shown in Table 32. These costs are f
only, and do not include site devel opment costs. Development costs fo r park land includes the cost of
site preparation such as clearing an d grading, installation of security lighting, landscaping and ut
Site development costs per acre for HawaiÓi CountyÔs existing developed parks are unavailable and will
not be considered in determining the impact fee.
Table 32
PARK LAND REPLACEMENT COST
Hawaii County Real Estate Data
Existing Est. Park
Size of ParcelTotal Price Total Ac.Cost/Acre Park Acres Land Value
Less than 1 acre$135,789,442249.20$544,9018.5$4,648,006
1 to 4.99 acres$199,922,960 1,879.57$106,366178.3$18,963,994
5 to 9.99 acres$36,188, 600433.60$83,461163.3$13,625,008
10 to 19.99 acres$40,924, 900643.49$63,598169.7$10,793,853
20 to 49.99 acres$56,181,500 1,646.62$34,119348.3$11,883,648
50 to 99.99 acres$16,549,000 1,263.75$13,095521.7$6,831,138
100 to 499.99 acres$22,055,000 1,906.56$11,568508.7$5,884,295
500 acres or more$27,150,0004,441.58$6,1130.0$0
Total$534,761,40212,464.37 $42,9031,898.4$72,629,942
Source: Hawaii County real estate data is all residential prop erties offered for sale on www.realtor.com on June 6,
2006; existing park acres from Table 106 of Appendix E.
The County has invested in the cons truction of park and recreation facilities, ranging from playgro
and picnic pavilions to community centers. The sum of current s
County recreation facilities total about $440.7 million, as show
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 54
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 33
STANDARD PARK FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS
Facility TypeUnitsUnit CostTotal Cost
Gymnasium19$6,000,000$114,000,000
Gymnasium w/ Community Mtg Rm3$7,500,000$22,500,000
Community Center17$4,500,000$76,500,000
Senior Center9$2,500,000$22,500,000
Pavilion80$200,000$16,000,000
Swimming Pool (25M)6$6,000,000$36,000,000
Swimming Pool (50M)3$10,000,000$30,000,000
Restroom78$350,000$27,300,000
Picnic Area33$200,000$6,600,000
Playground Equipment25$250,000$6,250,000
Baseball Field66$850,000$56,100,000
Soccer/Football Fi eld24$400,000$9,600,000
Basketball Court29$150,000$4,350,000
Volleyball Court7$150,000$1,050,000
Tennis Court26$125,000$3,250,000
Lighted Tennis Court21$150,000$3,150,000
Skateboard Park2$250,000$500,000
Boat Launch5$1,000,000$5,000,000
Total Standard Facility Costs$440,650,000
Source: Units from Table 106 in Appendix E with breakdown of pools by s
County Department of Parks and Recreation, July 25, 2006.; unit
County facilities inventory original construction costs adjusted by ENR CCI (January 2006) and
HawaiÓi County Department of Parks and Recreation, April 11 and
The CountyÔs Parks and Recreation Department provides residents with additional recreational facilities
for which standardized pricing is not applicable. The following table shows replacement values for non-
standardized facilities such as golf courses, civic centers, arenas and unique recreational facilitie
estimates are based on original costs from the CountyÔ s fixed asset listings, adjusted by a construction
cost inflation factor. The estimated total value of these facilities is $25.0 million, as shown in Table 34.
Table 34
SPECIAL PARK STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES
Facility TypeReplacement Value
Special Facilities$14,594,261
Golf Course Facilities$2,283,847
Civic Centers and Auditoriums$8,110,740
Total Facility Costs$24,988,848
Source: Facility replacement value from non-standa rd facility adjusted cost in Table 107 in
Appendix E.
Dividing the total replacement cost of existing park land and capi tal improvements by the number of
existing park service units (or EDUs) yields the cost per EDU to maintain the existing level of service,
as summarized in Table 35. The cost per service unit to maintain the current level of service is $6,967
per EDU.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 55
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 35
PARK COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Park Land Cost$72,629,942
Total Park Facility Cost$440,650,000
Total Special Facility Cost$24,988,848
Total Park Costs$538,268,790
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)77,264
Park Cost per EDU$6,967
Source: Park land cost from Table 32; total facility cost from Table 33;
total special facility cost from Table 34; EDUs from Table 31.
Net Cost Per Service Unit
Some of the cost to provide new residents with park facilities w ill be paid by the new residents
themselves through future payments that will be used to retire outstandin g debt, and past payments
paid through property taxes levied on the vacant land prior to development. In addition, some of the
capital costs to serve growth will be paid by outsid e funding sources. Consequent ly, the cost per service
unit is reduced to take account of these factors, and the result
Based on a review of the CountyÔs CIP status report, the CountyÔ
park capital improvements over the past five years has been gene
of past bond issues shown in Table 97 of Appendix B indicates that currently the CountyÔs outstandi
debt related to parks is $25.4 million.
A simple method that ensures that new development is not required to pay for existing facilities, through
property tax or other funds used for debt retirement, as well as
to subtract the outstanding debt from the replacement cost of existing park fa cilities. Essentially, this
defines the existing level of servi ce that new development is required to maintain as the equity value of
the existing park system. The same result is obtai ned by dividing the outstanding debt by existing
service units. As shown in Table 36, the CountyÔs cu rrent park-related debt results in a credit of $329
for every park service unit in HawaiÓi County.
Table 36
PARK DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Outstanding Debt Principal$25,431,806
Park Equivalent Dwelling Units, 200577,264
Park Debt Credit per EDU$329
Source: Total outstanding debt from Appendix B, Table 97; total park EDUs from
Table 31.
State law requires an additional cred it in order to account for the portion of past property taxes from
vacant land that have paid for capital facilities ov er the previous five years. This additional credit
represents the value of the past five years of prope rty taxes paid by vacant land for capital facilities
funded through the general fund.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 56
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Based on a review of the CountyÔs CIP status report, two capacity-expanding projects for parks were
funded directly from the general fund appropriations over the last five years. As shown in Table 37,
direct general fund expenditures for new park facilities were $1
Table 37
DIRECT PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Project
Expenditure
Keaau Park Improvements$110,000
District 4 Park Improvements$37,500
Total$147,500
Source: HawaiÓi County, Capital Improvement Project Status Report , June 2005.
Most other capacity-expanding park projects were fu nded through the CountyÔs GO bonds. As shown
in the table below, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt
for parks over the past five years was $13.0 million. Total general fu nd capacity expenditures were $13.1
million.
Table 38
TOTAL PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Park Share of Total Outstanding Debt10.4%
Annual Park Debt Service$2,591,798
Years5
Total Debt-Related Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$12,958,992
Direct General Fund Expenditures, 2000-2005$147,500
Total General Fund Expenditures, 2000-2005$13,106,492
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County,
2005-06 Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; park share of debt from Table 96;
direct general fund expenditures from Table 37.
An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax paym ents is $35 per EDU, as
shown in Table 39.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 57
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 39
PARK PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%
Percent of Property Taxes fr om Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%
Percent of Credit for Past Property Tax Payments21.6%
Total General Fund Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$13,106,492
Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost$2,831,423
Total Existing Park Replacement Value$538,268,790
Percent Paid by Vacant Land in Last Five Years0.5%
Park Cost per EDU$6,967
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$35
Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from HawaiÓi County 2005-06 Annual Operating
Budget , June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricult
Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; park general fund
table; total existing park replacement va lue and park cost per EDU from Table 31.
Another factor that is often considered in determini ng park impact fees is the degree to which outside
funding has been used to cover a portion of the recr eational facility costs. While there is no guarantee
that the past level of funding will be indicative of future outside funding su pport, to be conservative,
the cost per service unit will be reduced to accoun t for the likelihood that some growth-related park
costs can be paid for with Federal and State grants . Over the last five years, the County has received
an average of $216,900 annually in Federal grants for capital improvement to park facilities, as
summarized in Table 40.
Table 40
PARK GRANT FUNDING, 2000-2005
Project Fund Source Amount
Reeds Bay Beach ParkFederal$250,000
Isaac Hale Beach Park Expans ion and ImprovementFederal$520,824
Waimea Trails and GreenwaysFederal$313,700
Total Grant Funding 2000-2005$1,084,524
Average Annual Grant Funding $216,900
Source: HawaiÓi County Capital Improvement Project Status Report, June 2005; Parks Department.
It may be reasonable to assume that the grant fundin g received per park service unit in the past will
continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yields annual
funding per service unit. Multiply ing that by the present value facto r results in the current lump sum
amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive over
the next 20 years to help fund park improvemen ts. Based on these assumptions, the appropriate credit
for potential grant funding for parks is $37 for ea ch new single-family home, or park service unit
equivalent, as shown in Table 41.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 58
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 41
PARK GRANT FUNDING CREDIT
Average Annual Grant Funding$216,900
Existing Park EDUs, 200577,264
Annual Funding per EDU$2.81
Present Value Factor (20 years @ 4.25%)13.29
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$37
Source: Average annual grant funding from Table 40; existing park EDUs
from Table 31; discount rate for present value factor from Table
As shown in Table 42, reducing the cost per service un it by the debt credit and anticipated grant funding
per service unit leaves a net cost of $6,566 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service.
Table 42
PARK NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Park Replacement Cost per EDU$6,967
Debt Credit per EDU $329
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$35
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$37
Net Park Cost per EDU $6,566
Source: Total park replacement cost per EDU from Table 35; debt
credit per EDU from Table 36; past property tax credit per EDU f
Table 39; grant funding credit per EDU from Table 41.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 59
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Maximum Fee Schedule
Given the data, methodology and assumptions in this analysis, the maximum fees that can be adopted
by HawaiÓi County are derived by multiplying th e number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
represented by each dwelling unit type and hotel/motel room by t
Table 43. The County has the option of charging single-family homes a flat rate per unit or a variab
rate based on dwelling unit size.
Table 43
PARK NET COST SCHEDULE
EDUs/ Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Unit EDU Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.0.97$6,566$6,369
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1.03$6,566$6,763
1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft.1.07$6,566$7,026
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.1.13$6,566$7,420
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.1.20$6,566$7,879
4,000 sq. ft or more1.28$6,566$8,404
Single-Family (flat rate)1.00$6,566$6,566
Multi-Family0.79$6,566$5,187
Hotel/Motel0.47$6,566$3,086
Source: EDUs per unit from Table 30; net cost per EDU from Table 42.
The CountyÔs Park Dedication Code (Chapter 8, Ha waiÓi County Code) imposes a requirement for the
dedication of five acres of park land for every 1,00 0 persons or payment of fees in-lieu of dedication.
These requirements apply to the subdivision of land for residential purposes or the development of
multi-family units. If this dedi cation requirement is maintained, credit against the park impact
need to be provided for the value of land require d to be dedicated since the impact fee calculation
includes land costs.
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $140.4 million is proposed for park and recreation in
CountyÔs 2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used
for capacity-expanding improvements such as new parks and facili
amenities or facilities to existing parks. A deta iled breakdown of each project component cost was not
available; consequently, the identification of eligib le projects is preliminary and subject to verification.
Eligible improvements account for $60.1 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible
improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Ta ble 44. Impact fee-eligible projects are currently
planned for all of the proposed benefit districts.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 60
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 44
PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Proposed
Benefit Impact Fee
Judicial
Project District DistrictTotal Cost Eligible
Spencer Beach Park Improvem entsS. Kohala1-Kohala$500,000$0
Kamehameha Park Grandstand Re storationN. Kohala1-Kohala$500,000$0
Waimea Regional Park Developmen tS. Kohala1-Kohala$11,150,000$11,150,000
Waimea Trails and GreenwaysS. Kohala1-Kohala$2,300,000$2,300,000
Kohala Pool Improvements N. Kohala1-Kohala$250,000$0
Mahukona Beach Park Improvem entsN. Kohala1-Kohala$500,000$0
Hakalau Gym Structure Repairs and Im provementsHamakua2-Hilo/Hamakua$250,000$0
Honokaa Park Track & Sports Fields ImprovementsHamakua2-Hilo/Hamakua$50,000$0
Reed's Bay Area Parks Restor ation & ImprovementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,000,000$1,000,000
S. Hilo Baseyard Improvements & M odificationsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$500,000$0
Lehia Beach Park DevelopmentS. HIlo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,250,000$1,250,000
Honolii Beach Park Master PlanS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,150,000$1,150,000
Hilo Municipal Golf Course Improv ementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,750,000$0
New Waiakea Recreation Center Fac ilityS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$5,250,000$0
Hilo Bayfront Beach Park Master Pl anS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$2,250,000$2,250,000
Alae Cemetary Expansion and Improv ementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$337,000$0
Pana'ewa Equestrian Center Improv ementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$350,000$0
Kahuku Park ImprovementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$500,000$0
Leleiwi Beach Park ImprovementsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$500,000$0
Pana'ewa Rainforest Zoo Improvem entsS. Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$500,000$0
New Puna Gym & Park Developm entPuna3-Puna/KaÓu$8,250,000$8,250,000
Ahalanui/Pohoiki Bay Beach Pa rksPuna3-Puna/KaÓu$7,079,000$7,079,000
New HOVE Senior/Community Center FacilityKaÓu 3-Puna/KaÓu$1,500,000$1,500,000
Hookena Beach Park Road Improv ementsS. Kona4-N/S Kona$250,000$0
Konawaena Swimming Pool Improv ementsS. Kona4-N/S Kona$1,250,000$0
Alii Kai Subdivision New Park Develo pmentN. Kona4-N/S Kona$1,322,000$1,322,000
Kailua Park ImprovementsN. Kona4-N/S Kona$2,500,000$0
Kailua -Kona Senior CenterN. Kona4-N/S Kona$4,500,000$4,500,000
La'aloa Bay Beach Park/Magic Sands BeachN. Kona4-N/S Kona$2,078,000$2,078,000
West Hawai'I Regional Complex DevelopmentNA$15,000,000$15,000,000
Laupahoehoe Point Park ImprovementsNA$500,000$0
Laupahoehoe Pool ImprovementsNA$250,000$0
Punalu'u Beach Park ImprovementsNA$500,000$0
ADA ComplianceVarious$47,566,000$0
Repairs/Improvements to FacilitiesVarious$9,500,000$0
DWS Water Connection ComplianceVarious$450,000$0
Removal and/or Replacement of Ha zardous FacilitiesVarious$1,000,000$0
Play Equipment Upgrade & Im provementsVarious$4,000,000$0
Wastewater Disposal Syst ems UpgradeVarious$660,000$0
Lifeguard Towers/Stands UpgradesVarious$200,000$0
New Comfort Stations @ Vari ous ParksVarious$1,250,000$1,250,000
Total $140,442,00$60,079,000
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program , June 2005.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 61
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 62
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 9: FIRE/EMS
The HawaiÓi County Fire Department provides fire and emergency m
throughout the county. The CountyÔs existing fire station facilities are shown in Figure 7. The Fir
Department headquarters are located in the Count y Building in Hilo and there are 14 regular fire
stations, 18 volunteer fire stations and 2 Federal fi re stations on the Big Isla nd. The Kilauea Military
Camp and Pohakuloa fire stations are Federal fac ilities. Kilauea Military Camp provides emergency
medical services under an agreement with the Coun ty. The regular fire stations and three of the
volunteer fire stations (Laupahoehoe, Pahala an d NaÓalehu) provide 24-hour fire suppression and
emergency medical services. The Waiakea and Kailu a-Kona stations provide rescue services, the
Kaumana and South Kohala stations provide hazard ous waste response and the South Kohala station
provides air medical services. The General Plan establishes a desired standard of fire stations within five
miles of concentrated settlement areas and first response emerge
minutes of concentrated settlement areas.
Figure 7
FIRE STATION LOCATIONS
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 63
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Assessment and Benefit Districts
Similar to the road and park impact fee calculati on, using a single county-wide service area is
recommended for calculating the fire/EMS impact fees. This will
schedule through the county.
While fire-fighting apparatus and ambulances are genera lly dispatched from a station to calls within that
stationÔs primary response area, these units may also respond to calls in neighboring response areas if
needed. In addition, the headquarters and traini ng facilities are centralized. Consequently, fire/EMS
facilities constitute an interrelated system that provides servi
reasons, most fire/EMS impact fees use a single jurisdiction-wide be nefit district. However, based on
discussions with County staff and the impact fee fo cus group consensus, the County fire/EMS impact
fee benefit districts will follow the recommendation fo r benefit districts shown in Figure 2 (see page
18). As with the road and park benefit districts, the County could utilize up to 20 percent of all impact
fee funds for county-wide projects such as improvemen ts to central facilities or to improvements that
provide benefit to more than one district.
Service Unit
Disparate types of development must be translated into a common
the impact of new development on the demand for fire/rescue serv
measurement is referred to as a Ñservice unit.Ò Service units create the link between the supply of fire
capital facilities and the demand for such facilities generated by new development.
The two most common methodologies used in calculating fire/EMS i
serviceÒ approach and the Ñfunctional populationÒ approach. The calls-for-service approach uses
historical data on emergency calls by land use type to make the connection between land use type and
demand for fire facilities. However, since records based on the land use type where the call for service
originates for fire calls are unavailable, an alternative approa
An alternative approach for estimating the public safety service demands of various land use types is
known as Ñfunctional population.Ò To a large extent, the demand for fire services is proportional to the
presence of people. Functional population is anal ogous to the concept of Ñfull-time equivalentÒ
employees. It represents the number of Ñfull-time equivalentÒ people present at the site of a land use,
and it is used for the purpose of determining the impact of a pa
fire facilities. The calculations of functional popula tion for various land use types are presented in the
Appendix D.
Cost per Service Unit
Fire/EMS impact fees are designed to charge new de velopment the cost of providing the same level of
service that is provided to existing development. Th e existing level of servi ce for fire/EMS facilities is
based on the replacement cost of existing facilities and equipment. The Coun ty owns facilities at 20
sites, including the Central Station. Some of the volunteer stations were built and are owned by the
community in which they are located. For most stati ons, the County provides and owns the fire-fighting
and EMS apparatus and equipment.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 64
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The replacement cost of existing fire/EMS fac ilities can be determined based on recent construction
cost data. The cost of construction for the two most recently-built stations, adjusted to current dollars,
averages $331 per square foot, as shown in Table 45.
Table 45
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION COST
StationYearSq. Ft.Orig. CostAdj. Cost Cost /Sq. Ft.
Keauhou19974,460$1,230,997$1,618,761$363
Waikoloa19984,768$1,102,187$1,426,230$299
Average Cost$331
Source: Recent construction project data from County of HawaiÓi Fire Department; cost
adjusted to January 2006 using the change in the ENR Constructio
The total value of existing fire/EMS facilities is based on the existing facility size and land valu
value of the fire/EMS facility land was based on market value da
combined replacement value of the existing fire depa rtment facilities, is estimated to be $30.93 million,
as shown in Table 46.
Table 46
EXISTING FIRE/EMS FACILITY COSTS
Station Building Land Building Total
No.Station NameAcres sq. ft. Cost Cost Costs
1 Central1.2110,752 $495,601$3,558,912$4,054,513
2 Waiakea0.925,475 $300,681$1,812,225$2,112,906
3 Kawailani0.583,700 $85,281$1,224,700$1,309,981
4 Kaumana0.377,372 $89,581$2,440,132$2,529,713
5 Keaau0.202,716 $142,715$898,996$1,041,711
6 Captain Cook0.333, 350 $142,781$1,108,850$1,251,631
7 Kailua-Kona3.005, 250 $221,082$1,737,750$1,958,832
8 Honokaa0.132,016 $326,881$667,296$994,177
9 Waimea0.688,250 $300,000$2,730,750$3,030,750
10 Pahoa0.412,700 $150,000$893,700$1,043,700
11 Pahala0.741,680 $135,881$556,080$691,961
11aa-Naalehu0.141,026 $136,517$339,606$476,123
12 Keauhou1.514,460 $227,464$1,476,260$1,703,724
14 S. Kohala2.154, 578 $126,790$1,515,318$1,642,108
15 N. Kohala1.251,800 $209,481$595,800$805,281
16 Waikoloa3.004,768 $377,464$1,578,208$1,955,672
17 Laupahoehoe1.531,600 $46,681$529,600$576,281
18 Paradise Park1. 002,137 $65,900$707,347$773,247
19 Volcano0.185,760 $100$1,906,560$1,906,660
20 Ocean View2.003,200 $12,900$1,059,200$1,072,100
Total Replacement Cos ts$3,593,781$27,337,290$30,931,071
Source: Building and land information from County of HawaiÓi Fire Department; building cost based on cost per square foot from
Table 45.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 65
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The estimated replacement cost of the Fire Depart mentÔs existing fire-fighting apparatus and other
vehicles is summarized in Table 47.
Table 47
EXISTING FIRE/EMS VEHICLE COST
Type of VehicleNumberUnit CostTotal Cost
Fire Engine/Pumper21$650,000$13,650,000
Tanker15$300,000$4,500,000
Aerial Platforms1$850,000$850,000
Ambulance24$150,000$3,600,000
Mini Pumper30$150,000$4,500,000
Light Rescue2$150,000$300,000
Brush Truck7$150,000$1,050,000
Utility Bus1$75,000$75,000
Utility Fuel Truck2$55,000$110,000
Trailer (Cargo)2$20,000$40,000
Trailer (Boat)2$7,000$14,000
Haz Mat Truck2$500,000$1,000,000
Boat w/motor2$70,000$140,000
Helicopter w/accessories2$1,750,000$3,500,000
Support Vehicle (Ut ility)53$35,000$1,855,000
Total$35,184,000
Source: Number of vehicles and replacement cost from HawaiÓi County Fir
Department, March 24, 2006 e-mail.
Replacement costs for the rest of the Fire Depart mentÔs equipment were determined from the CountyÔs
fixed asset listings. This was done by adjusting th e original cost for inflation using the Consumer Price
Index. The CountyÔs inventory of Fire Department equipment on t
equipment that can be classified as communications, emergency/fi
on the original cost, the replacement cost for fire /EMS equipment is $5,530,000, as shown in Table 48.
Table 48
EXISTING FIRE/EMS EQUIPMENT COST
Replacement
Type of EquipmentOriginal Cost Cost
Communications Equi pment$1,340,771$2,237,532
Emergency/Fire Equi pment$2,045,423$2,530,800
Office Equipment$417,910$506,408
Other$137,364$255,542
Total$3,941,468$5,530,282
Source: Fixed asset listings from HawaiÓi County Fixed Asset Listing, O
replacement cost based on U.S. Bureau of Labo r Statistics, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City
Average, All Items, All Urban Consumers (1982-84=100 and based o
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 66
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The cost per service unit based on the existing le vel of service can be determined by dividing the
replacement cost of existing fire/EMS facilities by the existing number of public safety service units.
As shown in Table 49, the replacement value of ex isting fire/EMS facilities and equipment is about
$71.7 million. Dividing this by the existing equivale nt dwelling units (EDUs) yields the cost per service
unit of $767 per EDU.
Table 49
FIRE/EMS COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Fire Station Cost$30,931,071
Vehicle Cost$35,184,000
Equipment Cost$5,530,282
Total Replacement Cost$71,645,353
Existing EDUs93,463
Cost per EDU$767
Source: Fire/rescue facility cost from Ta ble 46; vehicle cost from Table
47; equipment cost from Table 48; existing EDUs from Appencix E,
Table ?.
Net Cost per Service Unit
A reduction of impact fees to provid e a credit for future funding to be generated by new development
is generally only required when there is outstanding debt on existing facilitie s that have been counted
in the existing level of service. New developm ent should not be required to pay for new fire/EMS
facilities required to serve it through impact fees, while also having to pay for ex isting fire/EMS facilities
through property tax or other paymen ts used to retire outstanding debt . Fire Department-related debt
issues generally provide funds for new facilities or ma jor equipment purchases. An analysis of past bond
issues shown in Appendix B indicates that currently the CountyÔs
department is $8.1 million. As shown in Table 50 , the CountyÔs current Fire Department debt results
in a credit of $87 per service unit.
Table 50
FIRE/EMS DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Outstanding Debt Principal$8,135,137
Fire Department EDUs93,463
Fire Debt Credit per EDU$87
Source: Total outstanding debt from Appendix B, Table 97; total fire de
EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105.
An additional credit is required in order to accoun t for the portion of past property taxes from vacant
land that have paid for capital facilities. This addi tional credit represents the value of the past five years
of property taxes paid by vacant land for capi tal facilities funded through the general fund.
Based on a review of the CountyÔs CIP status report, no capacity
Department were funded directly from the general fund appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity-
expanding fire/EMS projects were funded through th e CountyÔs GO bonds. As shown in Table 51, the
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 67
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current
over the past five years was $4.5 million.
Table 51
FIRE/EMS GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Fire Department Share of Total Outstanding Debt3.6%
Annual Fire Department Debt Service$897,161
Years 5
Total Debt-Related Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$4,485,805
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County, 2005-06
Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; fire department share of debt from Table 96.
An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $11 per EDU, as
shown in Table 52.
Table 52
FIRE/EMS PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%
Percent of Property Taxes fr om Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%
Share of General Fund Revenue from Vacant/Ag. Land21.6%
Total General Fund Fire/EMS Capacity Funding, 2000-2005$4,485,805
Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Fi re/EMS Capital Cost, 2000-2005$969,078
Total Existing Fire/EMS Replacement Cost$71,645,353
Percent of Existing Cost Paid by Vacant/Ag. Land, 2000-20051.4%
Fire/EMS Cost per EDU$767
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$11
Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from HawaiÓi County 2005-06 Annual Operating
Budget , June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricult
Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; fire general fund
Another factor that is often considered in determi ning fire/EMS impact fees is the degree to which
outside funding has been used to cover a portion of th e capital equipment and facility costs. While there
is no guarantee that the past level of funding will be indicative of future outside funding support, to be
conservative, the cost per service unit will be reduced to account for the likelihood that some gro
related costs can be paid with Federal and State grants. Over t
received an average of $830 ,732 annually in grants for Fire/EMS equipment, as summarized in Table
53.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 68
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 53
FIRE/EMS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANTS, 2001 to 2005
GrantDescriptionYearValue
U.S. Dept of Health & Human ServicesBio-terror trailers2001$60,000
U.S. Dept of Health & Human Se rvicesPediatric Manniquins2001$2,000
U.S. Dept of Homeland Secu rity, FEMAPlymo-Vents2005$406,016
U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, FEMAMobile Live Burn Unit2005$301,000
U.S. Dept of Homeland Securi ty, FEMATraining Eqpmt2002$152,948
U.S. Dept of Interior, National Park SvcVolcano Fire Engine Purchase2004$250,000
U.S. Dept of Interior, US Fish & WildlifePahala Volunteer Eqpt2005$10,000
U.S. Dept of Interior, US Fish & WildlifeTraining Eqpmt2002$5,000
U.S. Dept of Transpor tationLifting Bags2005$36,000
U.S. Dept of Transpor tationSpine Boards2004$10,163
U.S. Dept of TransportationJa ws of Life Stn 3 & 42003$44,000
U.S. Dept of Transportation Child restraint seats2001$11,160
U.S. Dept of Transportati onReciprocating saws2001$11,893
U.S. Dept of Homeland SecurityCo mmunications and Hazmat Eqpt2005$548,000
U.S. Dept of Homeland Securi tyRescue Boat, Vehicles2004$722,160
U.S. Dept of Homeland SecurityHa zmat Eqpt, Hazmat Truck2003$1,133,855
U.S. Dept of Homeland Se curityHazmat Eqpt 2002$449,467
Total $4,153,662
Average Annual Grant Funding $830,732
Source: HawaiÓi County Fire Department, February 11, 2006.
