Home County Council County Planning Commission Island Newspapers State Legislature

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve. - Alexis de Tocqueville

Current Status
How to Testify
Learning Center

Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance

Impact fees are payments required by local governments of new development for the purpose of providing new or expanded public capital facilities required to serve that development. For example, Hawaii County and the State of Hawaii could charge developers/builders impact fees to pay for the additional infrastructure needed to serve the development.

In general, impact fees can be charged to developers/builders for increasing the capacity of (e.g., adding lanes to) arterial roadway systems; building new fire/emergency medical service (EMS) stations, police stations, parks, schools; extending and expanding water, wastewater, drainage and solid waste systems to serve new development, etc. Impact fees cannot be used to pay for operation and maintenance of such facilities (only taxes and user fees can be used for those purposes).

    How Impact Fees Protect Working Families - opinion piece by Bob Hunter, who 12 years ago lead a citizen' initiative to implement an impact fee system designed by Duncan Associates for Bozeman, Montana

Current Status

A bill creating a county impact fee ordinance has been introduced for consideration by the Hawaii County Council. Here are links to copies of recent drafts of the bill:

    Next opportunity to testify is at the next meeting of the County Council Committee on Planning on October 7, 2008 at 3 pm. For details, click here.
    Bill 324, Draft 2 - second draft of Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance to be offered as a floor amendment on Oct 7 - establishes a development impact fee bill for Hawaii County. Bill 324 imposes impact fees for county roads, parks, fire/EMS, police, residential solid waste, and wastewater (in sewered areas).

How to Testify

You may select one of the following example messages (and edit it to reflect your position) or create a new message. Copy and paste text into your e-mail program and address your message as described below. Put the bill number in the subject line and add your name and address at the end of the message.

Shortcut: If you select the following link, the message will be sent to each of the members of the Hawaii County Council, with a copy being sent to Mayor Kim, to the official testimony address and to this website, when you press Send in your e-mail program.

If that does not work, copy the following addresses into the address line of your e-mail message:

    counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us; phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us; dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us;
    jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us; shiga@co.hawaii.hi.us; enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us; jjaco@co.hawaii.hi.us;
    bford@co.hawaii.hi.us;kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us; cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us; bob@webpatent.com

Example Testimony No. 1

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

In 1996, Duncan Associates drafted a Hawaii County impact fee ordinance imposing a charge on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development. Hawaii state law allows the counties to adopt impact fee ordinances and requires that impact fees must be spent in the benefit districts in which the new development is occurring and the impact fees are collected.

In the absence of a Hawaii County impact fee ordinance: It costs Hawaii County taxpayers $21,000 to replace the capacity in our island’s State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new single family dwelling. It costs us $4,800 for replacing capacity in only major County roads. It costs Hawaii County taxpayers $5,000,000 to replace the capacity in our island’s State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new 140,000 square foot Wal-Mart or Costco. It costs us $1,100,000 for replacing capacity in only major County roads.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 2

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The impact fee is a progressive technique for funding infrastructure construction, one that protects residents at the lower end of the income scale. If Hawai'i County impact fee ordinance set impact fees at rates that would recover 100% of county costs to accomodate new development, the developer of a typical big box store, like a Wal-Mart or Costco, would be charged an impact fee of about $1,500,000 to pay for capacity it would consume in County public facilities. The developer of an unsewered subdivision of single family detached dwellings would be charged about $8,700 per dwelling. Qualifying first-time home buyers and owner-builders would be charged nothing. They would have to pay the fee only after the house is sold or no longer occupied as a principal residence. So, in effect, developers and speculators would pay impact fees and people who buy affordable homes to live in them would not.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 3

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The County could charge developers who are building large houses higher impact fees than developers who are building smaller houses. While the current draft ordinance calls for single family dwellings to be charged a flat rate impact fee, under an alternative approach, the County could charge higher impact fees to the developers of larger houses than smaller houses. For example, if impact fees were set at rates that recovered 100% of county costs, an unsewered single family dwelling with 1,000 or less square feet of floor area could be charged about $800 less than the flat rate, while an unsewered single family dwelling with 4,000 or over sq ft of floor area could be charged about $3,200 more than the flat rate.

