HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.505 2022-2024HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
POLICY COMMITTEE ON PLANNING, LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Councilmember Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair, Dr. Holeka Inaba, Vice Chair
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, September 3, 2024
TIME: 9:00 am
PLACE: Hilo
RE: IN OPPOSITION TO CURRENT FORM of BILL NO. 121-24 (Draft 3)
Dear Chair Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair Inaba, and Council Committee Members:
Thank you for the hours spent drafting, discussing, and revising this bill. I hope you continue to
consider reasonable testimony from the public with an open mind and our best interests at heart.
I want to offer comments to continue the discourse on the bill's inequities and potential
consequences.
1. The bill is not inclusive of all currently operating rentals and is, therefore,
inequitable and will be immediately harmful in its application.
Hawaii county is unique. It offers many visitor experiences that cannot be found
anywhere else- even on other Hawaiian Islands. This bill does not address the many tiny
homes, glamping trailers, yurts, cabins, or campers that residents offer as unique traveler
accommodations. These non -permanent structures tend to be the least intrusive
accommodations with a light footprint on the land that encourages mindful tourism while
providing the hosts a way to offer untraditional experiences and supplement their income.
Chair Kimball noted in the Aug 20 discussion that this is "... a registration process, not a
permitting process.. . .[we are] not asking that DPW look into any matters - though they
may do so if they wish, just as Real Property Tax can tax a structure on a property
whether it was permitted or not." Emphasis added.
SIMPLIFY.
If the intent is genuinely a "registration," then simplify the process at this juncture
(before the economic impact can truly be ascertained).
a. Revise §25-4-16.1(b) to allow NUC registration of any rental operated in a
structure other than a single-family dwelling, inclusive of a detached bedroom or
guesthouse. (similar revision to §25-4-16.2(b)2,3)
b. Take a declaration for 30-180 day prior use, rather than asking an owner to prove
a negative (that they have NOT been renting for less than 30 days)
c. Remove §25-4-16.5 - in its entirety.
i. Off-street parking should not be a bar to a simple registration. It should be
dealt with on a case -by -case basis, driven by complaints.
Comm. c Mj�Q-- _
Ref. To: �1 �,16,-IL.
Ref. (Date _ _' - »2
ii. Health and safety aren't actively regulated in standard long-term rentals
(in fact, they don't register, report any data, declare any compliance with
any code, or pay any registration fees, renewal fees, or fines for failing to
be a `good neighbor'.) This declaration should not bar registration here.
iii. The requirement of a state TA license, in effect, should not bar
registration here as the state has many exemptions negating an operator's
need to pay TA taxes. And as the Planning Department isn't a tax
enforcement authority, it should not bar registration for tax purposes. The
tax authority has its own penalty structure and process.
iv. Registration should not be barred because of property tax payment status.
Many situations cause changes to tax obligations and the county allows
for approved payment plans. This chapter should not base registration on
an uninformed judgment about unrelated regulations administered by
entities with their own penalty structure and process.
d. Reduce registration fees. You can increase renewal if you like, but if the intent is
to encourage registration, the current fee structure will discourage it.
2. The bill is not in alignment with state tax law. Chapter 237D►, HAR, Transient
Accommodations Tax ihawaii.gov)
It is completely unnecessary to open the process to new NUCs - with an even more
difficult enforcement process than 108 -just to move the definition from 30 to 180 days.
See the link to the current tax law.
In its current form, Bill 121 does not align with the state's tax law:
a. The definition of Operator
b. The definition of Transient
c. The definition of Transient Accommodation
d. The list of Exemptions
e. Even the process for violations is significantly more transparent in the state law.
See § 18-237D-4
The need to "be in alignment with state tax law" on only one aspect of tax law and not
others only create unnecessary work, confusion, enforcement problems, and MORE
NUCs. This seems contrary to the purpose of the bill.
The bill fosters further division between neighbors rather than preserving
neighborhood character by empowering complainants.
The opaque complaint process, the complaint -driven enforcement, and stacking fines
with no reset period is entirely unfair and an undue burden on both operators and the
department and appeals board. It further enables some folks to harass others with very
little verifiable evidence, no accountability and which could result in fines in excess of
$1 Ok quickly, and with no limitation on the period of time to reach that level.
As written, an owner could have a guest park in the wrong spot in 2024, have a guest
have too many over for a daytime BBQ in 2026, then have a noise complaint at lam from
crying baby in 2028 that would trigger $1 Ok (as written). If that is not the intent, the bill
should be revised. Perhaps classes of violations? Perhaps a reset at 24 months?
4. Economic Impact is Certain. Where is the balance?
Finally, this bill will have broader effects than anticipated if not revised further.
Despite reassurances that `if you're operating legally now' it should not impact you, the
truth is that for decades, many have been operating `illegally' or outside the proposed
written criteria for approval of this `registration.'
Whether in unpermitted structures, un-permittable structures (like yurts), on agricultural
land or in other (undesirable) zones, behind on taxes, or undeclared property use classes,
they have been operating, which has provided a source of income that, at least in part,
does come back to the county by way of property taxes, income tax surcharge, and local
economic activity.
Revise, but wait.
The best and most equitable path forward would be to continue to revise the bill; however,
the final version and passage should be delayed until the council can review the economic
impact study. As the study is due in the first quarter of 2025, this delay seems reasonable and
appropriate for public funds and good faith efforts. After analyzing the results, the makers
can further refine the bill — balancing the known effects with the desired outcomes and
passing legislation that will not result in unintended consequences.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Wilkinson