As mentioned above, it may be reasonable to assum e that the grant funding received in the past will
continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yield
grant funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump
sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive
over the next 20 years to help fund Fire Depa rtment facilities and equi pment. Based on these
assumptions, the appropriate credit for potential grant funding is $120 for each service unit, as shown
in Table 54.
Table 54
FIRE/EMS GRANT FUNDING CREDIT
Average Annual Grant Funding$830,732
Fire Department EDUs93,463
Annual Funding per EDU$9
Present Value Factor (20 years @ 4.25%)13.29
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$120
Source: Average annual grant funding from Tabl e 53; total fire department EDUs from
Appendix D, Table 105 ; discount rate for present value factor f
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 69
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
As shown in Table 55, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit and anticipated grant funding
per service unit leaves a net cost of $549 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service for the
CountyÔs fire and emergency medical service.
Table 55
FIRE/EMS NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Replacement Cost per EDU$767
Debt Credit per EDU$87
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$11
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$120
Net Cost per EDU$549
Source: Total replacement cost per EDU from Table 49; outstanding capit
debt per EDU from Table 50; property tax credit from Table 52, g
funding credit per EDU from Table 54.
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum potential fire/rescue impact fees, ba sed on the information, analysis and assumptions
described in this report, are calculated in Table 56.
Table 56
FIRE/EMS NET COST SCHEDULE
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land UseUnit Unit EDU Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.Dwelling0.97$549$533
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.Dwelling1.03$549$566
1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.06$549$582
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.13$549$621
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.20$549$659
4,000 sq. ft. or moreDwelling1.28$549$703
Single-Family (flat rate)Dwelling1.00$549$549
Multi-FamilyDwelling0.78$549$429
Hotel/MotelRoom0.47$549$258
Retail/Commercial1000 sq. ft.1.51$549$830
Office/Institutional1000 sq. ft.0.85$549$467
Industrial1000 sq. ft.0.53$549$291
Warehouse1000 sq. ft.0.34$549$187
Source; EDUs per unit from Appendix D, Table 105; net cost per EDU from
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 70
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $49.5 million is proposed for fire/EMS infrastructure improvements in the CountyÔs 2005-
06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP ), plus projects anticipated to be added to next
yearÔs CIP. Impact fees may only be used for capa city-expanding improvements for new fire stations
or expansions and additional equipment. Some porti on of station replacement costs may be eligible if
the new station is larger or in some other way pr ovides more capacity to serve growth. However, in
most cases the planning for the replacement stations is not far enough advanced to identify the size of
the new station. Based on available information, e ligible improvements account for $23.7 million of the
total planned project costs. The current list of pla nned eligible improvements is shown in Table 57.
Additional eligible improvement will need to be identified for the proposed 1-N/S Kohala benefit
district before impact fees are implemented for this area.
Table 57
FIRE/EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Proposed
Benefit Impact
Judicial
Project District DistrictTotal Cost Fee Eligible
Honokaa Fire Station (replaceme nt)Hamakua2-Hilo/Hamakua$2,250,000$0
Keaau Fire Station (replacement )S Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$3,750,000$0
Central Fire Station (replaceme nt)S Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$3,750,000$0
Paauilo Fire StationHamakua2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,800,000$1,800,000
Kawailani Fire Station (replaceme nt)S Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$4,600,000$0
Pahoa Fire Staton (replacement )*Puna3-Puna/KaÓu$3,500,000$2,360,000
Naalehu Fire Station (replace ment)KaÓu3-Puna/KaÓu$2,250,000$0
Volcano Fire Station (replace ment)KaÓu3-Puna/KaÓu$2,250,000$0
Kalaoa Fire StationN Ko na4-N/S Kona$2,350,000$2,350,000
Captain Cook Fire Station (repla cement)S Kona4-N/S Kona$1,150,000$0
Kailua Fire Station AnnexN Kona4-N/S Kona$2,300,000$2,300,000
Koloko-Honokohau Area Fire Stat ionN Kona4-N/S Kona$4,600,000$4,600,000
Kona Makai Fire Station (repla cement)N Kona4-N/S Kona$4,600,000$0
Fire Fighter Training Facilit yS HiloCounty-Wide$1,800,000$1,800,000
Fire Admin. and Support Complex S HiloCounty-Wide$8,500,000$8,500,000
Total $49,450,000$23,710,000
* new station will be larger than existing station (8,289 versus 2,700 sq. ft.)--share attributab le to larger size station
is eligible. Size data provided by Fire Department on August 10, 2006.
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program , June 2006; additional projects from Fire
Department, August 7, 2006.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 71
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 72
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 10: POLICE
Each of the eight dist ricts is served by a main police station. There are also four s
combined police headquarters for Hilo and the County is located in the Hilo Public Safety Building on
Kaiolani Street. The location of the existing poli ce stations and substations are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8
POLICE STATION LOCATIONS
Assessment and Benefit Districts
As with fire/EMS fees, most police impact fees are a ssessed at the jurisdiction le vel. Central facilities
serve the entire island, and officers may patrol or respond to calls beyond their stationÔs primary
response area. The four benefit districts proposed for fire/EMS
police impact fees (see Figure 2 on page 18). However, up to 2
could be used for county-wide projects or projects in neighboring distri cts that provide benefit to the
district in which the fees are collected.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 73
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Service Unit
The recommended approach for police impact fees is to use the se
unitsÒ or EDUsÐdescribed in Appendix D and also utilized for fire/EMS facilities.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit based on the existing le vel of service can be determined by dividing the
replacement cost of existing police and law enfor cement facilities, equipment, and vehicles by the
existing number of public safety service units.
The Police Department owns each of the eight di strict police stations, including the Public Safety
Building in Hilo, and three of the sub-station fac ilities. The Ocean View Substation and the ten mini
police stations are all located in le ased or shared facilities with othe r County departments. In addition,
the police departmentÔs 12 radio sites are all located on either leased land or co-located on land with
other County facilities. Leased and co-located facilit ies and radio sites are not included in the analysis
of facility costs.
The total value of existing County- owned police facilities is based on th e existing facility size and recent
construction costs for the East HawaiÓi Detention Fa cility at the Public Safety Complex of $450 per
square foot. The value of the police facility land is available based on the land purchased for the
detention facility in Hilo in 2001. The combined re placement value of the existing police facilities, is
estimated to be $71.74 million, as shown in Table 58.
Table 58
EXISTING POLICE FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS
Building Land Building Total
NameAcres sq. ft. Cost Cost Costs
Public Safety Complex7.94 88,364$2,380,799$39,763,800$42,144,599
Laupahoehoe1.56 5,248$59,508$2,361,600$2,421,108
Honokaa2.39 5,280$91,514$2,376,000$2,467,514
South Kohala14.80 6,048$566,109$2,721,600$3,287,709
Maunalani Sub-Station2 .16 255$82,523$114,750$197,273
North Kohala2.50 3,150$95,645$1,417,500$1,513,145
Kona10.00 21,312$382,580$9,590,400$9,972,980
Captain Cook Sub-Station4. 01 10,000$153,231$4,500,000$4,653,231
KaÓu5.00 3,864$191,290$1,738,800$1,930,090
Puna0.39 5,900$14,934$2,655,000$2,669,934
Pahoa Sub-Station0.29 1,056$10,940$475,200$486,140
$4,029,073$67,714,650$71,743,723
Source: Police facility land and building informatio n from HawaiÓi Police Department Tax Map Key; Public Safety Complex land cost
based on 2001 land purchase in Hilo, and police facility replace t cost based on East HawaiÓi Detention Facility (Hilo) cost of $450
per square foot in 2002, both provided by Hawaii Police Departme age
park land cost per acre.
The Police DepartmentÔs current inventory of law enforcement vehicles and major capital equipment
is listed in Table 59. The County police department do es not maintain a fleet of patrol vehicles; instead,
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 74
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
the county reimburses patrol officers for the use of their private vehicle and provides vehicle equipment.
Based on current cost to purchase new equipment, the total replacement cost for all County-owned
vehicles, subsidized vehicle equipment and other major capital e
Table 59
POLICE VEHICLE AND MAJOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST
Vehicle UnitsCost/UnitTotal Cost
Support Vehicles12$40,000$480,000
Prisoner Transport Van2$42,000$84,000
Special Response Vehicle1$330,000$330,000
Gas Chomatograph1$90,000$90,000
Infrared System1$79,600$79,600
Dictation System1$174,000$174,000
Digital Recording System1$90,000$90,000
Emergency Generator2$130,000$260,000
Patrol Vehicle Equi pment373$2,785$1,038,805
Total Replacement Cost$2,626,405
Source: Number of vehicles provided by HawaiÓi County Police Chief, Sept
from Police Chief, August 23, and September 15, 2005.
Dividing the total law enforcement replacement cost s by the existing equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
yields the cost per service unit. The cost per service unit is based on the existing level of service; as
shown in Table 60, the cost per service unit is $796 per EDU.
Table 60
POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Police Department Vehicles and Capital Equipment$2,626,405
Police Station Facilities$71,743,723
Total, Existing Replacement Cost$74,370,128
Existing EDUs, 200593,463
Total Cost per EDU$796
Source : Cost of vehicles and equipment from Ta ble 59; police facilities cost from Table
58; existing EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Over the last five years, the County has received an average of $522,100 annually in Federal grants for
major police department equipment and buildings, as summarized i
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 75
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 61
POLICE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005
Item Year Amount
East HawaiÓi Detention Facilit y (Block Grant Funds)2002$2,618,801
Special Response Team Command Vehicle2004$330,889
4 x 4 Ford Van2004$33,172
Ford Van2005$30,000
Chevrolet MSTR2002$93,707
4 x 4 Ford2005$25,800
Total Grant Funding 2000-2005$3,132,369
Average Annual Grant Funding $522,100
Source: HawaiÓi County Police Department Chief, August 23 and September
It is reasonable to assume that the grant funding r eceived per police department service unit in the past
will continue in the future. Dividing the average a nnual grant funding by exis ting service units yields
annual funding per service unit. Mu ltiplying that by the present value factor results in the curren
sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive
over the next 20 years to help fund police equi pment and improvements. Based on these assumptions,
the appropriate credit for potential grant funding for the Police Department is $74 for each new single-
family home, or police service unit equivalent, as shown in Tabl
Table 62
POLICE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT
Average Annual Grant Funding$522,100
Existing Police EDUs, 200593,463
Annual Funding per EDU$5.59
Present Value Factor (20 years @ 4.25%)13.29
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$74
Source: Average annual grant funding fr om Table 61; existing police
department EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105; discount rate for
present value factor from Table 23.
As with other facility impact fees, a reduction of impa ct fees to provide a credit for future funding to
be generated by new development is required for outs tanding debt on existing facilities that have been
counted in the existing level of service. An analys is of past bond issues indicates that currently the
CountyÔs outstanding debt related to the police depa rtment is $5.5 million. As shown in Table 63, the
Police DepartmentÔs current outstanding debt resul ts in a debt credit of $59 per service unit.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 76
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 63
POLICE DEBT CREDIT
Outstanding Police Depart ment Related Debt$5,532,926
Existing EDUs93,463
Debt Credit per EDU$59
Source: Police department debt from Appendix B, Table 97; existing
EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105.
State law requires a credit for property taxes paid by vacant land during the five years before it is
developed and used for capacity-expanding police facility improv
CountyÔs CIP status report, no capacity-expanding projects for the Police Department were funded
directly from the general fund appropriations sin ce 2001. All recent capacity-expanding police projects
were funded through the CountyÔs GO bonds. As shown in Table 64, the estimated annual principal
and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for the police department over the past five years
was $2.5 million.
Table 64
POLICE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Police Share of Total Outstanding Debt2.0%
Annual Police Department Debt Service$498,423
Years5
Total Debt-Related Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$2,492,114
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County,
2005-06 Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; police department share of debt
from Table 95.
An analysis of budgetary and tax da ta indicates that vacant and agricu ltural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past pro
shown in Table 65.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 77
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 65
POLICE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%
Percent of Property Taxes fr om Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%
Percent of Credit for Past Property Tax Payments21.6%
Total General Fund Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$2,492,114
Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost$538,377
Existing Police EDUs93,463
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$5.76
Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from HawaiÓi County 2005-06 Annual Operating
Budget , June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricult
Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; police department
Table 64; police EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105.
As shown in Table 66, reducing the cost per servi ce unit by the debt credit, property tax credit and
anticipated grant funding per service unit leaves a net cost of
level of service.
Table 66
POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Police Replacement Cost per EDU$796
Debt Credit per EDU$59
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$6
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$74
Net Police Cost per EDU $657
Source: Total police replacement cost per EDU from Table 60; debt
credit per EDU from Table 63; past property tax credit from Tabl
grant funding credit per EDU from Table 62.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 78
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum potential police department impact fees, based on th
assumptions described in this report, are calculated in Table 67
Table 67
POLICE NET COST SCHEDULE
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land UseUnit Unit EDU Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.Dwelling0.97$657$637
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.Dwelling1.03$657$677
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.06$657$696
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.13$657$742
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.Dwelling1.20$657$788
4,000 sq. ft. or moreDwelling1.28$657$841
Single-Family (flat rate)Dwelling1.00$657$657
Multi-FamilyDwelling0.78$657$512
Hotel/MotelRoom0.47$657$309
Retail/Commercial1000 sq. ft.1.51$657$992
Office/Institutional1000 sq. ft.0.85$657$558
Industrial1000 sq. ft.0.53$657$348
Warehouse1000 sq. ft.0.34$657$223
Source; EDUs per unit from Appendix D, Table 105; net cost per EDU from
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $72.2 million is proposed for police infr astructure improvements in the CountyÔs 2005-06
to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity-
expanding improvements such as new police stations or enhancemen
equipment that provide capabilities beyond the current level of service. A detailed breakdown of each
project component cost was not available; conseque ntly, the identification of eligible projects is
preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible im provements account for $13.8 million of the total CIP
costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-y
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 79
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 68
POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Proposed
Benefit Total Impact Fee Eligible
Judicial
Project District District Cost
S. Kohala Police Station Parking Lot ExpansionS Kohala1-N/S Kohala$25,000$25,000
S. Kohala Heating and Cooling Impr ovementS Kohala1-N/S Kohala$68,000
Kalaoa SubstationHamaku a2-Hilo/Hamakua$50,000$50,000
Pahoa Police SubstationS. H ilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$2,685,000$2,685,000
Public Safety ComplexHilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,300,000$1,300,000
Security Fencing for Pu blic Safety ComplexHilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua$125,000$125,000
District Holding Cell Improv ementsHilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$312,000
Public Safety Complex Indoor RangeHilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$150,000$150,000
Police Records Renovation Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$35,000
Puna Police StationPuna3- Puna/KaÓu$3,685,000$3,685,000
Kealakehe Refueling Station UpgradeS. Kona4-N/S Kona$300,000
Captain Cook StationS Ko na4-N/S Kona$3,685,000$3,685,000
Kona Evidence WarehouseN Kona4-N/S Kona$130,000$130,000
Renovation of District StationsVariousVarious$150,000
700 Megahertz SystemVa riousVarious$21,000,000
700 Megahertz ConversionV ariousVarious$23,040,000
Microwave relocation/renov ationVariousVarious$13,610,000
Data/Information Transmission SystemVariousVarious$2,000,000$2,000,000
Total $72,207,000$13,760,000
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 80
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 11: SOLID WASTE
The County currently has two landfill sites: the
sanitary landfill at PuÓuanahulu on the west side of the
island and the unlined landfill in Hilo on the east side
of the island. There are 21 solid waste transfer sites,
like the one pictured at righ t, situated throughout the
island. The locations of the landfills and solid waste
transfer stations are shown in Figure 9.
Residents can drop off their household solid waste for
free at the transfer stations . However, some residents
pay private haulers to pick up their garbage.
Commercial businesses and private haulers are
required to take their solid waste to the landfill, where
they are charged a tipping fee. Commercially-hauled
rubbish accounts for 61 percent of the waste entering
the landfill, while the remaining 39 percent is
household waste from transfer stations. Tipping fees account for 35 percent of revenue for the
operation of the Solid Waste Division, while the re mainder of the DivisionÔs budget comes from the
general fund.
Figure 9
LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION LOCATIONS
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 81
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Faced with the possible closure of the Hilo solid waste facility
11
waste disposal in its waste management plan. The waste management plan concluded that the County
has enough capacity at the PuÓuanahulu landfill to accommodate t
entire county for 35 to 50 years and that an additiona l landfill would not be needed in the near future.
The report emphasized the recovery of recyclable materials and w
education and improved facilities. Both the waste management pl
construction of two new waste transf er stations; however, County staff indicated that additional tra
facilities are unlikely.
The use of impact fee revenue is restricted to projects that add capacity. It is unknown what additional
capacity expansion activity is planned beyond the c onstruction of additional residential waste transfer
facilities already programmed in the CIP. Improvements to existing sites may not be eligible for impact
fee funding if they do not increase the capacity of the transfer facility. Before implementing a solid
waste impact fee the County should determine if there are sufficient capacity-enhancing needs for solid
waste, or if the capacity of the existing fa cilities are adequate to serve planned growth.
Assessment and Benefit Districts
Given the likelihood that the county will eventually be served b
stations and landfill will operate as one interconnected system for the entire island. Consequently, the
fees should be calculated county-wide. However, th e County may desire to divide the county into the
four benefit districts recommended for the other fac ilities (see Figure 2 on page 18). It is recommended
that the County should earmark only 60 percent of th e funds collected in each district to be spent within
that district, with the remaining 40 percent available to be used in any benefit district or for county-wide
functions such as landfill improvements. This percen tage approximates the relative replacement costs
of transfer stations versus landfill and vehicles.
Service Unit
HawaiÓi County does not provide residential or comme rcial waste collection services. According to the
CountyÔs Solid Waste Division, private companies ha ul approximately 61 percent of the waste and pay
12
a tipping fee to dump the was te at the CountyÔs landfill sites.
The remaining 39 percent is self-hauled
waste taken to the CountyÔs transfer stations, which are provide
Approximately 87 percent of all single-family house holds self-haul rubbish to one of the islands 21
transfer stations. Since the County charges commercia l customers for the solid waste service, the impact
fee for solid waste should apply only to residential land uses t
The total number of service units utilized for ca lculation of the solid waste impact fee only include
single-family detached units. In addition, the service units are adjusted to reflect the proportion of
households that currently utilize the transfer stations rather than contract with a private hauler. As
shown in Table 69, for purposes of calculating the im pact fee, the estimated tota l solid waste residential
EDUs is 51,132.
11
Harding ESE, Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the Cou , December 2002
12
Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division, March 10, 2006 memorandum
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 82
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 69
EXISTING SOLID WASTE SERVICE UNITS
Single-Family Detached Units58,772
Transfer Station Utilization Rate87%
Total Solid Waste EDUs51,132
Source: Existing units from Table 98 in Appendix C; EDUs
per unit from Table 30; transfer station utilization rate from
Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste
Division, March 10, 2006 memorandum.
Cost Per Service Unit
The CountyÔs existing solid waste capital equipment and faciliti
used to determine the cost per service unit. The County provide
residents to discard their solid waste. The tota l estimated replacement value of the CountyÔs 21 solid
waste facilities is shown in Table 70. The Keauhou facility was the most r ecently constructed transfer
station; the transfer station improvement were constr ucted in 1999 at a cost of approximately $550,000;
adjusted for increased construction costs, the current replacement cost for each transfer station would
be approximately $698,000. As shown in Table 70, based on the m
value of the transfer facilities is $14.8 million. The replacement cost does not include the value
since land value and property information for th e transfer facility sites are unavailable.
Table 70
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION COST
FacilityYearOriginal CostCCIAdj. Cost
Transfer Station Unit Cost1999$554,2981.271$705,000
Total Sites 21
Total$14,805,000
Source: HawaiÓi County Fixed asset by fund, October 2005; original const
by Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index from year of acquisition to June 2006.
As previously mentioned, HawaiÓi County has two la ndfill sites; however, only the West HawaiÓi landfill
has available capacity. The West HawaiÓi landfill (P uÓuanahulu) is located on land that was provided to
the County by the State of HawaiÓi and is operated by County personnel with management assistance
from Waste Management of HawaiÓi, Inc. (WMI). WMI is responsibl
development of landfill cells, environmental monitoring of the facility, and closure and post-closure care
of the facility. The facility has sufficient capacity for an es
Most capacity-expanding investments at the West la ndfill, such as the construction of new cells, are
undertaken by Waste Management as part of the operating contract
fees. Nonetheless, the County has funded several majo r improvements over the past 10 years; the value
of the identifiable capacity-related improv ements to the site are shown in Table 71.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 83
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 71
SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST
FacilityYearOriginal CostCCIAdj. Cost
West Hawaii Landfill1997$4,805,4981.320$6,343,257
West Hawaii Landfill1995$4,499,7911.400$6,299,707
Total$9,305,289$12,642,965
Percent Attributable to Residential39.0%
Total$4,930,756
Source: HawaiÓi County Fixed asset by fund, October 2005; original const
by ENR CCI from year of acquisition to January 2005.
Table 72 shows the inventory of solid waste equipm ent owned by the County. Some of the CountyÔs
solid waste vehicles are financed with capital leases ; these vehicles were omitted from the inventory since
there is no information regarding the outstanding payments on th
landfill costs, the total value of the equipment has b een adjusted to account for the residential share of
solid waste generation.
Table 72
SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment TypeUnitsUnit CostTotal Cost
R/TR38$93,000$3,534,000
Support Vehicles34$29,000$986,000
P/B TR11$117,000$1,287,000
Tractors5$100,000$500,000
Dump Truck4$54,000$216,000
Wilkens TLR4$99,000$396,000
Backhoe3$62,000$186,000
Cat Hauler2$365,000$730,000
B/Lowboy1$100,000$100,000
Cat Loader1$112,000$112,000
Subtotal$8,047,000
Percent Attributable to Residential39.0%
Total$3,138,330
Source: Equipment type and quantity derived from HawaiÓi County Fixed a
October 2005; average unit cost based on original purchase price
adjusted by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Inde
Items, All Urban Consumers (1982-84=100 and based on April 2006
equipment asset value adjustment based on amo unt attributable to residential customers.
As shown in Table 73, the replacement value for the CountyÔs existing residential solid waste facilities,
equipment and vehicle fleet is an estimated $22.87 milli on. The full value of the transfer stations are
included; however, only the value of the landfill facility that is attributed to residential
utilizing the transfer stations is included, since th e tipping fees from commerc ial haulers provide funds
for the landfill facility. Dividing the cost of exis ting capital by the solid waste service unit population
of the County results in a cost per residential EDU of $447.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 84
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 73
SOLID WASTE COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Transfer Station Cost$14,805,000
Landfill Cost$4,930,756
Solid Waste Equipment Cost$3,138,330
Total Replacement Cost$22,874,086
Solid Waste EDUs51,132
Cost per EDU$447
Source : Transfer station costs from Tabl e 70; landfill cost from Table 71
adjusted by 39% based on share of fa cility attributable to nonresidential
customers. solid waste equipment cost from Table 72; solid waste
EDUs from Table 69.
Net Cost per Service Unit
A reduction of impact fees to provid e a credit for future funding to be generated by new development
is required for outstanding debt and capital leases for solid waste equipment and facilities. As shown
in Table 74, the County has $12.3 million in outstandin g debt related to solid waste facilities. However,
approximately $5.7 million is related to residential services by allocating one-half of the debt for t
landfill facilities to the residential customers.
Table 74
SOLID WASTE OUTSTANDING DEBT ALLOCATION
Original Issue
Transfer Res. Share Current Residential
Debt IssueLandfill Station of Debt SW Debt SW Debt
1993$18,200,000$35,00039.1% $9,497,250$3,715,047
1999a$70,000$1,000,00096.0% $952,560$914,547
2004b$370,000$694,74578.8% $605,895$477,460
Total$18,640,000$1,729,74544. 2% $11,055,705$5,107,054
Unknown44.2% $1,232,949$544,716
Total Residential Solid Waste Debt$12,288,654$5,651,770
Source: Original debt issue data from HawaiÓi County Fina nce Department; residential share of debt based on
39% allocation of landfill-related debt and 100% of tran sfer station debt for each issue; current outstanding
solid waste and unknown debt from Appendix B, Table 97; unknown debt allocated to residential customers
based on average residential share of total outstanding debt.
Deducting the outstanding debt from the total availa ble replacement cost and th en dividing the existing
service units yields the net cost per service unit, as shown in
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 85
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 75
SOLID WASTE DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT
Outstanding Debt$5,651,770
Residential EDUs51,132
Debt Credit per EDU$111
Source: Outstanding debt from Table 74; existing EDUs from Table 69.
Based on a review of the CountyÔs CIP status report, no capacity-expanding projects for the solid waste
facilities were funded directly from the general fu nd appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity-
expanding solid waste projects were funded through the CountyÔs GO bonds. As shown in Table 76,
the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the curr
over the past five years was $4.3 million.
Table 76
SOLID WASTE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Residential Share of Solid Waste Debt Service44.2%
Solid Waste Share of Total Outstanding Debt7.8%
Annual Debt Service$859,181
Years 5
Total Debt-Related Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$4,295,906
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County, 2005-06 Annual
Operating Budget , June 2006; residential share of solid waste debt service from
share of debt from Table 96.
An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $18.14 per EDU,
as shown in Table 77.
Table 77
SOLID WASTE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%
Percent of Property Taxes fr om Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%
Percent of Solid Waste Credit for Past Property Tax Payments21.6
Total General Fund Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$4,293,958
Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost$927,633
Residential EDUs51,132
Past Property Tax Cr edit per EDU$18.14
Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from HawaiÓi County 2005-06 Annual Operating
Budget , June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricult
Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; solid waste gener
76;existing EDUs from Table 69.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 86
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Over the last five years, the Coun ty has received an average of $291, 300 annually in Federal and State
grants for capacity-related enhancement project for so lid waste facilities, as summarized in Table 78.