This approach is available if the impact fee is charged at the time of building permit, when the size of the dwelling is known. This would make the County impact fee system even more progressive. The developers of unsewered multi-family units would be charged about $3,300 per unit less than the single family dwelling flat rate under the proposed plan, another progressive aspect of the proposed system.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 4

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

I like Bill 32 because ordinary people would qualify for the deferral of impact fees for affordable housing. The proposed ordinance calls for the County to make an interest-free, no-time-limit loan of the impact fee amount to any first-time home buyer or owner builder who can qualify for the affordable housing deferral. The loan would have to be repaid only if the house is sold or no longer occupied as a principal residence. In order to qualify, the home would have to be affordable by buyers having combined adjusted gross income not exceeding 140 percent of median (middle) adjusted gross income for four-person households in Hawai'i County.

In 2008, the cutoff would be a household income of $88,760. If two persons in the household were working, they could each make $21 per hour, working full time, 50 weeks per year, and still qualify. This thresholds can be set (and changed) by the County Council.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 5

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The results of the most recent census of Hawai'i County by the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that about 80 percent of the households in the County earn less than 140 percent of the median household income. Using those numbers, about 80 percent of the households in the County should be able to qualify for deferral of impact fees. While this might sound expensive for Hawaii County taxpayers, it appears to be necessary in order to motivate Mayor Kim not to veto the bill. Remember, at present, Hawaii County taxpayers are paying for essentially 100% of the cost of growth. The proposed impact fee system could not be more progressive and even hope to achieve its goal of funding a significant portion of the cost of increasing infrastructure capacity to accommodate new development.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 6

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

Lack of funding is one important reason for the County's infrastructure shortfall. While it is true that the State and County have not been able to build many new roads in Hawai'i County lately, it is also true that more road capacity is needed than there is money available to build it. Take the State Waimea Bypass and the Kawaihae Rd Bypass, for example. The estimated cost of those two roads alone is $230 million, almost a quarter of a billion dollars. Construction of those two roads would consume all of the Federal and State highway grant money coming to the entire island for five years in a row. During that period, there would be no money for the Ane Keohokalole Hwy (Kona Mid-Level Rd), Queen Kaahumanu Hwy widening, Palani Bypass Hwy, Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Keanalelu (Waena Dr), Kealakaa St, University Dr, Hina Lani Dr Widening, Shore Dr, Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Alii Hwy), Lako St Extension, Saddle Rd Replacement, Saddle Rd Extension, Paniolo Rd Extension, Puna Mid-Level Rd, Mamalahoa Hwy-Kawaihae Rd Connector Project, etc. We need impact fees.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 7

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The 1998 Hawai'i Long Range Land Transportation Plan concluded that over $1.3 billion (in 1998 dollars) would have to be invested in County and State roads in the next 15 years. Nationally, highway and street construction is about 50 percent more expensive now and is increasing rapidly due to the rising price of oil. So, the price tag for the roads we need is at least $2 billion. At the current rate of Federal grant funding (80% of the average of $60 million expended per year under the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP), it would take 33 years to construct the needed major roads. If half the STIP-funded projects are maintenance and safety project (as is the case now), it would take 66 years to build the roads we need. Are we "whistling past the graveyard" of our declining quality of life, or not?

As Planning Director Chris Yuen has stated many times, current funding sources (without impact fees) will support the construction of only three or four major road projects in Hawai'i County during the next 15 years. The widening of Kuakini Highway is one of those projects. Which other 2 or 3 major road projects does the public believe will be needed in the next 15 years?

