HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.063 2022-2024 COUNTY CL F.. t,
COUNTY OF : AVi ,,
January 21, 2024 Testimony for Hawaii County Council Bill 121—STVR
02 Hello Council Members—
I am delighted to see progress being made on the contentious question of Host STVRs.
A couple overall comments—
Improve Landlord Rights for Eviction: I hope there is a plan to also introduce a bill to clarify property
owner rights with respect to long-term rentals.The current situation where it is very difficult to evict a
long-term tenant has resulted in property owners being unwilling to have long-term rentals, and instead
have STVRs. Until this eviction problem is resolved,there were be considerable frustration among
property owners who have extra space available and must choose between STVR and long-term rentals.
Improve ability to build permitted ohanas: Current building permits and zoning restrictions means even
those of us who would build an affordable housing unit on our larger properties are not allowed to do
so. For example,the wrong assignment of"Ag"zoning to many platted lots in older subdivisions means
incorrect zoning laws are applicable, making an ohana illegal. Please do what the County Council can do
to encourage straightening out this mess that has been passed down in the county for too long.
Next, I offer my thoughts on this bill, section-by-section. I also identify some possible typos in the draft.
Section 2:The definition for Ohana Dwelling is missing.This is particularly important when considering
the wording in Section 25-4-16.1 where STVR is allowed in a guesthouse, but not in an ohana.
Section 25-4-16.1:Owner Hosted. I find the wording in this section confusing. It seems the goal is to not
have a second unit on a TMK be used neither as the transient rental, nor as the principal residence of the
property owner. I am aware of situations where an elderly single person,who no longer needs their
larger family home, has moved into the smaller existing second dwelling on the property, and turn the
larger home into STVR. It is not clear to me from the draft wording of the Owner-hosted section whether
this is confirming, non-conforming, or simply not permitted under any circumstances. Indeed, it seems
the wording does not even consider the situation where the owner lives in the smaller house, and rents
the larger house.Am I confused?
Section 25-4-16.2 Operator.hosted. Same question as above—the operator cannot live in the smaller
dwelling and use the larger dwelling for STVR? I would expect this happens frequently.
Section 25-4-16.2(c) and Section 25-4-16.3 (b):Transfer of non-conforming permits. I suggest that none
of the non-conforming permit types be allowed to be transferred to new owners under any
circumstances.The ability to operate an STVR in an area where new ones cannot be established creates
2 problems. 1) Income generating properties command higher sale prices than non-STVR properties.This
creates a sale price imbalance in a neighborhood. 2) Some neighborhoods are already overwhelmed
with `non-conforming' STVR. If non-conforming permits could not be transferred at sale,those
neighborhoods will eventually revert to their original purpose—residential neighborhoods—and not
persist in this split-purpose that makes for uncomfortable principal residence living. In addition, not
transferring permits also means that with at each non-conforming STVR sale, another housing unit will
be added back to the local market.
Comm. No.
g•U3
Ref. To: ) I/142
Ref. DatejAN- 2 3 2024
Section 25-4-16.17: Operation Standards.
(1).(A) It is good that a placard is required at the residence.This allows neighbors to quickly
know if the STVR is registered or not.
(2).(C) I appreciate that gathering sizes are being limited. Some existing identity-themed STVR
properties host'meet-and-greet" parties for tourists and residents on a weekly basis,which is
frustrating for those of us who live near by. We just must endure the weekly parties,which are
essentially a bar venue operating on private property.
(3).(A) It is good that the listing and advertising materials must list the registration number, as
this makes enforcement much easier.
Section 25-4-16.22(a) Director shall impose additional fines.
This section needs more clarity about when additional fines can be levied, and when the only
fines defined in 25-4-16.19 will be levied.
Also note that presumably this section contains a typo—it refers to section 16-4-16.19,when I
think it should be 25-4-16.19.
Section 25=4-16.25 Property Tax Assessment. I find this rather confusing for a couple reasons.
First, is this a revision to section 19-71? Or a repeat of information in Section 19-71 as modified
by Ordinance 23 that went into effect 1-1-24? If it is a repeat, it seems wrong to include it here
because it makes for code redundancy that is hard to maintain at the time of future revisions.
Second,the reason I am unsure of the answer to above is the wording used here: "the entire
property will be ineligible.... homeowner exemption will apply proportionally to the area..."
Could this be simplified by simply stating"The property tax homeowner exemption will only
apply proportionally to that area exclusively occupied by the homeowner pursuant to section 19-
71."
And if the later is correct,then I go back to my first point,why not just let Section 19-71 say it all,
and ask the enforcement department to develop a pamphlet that explains the tax exemptions
already established by Chapter 19 Article 10 which enumerates all exemptions.
Section 25-4-16.26 Property tax amnesty. I think this is a very good idea to allow amnesty as there was
not strict enforcement of property tax exemptions for the earliest adopters of STVRs.There is no need to
punish people who didn't follow"the rules" before the rules are well established.
Again,thank you for working on clarifying and improving the Hawaii County STVR rules. I think this is a
good work-in-progress. I appreciate that the bill pre-draft was presented at a community meeting last
year, and the https://www.hawaiicountvtarcom/website was provided after that point so that the
writers of this bill could gather input before this draft was present for first reading.
Marilyn Johnson
County District 4 resident