Table 78
SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005
GranteeItemYear Amount
EPARecycling center planning and development for Keaau2002$400,000
EPARecycling center for Waim ea planning and design2004$397,600
CBDGRepair and enhancement of five transfer stations2004$250,000
StateDevelopment of 8 container deposi t centers at transfer stations2004$150,000
StateDevelopment of 10 co ntainer deposit centers at transfer stations2005$550,000
Total Grant Funding 2000-2005$1,747,600
Average Annual Grant Funding $291,300
Source: HawaiÓi County Department of Environmental Management Director, March 10, 2006 memo.
It may be reasonable to assume that the grant fundin g received per solid waste service unit in the past
will continue in the future. Dividing the average a nnual grant funding by existing service units yields
annual funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump
sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive
over the next 20 years to help fund solid waste collection facilities. Base d on these assumptions, the
appropriate credit for potential grant funding for the solid waste division is $76 for
family home, or solid waste service unit equivalent, as shown in
Table 79
SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT
Average Annual Grant Funding$291,300
Existing Solid Waste EDUs, 200551,132
Annual Funding per EDU$5.70
Present Value Factor (20 years @ 4.25%)13.29
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$76
Source: Average annual grant funding from Table 78; existing EDUs
from Table 69; discount rate for present value factor from Table
As shown in Table 80, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit and property tax credit
a net cost of $242 per EDU to maintain the existing level of ser
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 87
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 80
SOLID WASTE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Replacement Cost per EDU$447
Debt Credit per EDU$111
Past Property Tax Credit per EDU$18
Grant Funding Credit per EDU$76
Net Solid Waste Cost per EDU $242
Source: Replacement cost per EDU from Table 73; outstanding debt
per EDU from Table 75; past property tax credit per EDU from Tab
grant funding credit from Table 79.
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum potential solid waste impact fees, ba sed on the information, analysis and assumptions
described in this report, are calculated in Table 81. The solid waste fee only applies to single-family
residential properties that utilize the self-haul transfer stati
Table 81
SOLID WASTE NET COST SCHEDULE
Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Housing TypeEDUs/Unit EDU Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.0.97$242$235
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.1.03$242$250
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.1.06$242$257
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.1.13$242$274
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.1.20$242$291
4,000 sq. ft. or more1.28$242$310
Single-Family (flat rate)1.00$242$242
Source : EDUs per unit from Table 69; net cost per EDU from Table 80.
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $44.4 million is proposed for solid waste infrastructure improvements in the CountyÔs 2005-
06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (C IP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity-
expanding improvements for facilities or equipment that expand the current capacity of solid waste
collection or potentially for recycling activities th at reduce the volume of solid waste entering the
CountyÔs landfill facility. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available;
consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible
improvements account for $16.4 million of the to tal CIP costs. The current list of eligible
improvements from the six-year CIP and County staff is shown in Table 93. Eligible projects should
be identified for 4-N/S Kona benefit district prior to implement
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 88
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 82
SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Proposed
Benefit Impact Fee
Judicial
Project District DistrictTotal Cost Eligible
Green Waste FacilityS Koha la1-N/S Kohala$1,500,000$1,500,000
Equipment Maintenance Facilit yS Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$7,900,000
Hilo Scrap Metal Salvage FacilityS Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,550,000$1,550,000
Hilo Scrap Metal Yard Remediat ionS Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$1,650,000
Hilo Baseyard FacilityS Hilo2-Hilo/Hamakua$825,000$825,000
Waiea Transfer StationK aÓu3-Puna/KaÓu$50,000$50,000
Kona Scrap Metal Yard Remedi ationN Kona4-N/S Kona$1,100,000
Kailua Landfill Remediatio nN Kona4-N/S Kona$2,150,000
Waimea Landfill RemediationS KohalaCounty-Wide$2,200,000
Transfer Station Replace/Enhancem entVariousCounty- Wide$3,900,000$3,900,000
S Hilo Landfill ClosureS HiloCounty-Wide$13,000,000
West HawaiÓi Regional Sort Stat ionVariousCounty- Wide$8,550,000$8,550,000
Total $44,375,000$16,375,000
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program , June 2006; green waste facility project cost
from HawaiÓi, County Department of Environmental Management, Aug
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 89
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 90
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
CHAPTER 12: WASTEWATER
As shown in Figure 10, HawaiÓi County presently operates municip
PapaÓikou, Kapehu, Pepeekeo and Kealakehe. The re st of the island is served by private wastewater
treatment facilities, or individual facilities such as cesspools or septic tanks. About 77 percent
HawaiÓi County population is served by cesspools. The State Department of Health intends to
promulgate rules that will prohibit cesspools in HawaiÓi County.
Figure 10
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 91
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The County currently charges a water Ñfacilities chargeÒ to cove
infrastructure, but does not have a comparable fee fo r wastewater. The water facilities fee is $1,190 for
the first dwelling unit (or water demand equivalent), and $5,500
Residents and businesses that are connected to a Cou nty sewer system pay user fees which fund all
operations and maintenance. The County could charge new wastewa
cover a pro rata share of the capi tal costs of the treatment plants, interceptors, force mains and pumping
facilities.
Assessment and Benefit Districts
The County provides wastewater
Figure 11
service to customers located in the
SEWER SERVICE AREAS
vicinity of one of the five existing
wastewater treatment facilities. It is
recommended that the wastewater
impact fee service area should be
limited to areas currently served by a
wastewater treatment plant. For this
study, a county-wide level of service
will be calculated based on existing
facilities, with a benefit district
established for each existing wastewater
treatment plant, as shown in Figure 11.
The wastewater impact fees will only be
assessed on new customers when they
connect to the County wastewater
system.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 92
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Service Unit
To calculate wastewater impact fees, the wastewater demand associated with different types of
customers must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, cal
Family EquivalentÒ unit or SFE is a common denominator that conver ts all classes of customers into
a common unit of expression. An SFE is the wastewa ter demand associated with a typical single-family
residence.
Wastewater impact fees for new residential customers will be charged on a per unit basis, with the fee
based on the anticipated wastewater demand compar ed to a typical single-family dwelling. For
nonresidential uses, wastewater impact fees are almost universally char ged based on the size of the water
meter, irrespective of land use. Table 83 is the recommended equivalency table, showing the capacity
of water meters of various sizes and the equivalency factors.
Table 83
METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
Capacity SFEs/
Meter Size (gpm) Meter
5/8" x 3/4" Meter10 1.0
1" Meter25 2.5
1-1/2" Meter50 5.0
2" Meter 80 8.0
3" Meter160 16.0
4" Meter250 25.0
6" Meter500 50.0
8" Meter800 80.0
10" Meter1,450 145.0
Source: Midrange of normal operating flow rates in gallons per
minute for simple (less than 3"), compound (3-8") and turbine
(10") meters from American Water Works Association, AWWA
Standards C700-95, C702-01, C701-88.
Customarily, the number of existing wastewater SF Es is based on the number of water customers by
meter size with the demand per SF E calculated based on average daily wastewater flow. By definition,
a typical single-family unit represents, on average, one SFE. In the absence of such customer data, the
demand per wastewater service unit in this study was estimated by utilizing an assumed average daily
consumption of 80 gallons per day (gpd) per capita for residential customers that was utilized in both
13
the 2004 wastewater capacity fee study and the 1990 HawaiÓi County impact fee study.
Demand for wastewater facilities is proportional to the number of people in a dwelling unit or hotel
room. Consequently, data on average household size fo r various types of units is a critical component
in determining the wastewater impact fee in the absence of actual customer data. Other types of unit
each represent an SFE, based on their relative av erage household sizes and wastewater demand per unit.
The relative SFEs per unit are based on demographic data presen
13
R.W. Beck, Needs Assessment Study and C apacity Assessment Fee Study , prepared for the County of HawaiÓi,
Department of Environmental Management, Wa stewater Division, January 2004 Draft Report
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 93
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The wastewater demand and SFEs associated with ea ch housing type and unit size category are shown
in Table 84.
Table 84
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNIT MULTIPLIERS
Land UseAvg HH SizeGPDSFEs/Unit
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.2.78222.40.97
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.2.95236.01.03
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.3.06244.81.07
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.3.23258.41.13
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.3.45276.01.20
4,000 sq. ft or more3.68294.41.28
Single-Family (flat rate)2.87229.61.00
Multi-Family2.26180.80.79
Hotel/Motel1.34107.20.47
Source: Average household size for single-family average and multi-fami
in Appendix C; average household sizes by size categories from T
average occupancy for hotel/motel rooms estimated to be one-half
occupancy on vacation trips, as reported by U.S. Dept. of Transp
Travel Survey, 2001; gallons per day is base d on assumed demand of 80 gpd per capita;
SFEs/unit is ratio of average household size to single-family de
Wastewater System Capacity
As mentioned in the introduction, HawaiÓi County presently operates municipal wastewater systems in
Hilo, PapaÓikou, Kapehu, Pepeekeo and Kealakehe. The systemÔs c
average wastewater flow that the five treatment plants are designed for, less an allowance for inflow
infiltration during dry weather. As shown in Tabl e 85, the estimated system capacity is 9.97 million
gallons per day (mgd).
Table 85
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY
Design Est. Inflow/ Estimated Avg.
Facility Flow (mgd) Infiltration (mgd) Capacity (mgd)
Hilo5.000.804.20
Kealakehe5.310.315.01
Kapehu0.020.000.02
Kulaimano0.500.070.43
Papaikou0.350.030.32
Total11.181.219.97
Source: R.W. Beck, Needs Assessment Study and Capacity Assessment Fee Study ,
January 2004 Draft Report.
The 2004 wastewater capacity fee study concluded th at the existing collection system could not serve
a greater capacity than the existing wastewater treatment facilities. For the purpose of determining the
wastewater impact fee, the combined capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and collections
facilities is the same as the total estimated wastewater treatme
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 94
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Cost Per Service Unit
In HawaiÓi County, developers are generally require d to install collection fac ilities such as laterals and
collector sewers. These collection facilities typically consist of force mains and gravity sewers that are
less than 12-inches in diameter. Based on a review of Wastewater Division construction records, the
2004 wastewater needs assessment study found that interceptor and force main costs are estimated to
be 45 percent of the total collecti on system project cost; the remainin g 55 percent of collection system
project costs are for laterals and collector sewers.
The cost of facilities included in the impact fee in clude 55 percent of collection facility costs and 100
percent of the costs for the public service center, pumping and treatment. However, if interceptor and
force mains are funded through assessments or State revolving lo
assessments, they would need to be excluded from the impact fee calculation or a credit for the
interceptor and force main costs would need to be provided for p
assessments.
Since growth generally cannot be served with older, depreciated facilities, but instead will require new
facilities, it is appropriate to base the fees on the repl acement cost of existing facilities adjusted to reflect
existing debt and current capacity level. An inventor y of existing wastewater facilities is shown in Table
108 in Appendix F.
Table 86 shows a summary of the replacement value of the facilities based on the original cost of the
facility adjusted to account for increases in constru ction and material costs. As with the 2004 study, the
CountyÔs Building and Improvement Inventory was used to estimate the cost in 2005 dollars of
replacing wastewater facilities. The total estimated replacement cost is $244.4 million. However, since
some of the collection facilities were installed by de velopers, the collection facility cost is adjusted to
account for the share of those facilities that are re lated to interceptor and force mains that are less than
12-inches in diameter. As a result, the adjusted replacement cost of HawaiÓi CountyÔs wastewater
facilities is an estimated $197.6 million.
Table 86
WASTEWATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST
Cost
Facility TypeReplacement Cost Adj.Adjusted Cost
Public Service Center$421,438100%$421,438
Collection$85,045,79045%$38,270,606
Pumping$34,860,160100%$34,860,160
Treatment$124,031,840100%$124,031,840
Total, Wastewater Fa cilities$244,359,228$197,584,044
Source: Replacement cost from Table 108 of Appendix F; cost adjustment ba sed on estimated cost
of force mains and > 12-inch diameter gravity sewers from Needs Assessment Study and Capacity
Assessment Fee Study , January 2004.
The wastewater cost per SFE is determined based on the systemÔs
capacity, and wastewater demand per SFE. As s hown in Table 87, dividing the cost of existing
wastewater facilities by the systemÔs capacity results in a wast
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 95
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 87
WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Wastewater Facility Cost$197,584,044
Wastewater Capacity (gpd)9,970,000
Cost per Gallon per Day$20
Gallons per Day per SFE230
Cost per SFE$4,550
Source : Wastewater facility cost from Table 86; capacity from Table 85;
gallons per day per SFE from Table 84.
Net Cost per Service Unit
As with other facility impact fees, a reduction of impact fees to provid e a credit for future funding to
be generated by new development is required for outstanding debt on existing wastewater facilities that
have been counted in the existing level of service. The County
Revolving Fund (SRF) loans from the State of HawaiÓ i to finance wastewater capital projects. Currently,
there is an estimated $2.4 million in outstanding SR F debt principal. Based on the analysis of GO bond
issues and the current outstanding debt, the total GO bond outstanding balance for wastewater projects
is $26.8 million. As shown in Table 88, the to tal GO and SRF outstanding debt on the existing
wastewater treatment facilities is appr oximately $29.1 million, which results in a debt credit of $670 per
SFE.
Table 88
WASTEWATER FACILITY DEBT PER SERVICE UNIT
State Revolving Fund Loan$2,372,328
General Obligation Debt$26,769,202
Total Outstanding Debt$29,141,530
Wastewater Capacity (gpd)9,970,000
Debt per gpd$2.92
GPD per SFE230
Debt Credit per SFE$670
Source: SRF outstanding debt based on principal balance for FY 2006 pro
by HawaiÓi County Finance Department; GO debt from Appendix B, T
capacity from Table 85; SFE demand from Table 83.
Based on a review of the CountyÔs CIP status report, no capacity-expanding projects for the wastewater
facilities were funded directly from the general fu nd appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity-
expanding wastewater projects have been funded th rough the CountyÔs GO bonds. As shown in Table
89, the estimated annual principal and interest paym ents on the current outstanding debt for wastewater
over the past five years was $19.2 million.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 96
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 89
WASTEWATER GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005
Annual GO Bond Debt Service$24,921,138
Wastewater Share of Total Outstanding Debt15.4%
Annual Debt Service$3,837,855
Years5
Total Debt-Related Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$19,189,276
Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from HawaiÓi County,
2005-06 Annual Operating Budget , June 2006; wastewater share of debt from
Table 96.
An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County
generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general
fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $95 per SFE, as
shown in Table 90.
Table 90
WASTEWATER PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-0666.5%
Percent of Property Taxes fr om Vacant/Ag. Land, 200632.5%
Percent of Wastewater Credit for Past Property Tax Payments21.6%
Total General Fund Capaci ty Funding, 2000-2005$19,189,276
Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost$4,145,499
Wastewater Capacity (GPD)9,970,000
Past Property Tax Credit per GPD$0.42
GPD per SFE 230
Past Property Tax Credit per SFE$95
Source: Percent of general fund from pr operty taxes from HawaiÓi County, 2005-06 Annual Operating
Budget , June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricult
Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; general fund capacity
per SFE from Table 83.
A system-wide wastewater impact fee that reflects the adjusted value of the existing wastewater
treatment facility results in a fee of $3,785 per SFE, as shown
Table 91
WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Wastewater Facility Cost per SFE$4,550
Debt Credit per SFE$670
Property Tax Credit per SFE$95
Net Cost per SFE$3,785
Source: Wastewater facility cost from Table 87; debt credit from Table 88; and property
tax credit from Table 90.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 97
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum wastewater impact fees that may be charged by the HawaiÓi County, based on the
methodology, data and assumptions used in this re port, are shown in Table 92. The County has the
option of charging single-family homes a flat rate per unit or a variab le rate based on dwelling unit size.
Table 92
WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE
SFEs per Net Cost
Unit or Net Cost per Unit
Housing Type/Meter Size Meter per SFE or Meter
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.0.97 $3,785$3,672
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.1.03 $3,785$3,899
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.1.07 $3,785$4,050
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.1.13 $3,785$4,277
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.1.20 $3,785$4,542
4,000 sq. ft. or more1.28 $3,785$4,845
Single-Family (flat rate)1.00 $3,785$3,785
Multi-Family0.79 $3,785$2,990
Hotel/Motel0.47 $3,785$1,779
Nonresidential, 5/8" x 3/4" Meter1.00 $3,785$3,785
Nonresidential, 1" Meter2.50 $3,785$9,463
Nonresidential, 1-1/2" Meter5.00 $3,785$18,926
Nonresidential, 2" Meter8.00 $3,785$30,281
Nonresidential, 3" Meter16.00 $3,785$60,563
Nonresidential, 4" Meter25.00 $3,785$94,630
Nonresidential, 6" Meter50.00 $3,785$189,259
Nonresidential, 8" Meter80.00 $3,785$302,814
Nonresidential, 10" Meter145.00 $3,785$548,851
Source: Residential SFEs per unit from Table 84; nonresidential SFEs per
net cost per SFE from Table 91.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 98
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding of $92.1 million is proposed for wastewater infrastructure improvements in the CountyÔs 2005-
06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (C IP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity-
expanding improvements for facilities or equipment that expand t
processing or increase the volume of wastewater collection or disposal unle ss they are funded through
assessments or by developers. A detailed breakdow n of each project component cost was not available;
consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible
improvements appear to account for $24.0 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible
improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 93. Improvements are currently planned only
for two of the five existing systems. In addition, improvements are planned that would create three new
wastewater systems. Fees should not be implemen ted in the three existing systems with no planned
improvements until eligible improvements are identified.
Table 93
WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Wastewater Impact Fee
Project SystemTotal Cost Eligible
Kalanianaole Interceptor Sewer RehabHilo WWTP$6,000,000
Wailoa SPS RenovationHilo WWTP$2,000,000
Modify HWWTP Digester Hilo WWTP$5,800,000$5,800,000
Ainako Aina-Nani Collect or SewerHilo WWTP$3,700,000
Kilohana Sewer Improvemen t DistrictHilo WWTP$3,250,000
Puainako Sewer Improvemen t DistrictHilo WWTP$15,100,000
Pihonua Collector Se werHilo WWTP$2,200,000
Puueo Collector Se werHilo WWTP$2,800,000
ReedÔs Island Collector SewerHilo WWTP$1,100,000
Replace Wailuku and Puueo Br idge LinesHilo WWTP$2,300,000
Ainako Collector SewerHilo WWTP$2,200,000
Queen Liliuokalani Large Capacity Cesspoo l ReplacementKealakehe WWTP$8,800,000$8,800,000
Abandon Emma SPSKealakehe WWTP$3,450,000
N Kona Sewer Improvement Di strictKealakehe WWTP$11,100,000
Honokohau SPS and FMKealakehe WWTP$2,500,000
Lono Lona Collector Se werKealakehe WWTP$3,300,000
Replace Kealakehe WWTP Lagoon LinersKealakehe WWTP$3,300,000
Lunapule Collector SewerKealakehe WWTP$420,000
Hualalai Interceptor Sewe rKealakehe WWTP$2,200,000$2,200,000
Alii Kai Collector SewerKealakehe WWTP$3,300,000
Honokaa Large Capacity Cesspool ReplacementNew, WWTP$3,600,000$3,600,000
Naalehu and Pahala Large Capa city Cesspool Replacement2 New Stand alone$3,630,000$3,630,000
Total $92,050,000$24,030,000
Source: County of HawaiÓi, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program , June 2006.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 99
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 100
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX A:
ROAD INVENTORY
PART III: APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY
Table 94
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Kanoelehua AveKamehameaha Ave to Hualani St40.582.322.3223,63126
Kanoelehua AveHualani St to Lankikaula40.481.921.9231,96526,0001
Kanoelehua AveLankikaula to Puainako40.833.323.3230,77626,00025,
Kanoelehua AvePuainako to Kilauea41.907.607.6031,75626,00060,336
Volcano RdKilauea to Keeau-Pahoa Rd42.8711.4811.4834,44626,00098
Hawaii Belt RdHualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr20.430.860.8623,50313
Hawaii Belt RdNani Kailua Dr to Q Kaahumanu Hwy21.072.142.1424,0
Hawaii Belt RdMud Ln to W Waimea UB 24.438.868.8614,19613,00062
Kawaihae RdKamamalu St to Mamalahoa Hwy20.561.121.1218,78113,000
Kawaihae RdMamalahoa Hwy to Laelae Rd20.901.801.8016,84713,00015
Kawaihae RdLaelae Rd to Kohala Mountain Rd21.172.342.3413,36113,
Kawaihae RdKohala Mt Rd to Akulani St20.501.001.008,70013,0004,3
Kawaihae RdAkulani St to Kawaihae Rd27.4114.8214.827,67213,00056
Q. Kaahumanu HyKawaihae Rd to Waikoloa Rd27.9815.9615.9610,39313
Q. Kaahumanu HyWaikoloa Rd to Keahole Air. Rd218.0336.0636.0612,
Q. Kaahumanu HyKeahole Air. Rd to Kealakehe Pwy Rd24.529.049.042
Q. Kaahumanu HyKealakehe Pwy Rd to Palani Rd 22.274.544.5425,080
Kawaihae RdQ. Kaahumanu to Kawaihae Wharf 21.503.0013,00019,500
State Road Subtotal, Primary Arterial 57.43128.18125.18872,7118
Volcano RdKeeau-Pahoa Rd to Huina St23.046.086.0814,22713,00043,
Volcano RdHuina St to South Pszyk25.0110.0210.0210,78913,00054,0
Volcano RdSouth Pszyk to Wright Rd211.7123.4223.425,45113,00063,
Volcano RdWright Rd to Volcano NP22.004.004.003,27313,0006,54626
Volcano RdVolcano NP Rd to Mauna Loa Rd22.314.624.622,57613,0005
Volcano RdMauna Loa Rd to Ninole Rd225.7651.5251.521,86113,00047
Volcano RdNinole Rd to Konohiki St29.4618.9218.922,08913,00019,7
Volcano RdKonohiki St to Hookena Bch Rd235.1570.3070.303,01213,0
Volcano RdHookena Bch Rd to Ke-Ala-O-Keawe 22.505.005.004,93913,
Volcano RdKe-Ala-O-Keawe Rd to Koa Rd25.5511.1011.108,81113,0004
Volcano RdKoa Rd to Road to Napoopoo21.052.102.1012,85913,00013,
Kalanianaole StKalanianaole to Kamehameha Ave20.711.421.4215,879
Kamehameha AveKamehameha Ave to Manono St40.421.681.6819,64726,0
Kamehameha AveManono St to Hawaii Belt Rd Junct40.120.480.4828,67626,0003,4413,120
Bayfront HWYHawaii Belt Rd Junction to Pauahi St20.450.900.9028,
Bayfront HWYPauahi St to Waianuenue Ave20.621.241.2411,11413,000
Hawaii Belt RdWaianuenue Ave to Hau St20.821.641.6415,70013,0001
Hawaii Belt RdHau St to Road to Papaikou23.186.366.3614,12813,00
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 101
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Hawaii Belt RdRd to Papaikou to Kulaimano Rd23.486.966.9610,4721
Hawaii Belt RdKulaimano Rd to Akaka Falls Rd 23.376.746.748,3941
Hawaii Belt RdAkaka Falls Rd to Mamane St 228.5357.0657.066,6341
Hawaii Belt RdMamane St to Plumeria Rd21.533.063.066,79013,00010
Hawaii Belt RdPlumeria Rd to Mud Ln28.5117.0217.027,82913,00066,
Keaau-Pahoa RdVolcano Rd to Old Keaau-Pahoa Rd 21.793.583.5816,2
Keaau-Pahoa RdOld Keaau-Pahoa Rd to Ainaloa Blvd22.955.905.9018,
Keaau-Pahoa RdAinaloa Blvd to Old Keaau-Pahoa Rd 22.955.905.9011
Keaau-Pahoa RdOld K-P Rd to Pahoa-Kapoho Rd 21.482.962.967,04713
Mamalahoa HwyWaimea-Kohala Air. Rd to Saddle Rd24.549.089.087,15
Mamalahoa HwySaddle Rd to Waikoloa Rd24.689.369.365,79413,00027,
Mamalahoa HwyWaikoloa Rd to Mahilani Dr221.5943.1843.183,60913,0
Mamalahoa HwyMahilani Dr to Mamalahoa Hwy22.725.445.4411,95913,0
Kaumana/SaddleHilo UB to Waenakonu25.0010.0010.002,39113,00011,9
Kaumana/SaddleWaenakonu to Saddle Rd26.5013.0013.002,26213,00014
Akoni Pule HwyKaahumanu Hwy to Kawaihae Wharf21.503.003.006,9161
Akoni Pule HwyKawaihae Wharf to Upolu Air. Rd216.6033.2033.204,9
