COM 0183.013 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Sent by: 6/1 /2007 8:52:27 AM Page 2 of 3 Others are being asked to contribute far more than their fair share wi;l, lira, r a. ~ s;z~ ices provided. As currently proposed, over 30% of the funding for the BID would c o ru>; i t f n n condominium owners. Those owners represent over 1200 sepazate pav~s:rs ;~i i _e s r^an a dozen parcels. Much lazger businesses on the other 340 parcels will pay 'ar 6: s;. ,hest one condominium pazcel, Kona Reef, with 130 owners would be cone i':ua;:ic , zl n ost 10° ~ of the BID's entire budget. 'T'hat one parcel would be the single largest coritil?utor, paying at least 50% MORE than ANY other hotel, restaurant, shoppin; ~ m : o r r:::aile~. As an example my small business, a one bedroom vacation rental, has gross -;c~:i its of approximately $100 per day, (36,000/yr). I serve less than 100 customers pe- ii li,>,]?,not per day, per year. My assessment is about equal to almost 2% or one fill - w;::Ic cf my gross revenue ($668). That amount is more than ?J3 of the total amoc.nt ,;i c u r, y ar restaurant in Zone 1 will pay ($1195) and about 25% MORE than ano`hca''~. resta~rrant ($534) also in Zone 1. Those restaurants do millions of dollars a year in L , s s and serve hundreds or even thousands of customers every week. When co;n pare 1 tc the Royal Kona Resort Hotel right next door, some vacation rental owners v~~<ni: I l:ne rv?ing over 20 times as much on a per room basis without even considering all ~.hc; >;hc r businesses at the hotel. In addition to the unjust funding formula, I believe the voting strucri'n~~: i a : 11 n n~_d because only one vote is assigned to a parcel regardless ofthe numbrr e f'I>m ices:es or condo owners on that parcel being assessed. Every business owner payius~ : r t to district should have a say on a par with others within the same zone and c f tl o' ue relative size. Further, those inZ,one 2 who contribute less and recei~ e Ica:; b : u :fit i:har- the primary zone should have proportionately less say in the activities of 'Pe di s rect. Shopping centers and buildings with multiple businesses would also I. u:"~; rl' e .r sos iu District matters. For example, Longs Drugs, KTA or Bubba Gump's wcnAd 1 ~::;t the mercy of their landlord's vote even though they maybe the major conyri br m r fi nn (heir respective parcels. Smaller businesses in those same centers may not ha ~ e a , o c ~ at all! The boundaries of the District appear to have been arbitrarily set withuu.l l; ~p.i;1: input from the landowners affected. Chapter 35, Section 20 requires the b:;t.e:fil ; : rul services provided to each parcel be considered by the Council. By including such ,r I t rgo ttea with the diverse interests and service needs (i.e. the `Old Industrial Arta- rr. ~jin te:<ulers mauka of the highway and many residential areas) the drafters of the propo~::.'I i nrict have attempted to increase their funding but do not address the benefits z.ra a; p tlzmert:rl services according to use or location as required by Chapter 35. The }.:I; : h r i.tl 1 u•~ n']c within an area with common needs and business goals. In this case th.~r 3n.t. s •it cold be; the core tourist destination area along Ali'i Drive from Palani Rd. to the R.rr, ; 1 Gomt Resort.