HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.587 2022-2024HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
POLICY COMMITTEE ON PLANNING, LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Councilmember Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair, Dr. Holeka Inaba, Vice Chair
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 2024
TIME: 9:00 am
PLACE: Hilo
P
RE: IN OPPOSITION TO CURRENT FORM of BILL NO. 121-24 (Draft 4)
Dear Chair Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair Inaba, and Council Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and your continuing efforts to shape a bill that balances the
potential consequences against the desired outcomes. I continue to offer comments for discussion and
consideration:
1. The bill is not inclusive of all currently operating rentals and is, therefore, inequitable
and will be immediately harmful in its application.
Each category of rental requires it to be located "... in a single-family dwelling,
inclusive of a detached bedroom or guesthouse " or with an NUC in an ADU or Ohana
under certain circumstances.
This bill does not address the many non -permanent structures, such as tiny homes,
glamping trailers, yurts, cabins, or campers, that residents offer as unique traveler
accommodations.
Please Simplify.
If the intent is genuinely a "registration," then simplify the process.
a. Revise §25-4-16.1(b) to allow NUC registration off rental operated in a
structure: "other than a single-family dwelling, including a detached bedroom or
guesthouse."
b. 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 case -by -case (as occupants will be).
ii. Health and safety aren't actively regulated in standard long-term rentals,
so this declaration should not bar registration here.
iii. The state has many exemptions negating an operator's need to pay TA
tax. Lack of a state TA license should not bar registration.
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. As the Planning Department isn't a tax
enforcement authority, it should not bar registration for tax -related
deficiencies.
2. The bill is inconsistent or misleading in some areas.
For example, for the Renewal of either the Registration or NUC, the deadline for such
renewal is vague at best, "every year on or before the expiration date indicated on the
certificate" or "on or before a date specified by the director."
However, both may be DENIED if the renewal request was "not received within ninety
days of the expiration date indicated on the certificate."
If a renewal application is required — or can be denied if not received — by 90 days before
the expiration date, that requirement should be outlined in the section that details how to
renew, not obscurely in why it can be denied.
3. Economic Impact is Certain. Where is the balance?
This bill will have broader effects than anticipated. That can be assured.
Whether in unpermitted structures, un-permittable structures (like yurts), on agricultural
land or in other (undesirable) zones, behind on taxes, or operating in undeclared property
use classes, rentals exist outside the proposed written criteria for approval of
this registration.' These have long provided a source of income that, at least in part, does
come back to the county through property taxes, income tax surcharge, and local
economic activity.
Revise, but wait.
The best and most equitable path forward would be to continue revising the bill;
however, the final version and passage out of committee should be delayed until the
council can review the economic impact study. As the study is due in the first quarter of
2025, this 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, at the very least,
limit unintended consequences.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Wilkinson