Akoni Pule HwyUpolu Air. Rd to Hawi Rd21.222.442.445,04813,0006,
Kealakehe PkwyQ. Kaahumanu Hwy to Keanalehu Dr21.182.362.364,059
Kealakehe PkwyKeanalehu Dr to Palani Rd21.923.8413,00024,960
State Road Subtotal, Secondary Arterial 231.90464.88461.041,280
Keaau-Pahoa RdPahoa-Kapoho Rd to Leilani Blvd22.064.124.122,909
Keaau-Pahoa RdLeilani Blvd to Kaimu-Chain of Crates 26.6013.2013
Keaau-Pahoa RdKaimu-Chain of Crates Rd to Closure21.032.062.061,
Keaau-Pahoa RdClosed Rd Section (3.49 mi.)213,000
Ke Ala 0 KeaweMamalahoa Hwy to Rd to Painted Ch 21.082.162.161,3
Ke Ala 0 KeaweRd to Painted Ch to City of Refuge22.745.485.48883
Akaka Falls RdHawaii Belt Rd to End23.807.607.601,59613,0006,065
Mamane StHawaii Belt Rd to Pakalana St21.092.182.183,79113,0004,
Mamane StPakalana St to Lehua20.410.820.825,31913,0002,1815,330
Mamane StLehua to Nienie Bridge20.460.920.923,73613,0001,7195,98
Mamane StNienie Bridge to Waipio Valley27.6615.3215.321,81613,00
Kohala Mt RdKawaihae Rd to Rd to Hawaii Prep20.220.440.441,95613
Kohala Mt RdRd to Hawaii Prep to Kynnersly Rd217.1634.3234.321,9
Kohala Mt RdKynnersly Rd to Mahukona-Niulii Rd21.903.8013,00024,
Mahukona-NiuliiHawi Rd to Kohala Hospital22.274.544.545,41113,00
Mahukona-NiuliiKohala Hospital to Kohala Mill Rd20.981.961.963,9
Mahukona-NiuliiKohala Mill Rd to Road to Niulii22.885.765.762,17
Mahukona-NiuliiRoad to Niulii to Pololu Valley Ent21.573.143.143
Palani RdKaiwi St to Palani Rd 20.300.600.6015,69813,0004,7093,
Palani RdPalani Rd to Hualalai Rd 20.480.9613,0006,240
Palani RdHualalai Rd to Wailua Rd 20.971.941.9410,12613,0009,
Palani RdWalua Rd to Q. Kaahumanu Ext21.332.662.666,43913,0008,5
State Road Subtotal, Major Collector56.99113.98109.22128,996740
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 102
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Kapoho-Kaimu RdPahoa-Kal-apana to Pahoa-Kapoho Rd 214.5029.0013,
Kukui Rd Camp Rd/Huina Rd to Volcano 21.703.4013,00022,100
North Kulani RdHuina Rd to Volcano Rd21.603.2013,00020,800
Wright RdElepaio Rd to Volcano Rd 21.102.2013,00014,300
Opihikao RdPahoa-Kalapana to Kala-pana-Kapoho25.3010.6013,00068,
Pohoiki RdPahoa-Kapoho to Kala-pana-Kapoho24.809.6013,00062,400
Pohakea RdPaauilo Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy22.304.6013,00029,900
Kalopa RdKalopa Mauka Rd to Mamala-hoa Hw21.402.8013,00018,200
Kynnersley RdKohala Mntn Rd to Mahukona-Niulii22.304.6013,00029,
Hawi RdMahukona-Niulii Rd to End20.901.801.803,51613,0003,16411,
Kamehameha IllManukai St to Alii Dr20.300.6013,0003,900
Walua RdAinanani St to Kuakini Hwy20.501.0013,0006,500
Kaleiopapa RdEhukai St to Alii Dr State20.200.4013,0002,600
Sunset DrMarlin Rd to Kuakini Hwy20.300.6013,0003,900
Hinalani St Halolani St to Mamalahoa Hwy20.400.8013,0005,200
Holoholo St Kukuna St to Kaiminani Dr20.601.2013,0007,800
Halekii StMamao St to Mamalahoa Hihgway20.200.4013,0002,600
Kinue StHookipa Place to Mamalahoa Hwy20.200.4013,0002,600
S Point Access RdMamalahoa Hwy to South Point 210.7021.4013,000
Kamoa RdS Pt Access to Hawaii Belt Rd 22.705.4013,00035,100
Kamani StPikake St to Hawaii Belt Rd20.501.0013,0006,500
Maunakea AccessSaddle Rd to Observatory 215.0030.0013,000195,00
State Road Subtotal, Minor Collector67.50135.001.803,164877,500
Mamalahoa HwyRd to Napoopoo to Kona Hosp Rd21.823.643.6415,50513
Mamalahoa HwyKona Hospital Rd to Old Mamalahoa 21.673.343.3417,4
Mamalahoa HwyOld Mamalahoa Hwy to Haawina St 21.803.603.6017,954
Mamalahoa HwyHaawina St to Kamehameha III Rd21.833.663.6618,623
Mamalahoa HwyKamehameha III Rd to Kuakini Hwy22.004.004.0020,481
Kuhio StKuhio Wharf to Kanoelehua 20.801.601.601,91213,0001,530
Hawaii Belt RdKuakini Hwy to Hualalai Rd21.262.522.5223,51613,00
County Road Subtotal, Primary Arterial11.1822.3622.36195,868145
Mamalahoa HwyKawaihae Rd to Waimea-Kohala Air21.713.423.429,1661
Saddle RdHilo UB to Mamalahoa Hwy239.3078.6078.601,10013,00043,2
Waikoloa RdQ. Kaahumanu Hwy to Quarry Rd24.749.489.4810,07913,00
Waikoloa RdQuarry Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy26.3812.7612.764,64913,0002
County Road Subtotal, Secondary Arterial52.13104.26104.26136,33
Pahoa-Kapoho RdKeaau-Pahoa to Naniwale Blvd21.002.002.005,99513,
Pahoa-Kapoho RdNaniwale Bvd to Kalapana-Kapoho26.8013.6013.602,0
Keaau-Pahoa RdThrough Pahoa Town 21.703.403.405,41813,0009,2112
Kahakai BoulevardKeaau-Pahoa Rd to End 26.1012.2012.206,14013,0
Napoopoo Rd Mamalahoa Hwy to Puu-honua Rd24.408.808.801,25513,00
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 103
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Mamalahoa Hwy Palani Rd to Waiaha Stream24.408.8013,00057,200
Mamalahoa HwyWaiaha Stream to Kua-kini Hwy 24.809.6013,00062,40
Kamehameha Ill Dr Kuakini Hwy to Kealahou village21.242.482.481
Kamehameha Ill Dr Kealahou Village to Alii Dr20.240.480.4810,98
Palani Rd Mamlahoa Hwy to Kealakaa St41.536.126.1215,45426,00023
Palani RdKealakaa St to Q Kaahumanu Hwy41.877.487.4817,08026,000
Plumeria RdMamane St to Mamalahoa Hwy20.701.401.403,11713,0002,1
Old MamalahoaW to E junction with Hawaii Belt Rd20.701.401.401,5
Pikake StOhia St to Mamalahoa Hwy20.400.800.8079513,0003185,200
Kuakini HwyPalani Rd to Kaiwi St20.400.8013,0005,200
Kaiwi StQ. Kaahumanu to Kuakini Hwy20.300.600.6010,73813,0003,22
Aloha Kona DrHienaloli Rd to Hawaii Belt Rd20.901.8013,00011,700
Kealakaa StUluaÓo St to Palani Rd20.501.001.004,74313,0002,3726,
Loloa DrHolo St to Mamalahoa Hwy20.501.001.001,25613,0006286,500
Palani Rd/Alii DrKuakini Hwy to Rd to Wharf20.140.280.2818,61013
Palani Rd/Alii DrRd to Wharf to Kailua-Kona22.264.524.5215,35813
Alii DrKailua-Kona UB to Hualalai Rd20.761.521.5211,17513,0008,4
Alii DrHualalai Rd to Walua Rd20.450.900.9015,35813,0006,9115,85
Alii DrWalua Rd to Kaiolu Rd20.981.961.9614,52413,00014,23412,74
Alii DrKaiolu Rd to Royal Poincana Dr20.731.461.4614,49413,00010
Alii DrNew Con. to Kamehameha III Rd20.300.600.608,81213,0002,6443,900
Alii DrKamehameha III Rd to en d22.675.345.344, 50913,00012,03934,710
Hualalai RdAlii Dr to Kuakini20.200.400.407,57713,0001,5152,600
Hualalai RdKuakini to Hawaii Belt21.202.402.406,47813,0007,77415
Lako RdKuakini Hwy to End20.501.001.002,49713,0001,2496,500
Kaiminani DrMamalahoa to Queen Kaahumanu23.607.207.206,16013,000
Henry StKuakini Hwy to Hawaii Belt Rd40.200.800.8014,82426,0002,
Paniolo AvePaniolo Ave - Waikoloa Rd to End41.706.806.809,91026,
Lindsey RdHokuula Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy 20.400.800.801,45713,0005
Old MamalahoaUikeoni St to Hawaii Belt Rd 20.450.900.901,92313,
Kamamalu StMamalahoa Hwy to Hiiaka St 20.701.401.403,13613,0002
Kamehameha AvWaianuenue Ave to Hilo Bay Hwy41.104.4026,00028,600
KeaweWaianuenue to Kilauea20.300.600.608,76413,0002,6293,900
Kilauea AveKeawe St. to Ponahawai St.20.070.140.149,64013,000675
Kilauea AvePonahawai St to Kukuau40.130.520.5212,02326,0001,5633
Kilauea AveKukuau St. to Aala Lane40.100.400.4014,32726,0001,433
Kilauea AveAala Lane to Mohouli St40.331.321.3217,92026,0005,914
Kilauea AveMohouli St. to Lanikaula40.532.122.1226,80526,00014,2
Kilauea AveLanikaula to Kawili St40.421.6826,00010,920
Kilauea AveKawili St. to Puainako St40.702.802.8014,85726,00010,
Kilauea AvePuainako St. to E. Kahaopea St.40.351.401.4010,19626,
Kilauea AveKahaopea to Kawailani St.40.351.4026,0009,100
Kilauea AveKawailani St. to E. Palai St.40.351.401.406,40326,000
Kilauea AvePalai St. to Haihai St.40.351.401.406,40326,0002,2419
Kilauea AveHaihai St. to Kanoelehua20.501.001.008,56613,0004,283
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 104
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Kalanianaole StKuhio St. to Kauhane Ave.20.100.200.2011,00413,00
Kalanianaole StKauhane Ave. to Baker Ave20.380.760.766,94013,000
Kalanianaole StBaker Ave. and Onekahakaha St.20.501.001.006,7301
Kalanianaole StOnekahakaha St. to Kamokuna St.20.270.540.544,897
Kalanianaole StKamokuna St to Koloa St20.561.121.123,40613,0001,
Kalanianaole StKoloa St. to Oeoe St.20.120.240.242,55013,0003061
Kalanianaole StOeoe St. to Lehia Park Gate21.002.002.001,31113,0
Puainako StRailroad Ave to Kanoelehua Ave20.561.121.128,22313,00
Puainako StKanoelehua Ave to Kilauea Ave20.170.340.3418,11913,00
Puainako StKilauea Ave to Kinoole St20.100.200.2011,84013,0001,1
Puainako StKinoole St to Kawili St/Iwalani St20.751.501.509,4971
Puainako StKawili St/Iwalani St to Komohana St20.601.201.207,523
Kinoole StWaianuenue Ave to Ponahawai St20.370.740.744,68813,000
Kinoole StPonanawai St to Mohouli St 20.711.421.4212,68713,000
Kinoole StMohouli St to Kawili St 20.741.481.4814,24213,00010,53
Kinoole StKawili St to Puainako St20.631.2613,0008,190
Kinoole StPuainako St to Kawailani St 20.701.401.409,77613,0006
Kinoole StKawailani St to Haihai St 20.691.381.384,31413,0002,9
Waianuenue AveKamehameha Ave to Komohana St21.002.002.0013,21113
Waianuenue AveKomohana St to Kaumana Dr 40.180.7226,0004,680
Waianuenue AveKaumana Dr to Puuhina St 20.170.340.348,50413,0001
Waianuenue AveHilo Hospital to Lahi St 20.961.921.922,71213,0002
Waianuenue AveLahi St to Akolea St 20.430.860.861,24813,00053
Kaumana DrWaianuenue Ave to Ainako Ave40.783.123.127,86526,0006,
Kaumana DrAinako Ave. to Akolea St20.961.921.929,17813,0008,8111
Kaumana DrAkolea St to Wilder Ave20.320.640.642,32013,0007424,16
Kaumana DrWilder to Country Club Dr21.102.202.201,06913,0001,176
Kekuanaoa StKanoelehua Ave to Manono St20.370.740.7412,52213,000
Kekuanaoa StManono St to Kilauea Ave20.440.880.8815,07313,0006,6
Komohana StWainuenue to Punahele 20.100.200.2011,77413,0001,1771
Komohana StPunahele to Puainako 21.803.603.6013,31113,00023,960
Komohana StPuainako St to Ainaloa Dr 21.002.002.005,83613,0005,8
Komohana StAinoloa Dr. to Haihai St.20.400.8013,0005,200
Haihai StKilauea Ave to Ainaola Dr 21.693.383.386,91313,00011
Haihai StAinaola Dr to Kupulau St 20.861.721.722,67213,0002,2
Ainaola DrKawailani St to Haihai St 21.052.102.107,25513,0007,
Ainaola DrHaihai St to Kupulau Rd 21.102.202.203,38713,0003,726
Kawailani StKanoelehua Ave to Kilauea Ave20.130.260.269,16313,00
Kawailani StKilauea Ave to Kinoole St 20.100.200.2012,69613,0
Kawailani StKinoole St to Iwalani St20.751.501.5011,84313,0008,8
Kawailani StIwalani St to Komohana St20.601.201.208,88513,0005,3
Kawailani StKomohana St to Kupulau Rd21.122.242.247,58713,0008,4
Iwalani StHaihai St to Kawili St21.402.802.801,29113,0001,80718,
KawiliIwalani St to Manono St21.002.002.0011,65513,00011,65513,0
ManonoManono St to Kamehameha20.731.461.468,86213,0006,4699,490
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 105
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Lane-Miles
Street NameFrom/ToLnMiles TotalCount AADTCapacityVMTVMC
Ainako AveKaumana Dr to Waianuenue 21.503.003.003,71013,0005,56
Mohouli StKilauea Ave to Komohana21.102.202.209,74913,00010,7241
Akolea RdWaianuenue Ave to Kaumana 21.803.603.6069713,0001,2552
Lanikaula StKanoelehua Ave to Mohouli St 21.803.603.605,18513,0
Railroad AveLeilani St to Kahaopea 21.202.402.407,28413,0008,74
Stainback HwyS Hilo to Kanoelehua Ave 21.503.0013,00019,500
Wainaku AveWaipahoehoe St to Wailuku Dr 20.300.600.605,69613,00
County Road Subtotal, Major Collector99.99221.92187.66599,1381,
Total, Major County Roads348.54314.28931,3442,265,510
Total, Major Road System1,190.581,011.523,217,0317,738,770
Source: Major roads and classifications from HawaiÓi County General Plan
Plan Infrastructure Assessment with additional segments scaled by Duncan Associates; annual average daily traffic counts (AADT from
State of HawaiÓi, Department of Transportation, Hi ghways Division, 2002 and 2004; capacity from Table 18.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 106
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX B:
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
APPENDIX B: GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
HawaiÓi County has utilized General Obligation (GO) debt to fina
street, solid waste disposal, wastewater, culture an d recreation, other miscellaneous capital projects.
The County does not issue separate GO bonds for each type of cap
to precisely identify the amount of outstanding GO debt attribut
of projects. In 2005-06, total debt service for the CountyÔs ge
approximately $17.8 million.
The CountyÔs current outstanding GO bonds and their original iss
95. The original debt issues were allocated among departments b
projects funded by debt, the ordinance authorizing debt issues, the capital project status report, and
information provided by County staff. A portion of outstanding
which details are not available.
Table 95
ORIGINAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT
BondRoadsParksFire/EMSPoliceSolid WasteWastewaterOtherUnknown
1993$2,083,100$5,877,875$3,099,283$0$18, 235,000$31,411,000$11,966,090$14,072,652
1998 $775,600
1999A$10,281,000$6,424,445$3,382,000$1, 356,000$1,070,000$950,000$6,536,500
1999B $18,835,000
2001 $16,000,000$7,000,000
2003$16,998,000$9,040,000$2,500,000$1, 800,000$1,020,000$4,750,000$202,000
2004A$30,000,000
2004B$4,856,507$5,102,530$195,575 $288,034$613,367$802,262$7,686,724
2004C$1,677,700$202,000$3,417,000
2004D $259,200
2004ID $3,887,493
Total$64,218,607$26,444,850$9,176,858$5,121, 734$19,918,367$39,307,555$50,356,315$40,109,652
Notes:
1993: $20,000,000 for projects from FY91 to FY93 capital budget; sue for
which details are not available; $10,325,000 to refund 1986 issu 9 issue
which included $10,200,000 for Hilo sewer plant, $3,500,000 for
treatment plant; and $29,315,000 to refund 1990 i ssue for wastewater and landfill projects.
1998: $775,600 for wastewater systems in Paauilo, Ookala, and Pa
1999A: $30,000,000 for 1999 HawaiÓi County Bill 129.
1999B: $18,835,000 to refund 1978 issue which contained unknown projects funded in prior issues from 1949 to 1977.
2001: $8,000,000 for a radio communication system, $8,000,000 fo water supply projects; and $7,000,000 for unidentified capita l
projects from FY99 to FY01 capital budget.
2003: $36,310,000 for projects identifi ed in 2003 HawaiÓi County Bill 128.
2004A: $30,000,000 for projects identified in 2004 HawaiÓi County Bill 254 (Ordinance 04 59).
2004B: Refund $30,000,000 for projects from FY1994 to FY1996 cap
2004C: $202,000 to refund 1977 issue for Kulaimano sewage system $411,000 to refund 1981 issue for water storage and transmiss ion,
$3,006,000 to refund 1997 issue for acquisitio n and reconstruction of J.C. PenneyÔs facility, and $1,677,700 to refund 2001 iss ue for East
HawaiÓi police detention facility.
2004D: Waterline replacement project.
2004ID: Water system for Kona Coastview.
Source: HawaiÓi County Finance Department.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 107
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 1 shows the share of the original debt issue attributed to
projects based on the analysis of the original debt issue.
Table 96
ALLOCATION OF GENERAL OBLI GATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT
Fire/ Solid Waste-
BondRoadsParks EMSPolice Waste waterOtherUnknownTotal
19932.4%6.8%3.6%0.0%21.0%36.2%13.8%16.2%100%
19980.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100%
1999A34.2%21.4%11.3%4.5%3.6%3.2%21.8%0.0%100%
1999B0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100%
20010.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%69.6%30.4%100%
200346.7%24.9%6.9%5.0%0.0%2.8%13.1%0.6%100%
2004A100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100%
2004B24.8%26.1%1.0%1.5%3.1%4.1%39.4%0.0%100%
2004C0.0%0.0%0.0%31.7%0.0%3.8%64.5%0.0%100%
2004D0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100%
2004ID0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100%
Total25.2%10.4%3.6%2. 0%7.8%15.4%19.8%15.8%100%
Source: Allocation based on department share of each original bond issu
The County currently has $390.3 million in outstanding GO debt.
current GO debt by department based on the cu rrent outstanding principal balance for each GO
Bond issue. In addition, the $19.6 million of outstanding debt
the original debt issues were allocated among the departments ba
outstanding bond issues.
Table 97
OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT
Solid
BondRoadsParksFire/EMSPolice WasteWastewaterOtherUnknown
1993$1,085,400$3,075,300$1,628,100$0$9, 497,250$16,371,450$6,241,050$7,326,450
1998$0$0$0$0$0$699,300$0$0
1999A$9,049,320$5,662,440$2,989,980$1, 190,700$952,560$846,720$5,768,280$0
1999B$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$5,300,000
2001$0$0$0$0$0$0$15,416,400$6,733,600
2003$16,956,770$9,041,190$2,505,390$1, 815,500$0$1,016,680$4,756,610$217,860
2004A$30,000,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
2004B$4,847,160$5,101,245$195,450$293, 175$605,895$801,345$7,700,730$0
2004C$0$0$0$1,678,420$0$201,199$3,415,082$0
2004D$0$0$0$0$0$259,200$0$0
2004ID$0$0$0$0$0$3,887,493$0$0
Subtotal$61,938,650$22,880,175$7,318,920$4, 977,795$11,055,705$24,083, 387$43,298,152$19,577,910
Unknown$6,907,491$2,551,631$816,217 $555,131$1,232,949$2,685,815$4,828,675
Total$68,846,141$25,431,806$8,135,137$5,532, 926$12,288,654$26,769,202$48,126,827$195,130,694
Source: Current outstanding principal from HawaiÓi County Finance Depart
original bond issue from Table 96.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 108
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX C:
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
For the impact fee analysis, it is important to know both the ex
development and the number of residents associated with each dwe
compile an estimate of existing dwelling units by type in HawaiÓ
Census counts of housing units with building permit data on the
constructed since the census enumeration. As show n in Table 98, it is estimated that HawaiÓi
County currently has about 58,772 single-family un its and 17,153 multi-family units, for a total of
about 75,925 existing dwelling units.
Table 98
EXISTING DWELLING UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE
2000 2000-2005 2006
Housing Type Units Permits Estimate
Single-Family Detached48,618 10,154 58,772
Multi-Family14,056 3,097 17,153
Total 62,67413,251 75,925
Source: 2000 units from the U.S. Census; 2000 to 2005 building permits
by housing type from Hawaii County.
An important input into the impact fee calculati ons is the number of persons associated with
dwelling units of various housing types. The best available dat
HawaiÓi County is the 2000 U.S. Census. As show n in Table 99 below, average household size varies
by housing type, ranging from 2.26 persons per mu lti-family unit to 2.87 persons per single-family
detached unit.
Table 99
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE, 2000
Household Occupied Avg.
Housing Type Population Units HH Size
Single-Family Detached124,02243,2812.87
Multi-Family21,9049,7042.26
All Housing Types145,92652,9852.75
Source: 2000 U.S. Census for the County of HawaiÓi, Summary File 3 (wei
sample data).
In addition, data on the average household size of single-family detached units by number of
bedrooms is available from 2000 Census five-percen t sample data for geographic areas containing at
least 100,000 residents. As can be seen in Table 100, single-family average household size in HawaiÓi
County is strongly related to the number of bedrooms in the dwel
residents in an occupied single-family detached dwelling unit in
home to 4.22 for a home with five or more bedroom s. The overall average single-family household
size derived from the 5-percent sample (2.92) is slig htly higher than the figure derived from the 1-in-
6 sample data for HawaiÓi County (2.87).
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 109
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 100
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY BEDROOMS
Avg. HH
Sample Occupied
Size
Bedrooms HouseholdsPersons Units
Up to Two1,025 40,522 15,918 2.55
Three1,327 60,338 20,293 2.97
Four322 17,788 5,095 3.49
Five or more94 6,329 1,501 4.22
All Single-Family2,768 124,977 42,807 2.92
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5% sample da
of HawaiÓi PUMA 00200.
While the only measure of dwelling unit size recorded by the Cen
recommended that the fees be based on square foot age rather than number of bedrooms. Although
some jurisdictions charge impact fees on the basis of bedrooms, it can be an administrative challenge
to determine the number of bedrooms when there is a financial incentive to disguise bedrooms as
something else (a den or storage room, for exampl e). An alternative is to translate bedrooms into
size categories.
Figure 12
To determine a relationship between the unit square
RESIDENTS BY UNIT SIZE
footage, bedrooms and household population in
HawaiÓi County, the consultant compiled data on all 630
single-family homes listed for sale in the County from
the National Association of Realtors website
(www.realtor.com) on October 19, 2005. These on-line
listings give square footage and the number of
bedrooms for each home offered for sale. A variable
for average household size was added, consisting of the
average household size multipliers by housing type and
number of bedrooms derived from 2000 U.S. Census
sample data. Regression analysis was then performed to
determine the relationship between unit size in square
feet and persons residing in the unit. Both linear and
logarithmic regressions were performed. The linear
regression was statistically significant, with the linear
1
equation accounting for 35 percent of the variation.
The resulting linear equation (shown in Figure 12) shows the rel
and dwelling unit size for single-family unit. Th e graphed relationship shows that there is a strong
correlation between household size and unit size, and that the l
likely to contain. As can be seen in Table 101, a single-family
square feet has an average of 2.78 persons, while a unit with 4,000 square feet averages 3.68
residents.
1
The linear equation for single-family units is y = 0.000223 * x + 2.6732 (r-square = 0.354597), where x is
square feet of living area and y is household size.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 110
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 101
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY SQUARE FEET
Approximate Average
midpoint Household
(sq. ft.) Size
Dwelling Size Category
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.500 2.78
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.1,250 2.95
1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft.1,750 3.06
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.2,500 3.23
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.3,500 3.45
4,000 sq. ft. or more4,500 3.68
Source: Average household size is derived by substituting the midpoint
solving for y in the equation described in the preceding text.
Existing nonresidential floor area and corresponding land use codes for existing parcels of land in
HawaiÓi County was provided by the County Tax Assessor. The bui
nonresidential development in HawaiÓi County was estimated by summing the total square footage
for all applicable parcels. Table 102 summarizes the nonresiden
by land use.
Table 102
NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE, 2005
Existing
Land Use Sq. Ft.
Hotel/Motel3,742,488
Commercial/Retail 5,306,676
General Office3,766,361
Medical Office268,618
Other Institutional784,522
Hospital245,374
Nursing Home215,819
Religious Institution401,833
School608,152
Industrial417,246
Warehouse7,956,165
Mini-Warehouse248,253
Total Nonresidential Square Footage23,961,507
Source: HawaiÓi County, October 5, 2005; data derived from tax r
January 1, 2005 assessment date for 2005 tax year.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 111
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 112
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX D:
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
One approach for estimating the service demands of various land
is known in impact fee literature as Ñfunctional population.Ò F
converted into Ñequivalent dwelling units.Ò The e quivalent dwelling unit, or EDU, represents the
impact of a typical single-family dwelling on the demand for pub
To a large extent, the demand for public safety se rvices is proportional to the presence of people.
The functional population concept is analogous to the concept of
It represents the number of Ñfull-time equivalent Ò people present at the site of a land use. To a
certain extent, however, the demand for public saf ety services is related to real property itself,
regardless of whether it is occupied, as well as to the presence
public safety services during the nighttime hours, when most peo
attributed solely to residential development.
The residential functional population is considerably simpler th
is assumed that people spend one-half of their time at home. Th
from home accounts for working, shopping and other away-from-hom
residential development essentially distributes th e cost of public safety facilities evenly between
residential and nonresidential development. For re sidential uses, then, equivalent dwelling units are
calculated by first dividing average household size in half to determine equivalent persons per unit,
then dividing by the equivalent persons per single-f amily unit to determine equivalent dwelling units.
The equivalent dwelling units for single-family an d multi-family units and hotel/motel rooms are
shown in Table 103.
Table 103
RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Average Equivalent
Household Occupancy Persons/ EDUs/
Size Factor Unit Unit
Housing Type
Less than 1,000 sq. ft.2.780.501.390.97
1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft.2.950.501.481.03
1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft.3.060.501.531.06
2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft.3.230.501.621.13
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft.3.450.501.731.20
4,000 sq. ft. or more3.680.501.841.28
Single-Family Detached2.870.501.441.00
Multi-Family2.260.501.130.78
Hotel/Motel (Room)1.340.500.670.47
Source: Average household size for single-family detached from Tables
size for multi-family from Table 99; hotel/motel room s based on one-half of average vehicle occupancy on
vacation trips from U.S. Department of Transportation, National Household Travel Survey , 2001; occupancy
factor assumed; EDUs per unit is ratio of functional population to functional population of single-family
detached unit.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 113
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses is
data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
square feet is derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a
day by 24 hours. Employees are assumed to spend eight hours per
Visitors to nonresidential facilities are assumed to spend one h
derive the nonresidential functional population estimates is sum
Figure 13
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA
Functional population/1000 sf = (employee hours/ 1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visi tors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x av g. vehicle occupancy - employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way average daily trips (total trip en
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates from
functional population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area were calculated. These
functional population estimates were then converted into equival
by the functional population per single-family unit calculated i
presents the results of these calculations for four general land
Table 104
NONRESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Func.