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 8

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The County has the money to pay the impact fees for affordable housing. With no effective impact fee system in place, every time the County permits a big box store to be built, it obligates the County taxpayers to construct $5,000,000 in new State and County road capacity that is being used up by traffic that is generated by the new store. That cost is over and above expected revenue from the gas tax and Federal and State grants. Where does that money come from? From County taxpayers, of course. Directly from property owners and indirectly from the rent that renters pay their landlords. If an impact fee system were in place and the current system of corporate welfare were stopped, there would be plenty of money for the County to pay impact fees for those who would qualify for the affordable housing deferral.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 9

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The County cannot fund all our infrastructure needs simply by selling general obligation bonds. Under State law, Hawai'i County has a debt limit of 15 percent of the assessed valuation of all of the real property in the county, or about $2.2 billion. The 2006 annual report indicated that the County has an outstanding debt of about $0.2 billion. It currently expends about $19 million per year servicing that debt, which is about 7 percent of its total revenues of $265 million and about 15 percent of its real property tax revenues of $131 million. At the current repayment rate, debt service on another $2 billion in debt would cost another $190 million per year, which could be paid by increasing current real property tax rates by 145 percent (by 2.45 times). How much more debt service do we want to take on? How would the taxpayers like it if their real property tax bills doubled? How about tripled? Why not use impact fees for the costs they can legally cover? Impact fees can be used to pay for capital improvements outright and to pay debt service on general obligation bonds that fund increases in infrastructure capacity, thereby avoiding an increase (or allowing a reduction) in real property tax rates.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 10

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

At present, Hawai'i County charge impact fees, but only for water. The Hawai'i County Water Department, a semi-autonomous agency of the County government, charges a "water facilities fee" of $1,190 for the first dwelling unit (or water demand equivalent) and $5,500 for each additional dwelling unit to be connected to the County water system. The water facilities fee is effectively an impact fee. It is charged to all new users of the County water system.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 11

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

Since the early 1900's, Hawai'i County has imposed "fair share contributions" on applicants for new residential and hotel development. The charge is about $10,000 per single family dwelling unit, about $6,400 per multi-family unit and about $11,000 per hotel unit. The fees are imposed as a condition of zoning and are collected at the time of final subdivision or final plan approval (not also at the time a building permit is issued, which is the loophole in the system). Because most of the land subject to these contributions has not been subdivided, only about $19 million has been collected over the last ten years. Moreover, no fair share contributions are collected from the developers of retail/commercial developments, offices (the offices where lobbyists work and other offices), industrial developments, warehouse developments, etc. Not collecting contributions from the developers of these other types of development is unfair to the developers who do have to pay, rendering the constitutionality of this program questionable. Note that the "fair share contributions" are higher than the proposed impact fees.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 12

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

Developers pay impact fees, not home buyers. Based on independent research in many communities the following is true: "In the short-term, impact fees may cause a slight increase in housing costs if the local real estate market allows the builder to shift the cost forward to the buyer. However, in the long-term, it is more than likely that the cost will be shifted backwards to landowners in the form of lower prices that may be bid for undeveloped land." That makes sense when you consider that a developer is producing a product at as high a price as the market will bear. The developer cannot "tack on" an impact fee to the highest price his buyers will pay. Over time, impact fees are actually "paid" by land owners who accept a lower price for their land, because they cannot charge more than the market will bear for their "product" (raw land) either. The perfect time to implement an impact fee system is when house prices are softening. The perfect time is now!

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 13

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

In a recent situation in another state in which some impact fees had to be refunded (due to the lack of clear authority in State law allowing counties to enact impact fee ordinances), the court had to decide who should get the refund checks. Here is what Wendell Bullard, Head, Durham Citizens for Responsible Government said: "Everyone had to contribute to that $2,000 in some shape, form or fashion. I would agree that the [home] buyer would have some entitlement to at least part of that impact fee." Here is what Hank Fordham, attorney for the developer/builders said: "Not so. Builders who would tack an extra $2,000 onto the price of their homes would put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The idea that they can pass through the costs is false. It defies the fundamental laws of economics." Raleigh News & Observer, 14 July 2006.

When short-sighted opponents of impact fees are attempting to prevent an impact fee ordinance from being adopted, they argue that the homebuyer pays the fee. When they are arguing about who should receive a refund, they argue that the developers paid the fee. A similar situation occurred recently in another community (again, in the absence of State enabling legislation) and the same arguments were made by the developers when a partial refund was ordered. Hawai'i State law allows impact fees, so such cases will not occur here, but they do make it clear who really pays impact fees.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 14

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

Impact fees will not solve all our infrastructure shortfall problems. An impact fee program cannot produce enough income to solve all our infrastructure problems. Under the law, impact fees cannot be used to improve the County-wide level of service of our public facilities systems. New development cannot be required to support a higher average level of service than existing taxpayers are enjoying. Nor can impact fees be used for maintenance of public facilities. The proposed impact fee system could potentially produce about $46 million annually, which is not a lot of money in an expensive place to build infrastructure, like Hawai'i.

For example, at 100% of justified impact fee levels, on average, each year, road impact fees could fund construction of about two miles of two-lane road (or 10 miles if the fees were used as the local match for a Federal 80 percent highway grant); park impact fees could fund about five boat ramps, or two 25 acre regional parks with two baseball fields, a pavilion and a restroom; fire/emergency medical service impact fees could fund about one fire station with two fire engines and one tanker; and police impact fees could fund about one police substation. Solid waste impact fees could fund about one transfer station every two years; and wastewater impact fees could about fund one wastewater treatment plant every three years to replace large cesspools.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 15

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

The proposed impact fees are rigorously support by the consultant's findings. Careful review by independent, outside, knowledgeable, local people has revealed that the proposed impact fees meet the two criteria for legality: (1) there is a rational relationship between the fees and the impacts of development and (2) the amount of the fees in roughly proportional to the cost of providing infrastructure to accommodate the new development. In fact, the fees are "conservative" in that their levels are not anywhere near as high as they could be, particularly for roads and parks.

For example, the proposed road impact fees do not call for new development to pay for the local cost of the capacity that development will consume in the State major road system. Thus, while it costs Hawai'i County taxpayers over $21,000 to replace the capacity in our island's State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new single family dwelling, the proposed impact fee amount will recover only about $4,800, an amount that would pay for replacing capacity in only major County roads. Similarly, it costs Hawai'i County taxpayers about $5,000,000 to replace the capacity in our island's State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new 140,000 square foot Wal-Mart or Costco. Under the proposed system, only about $1,100,000 would be charged to a Wal-Mart or Costco for replacing capacity in just major County roads. By not charging for capacity consumed in State major roads, both types of development are given a proportionally equal reduction in impact fees. If we give ordinary housing developers a break, Wal-Mart and Costco shareholders get a break, too.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 16

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

According to the county capital improvement program, Hawaii County needs to invest an estimated $100+ million per year in infrastructure in the near term. When you are figuring out where to get this money from, please consider adopting a county impact fee ordinance.

The Impact Fee Study prepared for the county in 2006 by Duncan Associates showed that development impact fees could generate about $45 million per year. The impact fee ordinance allows impact fees to be used to pay debt service on bonds that are used to created needed capacity in our infrastructure systems.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 17

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

I warn the County Council not to count on collecting the full $87.6 million in fair share contribution assessments that have been assessed since 1970. The County’s fair share system does not comply with State law or the U.S. Constitution. The problem with the County’s fair share system is that it only applies to residential and hotel development. Other types of development, such as commercial development, are not required to pay their fair share. In the tactful words of Duncan Associates, the authors of the County’s August 2006 Impact Fee Study (a copy of which is available on the County Planning Department web page at http://www.hawaii-county.com/planning/ipfna.htm):

“Based on the analysis conducted for Phase I, the County should consider replacing its fair share assessments with a true impact fee system that follows the requirements of the State impact fee enabling act. An impact fee collected from all new development would be more legally defensible, more equitable and generate significantly more revenue than the current “fair share” system. This additional revenue would translate into capital improvements that would benefit all fee payers.”

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 18

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

At any time, a court could require the County to refund the fair share assessments that have been collected to date. The County’s fair share system has not been challenged in court simply because a true impact fee system would be more expensive to developers. As the Duncan Associates study pointed out (my emphasis):

“If the fair share assessment amounts had been in the form of impact fees collected at time of building permit, they would have generated $103 million in cash and credits since January 2000, and if they had been assessed on nonresidential as well as residential development, they would have generated $170 million in less than six years.”

As a result, because the County does not have an impact fee system in place, the development community is getting away without paying their fair share and the costs of accommodating new development is falling on the shoulders of County tax payers.

Duncan Associates drafted a Hawaii County impact fee ordinance imposing a charge on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development. Hawaii state law allows the counties to adopt impact fee ordinances and requires that impact fees must be spent in the benefit districts in which the new development is occurring and the impact fees are collected. In the absence of a Hawaii County impact fee ordinance: It costs Hawaii County taxpayers $21,000 to replace the capacity in our island’s State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new single family dwelling. It costs us $4,800 for replacing capacity in only major County roads. It costs Hawaii County taxpayers $5,000,000 to replace the capacity in our island’s State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new 140,000 square foot Wal-Mart or Costco. It costs us $1,100,000 for replacing capacity in only major County roads.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Example Testimony No. 19

Councilmember Pete Hoffmann, Chair
Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council

I strongly support Bill 324 that would create an impact fee system for the County of Hawaii.

I note that the proposed impact fee amounts are 50 percent of the allowable amounts calculated to by the impact fee consultant in 2006. The proposed road impact fee considers only the county roads and not state roads and therefore covers much less than 50 percent of road costs (actually about 11 percent of actual county road and state road costs borne by the county).

The total proposed fee for roads, parks, fire/EMS, police, and solid waste is 64 percent of the amounts currently (in 2006) charged developers who pay fair share payments.

I can see the value of easing into an impact fee regime. It is a little strange, however, to charge less in impact fees than developers are already paying in fair share assessments in areas with fair share assessments in their zoning ordinances. But, this is an election year and taking things slowly makes sense. The council can always increase the fees to closer to the allowable amounts at some future date.

Please vote for Bill 324.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Learning Center

To learn more about impact fees, see:

Hawaii County retained a consultant to prepare an impact fee study in 2005. To view documents related to that study, click on the following links:

    ImpactFees.com website - an online impact fee resource provided by Duncan Associates, the County's consultant.

A recent court decision found that the County's fair share system is illegal:

    Judge Ibarra's Decision - See page 41, paragraphs 81-86 and page 47, paragraph 2 for the portion of the judge's opinion on the county's fair share system. Common sense also tells us that on its face the county’s fair share system is illegal because it levies development impact assessments on only to residential and hotel development. Commercial development gets a free ride. Such an approach complies neither with the state impact fee law nor the U.S. constitution.

Hawaii County retained a consultant to prepare a technical report on potential impact fee levels in 1990. To view the indicated portions of the Development Impact Fee Technical Report Draft, click on the following links:

Many of the Zoning Ordinances passed by the Hawaii County Council in recent years contain the following clause: "Should the council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or assessments of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fee Ordinance." The Hawaii County Council has discussed such an ordinance, but has not passed one. Hawaii State law allows counties to adopt such ordinances.

The State Legislature commissioned the following study of imposing school impact fees. A state school impact bill passed the legislature and became law in 2007:

    Hawaii State School Impact Fee Law - the state school impact fees are set to generate 100% of land costs and 10% of facilities costs from new residential development. Hopefully, the 10% number will be increased in future sessions of the legislature. The catch is that each area in which impact fees are collected must be first designated by the State Board of Education as needing new schools in the next 20 years.