Laserfiche WebLink
March 29, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />A separate question is the amount. What is the right amount for the State to <br />invest in fixing this problem? As formerly provided, a $1 million allocation per county <br />seemed viable. Anything less would be inadequate to solve the pros lem with vacation <br />rental enforcement. <br />Third, if the State is looking for increased enforcement of vacation rentals, what <br />is the financial impact of that increased enforcement? It is more inspectors, and more <br />appeals, and contested cases on enforce ent of vacation rentals, and the problem will <br />•ersist indefinitely. Therefore the payments to the counties should be every year. 1 <br />think that Section 7 is providing a one-time allocation to the counties. iwould ask that <br />the provision be amended to provide annual payments. <br />Finally, Section 7, as written, seems unworkable, since it does not provise <br />language as to who decides how much of the available funds are given to a county, nor <br />what criteria are to be used in exercising that discretion. We strongly urge that the "up <br />to" language be deleted. <br />CIVIL PENALTY <br />SD 1 calls for a civil penalty of "not less than $25,000 to be levied by the county <br />planning director" for "any violation of a county transient accommodations ordinance. <br />While we want to encourage compliance with all ordinances, one can imagine that there <br />may be minor violations that do not warrant such harsh treatment. Perha s a penalty of <br />"not more than $25,000" would allow the punishment to better fit the crime, or leave it <br />entirely to the county ordinance to set the parameters rather than specifying an ar 'tang <br />amount in statute. <br />Harry Kim <br />Mayor, County of Hawali <br />' <br />County of IIawai is an Lqual Opporiunity Provider and [niployer. <br />