Trip Persons/ Employees/ Visitors/ Pop/ EDUs/
Land UseUnit Rate Trip Unit Unit Unit Unit
Shopping Center/General Retail1000 sq . ft.21.471.801.9636.69 2.181.51
Office/Other Institutional1000 sq . ft.5.511.143.312.97 1.230.85
Industrial1000 sq. ft.3.481.142.081.89 0.770.53
Warehouse1000 sq. ft.2.481.141.281.55 0.490.34
Source: Trip rates are one-half average daily trip ends from Institute Trip Generation , 7th Edition,
2003, National Household Travel Survey , 2001 for following trip purposes: ÑshoppingÒ for retail, Ñto w
warehouse, Ñschool/churchÒ for church and school, and Ñother family/personal businessÒ for nursing home; employees per 1,000
sq. ft. derived from trip rates per employee from ITE manual (re ffice
and Industrial Parks, America's Future Office Space Needs , 1990 p. 22); visitors/unit and functional population calculate
on formula in Figure 13; EDUs per unit is ratio of functional po pulation to functional population of single-family detached uni t from
Table 102.
Total equivalent dwelling units for the HawaiÓi Cou nty can be determined based on existing land use
data and EDU ratios for various land use categories. As shown i
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 114
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
functional population EDUs is nearly double the total number of
surprising given the size of the Big IslandÔs tourism economy.
Table 105
TOTAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Existing EDUs/ Total
Land UseUnit Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family DetachedDwelling58,7721.0058,772
Multi-FamilyDwelling17,1530.7813,379
Hotel/MotelRoom10,5130.474,941
Shopping Center/General Reta il1,000 sq. ft.5,3071.518,013
Office/Other Institutiona l1,000 sq. ft.6,2910.855,347
Industrial1,000 sq. ft.4170.53221
Warehouse1,000 sq. ft.8,2040.342,790
Total Equivalent Dwelling Units93,463
Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 98; exis ting hotel/motel rooms from Table 7; retail,
office/institutional and industrial/utility square feet from Tab
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 115
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 116
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX E:
EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY
APPENDIX E: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY
Table 106
EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY
Total Dev.
Park Name Acres Acres
HonokaÓa Park27.727.712111212
HoÓolulu56.253.411114135
Pa hoa Nbrhd Facility70.99.211211
Gilbert Carvalho Park15.88.011111
Herbert Shipman Park* 10.910.9 11212
Herbert Shipman Park* 6.06.0 3
Kailua Park* 34.934.9 121115134
Kamehameha Park18.518.511113112
Waimea Park10.610.61111121
Subtotal, District Park251.5179.26307504520 7603119100
ÓAhalanui/Maunakea Pond5.95.921
Carlsmith Beach Park6.92.5111
Honaunau Boat Ramp* 1.21.2 1
Honl's Beach Park0.70.71
KahaluÓu Beach Park4.24.2221
Kalapana Beach (Area B)15.00.0
Keokea Beach Park7.13.0122
Kohanaiki109.00.011
LaÓaloa Bay Beach Park1.51.5
Leleiwi Beach Park1.10.0
Magic Sands Beach Park0.90.911
Reeds Bay Beach Park2.32.31
Richardson Ocean Park4.64.611
Bakers Beach* 3.10.0
Harry K Brown Park22.90.0
Hawaiian Paradise Park6.00.0
Hilo Bayfront Beach5.25.218
HoÓokena Beach Park3.23.21111
HonoliÓi Beach Park* 2.82.8 11
Isaac Hale Memorial Park26.52.11111
J. Kealoha Beach Park3.53.511
Kahakai Park3.60.0
Kanakea Pond2.42.4
KapaÓa Beach Park26.32.0111
Kawaihae Canoe Area4.70.01 1
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 117
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Total Dev.
Park Name Acres Acres
Kolekole Gulch Park5.54.0241
Kuhio KalanianaÓole Park2.82.81
Lehia Beach Park54.70.0
Leleiwi Beach Park30.912.018
Mahukona Beach Park* 2.72.0 1111
Mahukona Wharf* 0.40.4 1
Manini Point5.60.0
MiloliÓi Beach Park1.41.41111
Mokuola Island3.13.1111
Onekahakaha Beach Park34.721.0251
Pahoehoe Beach Park1.31.31
PunaluÓu Beach* 6.96.9 1121
Reeds Bay Beach Park4.14.11
Spencer Park13.49.53111
Whittington Beach Park0.80.8131
Laup hoehoe Pt Beach24.117.92413111
••
Subtotal, Beach Park463.0135.2300049123 010020000094
Arthur C. Greenwell Park2.72.711111
Clem Akina Park4.84.81
Frank M. Santos Park11.011.0111111
Haina Park3.63.611
Hakalau Veterans Park6.16.11112
H. Higashihara Park5.35.31111111
Hawaiian Beaches Park11.08.0111221
HI Ocean View Est.4.04.01111111
Hilo Bayfront Park45.645.61112
Kalakaua Park1.21.2
Kukuihaele Park4.04.01
Kurtistown Park6.83.5111111
Mt. View Park3.83.81111
P paÓaloa Park5.05.0112
••
Ó Ó kala Park23.35.011
•• ••
Glenwood Park1.11.1111
Honom Park10.010.01111
••
Hualani Park4.84.811141
Kaiwiki Park5.05.0111
KulaÓimano Park28.96.0111
Malama Park10.67.0111121
MoÓoheau Park3.83.812121
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 118
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Total Dev.
Park Name Acres Acres
NaÓalehu Park* 6.46.4 111112
PaÓauilo Park3.63.61111
P hala Park8.08.01112112
••
PanaÓewa Park6.66.61112122
Volcano Park10.04.011121
Waiakea Waena Park3.83.8112
Waiakea-Uka Park7.77.7112
Waikaumalo Park3.41.011
Waikoloa Comm. Park* 22.54.0 1121
Wainaku Playground* 5.05.0 11
Waiohinu Park4.44.41111111
Waimea Church Row Park2.82.8
Subtotal, Comm. Park286.6208.621801321131335141351314101
ÓAinako Park3.03.0111
Ahualani Park3.53.51111
KaÓumana Lani Park4.70.0
KaÓumana Playground1.50.0
Kona Hillcrest Park1.61.6111
Kona Scenic Park5.05.011211
PepeÓekeo Playground* 4.94.9 11
Waikoloa Park4.34.3111211
ÓAinaola Park5.95.91111111
AliÓi Kai Park1.60.0
Kailua Playground0.70.7111
Lincoln Park2.62.614214
Lokahi Park7.77.71112
Machado Acres Park7.90.0
Mohouli Park4.04.01111112
University Heights Park4.34.3111
HI Ocean View Estates72.00.0
Keikiland Playground1.91.9111
Laupahoehoe Playground0.50.511
Subtotal, Neighborhood137.649.912009058011 382073000
Waimea Church Row2.802.80
Happiness Gardens1.371.371
Kaumana Caves4.870.5011
Waikui Pond0.650.65
Liholiho Garden0.180.18
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 119
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Total Dev.
Park Name Acres Acres
Liliuokalani Gardens19.5419.5411
Waipio Look Out0.950.9511
Kalakaua Park1.181.18
Subtotal, General Park31.5427.17300103000000000000
A.J. Watt Gym2.192.191
E. HawaiÓi Cultural Ctr0.570.571
Hilo Drag Strip70.6670.661
Hilo Motorbike Track90.000.001
Kona Imin Ctr2.552.001
Konawaena Swim Pool1.001.001
Laupahoehoe Gym0.500.50
Piihonua1.650.00
Pi'ilani Elderly Complex1.871.871
Veterans Center5.620.00
Wainaku Gym2.911.001
Hakalau Gym1.821.821
Halawai3.203.201
Hilo Armory1.021.021
Hilo Muni. Golf Course164.98164.98
Hilo Skeet Range113.385.0011
Honaunau Rodeo Arena6.136.131
Panaewa Equestrian Ctr121.3150.001
Panaewa Rainforest Zoo51.0010.001
Waiaea Rec. Center1.761.761
Honokaa Rodeo Arena8.008.001
Hoolulu Complex56.2053.35
Hilo Senior Ctr/Kamana3.803.801
N. Kohala Senior Ctr1.001.001
Pomaikai Senior Ctr0.960.961
Lily Yoshimatsu SC0.720.721
Puna Rec Complex13.380.00
Subtotal, Other728.18391.53619111 030000000000
Total1,898.4991.678129809332522662429742126295
* Park property acquired through lease, right-of-entry or joint-
Source: HawaiÓi County Department of Parks and Recreation.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 120
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Table 107
NON-STANDARDIZED PARK FACILITY INVENTORY
Original Cost Current
FacilityYear Cost Index Cost
Hilo Drag Strip1978$1,138,5702.774$3,158,393
Hoolulu Park Grandsta nd1971$1,186,2114.870$5,776,848
Onekahakaha Beach Outdoor Stage #41948$7,15416.703$119,493
Panaewa Equestrian Cent er Stable1979$41,5042.564$106,416
Panaewa Rainforest Zoo2002$367,6271.178$433,065
Panaewa Zoo Complex1977 $1,031,7062.989$3,083,769
Panaewa Zoo Complex1977$350,0002.989$1,046,150
Shoro-an Tea House1997$107,0001.322$141,454
Shoro-an Tea House1997$503,6331.322$665,803
Waimea Park Grand Stand Complex1994$44,1501.424$62,870
Subtotal, Special Fa cilities$4,777,555$14,594,261
Hilo Muni Golf Course Maint Shop1971$69,5244.870$338,582
Hilo Muni Golf Course Work Shed1950$2,68115.098$40,478
Hilo Muni Golf Cr SE Ca rt Stor Bldg1975$28,7723.481$100,155
Hilo Muni Golf Crse Club House/Patio1965$32,9887.930$261,595
Hilo Muni Golf Crse Range Complex1996$500,0001.370$685,000
Hilo Muni Golf Crse Range Develop1977$106,9042.989$319,536
Hilo Muni Golf Crse Rest room, Shelter1974$28,4403.812$108,413
Muni Golf Course Greenhouse1968$2,1246.667$14,161
Muni Golf Course Greenhouse1968$2,1246.667$14,161
Papakou Club House Impr2004$185,6591.082$200,883
Papakou Club House Impr2004$185,6591.082$200,883
Subtotal, Golf Course Facilities$1,144,875$2,283,847
Hilo Civic Auditori um1958$455,18710.145$4,617,872
Hilo Civic Auditorium Bu tler Bldg1987$40,4641.748$70,731
Hilo Civic Auditorium Bu tler Bldg1987$40,4641.748$70,731
Hilo Civic Auditorium Bu tler Bldg1987$69,9731.748$122,313
Hilo Civic Auditorium Bu tler Bldg1987$69,9731.748$122,313
North Kohala Civic Ce nter1974$308,0003.812$1,174,096
Waimea Civic Center 1974$507,0003.812$1,932,684
Subtotal, Civic Centers an d Auditoriums$1,491,061$8,110,740
Total$7,413,491$24,988,848
Source: County of HawaiÓi Building and Improvement Inventory, July 2005; cost index based on the Construction Cost Index
for June 2006 from Engineering News-Record .
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 121
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 122
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX F:
WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY
APPENDIX F: WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY
Table 108
WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY
Original Cost Current
FacilityYear Cost Index Cost
Public Service Center-sewer1979$164,3682.564$421,438
Keawe-Kilauea In terceptor Line1935$61,44731.818$1,955,123
Kailua-Kona Sewerage Sys Phase i1964$283,2238.226$2,329,793
Wailoa Force Main & Kal In terceptor1965$897,4587.93$7,116,841
Keawe-Kilauea Intercep tor1966$789,0217.556$5,961,841
Kailua-Kona Sewerage Sys Phase ii1973$963,4324.063$3,914,425
Hilo Sewer System Phas e Iii1977$1,078,3322.989$3,223,135
Kawili St Sewer Ext1978$142,0202.774$393,962
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i1986$236,9071.793$424,774
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i1986$144,2611.793$258,660
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i1986$835,9961.793$1,498,941
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System ii1988$232,4391.704$396,076
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage Sy stem ii1988$1,056,2131.704$1,799,787
Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System ii1988$136,2731.704$232,209
Kapehu Sewerage Sy stem1988$44,8731.704$76,464
Kapehu Sewerage Sy stem1988$345,4051.704$588,570
Kapehu Sewerage Sy stem1988$28,4381.704$48,458
Kuakini Interceptor A1988$286,3761.704$487,985
Kuakini Interceptor A1988$747,1731.704$1,273,182
Kuakini Interceptor A1988$122,2931.704$208,387
Kuakini Interceptor B1988$193,2151.704$329,238
Kuakini Interceptor B1988$1,181,8141.704$2,013,811
Kuakini Interceptor B1988$200,7331.704$342,049
W-hselot Interceptor Sewer1992$973,4641.545$1,504,002
Onekahakaha Beach Park Sewer1996$464,8871.37$636,895
Kalanianaole Collector Sewer1997$129,6161.322$171,353
Kalanianaole Collector Sewer1997$1,415,6611.322$1,871,504
Kalanianaole Collector Sewer1997$1,200,0001.322$1,586,400
Alii Dr Interceptor Sewer/Force II1997$3,836,8591.322$5,072,327
Papaikou Sewer System1998$338,6441.301$440,575
Papaikou Sewer Syst em1998$2,008,1631.301$2,612,620
Papaikou Sewer System1998$341,0001.301$443,641
Keakehe Force Main1998$1,768,1881.301$2,300,413
Keakehe Force Main1998$1,708,0001.301$2,222,108
Keakehe Force Main1998$227,7331.301$296,281
Waiakea Houselot Interceptor Sewer1998$743,8041.301$967,689
Waiakea Houselot Interceptor Sewer1998$229,6601.301$298,788
Waiakea Mill Pond Sewer1998$1,581,3101.301$2,057,284
Waiakea Mill Pond Sewer1998$650,0001.301$845,650
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 123
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Original Cost Current
FacilityYear Cost Index Cost
Ainako Interceptor Se wer2000$2,019,1741.238$2,499,737
Ainako Interceptor Se wer2000$3,000,0001.238$3,714,000
Waiakea Ctr/makaala-leilani Sewer2000$1,000,0001.238$1,238,000
Waiakea Ctr/makaala-leilani Sewer2000$405,4921.238$501,999
Alii Dr Intrceptr Sewr&force Ph III2000$2,029,2811.238$2,512,250
Alii Dr Intrceptr Sewr&force Ph 12001$3,255,2721.214$3,951,900
Hilo Sewer System Re hab2001$2,659,8341.214$3,229,038
Paukaa Comm Collective System Ph II2002$2,301,9271.178$2,711,670
Waiakea Hselot Collector Sy stm Ph II2002$5,505,9041.178$6,485,955
Subtotal, Collect ion$49,801,214$85,045,790
Wailuku Sewer Pump Stn1936$34,45331.818$1,096,215
Kailua-kona Pump Stn1964$100,0008.226$822,600
Pua Ave Sewage Pumping Stn1966$337,3567.556$2,549,062
Wailoa Sewage Pumping Stn1966$757,8867.556$5,726,585
Hale Halawai Sewer Pump Stn1995$107,6551.407$151,471
Pua Sewage Pump Stn1998$947,6301.301$1,232,867
Pua Sewage Pump St n1998$3,159,6841.301$4,110,749
Pua Sewage Pump St n1998$1,983,7441.301$2,580,851
Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn1998$1,134,1091.301$1,475,476
Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn1998$3,674,3761.301$4,780,363
Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn1998$572,0001.301$744,172
Holualoa Sewage Pump Stn1999$20,4981.271$26,052
Holualoa Sewage Pump Stn1999$3,095,0761.271$3,933,842
Waiaha Sewage Pump Stn2001$3,697,8931.214$4,489,242
Wailuku Sewage Pump Stn2002$521,9921.178$614,907
Banyan Dr Sewage Pump Stn2003$463,1771.135$525,706
Subtotal, Pumping$20,607,528$34,860,160
Hilo Ocean Outfall Line1964$840,8108.226$6,916,499
Kailua-kona Treatment Plant1964$235,0008.226$1,933,110
Hilo Ocean Outfall Line Ext1965$556,1457.93$4,410,233
Hilo Sewer Treatment Pl ant1965$1,166,6527.93$9,251,551
Keauhou Treatment Plan t1971$1,221,3984.87$5,948,208
Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant1979$2,724,9192.564$6,986,691
Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant1979$310,0002.564$794,840
Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant1979$635,4622.564$1,629,325
Papaikou Sewer Plan t1982$2,525,2672.013$5,083,362
Papaikou Sewer Plant1982$399,9202.013$805,039
Papaikou Sewer Plant1982$441,8422.013$889,428
Papaikou Sewer Plant Fu el Tank1994$30,9631.424$44,091
Kulaimano Sewer Stn Fu el Tank1994$30,9631.424$44,091
Hilo Wastewater Influent /Eff Line1998$8,690,9851.301$11,306,971
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 124
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Original Cost Current
FacilityYear Cost Index Cost
Hilo Wastewater Influent /Eff Line1998$1,460,0571.301$1,899,534
Hilo Wastewater Primary Fa cility/Ad1998$12,050,0521.301$15,677,117
Hilo Wastewater Primary Fa cility/Ad1998$9,400,1561.301$12,229,602
Hilo Wastewater Primary Fa cility/Ad1998$7,157,4891.301$9,311,893
Kealakehe Wastewater Treatme nt Plnt1998$11,366,9241.301$14,788,367
Kealakehe Wastewater Treatme nt Plnt1998$4,112,8801.301$5,350,857
Kealakehe Wastewater Treatme nt Plnt1998$6,711,0161.301$8,731,031
Subtotal, Treatme nt$72,068,897$124,031,840
Total, Wastewater Fa cilities$142,642,006$244,359,228
Source: County of HawaiÓi Building and Improvement Inventory, July 2005; cost index based on Construction Cost
Index for June 2006 from Engineering News-Record .
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 125
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 126
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX G:
STATE IMPACT FEE LAW
APPENDIX G: STATE IMPACT FEE LAW
Title 6. County Organization and Administration
Subtitle 1. Provisions Common to All Counties
Chapter 46. General Provisions
[PART VIII.] IMPACT FEES
§46-141 Definitions.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
"Board" means the board of water supply or water board of any co
"Capital improvements" means the acquisition of re al property, improvements to expand capacity
and serviceability of existing public facilities, and the development of new public facilities.
"Comprehensive plan" means a coordinated land use plan for the d
within the jurisdiction of a county based on existi ng and anticipated needs, showing existing and
proposed developments, stating principles to which future develo
the county's general plans, development plans, or community plan
development should be controlled. In the case of the city and co
maps shall be equivalent to the comprehensive plan required in t
"County" or "counties" means the city and county of Honolulu, th
Kauai, and the county of Maui.
"Credits" means the present value of past or future payments or
limited to, the dedication of land or construction of a public f
cost of existing or future public facility capita l improvements, except for contributions or payments
made under a development agreement pursuant to section 46-123.
"Developer" means a person, corporation, organiza tion, partnership, association, or other legal
entity constructing, erecting, enlarging, alterin g, or engaging in any development activity.
"Development" means any artificial change to real property that
permit as appropriate, including, but not limited to , construction, expansion, enlargement, alteration,
or erection of buildings or structures.
"Discount rate" means the interest rate, expressed in terms of a
adjust past or future financial or monetary payments to present
"Impact fees" means the charges imposed upon a developer by a co
portion of the public facility capital improvement costs require
is collected, or to recoup the cost of existing public facility capital improvements made in
anticipation of the needs of a development.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 127
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
"Needs assessment study" means a study required under an impact
need for a public facility, the cost of development, and the lev
projects future public facility capital improvement needs; provi
consideration and incorporate any relevant county general plan,
plan.
"Non-site related improvements" means land dedicati ons or the provision of public facility capital
improvements that are not for the exclusive use or benefit of a development and are not site-related
improvements.
"Offset" means a reduction in impact fees designed to fairly ref
public facility capital improvements provided by a developer pur
"Present value" means the value of past or future payments adjus
rate.
"Proportionate share" means the portion of total pu blic facility capital improvement costs that is
reasonably attributable to a development, less:
(1) Any credits for past or future payments, adjusted to present
improvement costs made or reasonably anticipated to be contribut
user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments; or
(2) Offsets for non-site related public facility capital improve
pursuant to county land use provisions.
"Public facility capital improvement costs" means costs of land acquisition, construction, planning
and engineering, administration, and legal and financ ial consulting fees associated with construction,
expansion, or improvement of a public facility. Public facility
include expenditures for required affordable ho using, routine and periodic maintenance, personnel,
training, or other operating costs.
"Reasonable benefit" means a benefit received by a development f
improvement that is greater than the benefit afforded the genera
the impact fees. Incidental benefit to other developments shall
development.
"Recoupment" means the proportionate share of the public facility capital improvement costs of
excess capacity in existing capital facilities where excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of
the needs of a development.
"Site-related improvements" means land dedications or the provision of public facility capital
improvements for the exclusive use or benefit of a development or for the provision of safe and
adequate public facilities related to a particular de velopment. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 2001, c
235, §1]
§46-142 Authority to impose impact fe es; enactment of ordinances required.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 128
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
(a) Impact fees may be assessed, imposed, levied, and collected
(1) Any county for any development, or portion ther eof, not involving water supply or service; or
(2) Any board for any development, or portion thereof, involving
provided that the county enacts appropriate impa ct fee ordinances or the board adopts rules to
effectuate the imposition and collection of the fees within their respective jurisdictions.
(b) Except for any ordinance governing impact fees enacted befor
imposed only for those types of public facility capital improvem
county comprehensive plan or a facility needs assessment study.
service standards for each type of facility subject to an impact
apply equally to existing and new public facilities. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 1996, c 175, §1; am
L 2001, c 235, §2]
§46-143 Impact fee calculation.
(a) A county council or board considering the enactment or adopt
approve a needs assessment study that shall identify the kinds o
shall be imposed. The study shall be prepared by an engineer, ar
professional and shall identify service standard levels, project public facility capital improvement
needs, and differentiate between existing and future needs.
(b) The data sources and methodology upon which needs assessment
shall be set forth in the needs assessment study.
(c) [2004 amendment retroactive to October 1, 2002. L 2004, c 15
each impact fee shall be based upon the development and actual c
expansion, or a reasonable estimate thereof, to be incurred.
(d) [2004 amendment retroactive to October 1, 2002. L 2004, c 15
substantially related to the needs arising from the development
share of the costs incurred or to be incurred in accommodating t
seven factors shall be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facility capital
improvement costs:
(1) The level of public facility capital improvements required t
development, based on a needs assessment study that identifies:
(A) Deficiencies in existing public facilities;
(B) The means, other than impact fees, by which existing deficie
eliminated within a reasonable period of time; and
(C) Additional demands anticipated to be placed on specified pub
development;
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 129
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
(2) The availability of other funding for public facility capita
not limited to user charges, taxes, bonds, intergovernmental tra
assessments;
(3) The cost of existing public facility capital improvements;
(4) The methods by which existing public facility capital improv
(5) The extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees
previous five years to the cost of existing pu blic facility capital improvements and received
no reasonable benefit therefrom, and any credits that may be due
of such contributions;
(6) The extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees
may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital
improvements through user fees, debt service payments, or other
that may accrue to a development because of future payments; and
(7) The extent to which a developer is required to pay impact fe
to the development of non-site related public facility capital i
payable to a developer because of this provision.
(e) The impact fee ordinance shall contain a provisi on setting forth the process by which a developer
may contest the amount of the impact fee assessed. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 2001, c 235, §3;
am L 2001, c 235, §3; am L 2004, c 155, §3]
§46-144 Collection and expenditure of impact fees.
Collection and expenditure of impact fees assessed, imposed, lev
shall be reasonably related to the benefits accrui ng to the development. To determine whether the
fees are reasonably related, the impact fee ordinance or board r
(1) Upon collection, the fees shall be deposited in a special trust fund or interest-bearing account.
The portion that constitutes recoupment may be transferred to an
(2) Collection and expenditure shall be localized to provide a r
A county or board shall establish geographically limited benefit
zones shall not be required if a reasonable benefit can be otherwise derived. Benefit zones shall be
appropriate to the particular public facility and the county or
in writing and disclose at a public hearing reasons for establishing or not establishing benefit zones;
(3) Except for recoupment, impact fees shall not be collected fr
needs assessment study that sets out planned expenditures bearin
needs or anticipated needs created by the development;
(4) Impact fees shall be expended for public facilities of the t
reasonable benefit to the development; and
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 130
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
(5) Within six years of the date of collection, the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for
the construction of public facility capital impr ovements that are consistent with the needs
assessment study and of reasonable benefit to the development. [
c 235, §4]
§46-145 Refund of impact fees.
(a) If impact fees are not expended or encumbered within the period established in section 46-144,
the county or the board shall refund to the developer or the dev
amount of fees paid and any accrued interest. Application for a
county or the board within one year of the date on which the rig
refund shall be retained in the special trust fund or interest b
provided in section 46-144.
(b) If a county or board seeks to terminate impact fee requireme
unencumbered funds shall be refunded as provided in subsection (
give public notice of termination and availability of refunds at
refund shall be retained for a period of one year at the end of
transferred to:
(1) The county's general fund and expended for any public purpos
supply or service as determined by the county council; or
(2) The board's general fund and expended for any public purpose
service as determined by the board.
(c) Recoupment shall be exempt from subsections (a) and (b). [L
2, §14; am L 2001, c 235, §5]
§46-146 Time of assessment and collection of impact fees.
Assessment of impact fees shall be a condition precedent to the
permit and shall be collected in full before or upon issuance of
§46-147 Effect on existing ordinances.
This part shall not invalidate any impact fee ordinance existing
of §2]
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 131
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 132
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX H:
STATE ACT 197
APPENDIX H: STATE ACT 197
CHAPTER 264
HIGHWAYS
[PART VIII.] IMPACT FEES
[§264-121] Definitions.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
"Capital costs" means part or all of the cost for capital improv
costs to acquire right-of-way, plan, design, engineer, finance,
costs of management and consultant fees. Capital costs shall not
other operating costs.
"County" means a county having a population in excess of five hu [amended by SB
2901, sent to governor 5/8/06; effective 7/1/06]
"Department" means the department of transportation.
"Development" means any artificial change to real property that
building permit including but not limited to cons truction, expansion, enlargement, alteration, or
erection of buildings or structures.
"Director" means the director of transportation.
"Impact fee" means an assessment on a development used to increm
capital costs of public highway improvements reasonably needed t
"State highway improvements" means capital improvem ents to the physical infrastructure of state
highways. [L 2004, c 155, pt of §2]
[§264-122] Highway development special fund.
(a) There is established in the state treasury the highway devel
administered by the department, into which shall be deposited:
(1) Transfers of county impact fees assessed under part VIII of
state highway improvements;
(2) Interest from investment of deposits; and
(3) Legislative and county appropriations.
(b) Moneys in the highway development special fund shall be used
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 133
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
(1) Capital costs of qualifying proposed state highway improveme
(2) Reevaluation of the need, geographic limitations, amount, an
(3) Transfers to reimburse other special funds for expenditures
funded with moneys in the highway development special fund;
(4) Transfers under sections 36-27 and 36-30;
(5) Refunds under section 264-125; and
(6) The department's costs to implement this part, including but
the highway development special fund.
(c) The department may establish accounts in the highway develop
implement this part and rules adopted by the department. [L 2004
[§264-123] Authority to assess im pact fees; needs assessment study.
(a) A county may assess, impose, levy, collect, and transfer to
development pursuant to ordinances adopted under section 46-142
department is authorized to receive those funds for state highwa
(b) Prior to the assessment, imposition, levy, collecti on, or transfer to the department of impact fees
pursuant to this section, the director shall approve a needs ass
kinds of state highway improvements for which the fees shall be
part VIII of chapter 46. [L 2004, c 155, pt of §2]
[§264-124 Impact fees; director's consent.]
Notwithstanding section 264-123, no county shall assess impact f
improvements without the director's c onsent. [L 2004, c 155, pt of §2]
[§264-125] Refund of impact fees to county.
Upon the request of a county, the department shall refund impact
development special fund which have not been expended or encumbe
under this part within six years after collection under part VII
§2]
[§264-126] Adoption of rules.
The department may adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 to impleme
[§264-127] Limitations on actions.
A civil lawsuit contesting an action by the department or a coun
of chapter 46 shall be filed within sixty calendar days after the date of the action.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 134
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX I:
NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS
APPENDIX I: NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS
Stakeholder Focus Groups Meetings
November 18 (Kona) and 21 (Hilo), 2005
A. List of Participants (Total Participants: 18)
Frederic Berg, Brookfield Homes
Will Espero, DR Horton
Sid Fuke, Planning Consultant
Jacqui Hoover, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC)
Keith Kato, Hawaii Island Community Development Corp. (HICDC)
Kimo Lee, W.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Ken Melrose, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC)
Glenn Miyao, Wilson Okamoto Corp
Bill Moore, Kohala Ranch Development Corp.
Harold Murata, Self
John Ray, Parker Ranch
Skylark Rossetti, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board (HIED
Marianna Scheffer, League of Women Voters
Amy Self, Corporation Counsel
Bob Stuit, Hokulia
Dean Uchida, Land Use Research Foundation (LURF)
Bill Walter, W.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Marian Wilkins, League of Women Voters
B. Written Comments Submitted by Stakeholders:
1. Impact Fees level the playing field for new pr ojects but do little to address the increased
stresses on infrastructure based on infill on ex isting lots. Need parallel source of funds
to fulfill government portion of costs.
2. I learned a lot Ï very interesting. I hope we can follow the suggestions of Duncan
Associates. We must get our act together. I hope there will be more presentations open
to the general public.
3. Positive: Good Questions and Answers. Handout/powerpoint info
Started Late
4. Why is impact fee good for the County of Hawaii? What problem
5. Good Presentation. Endeavor to educate the County on a variet
mechanisms. Make sure ordinance recognizes previous contributions exacted Ï credits.
Examine county-wide fee calculation.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 135
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
6. There is a need for a broader look at infr astructure needs and financing to show what
is the best or fairest portion of cost should be paid by impact
7. After listening to the presentation yesterday my principle concerns are the impacts on
our housing programs for both low and moderate income households
County had exempted units from impact fees if the units were part of our program, this
appeared in rezoning approvals and in the pre-emption resolutions. If an impact fee
ordinance is to be adopted I would hope that it would similarly
housing otherwise it will make the homes mo re expensive to develop and that in turn
will cause less units to be constructed. While funding infrastructure is necessary for the
continued development of affordable housing I hope that it doesnÔt become a burden
on such housing while other less regressive alternatives are under-utilized. 8. Hawaii
Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC) had a study done that shows t
growth/contribution in property taxes by the Kohala Coast resort
these funds be used? At very least, need to integrate those reve
fees/needs assessment. The impa ct fees are being considered to give the County another
funding source but it does not appear that the Administration ha
other funding sources. Will County acknowle dge that their position on concurrency is
contradictory to implementing impact fees? Substandard lots are
rates just by virtue of being substandard, therefore the exempti
appropriate. 9. Thank you for inviting me to this presentation. 10. Need for an overall
perspective. Impact fees are one of the many ÑtoolsÒ that government has available.
Impact fees need to be fair and predictable. Leveling the playin
housing.
C. Summary of Key Points Made by Stakeholders (written/verbal)
1. Create of a fair and predictable system
2. Exemption of existing substandard lots does not seem fair nor
3. Take a comprehensive approach and expa nd scope to discuss other infrastructure
financing options to supplement impact fees.
4. Government should identify their role and infrastructure fina
5. Create an inclusive impact fee program - include state highwa
6. Look at the strategic issues/questions - including, how much
7. Address how impact fees will affect affordable housing.
8. Larger assessment/benefit districts are advantageous to count
9. CountyÔs position on concurrency and implem entation of impact fees are contradictory.
10. Recognize previous fair share assessments and contributions
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 136
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX J:
JANUARY VIDEO CONFERENCE
APPENDIX J: JANUARY VIDEO CONFERENCE
Video Conference Workshop
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
(Hilo, Kona, Honolulu and Austin, TX)
Total Participants: 58
Questions Answered at Video Conference:
1. Q: How often does one governmental jurisdiction collect fees
pitfalls or better ways you might suggest for doing this. Backg
County were to collect fees for State of Hawaii facilities.
A: At present, the State enabling legislation does not provide f
projects. Typically, throughout the United States, school fees are collected by cities and counties for
individual school districts. In Hawaii, the State functions as t
State is working toward a uniform school impact f ee that would affect new projects. It is probable
that an amendment will be necessary to the State statute to perm
road projects (at the beginning of the meeting, Pl anning Director Chris Yuen announced that the
County has submitted a bill to accomplish such an amendment).
2. Q: I hear the problem of impacts on existing services clearly addressed. However, how is the
impact of increased tax revenue resulting from new development t
A: The collection of property tax revenue by the County does not ensure the construction of
infrastructure to keep pace with development, or even to provide adequate infrastructure in the long
term. This can be seen on the Big Island. Other taxes and fees c
specific types of projects (such as the gas tax.). The need to s
infrastructure is a major determinant in the need for an impact
Case law requires taxes and fees paid for some capi tal facilities be deducted as credit against impact
fees. For example, monies collected for new road construction vi
against impact fees collected for construction of new roads.
3. Q: How can allowing one dwelling per lot be legal? Financing speculators? How can citizens
support the adoption of impact fees? For example, how can we hel
How can we get a copy of your PowerPoint for posting on waimeanp
A: The issue related to the exemption of a certain class of property owners from the requirement of
paying an impact fee is not resolved, and is being reviewed by t
issue relates to established legal precedents that require that
equitable. There are other options available to ex empting certain classes of property owners, such as
offering a grace period (such as a year or other time period) fo
the adoption of the impact fee ordinance to come in and get a bu
Citizens will be able to testify in support of a bill that adopt
held at the Planning Commission and County Council. The PowerPoi
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 137
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
on the Planning DepartmentÔs website through a link on the homep
www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/ipfna.htm.
4. Q: To what extent are the various facilities to be proportion
planned with the funding by the county in place? (Are we lookin
am notes)
A: We recognize that the full cost of funding future infrastruc
fees. Impact fees can only be assessed to achieve exis ting levels of service within the County. Other
funding will have to come from other sources. Im pact fees will offer the County another tool for
funding.. This project will identify the maximum impact fee that
actual impact fee could be less.
5. Q: Ocean View has over 8,000 lots. If no impact fee is charg
county provide infrastructure if these lots are built?
A: We have to draw a distinction between on-site an d off-site infrastructure. On-site infrastructure
includes such things as internal subdivision roads. On-site impr
collected impact fees.
6. Q: (As written) What are the specific drawbacks of having two assessment districts corresponding
to the two benefit districts- seems to be discrepancy in existin
which would be better reflected into assessment districts.
A: The consideration of existing lots does not nece ssarily skew data within a single benefit district at
the expense of that district, or in its favor. Assessment is bas
regional facilities. The benefit of having an island -wide assessment district is that it evens out the
assessment value, and there are no gross inequities in its appli
7. Q: Any better basis from other jurisdiction for basing fees
data collection from one date- Oct. 19, 2005 (pea k of boom in market) other jurisdictions justified
seems shaky. How have square footage basis for fee?
A: Impact fees based on unit size is an accepted methodology of
by other jurisdictions. Data collection is based on hi storic data prior to October 19, 2005 going back
several years.
8. Q: How can HI County support position of fees being allocate
necessary schools to support new development?
A: The County is not authorized to assess fees for State projects (including schools). If the DOE
adopts its own impact fee system for schools, it is unclear at t
administered.
9. Q: Are projected impact fees going to be comparab le to existing fair share assessment of roughly
$10,000/unit? This would seem to be a key factor in deciding how to deal with existing lots-any way
to exempt only those lots currently owned by Hawaii Island resid
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 138
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
A: At this time, it would be premature to make any comparisons b
possible impact fee assessments. This information will be develo
10. Q: What are you projecting for per unit fee?
A: We have not yet calculated proposed impact fees. That will ha
project, after we analyze data we are collecti ng from a number of County agencies.
11. Q: Any major drawbacks to two separate assessment districts
A: It is more complicated to calculate multiple assessment distr
this. At this time, we are trying to keep the methodology simple
12. Q: Said impact fee may only be used for CIP. Is it legal to
maintenance especially designed to reduce long-term capital cost
A: No, this would be legally dangerous even if used for preventa
clear. Architecture and design costs are allowed, but not mainte
13. Q: If I live in Puna (subdivisions) and pay an impact fee- h
water and sewers get spent? Am I likely to see this as fair?
A: Impact fees will only apply if the property is connected to service. If not connected, you do not
pay. The Department of water charges a separate connection fee a
water is not being considered as part of this project. In regard
County is actually on a County system. Only those co mmunities that are already hooked up to or are
adjacent to existing service would be considered for a sewer imp
14. Q: From slides: What does ÑCredit for past property taxesÒ m
A: There is a provision in the Enabling Act that requires that p
toward the payment of impact fees. The Act says we must look ba
would only involve the property tax. In this case, this would pr
overall percentage of property taxes that were sp ent on qualifying infrastructure would be small.
15. Q: Will impact fees cover only roads or include fire, police
A: Yes, fire, police, and parks will be included in this project
cannot be covered by the County. The Department of Education is currently looking into an impact
fee-type assessment.
16. Q: Resort development buyers tend to have lower impact than
recommended progressive fee would burden resorts more by virtue of having a higher cost on
average.
A: A progressive rate is based on the size of a unit, not cost.
occupancy (numbers) of a unit. Resorts during peak periods have
and fire.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 139
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
17. Q: (As written): If Impact Fees are not coll ected from folks building on their older subdivision
lots, does this mean that the impact fees will not be funneled b
In some of the older subdivisions residents are concerned about
made in their communities. They are concerned about lifestyle, community environment impacts.
From your experience have communities had a say on how fees are
Q: (As asked): If impact fees are not collected from older subd
subdivisions wonÔt benefit?
A: Funds received from a district are used within that di strict. If an area has lots of vacant lots, little
revenue is generated for parks. You pay, you benefit. You donÔt
18. Q: Are there any tales of remorse due to impact fees?
A: Few and far between. Only one of our (Duncan Associates) clie
to an economic downturn. When the economy picked back up and gr
reinstated.
19. Q: Could the County collect impact fees for state highways w
enabling legislation, extending the provisions of the state enabling act to the neighboring islands?
A: As discussed previously, this is a legal question, and we bel
fees for State road projects without a change in state law. A bi
legislature by the County to change the state law for this purpo
20. Q: 1. How would existing fair share assessment credits be ha
2. Is there any consideration for collapsing State and County im
A: If fair share assessments have already been paid, credits wou
is conceivable that Ñfair shareÒ payments could completely cover
development.
21. Q: Do fees go into a specific account- not a general fund, a
how funds are used?
A: To question #1, absolutely. To the other questions, the Coun
22. Q: If you have one county wide-assessment district are you coming up with an average
county-wide cost of all the improvements necessary to maintain L
growth? Then money collected may only be used in one of the 2 or
are collected. So each benefit district pays and receives the co
A: County wide assessment districts will be based on average cos
West benefits districts must be spent in the respective benefit
23. Q: (As written): Is there any intention to use impact fees in districts where they are raised?
Otherwise there will be a tendency to spend money from under pri
more favored districts.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 140
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
(As asked): What about North and South? Will IF money coming ou
A: Impact fees are intended to be spent in the benefit districts
conceivable that monies collected in Ka`u could be spent elsewhere in the benefit district. But there
would have to be some rational basis for spending in that manner
the larger region. This will be discussed further into the proje
benefit districts might be identified.
24. Q: (As written): Many, perhaps the majority of undeveloped existing lots are in non-conforming
subdivisions where little or no county services ar e provided within the subdivision. If lots in
non-conforming subdivisions are required to pay the same impact fees as lots in subdivisions with
full-developed public infrastructure, wouldnÔt that violate the
(As asked/recorded by am): I have questions on non-conforming lo
they be assessed?
A: Impact Fees will not address services within the subdivision boundaries of non-conforming lots.
These are considered ÑinternalÒ or Ñon-siteÒ infr astructure. Only infrastructure that is of more
general benefit will be funded by impact fees. The question of w
non-conforming lots will be an important topic of future discuss
Unanswered Questions:
25. Q: Does the Ñgrace periodÒ apply only to exis ting owners? Or also new owners? One-time? Spec
houses? Residences?
A: At the present time, consideration is being given to lots tha
the bill adopting the impact fee.
26. Q: If HPP lot owners donÔt pay a sewer fee, how will they ev
A: This is a good question, and relates to the l ong-term capital improvement plans of the County. It
would be difficult, if not impossible, for the County to assess
contemplate implementing within the lifetime of a capital improvements plan. There has to be a
commitment on the part of the County to provide the service befo
27. Q: Currently, only limited areas within the county are servi
fees be discounted for areas not serviced or pla nned for future extension of sewer service? If not,
how would fees be distributed?
A: Impact fees will be calculated for a number of different services, and assessed specifically for
those services. If development occurs in an area outside the service area for a certain service, then
that particular impact fee will not be assessed.
28. Q: How would the impact fees affect builders in Non-residential pre-existing subdivisions? OR:
would it apply? What would residential builders be charged to bu
A: At this time, we believe all new non-residentia l development would be assessed for impact fees,
most likely at the time of building permit. A sing le-family dwelling would be assessed the same basic
impact fee, regardless of zoning.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 141
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
29. Q: How are impact fees administered, i.e. are there provisions/mechanisms to Ówaive feesÔ? Like
the problem with fair share fees. How can we keep good old boy p
A: Procedures for administration should be clarified by ordinance, as part of the bill. It should be
very straight-forward to assess and keep track of assessments an
30. Q: Concern that mainland consultants were hired who are not
communities.
A: The consultants hired by the County include a planning firm f
Associates) who have a long and impressive hist ory working with local governments all over the
United States to establish fair and reasonable impact fee system
firm from Honolulu that is long-established in Hawaii, who have
issues. Guidance from County agency officials (i ncluding the Planning Department) provide
additional assurance that local issues and sensitivities are inc
product.
31. Q: Your calculation of size to impact only wo rks in a normal range (i.e. 1000 to 3000 sq. ft) The
range in house sizes is much larger (i.e. 500-24,000+) Across th
hold. How do you handle this? Are you concerned that collecting
by increasing costs & risks?
A: It is true that the correlation between unit size and number
upper end of the typical range (about 4,000 square feet), and we
do not continue to increase for very large homes.
We assume that your suggestion implies that de velopers would not want to process subdivision
requests because of the added cost related to impact fees, and therefore, the number of new
developable lots would not continue. We have found this not to b
Because the process establishes higher predictabili ty and certainty to the development process, there
is actually more interest in development than less, because the
will be.
32. Q: Re: Needs assessment / WaÔa WaÔa Subdivision
a.due to the growth in our Pahoa community, the govt. beach road
maintenanceÒ to keep it in better condition to allow EMT/fire ac
b.closer proximity of fire station (current volunteer truck is W
c.ATVÔs being driven (noise, safety, and speeding) through neigh
POLICE PATROL.
d.County to take over maintaining Ódedicated to countyÔ Park- Kahaki Park- Add lavatories or
portables.
A: With respect to these specific needs, impact fess cannot pay
salaries. They can be used for new facilities (restrooms, police
33. Q: The Ñdrill deepÒ population of KaÔu district is estimated
census. Will any attempt be made to assess needs on realistic po
East/West divisions of Hawaii Island compounds the neglect of So
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 142
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
A: The calculations made for this project must be based on metho
decision-makers. In terms of population, Census data is the data
consideration the need for additional benefit districts as the s
34. Q: Impact fees should be one of many tools we explore for in
A: This is a requirement of the State Enabling Act, and will be
used for this project.
35. Q: Clarification on credit for past property tax payments. H
A: These numbers will be calculated based on past property tax c
county expenditures spent for impact fee-eligible capital improv
36. Q: Progressive rates for residential units. Concerned over legality (more of a fee/tax) and
fairness issues.
A: Other jurisdictions have used a similar appr oach with single-family dwellings. Assessment is
based on degree of impact, and larger homes tend to have greater impacts based on average number
of occupants.
37. Q: Legality issues on calculating impact fees county wide an
A: The jurisdiction must be able to demonstrate the reasonablene
value. It has been used in many other jurisdictions.
38. Q: Concern over the ability and commitment to implement and
A: The administration of an impact fee system is not complex. There is an existing system of Ñfair
shareÒ assessments that the County has administered for several
change in operating procedures.
39. Q: Issue of county impact fees being able to fund state road
A: An amendment to state law will be required to implement such
40. Q: Would impact fees be divided between West Hawaii and East
fees be divided into ÑpotsÒ of money for roads, parks, schools, other infrastructure and NOT be
placed into the General fund?
A: Yes, impact fees collected in specific benefit districts must
projects for which they have been collected (i.e., roads, parks,
Collected fees will be placed in funds specific to their use.
41. Q: I am the water commissioner from North Kona. Cooperation
Department is almost non-existent. Can adoption of impact fees improve this situation? Our
greatest problem is use by the country of state road rights-of-w
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 143
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
A: Unfortunately, an impact fee program cannot influence the use
rights-of-way).
42. Q: Ocean View might have the highest number of undeveloped l
already developed its own fire department, road maintenance inde
community organization, grants and road maintenance fees. How wi
subdivisions that have taken infrastructure step independent of
A: In terms of the internal roadways that servi ce the subdivision, these facilities cannot receive fees
collected from the impact fee program because th ey only service the subdivision. Impact fees are
collected for facilities that have regional impact or beyond.
In terms of the fire station, if the County decides it needs to
possible that new development could be assessed impact fees to h
possible that credit could be given for funds spent by residents
43. Q: Is it the intention that the fees collected be ear marked
comprise the fee? For example, if $1 of the fee was for road ÑAÒ
for road ÑAÒ only?
A: No, the fees will not be earmarked for specific projects, but
parks, etc.)
44. Q: Can fee be used for facilities such as one stop community
children?
A: If the community center can be considered un der any of the categories proposed for impact fee
collection (e.g., parks), construction of a new center could be paid for with impact fees. Operation
of the center cannot be paid for with impact fees.
45. Q: New infrastructure; what is the percentage in cost to be
the percentage in cost to be covered by the county funding (i.e.
A: This is a policy issue for the County. The impact fees will
maintain the existing level of service that has been fully paid for by existing development. This level
of service is likely to be much lower than the Cou ntyÔs desired level of service. To achieve the
desired level of service, other funding sources will be needed.
46. Q: If the impact fee is applied to a lot in Puna is it Ñfair
police, fire, solid waste in another community within the benefi
A: The use of collected impact fees would be intended to serve most directly the area in which it was
collected. It is logical to assume that fees collected for a reg
located outside of some of the individual communities within the
47. Q: The consultant recommends two possible benefit districts-
recommend that impact fees be calculated countywide, based on co
service. Is there a difference in current costs and levels of se
Is it material?
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 144
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
A: The project methodology calls for calculating an over-all County-wide level of service, and it is
not intended that other separate calculations be made for East and West Hawaii. It is possible that
there are some cost and level of service differences between Eas
could be said of any geographic breakdown.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 145
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
this page intentionally left blank
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 146
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX K:
MARCH WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
APPENDIX K: MARCH WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
Compilation of Data from
Ordinance Issues Stakeholder Workshops
March 8, 2006 - Kona
March 10, 2006 - Hilo
Prepared by Alice Moon
March 31, 2006
Table of Contents:
The Dot Tally
Evaluation Forms Compiled
FacilitatorÔs Report Forms Transcribed
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 147
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
T H E D O T T A L L Y
KONA:
1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to ben
YES: 27
NO: 0
NOT SURE: 1- Benefits residents NOT County.
A. Impact Fees Are for County roads, parks, Fire, Police, Solid
AGREE: 24
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Why not schools?
-Water flood channels, low-income housing, SK Police station, un
- Plus cost of community planning process.
- Public Parking & public transportation
C. Impact Fees should be assessed at the time the building permi
AGREE: 30
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-The question is slanted,
-Developer should pay impact fees.
D. Developers who have paid fair share contri butions or made in-kind contributions should have
impact fees reduced or eliminated.
AGREE: 17
DISAGREE: 10
SUGGESTIONS:
-Not sure, too many ÑdealsÒ have been made in the past
E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for impact fees facilities after the
effective date of the ordinance they should be reimbursed from i
AGREE: 12
DISAGREE: 8
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Up to Impact Fee amount only.
F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with
AGREE: 14
DISAGREE: 5
SUGGESTIONS: 10
-Use sliding fee schedule based on value/ size
-Fees should be assessed by benefit district
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 148
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
G. Fees should be spent on the side of the is land (west or east) in which they were collected (two
benefit districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts
AGREE: 22
DISAGREE: 11
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Until infrastructure ÓequilibriumÔ is reached between east and
uniform application
-What about north and south- 50% in one district, 50% in other d
H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the
funding to pay the impact fees for such projects.
AGREE: 17
DISAGREE: 1
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-ÑAffordableÒ doesnÔt work, use Ñlow incomeÒ
I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling u
AGREE: 23
DISAGREE: 15
SUGGESTIONS:
-Also based on home value. To be based on number of occupants
K. Effective date of impact fee ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair
share contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased.
AGREE: 11
DISAGREE: 13
SUGGESTIONS: 2
- Need longer time frame to incorporate new system
_______________________________________________________
HILO:
1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to ben
YES: 12
NO: 2
2. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to ben
YES: 25
NO: 1
NOT SURE: 11
A. Impact fees are for County roads, parks, fire, police, solid
AGREE: 27
DISAGREE: 0
SUGGESTIONS:
-Public Transportation
-State roads
-Schools
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 149
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
-Public housing
C. Impact fees should be assessed at the time the building permi
AGREE: 21
DISAGREE: 5
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Grace period
D. Developers who have paid fair share contri butions or made in-kind contributions should have
impact fees reduced or eliminated.
AGREE: 20
DISAGREE: 2
SUGGESTIONS: 1
-Need to be paid the difference or be credited as such
E. If developers dedicate land or make eligib le improvements for impact fee facilities after the
effective date of the ordinance they should be reimbursed from i
AGREE: 16
DISAGREE: 8
F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with
AGREE: 20
DISAGREE: 7
G. Fees should be spent on the side of the is land (west or east) in which they were collected (two
benefit districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts
AGREE: 10
DISAGREE: 17
SUGGESTIONS: 5
-Districts should be based on the system needs/ operations
-Have different districts for different infra/ services
-Ditto
H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the
funding to pay the impact fees for such projects.
AGREE: 15
DISAGREE: 7
I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling u
AGREE: 16
DISAGREE: 10
SUGGESTIONS:
-Based on zoning or number of bedrooms
K. Effective date of impact fee ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair
share contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased.
AGREE: 14
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 150
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
DISAGREE: 3
SUGGESTIONS: 3
-This is 2 questions: I agree with part one, but not with part t
-Option to have fees paid over a specific period of time (Use improvement districts)
-Depending on type of applicant; graduated
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 151
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
E V A L U A T I O N F O R M S C O M P I L E D
KONA:
1. Based on todayÔs discussion, are you in favor of establishing
County of Hawaii?
Yes: 21No: 2Not sure: 1Did not answer: 1Other: 0
Comments:
With some revisions to the report as it stands now
!
2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful inform
IPFNA Project?
Yes: 21No: 1 Not sure: 0 Did not answer: 2Other: 1
Comments:
Not enough
!
3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate?
Yes: 13No: 11 If not, why? Did not answer: 0Other: 1
Comments:
KaÔu resident.
!
Bad traffic to/from site.
!
Very noisy.
!
A venue in Kailua-Kona would have been more convenient. Yano Hal
!
(highway traffic).
Hot and noisy room.
!
Far too much noise and crowding.
!
Not good for hearing! Noisy.
!
40 miles one way?
!
It was help during normal working hours making it difficult to a
!
for many others. Also, geographically, having one in the north a
been more convenient and more people could have attended from th
Too noisy, too little time. Wrong place, wrong time, not big eno
!
Too noisy outside, otherwise okay.
!
Marginal for driving distance.
!
Too far from Kailua and noisy!
!
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not u
clarification on?
Priority 1 and 2 improvements - these could be spelled out (or b
!
in conjunction with adoption of the ordinance.
Most of it was clear.
!
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 152
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
HÈÒAppropriate other funding to pay the impact fee for such proj
!
oAffordable housing mean income of $52,000 is not affordable mos
workers make less than $20,000.
Yes, (H) affordable Housing Project
!
oMulti units
oDefine more, etc.
oSingle-family low income housing
oAHP Elderly individuals with limited government fund or income
Per law, impact fees will be based on existing fa cility levels but West Hawaii area levels are so
!
poorÈhow can we ever expect equity of facilities and still pay t
All impact fees should be embarked to a special fund infrastruct
!
be borrowed or used for any other purposes.
Use of Ñaffordable housingÒ terminology doesnÔt work and the fed
!
work. We need Ñlow income housing (rentals and for sale).Ò
5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop?
Larger room so tables not so close. We had to shout to hear over
!
oLarger screen or closer so back of the room could read smaller
oHave runners to take questions to be answered instead of having
came to out table.
General Q&A time so group could benefit from discussions at othe
!
Hold in a room that provides more quiet for each group.
!
Facilitators should have had training and notification earlier a
!
want more respect and prep time!
Quiet environment and more time.
!
Different location.
!
Impact fees should not into the general fund. Should be assigned
!
oFacility too noisy.
Less participation by consultants at our table, have a runner to
!
comes back with a concise answer. This gives us more time. Also,
the issue is [re?] whatÔs wrong with todayÔs fair assessment fee system? So we know in what light to
look at the proposed answers!
More time, less confusing. Better notice/advan ce newspaper info, larger meeting room/quiet
!
environment, held in evening so more residents could attend.
Uncertain. It was well organized.
!
It was a good workshop but subject is very complicated for even
!
Thanks for doing it! Thoughtful process.
Given the Ñrules of engagementÒ beforehand. Ex: 1.) express ? 2.
!
of group.
Two more workshops
!
The ÑDotÒ process good except it was missing input from group di
!
Page 7 of policy analogies; HRS46-146 ÑIf shallÈprecededÒÈbut as
!
interprets ÑshallÒ as ÑmayÒ (discretionary).
Continue to dialog. Everyone needs more education on issue.
!
________________________________________________________________
HILO:
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 153
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
1. Based on todayÔs discussion, are you in favor of establishing
County of Hawaii?
Yes: 17No: 1Not sure: 5Did not answer: 2Other: 3
Comments:
Still depends how commercial/industrial developments are treated
!
Need much more work re: rational nexus.
!
Will support impact fee if it:
!
oComplies with statute
oMeets requirement of needs assessment study
oMust be predictable
oMust be reasonable, fair share and proportionate
oMust show nexus
oMust stay in the ÑregionÒ/ÒcommunityÒ th at contributions are made contribution
district = benefit district
oImpact fees should be supplemented by other government-funding
making fee reasonable
oMust have an implementation plan
Much more research necessary and time to incorporate PCDP into t
!
Yes, generally. Not sure about the details.
!
Yes, but not sure nexus and fair share still uncertain benefit d
!
2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful inform
IPFNA Project?
Yes: 27No: 0Not sure: 0Did not answer: 1Other: 0
3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate?
Yes: 26No: 1If not, why? Did not answer: 1Other: 0
35 min. one way
!
Comments:
Too noisy
!
Not enough parking!
!
4. Is there any Impact Fee-related terminology that you do not u
clarification on? No: 3
I learned many new terms today - Thank you!
!
Effect of impact fees on commercial areas! IÔm particularly conc
!
which is under onerous development regulations, has plans (sanct
Downtown Hilo 2025) to develop Ñ2nd floor livingÒ and is serious
Has been explained
!
Not exactly sure how impact fees differ from fair share.
!
5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop?
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 154
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
This issue needs to be related to the larger issues of service l
!
support cost/funding, and system needs and operations.
More time is needed- issues are too critical
!
oBetter explanation/clarification re: COH/Public Sector contribu
oClarify nexus between CDP/General Plan and Impact Fee
oProcess- consultants told us that the Impact Fee process (analy
based process.
A connection with CDP planning process would help some of us par
!
would help in Ñwrapping mindsÒ around the topics /issues that need addressing so impact fees could
be implemented.
A little more clarity in Q/A section (materials)
!
oEx: Using bullets, rather than imbedded info
oEx: Proofing carefully (alph) and being consistent with present
Clarify what types of development will pay such fees before the issue of waivers is discussed.
!
More time
!
Better explain the methodology (maintain existing level of service) as opposed o
!
methodology used on Oahu for the Ewa example. Why is it better?
Seminar was positive. However, questionnaire seems so focused, w
!
other points if that isnÔt going to be really discussed?
It was well donÔt/informative. I felt like the idea of impact fe
!
or redevelopment was purposely moved under the rug.
Clarify commercial and residential I.T.
!
I thought it worked really well. Thanks!
!
More publicity about it. I wouldnÔt have known I could participa
!
More discussion on cost recovery. How COH island wide impact fee
!
highway impact fee on Oahu.
Should have responded to participant [que stions] before doing small group discussions.
!
oShould have allowed ÑcommentsÒ to be incorporated as part of fe
to adding solutions and voting on solutions.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 155
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
F A C I L I T A T O R S R E P O R T F O R M S C O M P I L E D
KONA:
ISSUE A: TYPES OF FEES
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Is there a better method to supply water
except catchment? Can impact fees remedy this if charter were changed, or what could be done?
Agree that we need the fees. Would like to include water but we donÔt know how.
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYesÒ but no number of how many polled
water (see above)
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Can Impact fees cover public buildings? C
the impact fees? Impact fees to cover new flood channels and flo
Underground utilities? But lots of options discussed we had a different idea about covering flooding.
(Did not do Poll)
ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: Why exclude Puna and Ka`u- they are lacki
be included. We agree they SHOULD BE INCLUD ED. We agree possibly have a share cost with
County for low-income owner.
Option 5: Treat everyone equally, with some subsidy to low-incom
lots. One year to implement - grace period during which time fa
apply.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1 - 4. No written number on poll o
discussion above.
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Discussion of existing lots and how to as
that we decide to add #5 that all existing lots should be assess
time of pulling building permit.
Option 5: We have a consensus that we want to add alternative #5
assessed an impact fee to be collected at time of pulling buildi
(Did not do Poll)
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Puna & Ka`u donÔt have serv ice? If not going assess fees in Puna & Kau
where is money coming from? If more lots z oned than houses #1 without paying fee (if #1)
double.
Why shouldnÔt everyone pay? What affect on affordable housing d
How can we assess three options without knowing what is wrong wi
Are these options mutually exclusive? No rationale for exemptin
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 156
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Option 5: Fees same across the line. All new buildings pay impa
income. Progressive schedule.
Option 6: Existing lots of record with existing ow ners of record with a grace period of 2-5 years to
build without impact fee.
FINAL POLL: 3 for Option 5; 1 for Option 6
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Exclude Ka`u and Puna means no services.
Why is there no option #5 that says we charge full fees for deve
Ka`u be excluded? The poor should not have to pay impact fees fo
time of permits.
Option 5: We charge full fees to everyone (res idence, commercial, industrial, multi-family) at
building permit level.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4. 1 for Option 3; 4 for
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Most of the group felt that the unintende
exemption or exemption period would create negative impacts. Mo
NO exemption. Most of the group would like to have the no exemp
sliding scale based upon the size (square footage) of the residence. Questions arose as to what was
included in the counted lots (were ag. lots included?). A quest
engineering was behind the impact fee policy.
Option 5:
a.No exemption for existing lots, but provide a sliding scale ba
b.No exemption and no sliding scale
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 6 for O
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: What is the magic of a 5-year period? Wh
Does 2-5 year period provide an advantage to developers vs. loca
Option 5: Bonafide farm dwelling (2nd house for workers) should
advantage to big any developer over local residents.
FINAL POLL: As written: Option 1 _No_ Option 2 __No_ Option 3
unconstitutional best if can include option 5
ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: When fees collected
a)Agree with recommendations collect at time of building permit.
b)Will impact fees lead to more non-permitted (illegal) construc
c)More site inspections for illegal buildings to collect impact
(No ÑFINAL POLLÒ printed on worksheet) Group checked ÑYesÒ and n
recommendationsÒ
ISSUE D: PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS
Kona Group 4
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 157
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
No reimbursement of fees? If the fair share is less than the imp
charged more?
FINAL POLL: Confusing question.
ISSUE E: ORDINANCE REIMBURSEMENTS
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Question/Comment was made that while the
may be easier for administration, but it may not be fair to the
the benefits of the CFD process, including fairness to the devel
of fees on residents. Adjustments should be made under the Ralei
money.
FINAL POLL: No Vote.
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: After ordinance date, why should develope
improvements be reimbursed from impact fees? Developers should b
(No ÑFINAL POLLÒ printed on that particular section of worksheet
clarification
ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: May be unfair if same schedule used aroun
arrow with this noted to point to underneath ÑFinal PollÒ)
FINAL POLL: 4 Yes; 3 No
ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: We agree that there should be 9 districts
The majority of fees kept in their respective districts, with ju
split East/ West.
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑNoÒ but no number of how many polled.
how many?Ò with: 9 as noted above
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Divide into East-West firs t, then after a period of 2 years perform a
mandatory review to determine if this is a fair and workable pla
(Did not do poll)
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Benefits should be based on needs. How d
Puna & Ka`u will be isolated.
FINAL POLL: [ALICE NOTES: this is confusingÈt hey have written 11 for Yes, agree with 2
benefit districts then they wrote under that and circled Ñabstai
with hash marks - three hash marks with Ñ4 or 5" after them and
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 158
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Kona Group 4
Summary of discussion: Can we expand and benefit districts from 2-4? Can we create sub-districts
within Benefit Districts? Can we list different infrastructure
District? Can 50% of fees in Judicial Di strict be spent there and 50% within district?
FINAL POLL: ÑDISAGREE UNANIMOUSÒ
Other Option: 50% of fees in Judicial Dist rict be spent there and 50% within district
Kona Group 5
Summary of discussion: Most participants would like to have the
kept as close to the impact as possible. Most of the group wante
only 2, that they should be segregated East/West. Most of the group, however, would like to see
more than 2 districts. Five members of the group voted to have t
districts (e.g. a district for Kau, a separate district for S. K
Three member of the group voted to see the be nefit districts conformed with the Five proposed
park districts.
FINAL POLL: see below
Other Options: 1 for North/South; 5 for East/West; 3 for 9 Distr
park districts)
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: Proposed park districts seem to be a fair
infrastructure needs --- based on population density but might i
maps for the different services -police, fire, etc.) but propose
better in subsidizing to what actually exists. All services are
FINAL POLL: Do you agree with the recommendation of EAST/WEST be
1? YES with equity and level of service.
ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Rational nexus. Need , benefit, fair share-everybody pays.
Capacity enhancing
Inequity created-everybody pays.
1.Legal Implications
2.What is wrong with existing system- not broke why fix?
Current system- before I.F. act- legal defensib ility issue. Fairness issue-commercial. All not zoned
not paying? Renewal issue- not getting money. County exempted co
FINAL POLL: 6 agree with recommendation; 0 do not agree
ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE
Kona Group 3
Summary of discussion: Should fees be based on di stance from urban core? Higher level of fees-
some do increase with distance- trip rates and trip length- Fees
complicated- second generation fee.
Boundaries can be changed-lineal cash increases with distance.
Benefit district/assessment fee-
Impact fee capacity enhancing new development
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 159
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Charge same for every home- progressive fees.
Socially regressive fee- rational nexus = supply and demand.
Create a need = need to pay. Made a gesture toward affordability
FINAL POLL: 5 agree with recommendation; 1 did not agree
Other Option: Add value.
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: How does this relate to multi-family? (Ohana) Should be different issue
from single family.
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑNoÒ but no number of how many polled.
Why? Flat fee would reflect reality of island living verses squa
Other Option: Suggestion: No fees for units up to 4,500 sq. ft.
ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY
Kona Group 1
Summary of discussion: Impact fees can be used for studies for w
PARKS, community plans purchasing easements for public access. 1
Exception where county subsidizes lower income single family lot
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYes (with option)Ò but no number of h
Other Option: 100% with exception of lower income/county subsidi
Kona Group 2
Summary of discussion: Suggested to charge maximum 100% at least
the system operates. We have a large shortfall on infrastructure
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYesÒ but no number of how many polled
Kona Group 6
Summary of discussion: What will the actual cost impact fees? WonÔt there be a disparity/inequity of
services. East Hawaii vs. West Hawaii? Hello!
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYesÒ but no number of how many polled
________________________________________________________________
HILO:
ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Generally, group concerns wer e the exclusion of fees for existing lots and
national nexus for exclusion?
Concurrency
Resource assessments
Consistency with CDPÔs general plan
Option 5: Everybody pays
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 3; 1 for Option 4 with con
beginning point is concurrency
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 160
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: Want rational nexus! Wha t is the definition of ÑimpactÒ? What kind of
facilities would be built? Is this discussion premature? Impact
a constitutional issue is asking fees for existing lots? How did we get to the 64,000? How many of
those are owned by ÑState of HIÒ residents?
Option 5a: Everyone pays with a credit to ÑsubstandardÒ subdivis
Option 6: Long term residence (sic) donÔt pay fee un less they are sell (sic) (speculator) (like state 10
year plan)
Option 7: Needs more work
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 3 for Option 3; 5 for O
Option 7
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: Very complex issue; see option #5.
Option 5: All previous lots pay, with an offset for low income o
scale in accordance with affordable housing policy.
FINAL POLL: We all agree that Option #5 should be considered.
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: Option 4 not viable vs. creating improvem
Assessment districts
Already built lots
BI owners v. off-island/out of state owners- why not have everyo
Option 5: Impose impact fees to all lots in existence from date
because it potentially benefits the wrong people/ penalizes the wrong people). No waiver period or
exemption for 1 SF unit.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 4 for O
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: Lots of confusion about if commercial dev
discussion. How are mixed used property handled? Eg . a store with residential above. Can we factor
in residency/non-residency in the charge of I.F.? Are we getting all the property owners (in and out
of states) voices heard?
Option 5: Existing lot owners will not get assessed im pact fee, if lot gets transferred, new owners get
assessed impact fee.
FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3 with con
5 and 1 abstained
Hilo Group 6
[ALICE NOTES: very difficult to decipher this report - some note
FINAL POLL:
Option 1 - 3
Option 2 - 0
Option 3 - 2
Option 4 - 1
Option 5 - 3 Collect upon 1st sale of developed property
Option 6 - 1 Each district will determine its own treatment of e
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 161
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: Time of assessment/collection at the time
Option 1: Incremental payment over time for current owners of ex
arrow was drawn from this option in the summary area to option a
Hilo Group 5
Can it be assured after completion, so mortgage can include it?
(Group did not poll)
ISSUE D: PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: 1. Will real property taxes be calculated into impact fee credits? *yes, studies
being conducted now to ID hard numbers. 2. Is there any method t
owner has already paid impact fees for a particular lot. *fees p
not owners.
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYesÒ but no number of how many polled
ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Assessment districts and benefit district
related to needs?
FINAL POLL: [In response to ÑDoes your group agree or disagree w
group polled zero for Yes and 7 for No.] with comment: ÑSimilar
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: West side costs more for infr astructure so East side cost less, so different
fee structure should be placed.
(Group did not poll)
Hilo Group 6
FINAL POLL:
4 for single district for assessment
1 for nine districts
1 not sure
Idea: Zip codes per benefit district
ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: Group questions rational nexus for impact
example) and road improvements in Puna? Group questions why 5 di
everything else? Consensus s is that group felt inequity due to
only. Answer: Make more districts?
FINAL POLL: Two benefit districts? Zero for Yes, 7 for No
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 162
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
If no how many? Make more districts. 9 judicial districts. More
level of service differences.
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion: N. Kona and S. Kona should be grouped tog
district. How are Ñlock boxÒ managed? Should multiple types of d
Benefits, representations, cenus, judicial, parks, etc.). Distr
FINAL POLL: Zero for yes; 9 for No; Comment: Needs more work
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: Perhaps we should look at be nefit districts with a systems approach defining
each district with respect to infrastructure ca tegories. (Roads, park, fire, police, wastewater)
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑNoÒ but no number of how many polled.
If no how many? 7
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion:
1.Will east/west benefit districts foster more divisiveness betw
may help W. HI to know they are paying their own share.
2.Too broad - just East v West doesnÔt have adequate nexus.
3.Do judicial districts have to be basis of be nefit district area? Benefit district boundaries need
to adequately reflect situation/community relationships (volcano
4.How flexible are benefit district boundaries as system evolves
5.What factors determine district boundaries initially?
6.Why should people in an already established neighborhood pay f
7.Can benefit district be decided by up code?
8.Is there a way to differentiate fees for different types of se
(parks, fire, med) and those that are regional (roads)?
9.Ex: Kapolei charges flat rate fee per permit pulled to support
10.Have improvement projects already been identified for propose
FINAL POLL: 5 for Yes; 1 for No; 1 DoesnÔt want to foster furthe
W. HI.
Hilo Group 5
Summary of discussion: Why are the benefit districts so large? If itÔs too small, there wonÔt be
enough $$$. Concerned about money collected in a benefit distric
2 districts - Some districts can share benefit i.e. regional par
benefit districts.
FINAL POLL: Unanimously No; Suggestion: Follow park districts
Hilo Group 6
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑNoÒ but no number of how many polled.
2 districts - 1
5 districts - 0
3 districts - 4
9 districts - 1
Comment: eliminate language ÑV.S.Ò from all presentations.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 163
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: 1. What is the source of affordable housi
2. Will developers be assisted a fee to pay into affordable hous
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑYesÒ but no number of how many polled
where money would come from.
ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE
Hilo Group 2
Summary of discussion:
Progressive residential fees: Yes-0, No-7
Needs more study: Yes-0, No
Wrong measurement (family unit): Yes-8, No-0
Flat Fee: Yes-6, No-0
FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 7
more study
Other Option: Flat Fee: Yes-6, No-0
ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY
Hilo Group 1
Summary of discussion: 1) Where is public sector/county share?
improvement and how much does county pay? 3) Impact fees that p
1)Define public/county share: existing level of service
2)Ewa model. Calculate what you want, how funded. (i.e. impact f
3)Current LOS (?) by tax revenues. Future improvements by impact
4)Are all fees expected to pay for all improvements in the futur
FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 6
ISSUE K: PHASE-IN PERIOD
Hilo Group 3
Summary of discussion: We feel there should be a phase-in period
FINAL POLL: Group checked ÑNoÒ but no number of how many polled.
Other Option: Payments over time, with various financing periods
Hilo Group 4
Summary of discussion: If there is a phase-in peri od, how does that guarantee timely construction of
improvements? *phase in to address county preparation for implem
still continue to be collected until I.F. becomes effective.
(Group did not poll)
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 164
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX L:
AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
APPENDIX L: AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
Questions Posed During Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Workshops
Hilo (August 15, 2006) and Captain Cook (August 16, 2006)
HILO
1.Question: Regarding Section 36-14(c) of the Draft Impact Fee Ordinance; on what basis
shall the impact fee administrator assign priorities for allocat
some reference to adopted Community Development Plans or General
the allocation of funds toward clearly identified pr iorities adopted by the Council. It might be a good
idea to suggest a process here whereby competing projects are ranked and presented as a package to
the Council for final approval.
Response: It is probable that determining priority for expending
a collective effort of the County Council, the administration -i
and the public. It would seem that the annual budgetary process
improvement projects, and that adherence to CDP and General Plan
to that process.
2.Question: In your discussion related to the phase-in period of
mentioned in the presentation that you would like to avoid a disruptive effect on the real estate
market. What kind of effect is possible?
Response: The desire is to proceed with the adoption of an impac
and provides builders and other residents with as much lead time
system. This will avoid confusion and surprise when building per
expiration of a grace period. The phase-in period would also provide administration with sufficient
time to plan and implement the program by acquiri ng and developing the necessary tools and staff
needed to ensure program operates efficiently.
3.Question: Why is there no impact fee proposed fo r solid waste infrastructure associated with
commercial (and industrial development)?
Response: Commercial entities wind up payi ng a tipping fee when they dispose of solid
waste. This is collected when the business (or entity) either du
third party to collect and dispose of solid waste. The tipping fee is a "pay as you go" system.
4.Question: Can a wastewater impact fee be effective for homes t
system?
Response: A wastewater impact fee will only be assessed for new
the service area of existing muni cipal wastewater treatment plants.
5.Question: How were the maximum allowable impact fee values det
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 165
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Response: They were calculated as the net cost to maintain the existing level of service, after
taking into consideration other taxes and fees that would be gen
available to fund capacity-expanding improvements.
6.Question: How will the expenditure of impact fees be prioritiz
Response: The prioritization of spending impa ct fees could be a collective decision made by
the Council and the Administration, with input by the public. As
during the budgetary approval process, decisions could be made about which projects should receive
how much money from impact fee sources. With community developm
initiated island-wide, it is hoped that some prioritization of p
meetings.
7.Question: I own a buildable lot right now; if I apply for a bu
have to spend $12,000 extra to cover impact fees?
Response: If an application is made for a building permit prior
impact fee ordinance, then no impact fee will be required. Appli
effective date of the ordinance will be required to pay the impa
$12,000 represents the maximum amount that th e administration can apply; and a decision can be
made to apply a percentage of the maximum amount.
8.Question: I disagree that a one year phase-in period would lim
to the real estate market of projects that are "in the pipeline." This is primarily because projects in
Hawaii can be "in the pipeline" for three years before ground is
financing and/or tax credits are involved (which is usually the
Taking that timeline into consideration, as well as the need for
affordable housing be created for impact fees? Is n't the application of "fair-share"/disproportionate
share a policy call?
Response: An overarching requirement for any impact fee system i
proportionate share. No one can be exempted. It may be possible
impact fees that qualified affordable housing units would incur,
to projects that "are in the pipeline," they will not be penaliz
application is made prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance, no impact fee will be
required.
9.Question: If the County pays the impact fee for affordable hou
come from, and what would the net effect of that policy be?
Response: The source of the money to pay affordable housing impa
by the Administration and approved by the County Council. It cou
(real property taxes), grants, or other sources. It cannot be paid from the collection of impact fees,
however.
10.Question: Can road fees for homes built on private roads be c
Response: No, impact fees cannot be used on private infrastructu
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 166
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
11.Question: Has any consideration been given to people that als
Subdivision Project Provision), which can range from $800 to $11
Response: No, not at this time. Mainly because electricity is a
responsible for the installation of electrical poles.
12.Question: Hawaii County has Community Development Plans (CDPs
the CDPs intersect with the "ideal" comprehensive infrastructure
County to determine? This seems to be a central need for Hawaii
Response: CDPs can be a valuable complement to infrastructure pl
community to assist with prioritizing infrastructure projects in their region. The CIP could take cues
from the General Plan and the CDPs, during the budgetary review
regarding impact fees at the CDP level can be very valuable.
13.Question: Are "impact fees" and "land tax" the same thing?
Response: No. Impact fees are not considered a tax. They are a o
partially off-set the initial costs of infrastructure construction and financing. A land tax is on-going
exaction that is paid by landowners to government, and not only
financing costs, but also is used for operational funding and ma
CAPTAIN COOK
1.Question: Under the current system, affordable housing is not
contributions. If an impact fee ordinance is adopted, and afford
be retroactive?
Response: In the first place, affordable housing will not be exe
system. Although the affordable housing owner or builder may not be personally responsible for
impact fee payment, the fee must be paid into the impact fee sys
the impact fee nor the program for payment of affordable housing
retroactively.
2.Question: Has the impact fee study anticipated the tax base th
Response: The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessm
maximum impact fee value that can be assessed for each of the va
will be up to the County Council to determine how much of that m
the County move forward with an impact fee ordinan ce. Certainly one of the considerations for the
Council would be how much might be available from the collection
receives, and how that relates to the overall bu dgetary requirements of the County, and the projects
perceived to be necessary for funding during that budgetary cycl
3.Question: Regarding the benefit principle: wouldn't there be better representation
(pay-benefit) if there were more than 4 district s? How about the same number of districts as we
currently have represented by the County Council?
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 167
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Response: The number of benefit districts needs to be carefully considered. If there are too
many benefit districts, it may take longer to build the fund and
money collected within that district within the 6-year statutory
areas into larger areas, it is significantly ea sier to identify projects to spend collected impact
fees. Ultimately, the number of benefit distri cts can be tailored to meet the needs of each
government body and community population that adopts an impact f
4.Question: In other areas, who does the actual work for infrast
government or the developer? Which do you recommend?
Response: Circumstances often dictate who will actually construc
improvements. Frequently, developers will constr uct improvements when they have been required
to do so as part of the entitlement process, an d then dedicate the improvements to the County. If
the project is being constructed as part of a County initiative
County must follow legal bidding requirements, and although a pr
constructing the improvements, it is the governme nt that actually funds the project and determines
scheduling. Perhaps, we can also look forward to more collaborative efforts where government,
private and community partnerships are developed to construct ne
improvements.
5.Question: Kaloko paid for its own roads, water, and power line
extent would Kaloko be fee-exempt today?
Response: Individuals who build new homes at Kaloko after an imp
adopted will be required to pay impact fees.
6.Question: How many houses have been built by anyone in Hawaii
that are "affordable?"
Response: Presently, data is not available to answer this quest
most developers paid in lieu fees to meet affordable housing req
Hawaii County Code, Chapter 11, Affordable Housing, was amended
requirements which increased the per unit cont ributions required by developers. These new
regulations should lead to the actual construction of affordable
7.Question: Can impact fees be applied to the following: Potable
distributions systems); youth centers/facilities; open space lan
Response: Impact fees can be used for youth centers/facilities a
space to be used for parks. Impact fees cannot be applied to pot
impact fee is adopted by the County Board of Water Supply (as st
Board of Water Supply has already adopted c onnection fees that function like impact fees.
8.Question: I was under the impression that impact fees can only
service at the time of adoption and spent based on a capital imp
ordinance address these?
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 168
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Response: The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessm
island-wide level of service for all infrastructural elements co
CIP projects are included in the study analysis. A ctual funding of specific projects will ultimately be
the responsibility of the County Council as part of the budgetar
9.Question: How would these fees be balanced for areas with private water and/or wastewater
systems (e.g., Waikoloa Village)?
Response: Impact fees cannot be collected for potable water faci
imposed on areas that are not part of a municipal wastewater ser
10.Question: Why is a solid waste fee not applie d for uses other than single-family residential?
Response: Commercial entities wind up payi ng a tipping fee when they dispose of solid
waste. This is collected when the business (or entity) either du
third party to collect and dispose of solid waste. The tipping fee is a "pay as you go" system.
11.Question: There seems to be both State and County roads in th
collecting fees to improve State roads?
Response: The IPFNA study calculated maximum chargeable impact f
State roadways, individually. This was in response to an initiat
Legislature this year, and signed by the Governor, amending HRS
Counties the ability to fund State roadway projects with monies
impact fees. The value of the maximum fee that could be charged
higher than the fee for County roadways, and raises the overall
number. It will be up to the County Council to decide if such a
the maximum fee to charge.
12.Question: Would the consequences of non-payment of impact fee
non-payment of taxes?
Response: If impact fees are not paid, then the building permit
specific development project. If taxes are not paid (assuming th
"worst-case" scenario the land in question can ultimately be sei
delinquent taxes.
13.Question: Who would be the impact fee administrator---the Pla
Department of Finance or someone else?
Response: At this time, no decision has been made regarding admi
for the impact fee program. It is anticipated that the various agencies that would be involved with
impact fees would cooperatively determine how to administer the program. This would include the
Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Finance Department.
14.Question: What is the current 140% level for median income wi
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 169
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
Response: According to the most recent data found on Department
Development's website (http://www.huduser.org/ Datasets/IL/IL06/hi_fy2006.pdf), the current
(March 8, 2006) median income for Hawaii County is $55,300. This
140% of median.
15.Question: What is the payment schedule for fees?
Response: All impact fees calculated pertaining to any single development will be 100% due
either at the time of issuance of building permit , approval of plan review, or final subdivision
approval, depending upon when impact fees are required to be pai
ordinance.
16.Question: Where do collected impact fees get deposited, and w
Separate funds must be created for each category of infrastructu
assessed, and must be further subdivided by the benefit district
The funds would be managed by the County with the designation of
from one of the county departments.
17.Question: Can the money earn interest?
Response: Yes, the money can earn interest.
18.Question: If roads automatically become property of the Count
"roads in limbo"/gated communities? The impact fees should be ma
(bonds), if needed.
Response: Roads do not automatically become property of the Coun
will accept private roadways, they must meet County roadway stan
19.Question: Could impact fees provide funds for a new police or
Response: Yes, impact fees can be used to build new police or fi
to purchase needed equipment (fire trucks, police cars, etc.), b
maintenance of buildings or equipment.
20.Question: Why not assess fees on sale of homes (and put it in
Response: Impact fees cannot be assessed against existing develo
whether it changes ownership.
21.Question: The biggest bottleneck to the cons truction of new infrastructure projects is the
lack of interest by the private sector-they are t oo busy making big money to do County projects.
Response: Throughout the course of this project, the consultant team has heard that there is
a real problem within the County getting progra mmed infrastructure projects constructed. We have
also heard a variety of reasons that contribute to this problem.
responsibility, expediting infrastructure projects must be addressed by the entire community.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 170
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX M:
PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX M: PARTICIPANTS
NameAffiliation
NOV. 18, 2005 FOCUS GROUP MEETING - KONA
Harold MurataCommunity Member
Will EsperoDR Horton
Marian WilkinsLeague of Women Voters
Ken MelroseHawaii Leeward Planning Conference
Bob StuitHokulia
Dean UchidaLand Use Research Foundation of Hawaii
NOV. 21, 2005 FOCUS GROUP MEETING - HILO
Frederic BergBrookfield Homes
Sid FukePlanning Consultant
Jacqui HooverHawaii Leew ard Planning Conference
Keith KatoHawaii Island Community Development Corporation
Kimo LeeW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Glenn MiyaoWilson Okamoto Corp.
Bill MooreKohala Ranch Development Corporation
John RayParker Ranch Fo undation Trustee/HLPC
Skylark RossettiHawaii Island Economic Development Board
Marianna SchefferLeague of Women Voters
Amy SelfCorporation Counsel
Bill WalterW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - HILO
Charles Aina, Jr.C. Aina Jr., Inc.
Jason ArmstrongHawaii Tribune-Herald
Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Ac res Community Association
Marilyn BeggWaa Waa Subdivision
Peter BoucherWastewater Division
Jerry Bragdon Hawaii Island Board of Realtors
Joan CastbergLegislative Research
Marge ElwellNaalehu Main Street/Discovery Harbor Association
Byron FujimotoJas G. Glover, Ltd.
Marissa FurfaroAmerican Planning Association
Jon HenricksCounty Council
Nelson HoEnvironmental Management
Ben IshiiDepartment of Public Works
Duane KanuhaHawaii Leewar d Planning Conference
Keith KatoHawaii Island Community Development Corporation
Assistant Chief Quince MentoFire Department
Mike OkumotoCounty of Hawa ii Finance Treasury Division
Assistant Chief Elroy OsorioPolice Department
Leslie PedersenYamada Diversified
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 171
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
John RomanowskiJas G. Glover, Ltd.
Charles StantonSierra Club - Moku Loa Group
Wesley TakaiAdministrator, Real Property Tax Division
Kim TavaresFern Forest Community Association
Bill WalterW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Hugh WillocksHawaii Island Contractors Association
J. YoshimotoCounty Legislative Research Branch
JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - KONA
Laura AquinoCurrent Events
Bennett MarkPlanning Department
Jai ChengCounty Department of Public Works
Winston ChowFirst Hawaiian Bank
Linda CopmanCounty Council
Malia DavidCounty Council
Evelyn GonzalezOcean View Community Association
Debbie HechtHawaii Island Land Trust
Pete HoffmannCounty Council
Bob HunterWaimea Comm. Dev. A ssoc./League of Women Voters
Paul KayStanford Carr Dev.
Barbara KossowCounty Mayor's Office
John MedlinStanford Carr Dev.
Megan MitchellCounty Council
Harold MurataCommunity Member
Angel PilagoCounty Council
Patricia ProvalenkoPATDI, Inc.
John RayParker Ranch Fo undation Trustee/HLPC
Stan SitkoCounty Department of Finance/Real Property Tax Divisio
Jeff TurnerCommunity Member
George WilkinsLeague of Women Voters/Water Board
Marian WilkinsLeague of Women Voters
JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - HONOLULU
LeeAnn CrabbeQueen Liliuokalani Trust
Scott DerricksonState Office of Planning
Mary Alice EvansDBET/Office of Planning
Frederic BergBerg Enterprises
Hamid JahanmirState Office of Planning
Dennis KimDBET/OP
Robert McGrawAmerican Planning Association - Hawaii
Dean NakagawaState DOT
Richard PoirierState Office of Planning
Laura ThielenState Office of Planning
Dean UchidaLand Use Research Foundation of Hawaii
MAR. 8, 2006 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP - KONA
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 172
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Bobby CommandWest Hawaii Today
Linda CopmanCounty Council
LeeAnn CrabbeQueen Liliuokalani Trust
Roger DilesCommunity Member
Fred DuerrWESPAC & HIBT
Marge ElwellNaalehu Main Street/Discovery Harbor Association
Duane ErwayPlan to Protect
Patty FontanillaCoconuts to You
Brenda FordCitizens for Equita ble and Responsible Government
Diane GaylordCommunity Member
Evelyn GonzalezOcean View Community Association
Meg GreenwellKealekekua Ranch, Ltd.
Loren HeckHOVE Road Corp.
Greg HendricksonHokukano Ranch
Marni HerkesKona CDP Steering Committee
Pete HoffmannCounty Council
Gerald HollemanOcean View Community Association
Virginia IsbellCounty Council
David KaawaGreen Sands Subdivision
Madeline KaawaGreen Sands Subdivision
Ola KochisGreen Sands Subdivision
Barbara KossowCounty Mayor's Office
Mary LeleiwiHawaii Community College/OCET/CDP Facilitator
Lydia MaliKona CPD Steering Committee
Ruby McDonaldOffice of Hawaiian Affairs
Mark McGuffieHawaii Island Economic Development Board
Harold MurataCommunity Member
Nancy PisicchioCounty of Hawaii/HCRC
Tanya PowerHawaii Island Board of Realtors
Mike PriceSouth Kohala Traffic Safety Commission
Bob RosehillKamehameha Schools
Amy SelfCorporation Counsel
Rowena TiquiKona Adult Day Center
Curtis TylerKona CDP Steering Committee
Shannon UnderwoodCommunity Member
Lynn VanleewenOcean View Chamber of Commerce
George WilkinsLeague of Women Voters/Water Board
Marian Wilkins League of Women Voters
Ross Wilson, Jr.Current Events
Louise WinnCounty of Hawaii/ HCRC
MAR. 10, 2006 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP - HILO
Perry ArmorHilo Downtown Improvement Association
Gil BardenPacific Island Investments, LLC
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 173
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Ac res Community Association
Mary BegierHI Island Chamber of Commerce/HI Board of Realtors
Jerry BragdonHawaii Island Board of Realtors/Eden Roc
Malika BrownTsukazaki Yeh Moore
Carlton ChingCastle & Cooke
Mary FinleyHawaii County Ec onomic Opportunity Council
Marissa FurfaroAmerican Planning Association
Fred HolschuhCounty Council
Jacqui HooverHawaii Leew ard Planning Conference
Bob HunterWaimea Comm. Dev. A ssoc./League of Women Voters
Austin ImamuraPacific Rim Bank
Melvin JadulangFFA
Brian KajiwaraCounty Department of Public Works
Keith KatoHawaii Island Community Development Corporation
James KomataCounty Departme nt of Parks & Recreation
Kimo LeeW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Calvin MannCastle & Cooke
Suzanne MayhewHawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Association
Bruce McClureCounty Depart ment of Public Works
Robert McGrawAmerican Planning Association.
Jeffrey MelroseKamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division
Glenn MiyaoWilson Okamoto Corp.
Bill MooreKohala Ranch Development Corp.
Dean NakagawaState DOT
Eileen O'Hora-WeirPakaka Road Association (Waa Waa)
Mitchell OkumaCounty Real Property/Data Systems
Jon OlsonPuna Traffic Safety
Susan O'NeillRural South Hilo Community Association
Richard OnishiCounty of Hawaii Data Systems
Richard PoirierState Office of Planning
Anita Politano SteckelPuueo Community Association
John RayParker Ranch Fo undation Trustee/HLPC
Liz SalfernNanawale Community Association/Puna CDP
Marianna SchefferLeague of Women Voters
Stanley TamuraState Highways Division
Kim TavaresFern Forest Community Association.
Ronald TsuzukiState DOT
Dean UchidaLand Use Research Foundation of Hawaii
Mary Ann WanushHilo Downtown Improvement Association
J. YoshimotoCounty Legislative Research Branch
Jeff ZimpferWatershed Advisory Group/PACRC
AUG. 15, 2006 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION - HILO
Joan CastbergCounty Legislative Research Branch
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 174
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Deborah ChangCounty Planning Department
Gregory L. ChunKamehameha Investment Corporation
Linda CopmanCounty Council
Melissa Fleming
Melissa FurfaroAmerican Planning Association
Pete HoffmannCounty Council
Esther ImamuraCounty Council
Brian KajikawaCounty Department of Public Works
Alice KawahaCounty Pl anning Department
Brad KurokawaCounty Planning Department
Susan Lee LoyRealtor
Kimo LeeW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
James LeonardPlanner
Barbara LivelyCounty Council
Jeff MelroseKamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division
Glenn MiyaoWilson Okamoto Corp.
Bill MooreKohala Ranch Development Corp.
Jon OlsonPuna Tra ffic Safety Control
Susan O'NeillRural South Hilo Community Association
Shirley Pedro
Marianna SchefferLeague of Women Voters
Amy SelfCorporation Counsel
Kim TavaresFern Forest Community Association
Dean UchidaLand Use Research Foundation of Hawaii
Bill WalterW.H. Shipman, Ltd.
Elizabeth WeatherfordCommunity Member
James WeatherfordCommunity Member
Chris YuenCounty Pl anning Department
Mike (Unknown)No last name or affiliation given
AUG. 16, 2006 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION - KONA
Jai ChengCounty Department of Public Works
Peter Cooper
Maile DavidCounty Council
Duane ErwayPlan to Protect Kona
Brenda FordCitizens for Equita ble and Responsible Government
Larry FordCitizens for Equitable and Responsible Government
Evelyn GonzelesOcean View Community Association
Debbie HechtHawaii Island Land Trust
Loren HeckHOVE Road Corp.
Marni HerkesKona CDP Steering Committee
Virginia IsbellCounty Council
Mike Kordas
Ambika KosadaKona Soil & Water Con. District
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 175
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Barbara KossowCounty Mayor's Office
Trish Malone
Jim Medlin
Ken MelroseHawaii Leeward Planning Conference
Megan MitchellCounty Council
Harold MurataCommunity Member
Diane Neuteld-Heck
Bill ParisPalika Ranch
Ed RapozaIsland Land Company
Noelie Rodriguez
Stanley Schauhuber
Rowena TiquiKona Adult Day Center
Sally Tukunaga
Rick Vidgen
Sherman Warner
George WilkinsLeague of Women Voters/Water Board
Marian WilkinsLeague of Women Voters
Ross WilsonCurrent Events
Louise WinnCounty of Hawaii/HCRC
LOCAL RESOURCE TEAM
Lee Ann Crabb Queen Liliuokalani Trust
Mary Finley Hawaii County Ec onomic Opportunity Council
Robert HunterWaimea Comm. Dev. Assoc./League of Women Voters
Keith KatoHawaii Island Community Development Corporation
Robert McGrawAmerican Planning Association.
Bill MooreKohala Ranch Development Corp.
Harold Murata Community Member
Ben TsukazakiAttorney
Dean UchidaLand Use Research Foundation of Hawaii
Ann UsugawaCommunity Member
MAR. 8, 2006 - KONA FACILITATORS
Patti Dunn-O'Connell
Karen Eoff
Judy Kautz
Bennett Mark
Megan Mitchell
Louise Winn
MAR. 10, 2006 - HILO FACILITATORS
Barbara Lively
Paul Squassoni
Alex Frost
Larry Brown
Bob Hunter
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 176
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Jane Testa
AGENCY LIAISONS
Assistant Chief Quince MentoFire Department
Assistant Chief Elroy OsorioPolice Department
Judy Ah ChinDPW - Building Division
Nicholas Ah YoFire Department
Dora BeckDEM - Technical Services
Barbara BellDEM - Director
Peter BoucherDEM - Wastewater
Christopher Chin-ChanceDEM - Recycling
Nancy CrawfordFinanc e - Deputy Director
Michael DworskyDEM - Solid Waste
Pat EngelhardParks and Recreation - Director
Nelson HoDEM - Deputy Director
Brian KajikawaDPW - Building Division
James KomataParks and Recreation - Planner
Barbara KossowMayor's Office Deputy Managing Director
Galen KubaDPW - Engineering
Bobby Jean Leithead-ToddCorporation Counsel
Curtis MatsuiFire Department
Bruce McClureDPW - Chief Engineer
Jeremy McComberCounty Office of Housing and Community Development
Dean NakagawaState - DOT
Eileen O'Hora-WeirDEM - Recycling
Mitchell OkumaReal Property Tax Division
Michael OkumotoFinance - Treasurer
Richard OnishiData Systems - Prop erty Management Systems Brand
Deana SakoFinance - Accounts, Controller
Amy Self Corporation Counsel
Stan SitkoFinance - Director, Real Property Tax Division
Bill TakabaFinance - Director
Wesley TakaiReal Property Tax Division - Administrator
Stan TamuraState - DOT, Hawaii Highways Division
Clayton YugawaData Systems - Director
ADMINISTRATION
Harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawaii
Dixie KaetsuManaging Director
Andy LevinExecutive Director
Roy TakemotoExecutive Assistant
Christopher YuenPlanning Director
Brad KurokawaDeputy Planning Director
Lincoln AshidaCorporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Cou
Barbara BellDirector, Department of Environmental Management
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 177
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
NameAffiliation
Pat EngelhardDirector, Department of Parks and Recreation
Lawrence MahunaChief of Police, Police Department
Bruce McClureChief Engineer, Department of Public Works
Darryl OliveiraFire Chief, Fire Department
William TakabaFinance Director, Department of Finance
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
Stacy K. Higa
Virginia Isbell
Fred C. Hoschuh M.D.
Coun cil District 1
Donald Ikeda
Council District 2
James Y. Arakaki Council District 3
Gary Safarik Council District 5
Bob Jacobson Countcil District 6
Angel Pilago Council District 8
Pete Hoffmann Council District 9
PROJECT TEAM
Rose AcevedoAlice Moon & Co. - Assistant
James B. DuncanPresident, Duncan A ssociates - Impact Fee Consultant
Scott EzerPrincipal, Helber Hastert & Fee - Planning Consultant
Susan GagorikCo. of Hawaii, Planni ng Department - Project Manager
Alice MoonAlice Moon & Co. - Community Liaison for Public Part.
Clancy J. MullenDuncan Associates - Infrastructure Finance Director
Amy Self, Esq. Co. of Hawaii, Corporation Counsel - Legal Counse
John StottDuncan Associates - In frastructure Finance Specialist
And thank you to all others who contributed refreshments and off
to the process.
Mahalo!
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 20, 2006, Page 178
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX N:
IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY
APPENDIX N: IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY
Assessment Districts refer to geographic areas subject to a uniform impact fee sched
Benefit Districts refer to geographic areas in which impact fees collected are ea
spent.
Deficiencies, Existing refers to the cost to provide development existing at the time
of an impact fee ordinance with the higher-than- existing level of service on which the impact fees
are based.
Development, Residential refers to subdivision of land for or construction of single-fam
detached or multi-family dwelling units.
Development, New refers to development that is not in existence at the time of a
impact fee ordinance.
Development, Nonresidential refers to subdivision of land for or construction of buildings
uses other than residential development.
Fair Share Assessments refers to the CountyÔs informal policy of requiring applicants
residential and hotel rezoning to agree to pay fees at time of platting, site plan or building permit to
cover primarily off-site infrastructure costs relati ng to roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste
facilities. The amount of the fees are based on a 1990 study, w
on the Consumer Price Index.
Impact Fees are one-time charges assessed on new development to cover primar
infrastructure costs as authorized by Chapter 46, Part VIII of Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
Level of Service is a measure of the service provided by a certain type of capital facility. In impact
fee analysis, level of service is typically expressed as a ratio of some characteristic of the facility type
to the amount of development being served. For example, a commo
parks is acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Level of Service, Existing refers to the actual level of service provided by the County at
of adoption of an impact fee ordinance.
Level of Service, Higher-than-Existing refers to the calculation of impact fees based on the cost
of providing a better level of service than is bein g provided to existing development at the time of
the adoption of an impact fee ordinance.
Lot of Record, Existing refers to a parcel of property in existence on the date of ado
impact fee ordinance on which a building or structure could lega
through the CountyÔs subdivision process.
Lots in Older Subdivisions refers to lots that were created in the early 1950s and 1960s a
conform to present-day subdivision code requirement s. Many of these lots were created without
County facilities and services: they have private roads, which
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 179
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
system, no parks, police or fire substations in th e vicinity, and are on cesspool. A large number of
these lots are in the Puna and Ka' Districts.
State Enabling Act refers to Chapter 46, § 141 to148 of Hawai'i Revised Statutes,
passed by the Legislature in 1992 and authorizes counties to ass
fees upon conducting a facility needs assessment st udy and the adoption of an impact fee ordinance.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 180
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
APPENDIX O:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
APPENDIX O: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
A.Types of Fees
1. Question: What types of infrastructu re costs are intended to be captured
by the implementation of an impact fee ordinance?
Answer: The proposed impact fees would be used to construct County-owned
fire, police, solid waste, and wastewater facilities.
2. Question: Why is water not include d, isnÔt it a County infrastructure?
Answer: The County Department of Water already imposes a connection fee
building permit, which functions as an impact fee.
3. Question: Can the County use impact fees to build a public facility and turn it over
to a private entity to maintain?
Answer: Yes, however, the County would need to retain ownership, and th
to be available for public use.
4. Question: Can County impact fees be spent on facilities owned and operated by
the State of Hawai`i?
Answer: Yes. The Governor signed into law Act 197, which now gives all c
the ability to impose impact fees for State Highways only.
5. Question: Can impact fees be used to purchase private land to build a park?
Answer: Yes, as long as appropriate powers of eminent domain (condemnat
6. Question: Can impact fees be used to improve a private road?
Answer: No, impact fees can only be used on publicly-owned facilities.
7. Question: Can the County use impact fe es to acquire a private road and make
improvements to it?
Answer: Yes, if the road is classified as an arterial or collector road
classification map.
8. Question: Can impact fees be used to re tire a bond that was floated to build a park?
Answer: No, not if the park already exists and is serving existing devel
9. Question: Can impact fees be used for maintenance and operation costs?
Answer: No.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 181
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
B.Treatment of Existing Lots
1. Question: What will happen to developm ent of new homes on lots that already
exist?
Answer: The fate of existing lots of record has not been determined. A variety of different
options are being considered, including: (1) waiver of impact fe
developed on an existing lot of record; (2) crea ting a grace period, that would allow building
one dwelling on an existing lot up to five years after the adopt
ordinance; (3) having the County pay the impact fee for the deve
an existing lot; (4) incrementally phasing the amount of the impact fee assessed over a period
of years (for all development); and (5) crea ting a separate assessment district and benefit
district for the Ka`u judicial district, and not assessing any i
development, which means that no funds from collected impact fee
infrastructure improvements.
C.Time of Collection
1. Question: When would the impact fee be collected by the County?
Answer: The impact fee can be collected at any time during the developm
subdivision approval, building permit, certificate of occupancy)
collect impact fees is at the time of building permit issuance.
D.Pre-Ordinance Credits
1. Question: What is the CountyÔs fair share contribution progra
Answer: Fair Share Contributions are a part of the County of HawaiiÔs in
requiring developers applying for a change of zone to pay fees to mitigate the potential
regional impacts of the property with respect to parks, fire, po
Developers are assessed these contributions at the Change of Zon
land to Agricultural-five acre (A-5a) and below in size, excludi
rezonings. The fair share contribution is payable prior to secu
Approval or Final Plan Approval. The fees are based on a 1990 Impact Fee Study and are
adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of the ordinance, and based
on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (H
2. Question: What will happen to those proj ects that have been processed under the
Ñfair-shareÒ contribution program?
Answer: If developers have paid fair share contributions or made in-kin
projects that have not been completed, impact fees should be red
remaining development in those projects, based on the value of c
(adjusted for inflation) against the value of required impact fe
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 182
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
3. Question: Are there any other ways to have accrued credits against impact fees?
Answer: Yes, a portion of property taxes over the last five years has be
fees in the impact fee calculations.
E.Post-Ordinance reimbursements
1. Question: What would happen if developers are required to or
land or make eligible improvements for impact fee facilities after the effective date of
the ordinance?
Answer: They should be reimbursed from collected impact fees for the va
improvements.
F.Assessment Districts
1. Question: What is an assessment dist rict, and how will they be divided up within
the County?
Answer: An assessment district is a geographic area that is used to det
impact fees to be assessed within that distri ct. The impact fees are determined based on the
existing level of service for those facilities with in the district, and the value of new facilities
necessary to meet the existing level of service for new developm
For ease of administration, it is being recommended that the ent
single assessment district, which would mean that impact fees wo
throughout the county.
G.Benefit Districts
1. Question: What are benefit dist ricts and why are they important?
Answer: Benefit districts are established to help determine how collect
supposed to be spent. Impact fees collected in a specific benefi
that benefit district, so that the people who contribute the fee
construction of eligible facilities. Benefit dist ricts are not easy to establish, because they
should not be too small so that not enough monies are collected,
large so that the community is unable to see benefit.
H.Present Financing of New County Infrastructure and Public Faci
1. Question: What are the present source s for funding new County infrastructure and
public facilities?
Answer: Infrastructure and public facilities are funded through a varie
road construction and improvements are primarily financed throug
highway grants. They may also be funded with general obligation
are a low interest method of borrowing availa ble to government entities wherein the full
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 183
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
faith and credit of the entity is pledged to guaranty the repayment of the bonds. Sewer lines
and facilities are commonly financed through the StateÔs Revolvi
money dedicated to wastewater treatment projects, from which loa
with interest. Other public facilities are normally funded by i
instance, the recently completed Kawananakoa Hall in Keaukaha wa
bonds. Borrowing through revolving funds or bonds is the most c
construction of non-road infrastructure and facilities that will
years. The debt and interest are repaid from general fund reven
usually twenty years. The largest contributor to general fund r
Fair share contributions (fees paid by develope rs) and private contributions may also be used
to fund public facilities.
The CountyÔs capital improvement program (C IP) is budgeted for in the Capital Projects
Fund. Most projects for infrastructure and public facilities ar
The funding sources mentioned above provide the cash to complete the budgeted projects.
2. What are Real Property Taxes used for?
Answer: Real property taxes help to pay for an array of services, inclu
protection, civil defense, parks and recreation, elderly activities, solid waste program, mass
transit, economic development, flood control, animal control, an
retirement and health programs.
Note: Roads, highways, and traffic signals/lights are funded pr
state/federal grants-in aid, and private developers. In additio
services are funded primarily by rate payers and private develop
I.Affordable Housing Projects
1. Question: With regard to the payment of impact fees, how will projects be treated
that include dwelling units that me et affordable housing requirements?
Answer: If a dwelling unit is constructed as part of an affordable hous
must still be paid. This is because if the fees are not paid, it
impact fee ordinance into question. At presen t, the recommendation is that the County will
pay the required impact fees out of the general fund, not out of
assessment of other individualsÔ impact fees.
J.Progressive Residential Fees
1. Question: Will all single-famil y development pay the same fee?
Answer: Not necessarily, fees can be based on the size of the dwelling
established by a progressive rate. Smaller d wellings could pay less impact fees, based on a
pre-determined schedule that will become part of the impact fee ordinance or a standard fee
could be applied across the board.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 184
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY
K.Cost Recovery
1. Question: What does cost recovery me an, and how will it be applied to the
collection of impact fees?
Answer: The study that is underway for the County Planning Department w
maximum fee that can be charged for the various categories of in
included in the impact fee program. The County could then adopt
of the determined maximum fees, or any percen tage lower than 100%. Preliminary analysis
indicates that the total maximum impact fees will exceed the cur
existing fair share contribution program.
L.Phase-In Period
1. Question: When will the impact fee program begin to operate?
Answer: Because it will take some time for the County to prepare to admi
program, there should be at a minimum, a one-year phase-in period between the date the
ordinance is adopted and the date the ordinan ce takes effect. During this one-year phase-in
period, the fair share assessments would continue to be in effec
M.Application of Impact Fees
1. Question: Will facilities in my subdi vision be upgraded with the expenditure of
collected impact fees?
Answer: No. Impact fees can only be spent on facilities that have regio
collector roads, solid waste transfer stations, fire stations, e
improve private infrastructure and facilities that are internal
N.Administration of Impact Fees
1. Question: Will impact fees be put into the General Fund?
Answer: No. Impact fees will be collected and put into funds set up for
fee collected (road, police, fire, parks, solid waste, wastewater), and can only be spent on
those facilities.
H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 14, 2006, Page 185
AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY