The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About*Bill 147 Opposed Bmpib!Dibjs-!Wjdf!Dibjs-!boe!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpofst-!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bvhvtu!39ui-!3137! ! J!bn!b!qspqfsuz!pxofs!po!Ibxbjj!Jtmboe!boe!b!mpohujnf!nfncfs!pg!uijt! dpnnvojuz/!Nbibmp!gps!uif!pqqpsuvojuz!up!uftujgz!po!Cjmm!258/! J!bqqsfdjbuf!uif!joufou!pg!uijt!nfbtvsf-!boe!J!cfmjfwf!xf!tibsf!uif!tbnf!hpbm!Å!b! uisjwjoh-!tvtubjobcmf!dpnnvojuz!gps!uif!qfpqmf!pg!uijt!jtmboe/!J!pggfs!nz!uftujnpoz! jo!uibu!tqjsju/! Nz!ivtcboe!boe!J!npwfe!up!uif!Cjh!Jtmboe!36!zfbst!bhp-!cvjmu!pvs!mjwft!ifsf-!boe! sbjtfe!gjwf!dijmesfo!cpso!boe!sbjtfe!po!jtmboe/!Xf!bsf!effqmz!jowpmwfe!jo!pvs! dpnnvojuz!Å!tfswjoh!dibsjubcmf!pshboj{bujpot-!tdippm!ejtusjdut-!mpdbm!tqpsut-!pvs! iptqjubm-!boe!pvs!divsdi/!Xf!pxo!uxp!qspqfsujft<!nbjoubjo!mpoh.ufsn!sfoubmt!xjui! ufobout!pg!21,!zfbst!bu!tubcmf0bggpsebcmf!sfout-!boe!pqfsbuf!pof!tipsu.ufsn! sfoubm/! Xifo!DPWJE!iju-!nz!ivtcboe!mptu!ijt!kpc!jo!uif!iptqjubmjuz!joevtusz/!Eftqjuf!pvs! dpnnjunfou!up!ofwfs!mfbwf!uif!jtmboe-!xf!xfsf!gpsdfe!up!sfmpdbuf!up!uif!nbjomboe! po!pof!xffl(t!opujdf!up!qspufdu!pvs!gbnjmz!gjobodjbmmz/!Xf!sfgvtfe!up!tfmm!pvs! ipnf!Å!uif!pof!xf!qpvsfe!pvs!tbwjoht!boe!txfbu!frvjuz!joup!Å!boe!nbef!uif! efdjtjpo!up!tipsu.ufsn!sfou!ju!jo!pvs!bctfodf/! Pvs!po.tjuf!iptut!bsf!b!mpdbm!gbnjmz!xip!ibwf!mjwfe!po!uif!qspqfsuz!gps!fjhiu! zfbst/!Uijt!bssbohfnfou!ibt!bmmpxfe!uifn!up!sfnbjo!jo!uifjs!ipnf!bu!bo! bggpsebcmf!sbuf!xijmf!tvqqmfnfoujoh!uifjs!jodpnf!evsjoh!b!ejggjdvmu!fdpopnz/!Ju! ibt!cffo!b!hfovjof!qbsuofstijq!uibu!xpslt!gps!fwfszpof/! ! Ifsf!jt!uif!gvmm!qjduvsf!pg!xibu!uijt!qspqfsuz!dpousjcvuft;! ¦!:!mpdbm!fnqmpzfft!tvqqpsufe! ¦!23!qfpqmf!ipvtfe!bggpsebcmz!bdsptt!pvs!mpoh.ufsn!sfoubmt! ¦!Gvmm!uby!dpnqmjbodf!Å!HF-!UB-!IDUBU-!opo.ipnfpxofs!fydmvtjpo!qspqfsuz! ubyft-!boe!jodpnf!ubyft!upubmjoh!dmptf!up!51&!up!uif!Dpvouz!boe!Tubuf! ¦!Mpdbm!jotvsbodf!dpnqboz-!BEB.dpnqmjbou!bddpnnpebujpot-!{fsp!ofjhicps! dpnqmbjout! ¦!Dpotjtufou!sfgfssbmt!up!mpdbm!sftubvsbout-!cvtjofttft-!boe!bhsjupvsjtn!bdujwjujft! bmjhofe!xjui!uif!Tubuf(t!pxo!jojujbujwf!up!qspnpuf!bhsjupvsjtn! ! Xf!bsf!opu!qspgjujoh/!Xf!bsf!dpwfsjoh!pvs!dptut!boe!ipmejoh!po!up!pvs!ipnf!voujm! xf!dbo!sfuvso!Å!xijdi!xf!qmbo!up!ep!xjuijo!2Ä3!zfbst!xifo!pvs!dijmesfo!gjojti! tdippm/! ! Jg!uijt!cjmm!qbttft!bt!xsjuufo-!uif!dpotfrvfodft!bsf!tjhojgjdbou!boe!dpodsfuf;!!Xf! xjmm!cf!gpsdfe!up!tfmm/!Uif!qspqfsuz!xjmm!bmnptu!dfsubjomz!tfmm!gps!dbti!up!bo!pvu.pg. tubuf!ps!joufsobujpobm!cvzfs!Å!qsfdjtfmz!uif!pvudpnf!uijt!cjmm!jt!uszjoh!up!qsfwfou/! Pvs!po.tjuf!gbnjmz!xjmm!mptf!cpui!uifjs!ipvtjoh!boe!uifjs!jodpnf/!Pvs!:!fnqmpzfft! xjmm!cf!mfu!hp/!Pvs!mpoh.ufsn!ufobout!nbz!gbdf!sfou!jodsfbtft!ps!ejtqmbdfnfou!bt! xf!usz!up!bctpsc!uif!mptt/!Pvs!gbnjmz!Å!gjwf!dijmesfo!cpso!boe!sbjtfe!po!uijt! jtmboe!Å!xjmm!mjlfmz!ofwfs!sfuvso/!Xf!xjmm!cf!qsjdfe!pvu!pg!uif!ipnf!xf!xpslfe!pvs! foujsf!mjwft!up!lffq/! J!bmtp!xbou!up!opuf!uif!qpmjdz!dpousbejdujpo!xf!gbdf;!xf!ibwf!cffo!upme!xf!dboopu! cvjme!beejujpobm!ipvtjoh!vojut!po!pvs!mboe!up!qspwjef!npsf!mpoh.ufsn!sfoubmt/!Xf! dboopu!cvjme!po!fnquz!mput!xf!pxo/!Uif!wfsz!qbui!uibu!xpvme!bmmpx!vt!up! usbotjujpo!bxbz!gspn!tipsu.ufsn!sfoubm!ibt!cffo!dmptfe!up!vt/! ! Xjui!sftqfdu-!J!btl!uif!Dpvodjm!up!dpotjefs!uif!gpmmpxjoh;! ¦!Hsboegbuifs!fyjtujoh-!dpnqmjbou!tipsu.ufsn!sfoubm!pqfsbujpot!voefs!uijt!cjmm/! ¦!Dmbsjgz!ipx!fyjtujoh!C'C!pqfsbujpot!xjmm!cf!usfbufe!boe!fotvsf!uifz!bsf!opu! jobewfsufoumz!qmbdfe!joup!opodpogpsnjoh!tubuvt/!Qspwjef!b!dmfbs-!sfbmjtujd!qbuixbz! gps!ofx!C'C!qfsnjut/! ¦!Sftusvduvsf!gjoft!up!cf!qspqpsujpobm!up!uif!tfwfsjuz!pg!b!wjpmbujpo!Å!opu!cspbemz! qvojujwf!jo!xbzt!uibu!ibsn!hppe.gbjui!pqfsbupst/! ¦!Dmbsjgz!uif!mfhbm!cbtjt!gps!sftusjdujoh!TUS!bddpnnpebujpot!up!b!iptu(t!qsjnbsz! sftjefodf/!Jg!Tubuf!mbx!gpdvtft!po!xifuifs!b!vtf!jt!bddfttpsz!up!bhsjdvmuvsf!Å! sbuifs!uibo!xifsf!hvftut!qiztjdbmmz!tmffq!Å!uibu!ejtujodujpo!nbuufst!boe! eftfswft!b!dmfbs!botxfs/! ¦Fyqboe!BEV!bmmpxbodft!up!jodmvef!npsf!bhsjdvmuvsf!mboe!jo!psefs!up!qspwjef! beejujpobm!qspqfsujft!gps!mpoh!ufsn!sfoubmt/! ¦!Beesftt!uif!qspqfsuz!uby!dbq!jttvf!gps!tipsu.ufsn!sfoubm!qspqfsujft/!Sftupsjoh! qsf.dbq!sbuft!xpvme!nfbojohgvmmz!sfevdf!uif!gjobodjbm!qsfttvsf!gpsdjoh!gbnjmjft! mjlf!pvst!up!tfmm/! ! J!voefstuboe!zpv!bsf!ifbsjoh!nboz!uftujnpojft-!boe!pvst!jt!pof!pg!nboz/!Cvu!J! xbou!zpv!up!lopx;!xf!bsf!opu!jowftupst/!Xf!bsf!b!mpdbm!gbnjmz!epjoh!fwfszuijoh! xf!dbo!up!ipme!po!up!pvs!ipnf-!tvqqpsu!uif!qfpqmf!bspvoe!vt-!boe!sfuvso!up!uif! jtmboe!xf!mpwf/!Uif!gsjfoet!xf!ibwf!nbef!po!uif!nbjomboe!dbmm!vt!uif!(Ibxbjj! sfgvhfft(!Å!boe!uifz!lopx!pvs!qmbo!ibt!bmxbzt!cffo!up!dpnf!cbdl/! ! Qmfbtf!epo(u!nblf!uibu!jnqpttjcmf/! ! Nbibmp!gps!zpvs!ujnf!boe!gps!uif!dbsf!zpv!csjoh!up!uiftf!efdjtjpot/! ! Sftqfdugvmmz-! Bopoznpvt! Lpob-!Ibxbjj Tsuneda, Kaci From:Jamie <jeversweet@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 6:10 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Jamie Belmarez. I am a mother and massage therapist, who has lived in North Kohala since 2006. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress 1 economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven 2 bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island – deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations. Thank you for your consideration. With Aloha, Jamie Belmarez 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Araceley, Relley Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 9:57 AM To:Kathleen T Carr Cc:Council Testimony Subject:RE: Testimony about Bill 147 and Ordinance 25-50 Aloha, Thank you for your testimony. I am copying our written testimony lead on this email so that your testimony can be processed and filed correctly. Mahalo, Mr. Relley Araceley Office of the County Clerk County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1402 Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 961-8429 From: Kathleen T Carr <kcarr@mcn.org> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 9:18 AM To: Council Remote Testimony <councilremotetestimony@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Kathleen T Carr <kcarr@mcn.org> Subject: Testimony about Bill 147 and Ordinance 25-50 To the Hawai'i County Council, I am writing a testimony to you because I oppose Bill 147, and parts of Ordinance 25-50 in their current form. I am 80 and have been operating one small vacation rental room in my home for 24 years, paying all TAT and GET taxes, and had not been required to register as a hosted vacation rental until the deadline of September 1-December 31, 2026, according to the Planning Dept. With the new ordinance and bill, I would need to register as a Bed & Breakfast, subject to all of those requirements including getting a special uses permit, even though as a hosted TVR, I do not provide breakfast or food. I would like to see a simple hosted rental category that doesn’t require a special uses permit or being classified as a B & B. I would support a reasonable registration process, but the Ordinance and Bill 147 are too complex and confusing as written. In 2025, the County Council passed a resolution to conduct an economic impact study on the effects of short-term rentals on the economy, and reiterated the need for information before moving forward with the regulations. However, Ordinance 25-50 was passed a week before the economic impact study was released. The Study, conducted by Hunden Partners, revealed that STVRs (the term then applied to all short-term vacation rentals, 1 hosted or not) generate $710 million in annual lodging revenue and account for about 43.7% of all Big Island visitor stays, making them vital to the island's tourism-driven economy. \[1, 2, 3\] Key Economic Impacts  Lodging and Visitor Spending: STVRs generate nearly the same lodging revenue as hotels on the island. Beyond lodging, STVR visitors inject an additional $565 million to $862 million into the local economy through food, shopping, transportation, and activities. \[1, 2\]  Job Creation & Employment: The study estimates that each STVR unit supports an average of 1.6 full-time and 4 part-time jobs. Limiting or banning STVR operations could jeopardize over 12,000 full-time and 30,000 part-time jobs island-wide. \[1, 2\]  Tax Revenue: The study estimates there were roughly 8,000 active STVR units on the Big Island, but only about half were licensed (hosted vacation rentals were not required to register, but many still paid TAT and GE). Achieving full registration compliance could increase county Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) collections from $9 million up to $21 million annually. \[1, 2\] Housing & Ownership  Impact on Long-Term Housing: The study found that restricting STVRs would not significantly free up long-term housing. Only 4% of STVR owners surveyed stated they would convert their property to long-term rentals if STVRs were banned, with 68% stating they would not. \[1\]  Primary Owners, Not Investors: More than 75% of STVR owners operate only one unit, and 54% rely on this rental income to cover their basic housing-related costs. Only 20% of operators view their property strictly as an investment. \[1\] Tourism Preferences  STVRs largely attract budget-conscious travelers, larger family groups, and visitors interested in outdoor recreation and local culture. \[1\]  Approximately 24% of STVR visitors indicated they would not have visited Hawaii Island at all if vacation rentals had been unavailable, meaning that their spending would be completely lost rather than redirected to hotels. \[1\] Recommendations Rather than a blanket countywide ban, the Hunden study recommended that Hawaii County continue to allow and support STVRs, but strictly focus on 100% registration and licensing compliance to ensure all tax revenues are collected. \[1, 2\] To review the full, comprehensive findings, you can access the complete Economic Impact Study on Short-Term Vacation Rentals provided by Hunden Partners. \[1\] One of my many concerns about the bill is the following section in the proposal for requirement to register. Section 25-2-(a)(1). Establish enforcement and inspection procedures to investigate and determine…whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. My house was built in 1980 with building permits. The building code has changed since 1980, so I'm not sure what the requirement for “safety” would be. This requirement and other registration requirements are vague and do not inspire trust that a registration application would be accepted. That places some of us in a situation where if our applications are not accepted, then we become illegal if we continue to rent, or if we stop renting, we will probably not be able to afford to stay in our homes and may be forced to leave the island. It has become very expensive to live here, with the rising property tax, insurance and costs of living. And if we are forced to sell, the local 2 residents would mostly not be able to afford the market prices these days, which means that mainlanders or foreign interests would be purchasing those properties. There are many houses on the market currently, and very few are selling. The building division approval is also problematic because the building permits presently can take up to two years to build a house, and this proposal would overburden the permitting process even more. Part of the housing shortage problem is the obstacles in getting permits in a timely manner. One of the reasons for the new proposed regulations is to create more housing for residents. However, my unit and many others would not be suitable for long term rental. One reason among others, is that there have been no stoves permitted in these units or rooms. Most vacationers do not do much, if any, cooking so as a vacation rental it is not a problem. Mine is a 350 sq. ft. downstairs room, which just doesn’t have satisfactory facilities for long term rentals, with no closets or storage. A reason that many vacation rental owners are hesitant to do long term rentals is the way the Hawaii rental code is written. All the benefits go to the renters, and if you end up with a bad renter, it is almost impossible to get them out This has happened to me in the past in another location, and not only did the long term renters not pay rent or utilities for 5 months, but they were nasty and damaged the place before they eventually left. They ignored the eviction notice, and there was no prompt action by the county to get them to leave. It was a real financial hardship and left a very bad taste in my mouth. I would not want to have that situation in my home. The county passed regulations for non-hosted vacation rentals in 2018 to create additional local housing, but has there has been any independent research presented on the results? Have those regulations helped the housing situation? The current legislation as written will create far more hardship for locals than whatever benefits it will provide and will not solve the housing shortage. I understand that Bill 147 isn’t trying to shut down all vacation rental units, but it will dramatically decrease the number of vacation rental units unless the registration process is more simple and user-friendly, and the penalties of non-acceptance aren’t so severe. Fines listed as $5500/day for a first offense, $7500/day for a second offense, and $10,000 a day for subsequence offenses seem quite hostile and out of proportion to what residents could pay. This legislation will affect more than 7500 families, including me, plus all the jobs created for service providers who clean and maintain the rentals. For many of us, we rely on this short-term vacation rental income to be able to afford to live on this island, to make ends meet each month. Being 80, there are not a lot of other employment opportunities for me, so it is essential that I be able to continue offering part of my home for short term vacation in order to be able to continue living in my home and staying on the island. 3 I live in South Kona, and there was only one hotel, the Manago Hotel, in the area, which is now no longer available as a hotel. My visitors do not want to stay in a hotel or resort setting, but would rather have a more affordable authentic Hawaiiana vacation, so they love vacation rentals. I think it is important for our visitors to have a choice in the kind of experience they want in accommodations. This legislation will also hurt our tourists and the income that the state derives from these vacation rentals. From my perspective, it seems that this proposed legislation would create a lot of hardship for the many families currently hosting vacation rentals, create angry constituents, and unintended consequences, financial and otherwise. Thank you, Kathleen Carr kcarr@mcn.org 4 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Justin Cleveland <justinjc@me.com> Sent:Friday, August 28, 2026 10:27 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Bill 147 I have a property on ag land in Kona. I strongly oppose this bill. I do not oppose a regula?on in general to create a process for people to adhere to to get a license to rent their property or par?al property. This is not that bill. We have a hosted rental now but we rarely rent it because nobody wants to have a host on site. I am sure you get that if you travel with your family. Would you want someone on site? no! So our business has taken a severe downturn to the point where we have to give up the house which we would prefer not to do. As the owner of an ag property we s?ll do not know the path to get a permit so we can at least con?nue to try and rent their property. This is not clear in this bill. The economic state of the Big Island has been declining. We need tourists back to energize the economy. I believe the economic impact study encouraged visitors and said regula?ons should be loosened so more choices are oﬀered. We support our local people. Our property is just over an acre yet is classiﬁed as “ag” land when in fact not much ag can be done on one acre. We have all kinds of fruit trees and when the fruit is ripe we donate it to the local community. It is not enough to sell but it helps others. Hawaii is about the Aloha spirit. This bill feels like corporate money is greasing the pockets of some individuals which will be detrimental to that Aloha spirit and the local community. Please vote NO on bill 147 as it stands and send it back so it helps a lot of people. Sincerely, Jus?n Cleveland Sent from my iPhone 15 1 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Jeff Currier <jeff.currier@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2026 6:22 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:jeff currier; Windi Robinson Subject:Testimony in OPPOSITION to Bill 147 (Short-Term Vacation Rentals) To the Committee Chair and Members of the Hawai ʻ i County Council, My name is Jeff Currier, and I am a homeowner and resident of Kona Bay Estates in Kailua-Kona. I am writing to testify in OPPOSITION to Bill 147 as currently proposed. My property is owner-occupied, and I have no interest in operating a short-term vacation rental. However, under Bill 147, my zone would become newly eligible for STVR permitting. I am concerned about the downstream effect this will have on my property taxes, specifically through rising assessed value. As STVR-permitted homes become more common in residential zones like mine, investor buyers are often willing to pay a premium for the rental income potential these permits create. Because county assessments rely heavily on comparable sales data, this investor activity can pull up assessed values across the entire neighborhood — including for owner-occupants like myself who have no plans to rent and receive none of the rental income benefit. While the Home Exemption's 3% annual assessment cap offers some protection, it does not eliminate the long-term upward pressure this creates on baseline property values and, eventually, tax bills for longtime residents. I am not testifying against short-term rentals in general, nor against neighbors who rely on them for income. My concern is narrower: Bill 147 does not appear to account for the tax burden it may place on owner-occupants in newly-opened residential zones who are not participating in the STVR market at all. I respectfully ask the Council to: 1. Require an assessed-value and tax-impact study specific to residential zones being newly opened to STVR use under this bill, before any final vote. 2. Consider protections for owner-occupied, non-participating homeowners in these zones, such as additional assessment safeguards or a defined review process for residents who believe their assessed value is being driven up by neighboring STVR activity. 3. More broadly reconsider whether unhosted STVR use should be expanded into residential zoning districts at all, given the cumulative effect on housing costs and long-term residents. Thank you for considering my testimony. Respectfully, Jeff Currier 75-5515 Kona Bay Drive Kona Bay Estates, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 jeff.currier@gmail.com 1 Tsuneda, Kaci From:David Eichner <halawajava@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 4:33 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:jameshustace@hawaiicounty.gov Subject:Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is David Eichner. I am a retired carpenter and have lived in North Kohala for the past 36 years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. 1 Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations . Thank you for your consideration. Mahalo nui loa, David A. Eichner Niulii, North Kohala 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Susan Grant <niuliigal@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 8:06 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Susan Grant. I am a retired Graphic Designer, who has lived in North Kohala for the past 30 years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our home. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for 1 employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations . Thank you for your consideration. Aloha, Susan Grant 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Bobby Grimes <biodynamichawaii@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 7:38 PM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:Opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. Aloha Council Members, My name is Bobby Grimes, I am a contractor/ Project Manager, who has lived in North Kohala for the past 7 years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress 1 economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven 2 bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations . Thank you for your consideration. Bobby Grimes Bobby Grimes Bobbygrimes.com Livingsoilservices.com Pearl Contracting- Project Manager Bobby@pearlcontractinginc.net 54-396 Akone Pule Hwy, #939 Kapaau, HI 96755 808-443-9232 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Ritchie Henderson <ritchie.henderson@rinvest.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 11:51 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Written Testimony - Richard Henderson II Regarding Bill 147 – Short-Term Vacation Rental (STVR) Regulations Hawai ʻ i County Council Chair and Members of the Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Bill 147. I submit this testimony as an individual resident who is concerned about the practical, legal, and economic impacts this bill will have on existing housing, property rights, and long-established communities across Hawai ʻ i Island. Bill 147, as drafted, makes several significant changes to the regulation of short-term vacation rentals. While I appreciate the County’s effort to bring clarity and consistency to Chapter 25, several provisions of the bill create unintended consequences that warrant reconsideration. 1. RM Zoning and Vested Rights Bill 147 reverses long-standing policy by removing STVR eligibility from RM-zoned condominium projects that were legally developed, permitted, and marketed for transient visitor use. Many of these projects—some dating back 40–50 years—were expressly identified in their Developer’s Public Reports as visitor accommodations, and purchasers relied on those representations when making investment decisions. As you will note, “Bill 147 reverses that policy and makes the use illegal in many condo complexes built, used, and permitted for transient rental purposes.” This change would create inequitable treatment within the same CPR project, where some units retain rights while identical neighboring units are permanently prohibited. More than 2,000 units islandwide fall into this category. 2. Use of General Plan Resort Nodes The General Plan is a long-range policy document, not a parcel-level regulatory tool. Zoning—not General Plan designations—has always been the mechanism by which property owners determine permitted uses. It should be noted, “General plan designations are not intended to be used at the granular parcel level.” Linking STVR eligibility to Resort Nodes introduces uncertainty and inconsistency, remove the reference. 3. CN Zoning STVRs are consistent with the commercial nature of the CN district, which already permits lodging houses, restaurants, retail, and other commercial uses. Excluding CN while allowing STVRs in CG and CV lacks a clear planning rationale. 4. Hosted Rentals vs. Bed & Breakfasts The bill merges hosted rentals with Bed & Breakfasts, despite B&Bs traditionally requiring special permits and higher service expectations. This change may trigger unintended consequences for mortgages, insurance, HOA compliance, and Department of Health requirements. It should be apparent that this terminology could “affect eligibility for traditional homeowner insurance, increase premiums, require commercial coverage, or create underwriting concerns.” 1 5. Temporary Workforce Housing Not all rentals under 180 days are visitor lodging. Traveling nurses, construction workers, teachers, disaster-displaced families, and relocating households rely on temporary housing. The bill should expand exemptions beyond medical professionals and allow documentation-based verification rather than requiring STVR registration for legitimate housing needs. 6. Additional Operational Concerns Several provisions—such as the five-bedroom cap, reachability requirements, and restrictions on multiple guest groups—need refinement to avoid unnecessary burdens on owners while still addressing legitimate neighborhood concerns. Recommendation I respectfully urge the Council to adopt amendments that: • Retain RM zoning as a permitted district for legally established STVR CPRs, or provide an opt-in rezoning pathway to Resort zoning. • Remove reliance on General Plan Resort Nodes for determining permitted uses. • Preserve STVR eligibility in CN zoning. • Separate hosted rentals from Bed & Breakfasts to avoid unintended commercial reclassification. • Expand temporary housing exemptions and provide clear documentation standards. • Refine operational definitions and requirements to ensure clarity and fairness. Bill 147 is an important effort, but it must protect long-standing property rights, avoid inequitable outcomes, and ensure that regulations reflect the realities of Hawai ʻ i Island’s housing and visitor-accommodation history. I appreciate the Council’s consideration and urge thoughtful amendments before passage. Respectfully submitted, Richard Henderson II 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Jamie Humphrey <sydneysmommy05@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 6:46 PM To:Council Testimony Subject:Against bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Jamie Humphrey. I have lived here in North Kohala for 10 years and I clean vacation rentals for a living — it's how I support myself and my young daughter. I'm a single mom, so this job means everything to my family's stability. I wanted to share my concerns about Bill 147. I don't have a problem with rentals having to register and pay their taxes — that seems fair. But the part of this bill that would stop existing hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating, that's the part that scares me. Several of the properties I clean for would be affected by this, and that's a big chunk of my income gone. THIS IS MY PAYCHECK These jobs aren't extra money for me — they're how I pay rent, keep food on the table, and take care of my kid. I clean for a few different properties around North Kohala, and losing even one or two of them because of this bill would hit my family hard. It's not like there are a ton of other jobs around here that pay the same or let me work the hours I need as a mom. North Kohala doesn't have many places for visitors to stay to begin with. These hosted rentals bring people here for family reunions, Kohala Reunions, King Kamehameha Day, and other events — and that means work for people like me. Without them, I don't know what I'd do. THE COUNTY'S OWN STUDY BACKS THIS UP! The County paid for a study in 2025 (by Hunden Partners) that says hosted rentals are vital to thousands of local families here on the island — that many of us depend on this work just to afford to live here. That same study says a bill like this could cost the island over 12,000 full-time jobs and 30,000 part-time jobs. I don't want to be one of those numbers. And it wouldn't even solve the housing problem — the study found only 4% of owners said they'd actually turn their rental into long-term housing if this bill passed. So we'd lose jobs without really gaining housing. A FAIR COMPROMISE Please consider grandfathering in the hosted rentals that are already operating and where the host lives on the property, no matter the number of bedrooms. Let new rules apply going forward, but don't take away the income that families like mine already depend on. 1 I'm asking you to think about the moms, the workers, and the families like mine who depend on this industry to get by. Please don't pass this bill as written. Mahalo, Jamie Humphrey 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Jenny Justus <jennyjustus501@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 9:08 AM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147 – Please Grandfather Existing Hosted Vacation Rentals Aloha Council Members, My name is Jenny Justus. I am a cleaning professional who has lived in North Kohala for the past year. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on this market for 1 employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations. Thank you for your consideration, Jenny Justus 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Michael Justus <mwjustus573@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 7:48 AM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147 – Please Grandfather Existing Hosted Vacation Rentals Aloha Council Members, My name is Michael Justus. I am a cleaning professional who has lived in North Kohala for the past year. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on this market for 1 employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations. Thank you for your consideration, Michael Justus 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Kal <maliakaikona@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2026 8:36 AM To:Council Testimony Cc:Darrow, Jeffrey W.; Leah Debina Subject:Fwd: Request to Preserve Existing STVR Rights at Malia Kai Hello, As per the response from Planning Director Darrow below, we are submitting our note to you. We are the owners at Malia Kai in Kailua-Kona and are writing to respectfully express our concern regarding the proposal to eliminate Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) as a permitted use in RM-zoned properties and require existing owners to obtain Non-Conforming Use (NCU) Certificates. We purchased our townhouse with the understanding that STVRs were a lawful and permitted use. Like many owners, we invested hundreds of thousands of dollars based on those regulations, obtained a valid County STVR permit, and have remained fully compliant. Changing the rules now would fundamentally alter the rights under which we made our investment. We respectfully ask that Malia Kai—and other long-established RM condominium communities where STVRs have been legally operating for many years—be permanently grandfathered as a permitted use and excluded from the proposed changes. Existing lawful STVRs should not be reclassified as non-conforming uses or subjected to annual NCU applications, renewals, or fees. Malia Kai has long functioned as a visitor accommodation community. Buyers have invested there with the reasonable expectation that this use would continue. Applying different rules to future owners of identical units within the same community would create unnecessary inequity, confusion, and uncertainty for buyers, lenders, insurers, and title companies while significantly reducing property values and marketability. As out-of-state owners, we also use our townhouse personally each year, while rental income helps offset our mortgage, HOA dues, insurance, maintenance, and increasing property taxes. Like many owners, we have invested substantially in maintaining and upgrading our property to meet County requirements and provide a quality experience for visitors. Our guests support Kona's local economy by spending at restaurants, shops, grocery stores, golf courses, tour operators, transportation services, housekeeping companies, 1 landscapers, contractors, and many other local businesses. Reducing the value of these properties would also negatively impact County property tax revenues. If the County wishes to adopt different policies for future developments, we respectfully ask that those changes apply prospectively rather than to existing communities and owners who relied on the County's longstanding regulations. We respectfully urge the County to preserve the existing lawful status of STVRs at Malia Kai and similarly situated RM communities by permanently grandfathering these properties as permitted vacation rentals without requiring annual NCU renewals or fees. Thank you for your time, your service to our community, and your thoughtful consideration of the concerns of property owners who have acted in good faith and in full compliance with County regulations. Sincerely, Kalpana Joglekar and Ajit Bodas Owners, Malia Kai Kailua-Kona, Hawai ʻ i ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Darrow, Jeffrey W. <jeff.darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Request to Preserve Existing STVR Rights at Malia Kai To: Kal <maliakaikona@gmail.com> Cc: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>, Leah Debina <leahd@associahawaii.com> Aloha Kalpana Joglekar and Ajit Bodas, Councilmember Kimball is considering possible amendments Bill 147 that will allow existing RM zoned properties with an existing condo to be permitted for STVRs. As this bill will be at the County Council shortly, I would request that you also send comments to the County Council. 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Da Kine Windows LLC <dakinewindow@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 8:12 AM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147: Written Testimony in Opposition for Current Regulations Aloha Council Member Hustace and Council Members, My name is John Kennedy. I own and operate a small window and exterior cleaning company here on Hawai ʻ i Island, and I am writing to ask you to reconsider several parts of Bill 147. I employ six people, and while this bill would have a direct effect on my business, I am also concerned for the effect it could have on the many local businesses and families that depend on the vacation-rental industry. My company services a number of vacation rentals, and over the years I have built relationships with the owners and operators of these properties. They hire local cleaners, landscapers, maintenance companies, handymen, window cleaners, and other tradespeople. When these properties are no longer able to operate, the effect doesn't stop with the property owner. It spreads to the small businesses and employees who rely on that work. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to regulation. I support requiring hosted rentals to register with the County, pay the appropriate taxes, and follow reasonable rules that protect the surrounding neighborhood. I believe owners who operate these properties should be accountable and good neighbors. My concern is with changing the rules in a way that effectively eliminates existing hosted rentals that have been operating legally and responsibly for years. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT MATTERS I believe the Council should give serious consideration to the County's own Economic Impact Study completed by Hunden Partners in 2025. The study states that existing hosted vacation rentals are important to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawai ʻ i Island. It also estimates that the vacation-rental industry contributes nearly $1 billion a year to the local economy. The potential employment impact is especially concerning. The study estimates that changes such as those being considered could put approximately 12,000 full-time and 30,000 part-time jobs at risk. For me, those aren't just numbers on a page. They represent my employees, my customers, other local contractors, and the families who depend on the income generated by this industry. 1 I also question whether eliminating existing hosted rentals will actually create the amount of long-term housing that is being anticipated. According to the same study, only 4% of current vacation-rental owners and operators said they would definitely convert their properties to long-term rentals. That tells me we could eliminate a significant amount of economic activity without necessarily creating a meaningful amount of additional housing. Many of these properties are small, family-run operations. They are not necessarily properties that can simply be converted into conventional long-term rentals. In many rural areas, the income from these properties helps families remain here and helps support other local businesses. THE HOST REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR I also think the language regarding where a host must live needs to be clarified. The bill refers to the host living on the same “building site” as the TVR. That wording is unclear to me and could create unnecessary confusion about which properties qualify. The current rules allow a host to live on the same property without necessarily being in the same building. The County's own study indicates that this is how the vast majority of hosted vacation rentals on the island currently operate. If the intent is simply that the host must live on the same property, then I believe the ordinance should say that clearly by referring to the same Tax Map Key (TMK). That would give everyone a straightforward standard and avoid having otherwise compliant owners caught up in an ambiguous definition. PLEASE PROTECT EXISTING OPERATIONS I believe there is a reasonable middle ground here. I am not asking the Council to stop regulating vacation rentals or to prevent the County from establishing stricter rules going forward. I am asking that properties that are already operating legally and complying with the current requirements be allowed to continue. Specifically, I would ask the Council to grandfather existing hosted vacation rentals as long as they:  Are properly registered with the County;  Pay the required taxes;  Have the host living on the same TMK;  Continue to comply with good-neighbor requirements; and  Continue to meet the other applicable County regulations. The County could then apply new bedroom limits and other requirements to new hosted rentals going forward, without putting existing families and businesses in the position of losing an established source of income. 2 I also hope the Council will take a closer look at Agricultural-zoned properties. In many cases, carefully regulated short-term rentals and agritourism can provide an additional source of income that helps local farmers deal with the extremely high cost of producing food here. I would encourage the County to look for ways to support and regulate those operations rather than simply eliminating them. Finally, I don't believe the answer to our housing shortage should be to take away existing ways for local families to earn income. If the goal is to increase housing for local residents, I would much rather see the County focus on encouraging smaller-scale housing and workforce housing developments and making it easier to build appropriate housing for local families, rather than continuing to favor large lots with large homes. I respectfully ask you to amend Bill 147 so that existing, compliant hosted vacation rentals can continue operating under the rules that were in place when they were established. I appreciate your time and your willingness to consider the impact this legislation could have on the small businesses, employees, property owners, and families who make up our local community. Mahalo nui loa, John KennedyJohnny Kennedy PO Box 121 Honokaa, HI 96727 (808)990-1318 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Dash Kuhr <dash@hipagriculture.org> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 5:09 PM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:Testimony in Opposition to Bill 147 — As Currently Written Aloha Chair and Members of the Council, My name is Dashiell Kuhr. I am the Managing Member of Starseed Ranch LLC, a 26-acre working farm and regenerative agriculture operation located at 52-4838 Akoni Pule Highway in Kapʻaau, North Kohala. My family has been farming in Kohala for 18 years. We employ 15+ people across our farm and hosted operations, we grow and/or donate approximately $100,000 in produce annually to the local community, and we host the Hawaiʻi Institute of Pacific Agriculture — a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that runs farm-to-school education and farmer training programs — as a long-term tenant on our land. I am writing to respectfully but strongly oppose Bill 147 as currently drafted. I support the intent behind the bill — requiring registration, tax compliance, and good-neighbor practices for hosted rentals. I have no objection to any of that. My concern is with specific provisions in the current draft that, if enacted, would eliminate the small on-farm hosted operations that make the last remaining small farms on Hawaiʻi Island economically viable. Bill 147, as written, would be a small-farm extinction event. I do not believe that is what the Council intends, and I want to explain why. Small farms on Hawaiʻi Island do not survive on farming alone. This is not an opinion. It is the economic reality of every small farm I know on this island, and it is the reality of my own operation. Farming in Hawaiʻi is one of the highest-cost agricultural environments in the United States. Land costs, water costs, labor costs, feed costs, imported inputs, shipping, and the sheer isolation of our supply chain all conspire to make farming here structurally unprofitable at small scale on its own. On our farm, we grow and donate approximately $100,000 in produce each year. That is the output of a serious, working agricultural operation — not a hobby farm and not a pretense. But $100,000 in produce does not cover $100,000 in production costs, let alone land, equipment, and labor. The math simply does not work. What makes our operation viable — what allows us to continue farming, employ 15+ people, and host a 501(c)(3) doing agricultural education — is approximately $160,000 in annual agritourism revenue from our hosted operation. That revenue is what pays the mortgage. It is what keeps the operations running. It is what allows us to donate produce to the community rather than shutting down. The hosted operation is not a side business separate from the farm. It is the mechanism by which the farm survives. Bill 147 as drafted would eliminate this model. Two specific provisions in the current draft are, for a working farm like ours, structurally fatal:  The 5-bedroom cap on TVRs. Our operation was built out over 18 years to include multiple detached guest structures on ag land. These structures were built in compliance with the rules at the time, with permits, and they house visitors who come to experience the farm. Under Bill 147, any operation exceeding five bedrooms is barred from the TVR framework entirely and reclassified as a “hotel or lodge” — which is not permitted on agricultural land. There is no 1 grandfather clause. Our operation, built lawfully over nearly two decades, would be effectively outlawed overnight.  The “principal home of the host” requirement for B&Bs on ag land. As drafted, this language would require the B&B activity to be located specifically in the farm dwelling that is also the host’s principal home. On working farms with detached farmworker housing, guest cottages, or multiple dwellings developed over years of operation, this language does not fit how real farms are actually organized. It is a residential-neighborhood framework being applied to agricultural land, and it makes no operational sense on a working farm. Together, these two provisions would take the small hosted operations that subsidize working farms across Hawaiʻi Island and make them illegal. Not the party houses. Not the un-hosted commercial vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods that this bill is ostensibly targeting. The small on-farm hosted operations run by families who live on the land, farm it, and use the hosted revenue to keep the farm running. This is not a hypothetical. If this bill passes as written, we will likely have to sell our farm. I want to be direct with the Council because I do not think the consequences of this bill have been fully weighed. If Bill 147 passes in its current form and our hosted operation is eliminated, our farm cannot sustain itself on produce revenue alone. We would face a choice between operating at a significant annual loss indefinitely or selling the land. In this real estate market, on Akoni Pule Highway, the most likely buyer of a 26-acre parcel is not another farmer. It is a private residence, a luxury estate, or a developer. Multiply that decision across the dozens of small farms in North Kohala and Hamakua that operate on similar economics, and the outcome is straightforward: fewer working farms, more private estates, less agricultural production, and fewer local jobs. The bill intended to protect the community would accelerate the loss of the agricultural land that defines it. There is a clear compromise that addresses the Council’s concerns without harming working farms. I am not asking the Council to withdraw Bill 147. There is real work to be done regulating vacation rentals on this island, and I support most of what the bill attempts. I am asking for a narrow, defensible carve-out: Provide a specific exemption or accommodation for hosted TVRs located on land that is actively used for bona fide agricultural production, where the hosted operation is operated by the farm owner or operator, and where the operation is registered under Ord 25-50 and compliant with tax obligations and good-neighbor requirements. This carve-out could be defined by objective criteria: minimum acreage in active cultivation, minimum annual agricultural output, connection to an agricultural enterprise, or similar. Hawaiʻi’s existing agritourism framework under HRS 165 provides a starting model. This approach lets the Council achieve every substantive goal in Bill 147 — registration, tax compliance, complaint response, prohibition of party houses and non-hosted commercial operations in residential neighborhoods — while preserving the agritourism revenue that keeps small farms alive on Hawaiʻi Island. It is also consistent with existing state policy. HRS Chapter 165 explicitly recognizes agritourism as a permitted, encouraged activity on agricultural land, precisely because the legislature understood that agricultural viability in Hawaiʻi often requires diversified income. Bill 147 as drafted would cut against that policy without acknowledging it. The Council’s own study supports this concern. The Hunden Partners Economic Impact Study commissioned by this Council in 2025 quantified the scale of the hosted rental sector and its integration into island livelihoods. The study’s own findings show that the sector supports thousands of jobs and represents a significant share of the island’s 2 economic activity, and that conversion of these units to long-term housing is unlikely to materialize at meaningful scale. On working farms specifically, the connection between hosted operations and agricultural viability is direct and immediate. The regulatory response should be calibrated to the problem the Council is actually trying to solve — unpermitted party houses, non-hosted commercial operations in residential neighborhoods, and tax non-compliance — not to a broad prohibition that catches working farms in the same net. In closing. I have farmed in Kohala for 18 years. I employ my neighbors. I donate food to the community. I host a 501(c)(3) that trains the next generation of Hawaiʻi farmers. I pay my taxes, register my operation, and try to be a good neighbor. I am not the operator this bill is trying to regulate. I respectfully ask the Council to amend Bill 147 to include a working-farm carve-out along the lines described above, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with Council Members and staff on the specific language. My hope is that the final bill can achieve what the Council is trying to achieve without eliminating the small agricultural operations that make Hawaiʻi Island what it is. Mahalo for your consideration and for your service. Respectfully, Dashiell Kuhr Managing Member Starseed Ranch LLC 52-4838 Akoni Pule Highway, Kapʻaau, HI 96755 808-896-6084 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Erika Kuhr <coconuts@starseedranch.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 5:01 PM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:BILL 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Erika Kuhr. I am a farmer, non-profit executive director, and land owner with both long term rentals (20 people live on the farm including our family) and short term rentals, and I have lived in North Kohala for the past 18 years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that require hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family visit, they can stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further 1 suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long-term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long- term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the 2 community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations. Thank you for your consideration. Erika Kuhr 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Ashley Welton Lake <ashley.welton@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 3:16 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Opposition to Bill 147 Aloha Council, My name is Ashley Lake. My husband and I were born and raised in Kona, and currently live in Kaloko Mauka. We had a small short term rental in the guest house to our home on our three acres of agriculture zoned land. The income from that provided necessary support to afford our mortgage and stay in Hawaii. It’s far from the only job we hold. We often rented to neighbor island residents traveling to see family that look for housing at an affordable rate. To give context, the average night cost about $120 and you can’t find a hotel anywhere for even close to that. We stopped renting because of the danger of losing our home owner’s classification and the sudden increase in taxes that would create. Our home’s value has more than doubled since covid and, knowing that you are trying to eradicate hosted rentals in state land use ag properties, it didn’t make sense to continue. But here’s something I am still scratching my head about. Hawaii Island is about 46% state land use ag. Many residents in these zones rent parts of their home in order to afford to live here. We pay the taxes associated with it. Why are you trying to pass legislation that would certainly put us out of business, closing a path that many, if not today then one day, need in order to afford to live in Hawaii? Unhosted rentals, the original problem, have been regulated since 2018, why are you going after the locals now? The registration process, if you can even register, is onerous and expensive and overreach on the government’s part. For those in state land use ag, what is the special use permit process? How much will it cost? How long will it take? Are you prepared to be flooded with hundreds of applications? Will we be able to operate until the special use permit is issued? What’s more likely to happen is we all close shop and that 20% in taxes we pay to the state and county disappear. Tourists who cannot afford the ridiculous hotel prices will travel elsewhere and neighbor island residents will not be able to easily visit our island — you know we can’t afford those hotel prices either. Farmers who subsidize their farms with farm-stays will struggle even harder and many will not be able to continue. The county is already working with a budget deficit. Do you have a plan for the money you’ll be losing by eradicating hosted rentals in state land use ag zones? This doesn’t even take into consideration 1 those who could register but will simply not because the process is overly complicated and expensive and invites far too much oversight from the county. Have you considered that loss from all angles? I’ve been asking for years, who does this benefit? It’s absolutely not the island residents. I wish you would listen to us. We’ve been telling you and telling you and telling you. And yet, you persist. Unhosted rentals are already regulated, hosted rentals pay our taxes. Enough. Please do not pass this bill. aloha Ashley 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Mike Lee <mikescottlee@me.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 5:59 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Opposing Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Michael Lee. I am a designer , who has lived in North Kohala for the past four years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further 1 suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know by just living and working on island – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long-term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long- term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the 2 community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations . Thank you for your consideration. Mike Lee 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Penny Lee <pennyleeloo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 12:19 PM To:Council Testimony Subject:Testimony in opposition to Bill 147 I wanted to focus on just a couple of issues that contribute to the confusion and mistrust the public has about these bills: Statements have been made to the public multiple times and also under oath in front of the Planning Commissions about this new regulation and how it will work, but these policies are not written down in Bill 147 or ordinance 25-50. For example, Heather Kimball said in the Aug 11th webinar that existing STVR NUCs "run with the property" and transfer on sale to the new owner. This is not written in the bill. Current STVR regulation based on Bill 108 clearly states this. Example 2: During the Planning Commission Hearings, Heather Kimball stated several times that hosted vacation rentals in state land use agriculture would not need a Special Permit if the lot was created before June 4th, 1976. This is also not written down in Bill 147, in fact Bill 147 doesn't even mention 1976 anywhere. This is a very key distinction that will apply to many families, as we have 91,000 parcels located in state land use agricultural (45.8% of all lands on the Big Island). This is extremely important that these fundamental policies be included in the bill and be implemented in the regulations. Otherwise the proposed regulation was misrepresented to the public and the Planning Commissions under oath. Future requirements and policies should be fully transparent to the public and described clearly in writing in the code. What does "deemed registered" mean? Bill 147 completely removes and replaces existing regulations regarding existing STVRs and Bed & Breakfasts. Is the county trying to "gut and replace" previous legal agreements that were made with grandfathered legally operating vacation rentals and B&Bs? Now in Bill 147, if there is any problem with the registration, the underlying NUC will automatically be revoked. Considering that the county is not issuing any new NUCs, this will be an unrecoverable loss to the owner of longstanding vested property rights and violates grandfathering rules. Registration should not start on Sep 1st and should be delayed until all requirements and details are fleshed out, carefully considered and clearly written in code. This bill with its vagueness and overreaching policies has the potential to bring great harm to local families and our local economy. 1 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Mark LeRoy <mark.l@gathervacations.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 8:03 AM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147: Preserve Jobs, Visitor Access, and Existing Property Rights Aloha Council Members, My name is Mark LeRoy. I have lived in North Kohala for approximately twelve years and am a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am a Hawai ʻ i-licensed real estate professional and have worked in vacation rental management on Hawai ʻ i Island for more than fourteen years, primarily along the Kohala Coast. I am writing in opposition to Bill 147 as currently drafted. I support reasonable regulation of hosted vacation rentals, including registration, tax compliance, enforceable good-neighbor standards, and accountability for operators. My concern is that Bill 147 goes materially further by potentially eliminating lawful, existing hosted rentals that have operated under the rules, contributed to the local economy, and created employment and income for Hawai ʻ i Island residents. North Kohala has very limited visitor accommodations. Hosted rentals serve families coming for reunions, community events, King Kamehameha Day, school reunions, weddings, and visits with residents who simply do not have room to accommodate extended family. Without these properties, many visitors must stay at Kohala Coast resorts nearly an hour away, often at substantially higher cost. The five-bedroom limitation is particularly concerning if applied retroactively. Property owners made substantial investments under regulations that did not impose this limitation. Eliminating otherwise compliant existing operations after those investments have been made creates an obvious fairness issue, but it also creates predictable downstream economic consequences: lost employment, reduced visitor spending, less tax revenue, impaired property values, and greater economic uncertainty for local families and businesses that depend on this activity. The County’s own 2025 Hunden Partners Economic Impact Study should weigh heavily in this discussion. The study describes vacation rentals as important to the livelihoods of thousands of Hawai ʻ i Island families and estimates very substantial direct and indirect economic activity associated with the industry. Equally important, restricting vacation rentals should not be assumed to produce meaningful amounts of affordable housing. The same County-commissioned study reports that only a small percentage of vacation rental owners indicated they would definitely convert their properties to long-term rentals. 1 That is an important distinction. Eliminating a visitor accommodation does not automatically create workforce housing. A six- or seven-bedroom home designed and operated as a hosted rental is particularly unlikely to become an affordable long-term housing unit. Regulation should be based on the likely outcome, not simply the hoped-for outcome. There is also a practical issue with the definition of a hosted rental. Bill 147 refers to a host living at the “same building site” as the TVR, yet “building site” appears insufficiently defined. A host residing elsewhere on the same Tax Map Key should clearly qualify as an on-site host. Using the TMK as the standard would provide owners, residents, and County enforcement personnel with a much clearer rule. There is a reasonable compromise. Allow existing hosted vacation rentals to continue operating when the host resides on the same TMK and the property was lawfully operating before the new regulations take effect, regardless of whether it contains five, six, or seven bedrooms. The County can then impose the new bedroom limitation prospectively on future operations. This approach does not prevent regulation. It distinguishes between regulating future activity and retroactively disrupting lawful existing businesses and household economics. I believe hosted vacation rentals should register, pay all applicable taxes, operate professionally, respect their neighbors, and be held accountable when they do not. Those objectives can be achieved without unnecessarily eliminating compliant existing businesses, local jobs, tax revenue, and an important source of visitor accommodations in communities such as North Kohala. I respectfully ask the Council to amend Bill 147 to grandfather existing compliant hosted rentals and clarify that a host residing anywhere on the same TMK satisfies the residency requirement. Mahalo for your consideration. Mark LeRoy North Kohala Hawai ʻ i Island Mark LeRoy, Chairman of The LeRoy Collection Realtor® (RS-76356) Gather Vacations, Inc (808) 464-2454 | Book A Meeting View The Collection 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Donna Maltz <dm1aloha@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 10:30 AM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:URGENT MESSAGE BILL 147 Aloha Council Members, We are Donna and Kevin Maltz, and we live in North Kohala. I am a constituent of Council Member James Hustace, and I'm writing because Bill 147, as currently drafted, would cause real harm to families like mine who have built their lives around responsible, hosted vacation rentals. I want to be clear: I fully support registration, tax compliance, and accountability for hosted rentals. Good neighbors should be held to good standards. But the provision that shuts down existing hosted rentals outright is not accountability — it's an unnecessary loss for people who have followed the rules from the start. My stake in this is personal. The ability to rent out my back house is the reason I could afford to buy property here at all. That income made the mortgage possible. Without it, homeownership in this community would not have been within reach for me — and I know I am far from alone in that. Agricultural tourism and hosted rentals keep farmers on their land. For many agricultural landowners in North Kohala, vacation rental income is what makes it financially viable to keep land in active agricultural use rather than sell to developers or resorts. This bill threatens that balance. If we want to protect farmland and keep working families on it, we need policy that supports small, independent operators — not one that pushes them out in favor of larger resort interests. This is about keeping Hawai'i, Hawai'i. Our island needs representation that protects local, independent tourism — the kind rooted in real relationships between hosts and guests — not policy that quietly favors resort development. Independent hosted rentals keep tourism dollars circulating through local families rather than corporate ownership. The County's own study supports this. The 2025 Economic Impact Study from Hunden Partners, commissioned by the County, found that hosted vacation rentals generate close to $1 billion annually in economic impact islandwide, and that regulations like Bill 147 could cost over 12,000 full-time and 30,000 part-time jobs. The same study found only 4% of owners would convert to long-term rentals if forced to close — meaning this bill would not meaningfully add to housing supply. It would simply eliminate income and jobs without solving the problem it claims to address. In North Kohala specifically, hosted rentals are often the only lodging within reach for families visiting for reunions, King Kamehameha Day, and community milestones like the Kohala High School centennial. Removing them pushes visitors — and their spending — an hour away to hotels many can't afford, taking that revenue out of our community entirely. A simple fix exists. Grandfather in existing hosted rentals where the host lives on the same Tax Map Key (TMK), regardless of bedroom count, while applying stricter rules to future development. This mirrors 1 how un-hosted short-term rentals were handled and gives long-standing, compliant operators the fair treatment they've earned. If this Council's goal is genuine economic stability and support for its constituents, Bill 147 as written works against that goal. I respectfully ask you to amend it to protect existing hosted rentals and the families, farms, and communities that depend on them. Mahalo, Big Love and Aloha Give the gift that keeps on giving. ?? Eco-Entrepreneur ???????????? Author ???????? Photographer ?? Holistic Chef 808-315-1342 ?? Ecospired By Nature ? Soil to Soul Soulutions ?????? Always in Season Retreat 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:C M <crmilliken@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 16, 2026 11:49 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Testimony on Bill 147 relating to STVR's Aloha Leeward Planning Commission and Hawaiʻi County Council Members, My name is Caleb Milliken. I was raised in Kona, and Hawaiʻi Island is my home. I supported the County's registration requirement because I believe responsible operators should register, pay their GET and TAT taxes, and operate with integrity. That is our kuleana. Bill 147, however, goes far beyond registration. As you consider the future of this ordinance, I hope you will see it as more than a regulatory decision. It is an opportunity to strengthen the people who live, work, and raise their ʻohana on Hawaiʻi Island. The County's own economic impact study confirms that locally operated visitor accommodations generate significant tax revenue, sustain thousands of local jobs, and keep visitor spending circulating through our communities. It also demonstrates that additional restrictions are unlikely to meaningfully increase the long- term housing supply. That presents a remarkable opportunity. Rather than placing additional burdens on responsible local operators, Hawaiʻi County can become a leader in creating policies that help local residents participate in the visitor economy. Every locally operated visitor accommodation supports not only the owner, but also local cleaners, landscapers, contractors, restaurants, activity providers, retailers, farmers, and countless other small businesses that make our island thrive. For many of us, hosting visitors is not simply a business. It is what allows us to remain in Hawaiʻi, care for our ʻohana, con?nue farming, employ local workers, and contribute to the communi?es we love. We respectfully ask you to build a framework that encourages compliance, protects responsible local operators, and recognizes the tremendous value that locally operated visitor accommodations bring to Hawaiʻi Island. This is an opportunity to invest in local people, local jobs, local farms, local businesses, and local economic resilience. The County has already established a registration system that provides accountability and supports tax compliance. Bill 147 goes far beyond that. I respectfully urge you to reject Bill 147 in its current form and instead develop legislation that protects our neighborhoods while empowering local residents, farmers, and small businesses to participate responsibly in Hawaiʻi Island's visitor economy. 1 This is an opportunity to strengthen—not burden—the people who live, work, and invest in our island every day. Mahalo for your time, your service, and your consideration. Caleb Milliken 808-747-0267 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Kristin O'Friel <kristin.ofriel@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 27, 2026 2:47 PM To:Council Testimony Subject:Written Testimony in Opposition to Bill 147 Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee, I am writing today in opposition to moving forward with additional regulation of hosted vacation rentals via Bill 147 before the County has had an opportunity to implement, evaluate, and learn from the registration process required by Bill 47/Ordinance 25-50. What is the purpose of establishing a registration process if not to develop a clearer understanding of the landscape that Bill 147 proposes to regulate? The registration process should be an opportunity to gather meaningful data, identify and address problems, assess the County’s administrative capacity, and use the information to determine what additional regulations, if any, are necessary. Before requiring homeowners to register, the authors of Bill 47/Ordinance 25-50 should first take the time to understand and address the practical barriers homeowner’s are confronted with when registering their properties. The 3% property-tax cap is a great example. I strongly support the concept in Bill 173 of creating a property-tax classification that preserves the 3% cap for homeowners who rely on hosted- rental income. This tax classification should be established before registration is required. The fact that we are once again seeing multiple policy issues addressed through overlapping bills suggests that legislation is not being developed through a thoughtful, logical, and evidence-based process. Instead, the author of this bill appears to be trying to regulate too much, too soon, placing the burden on the community to parse the legislation and repeatedly show up to advocate for a more measured approach. This is disheartening, as it feels like we just went through this with Bill 121. Please take this opportunity to reevaluate. I encourage refocusing legislative efforts on developing effective regulations for unhosted rentals. Getting that framework right would be a more constructive use of resources, while also giving the County time to better understand and address the challenges faced by island hosts. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony. Kristin OFriel Kamuela, HI 1 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Todd Reinke-Walter <todd.reinke.walter@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 10:33 PM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Todd Reinke-Walter. I’ve called North Kohala home for the past 4 years, and I’m a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I’m writing to oppose Bill 147 in its current form. I don’t have a problem with the parts of the bill that ask hosted rentals to register, pay their taxes, and be decent neighbors — that’s fair. What worries me is the part of the bill that would shut down existing hosted rentals and take away the jobs, housing, and community benefits that come with them. I want to be upfront about why this matters to me personally: I’m only able to afford to live on a farm here because part of the mortgage is covered by Airbnb income. Without that revenue, staying on this land simply wouldn’t be financially possible for me. This bill isn’t an abstract policy question for me — it’s the difference between being able to stay in North Kohala and having to leave. North Kohala doesn’t have many places for visitors to stay. Family reunions, the Kohala Reunions, King Kamehameha Day, the 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School — these are the kinds of events where friends and family need somewhere to stay, and right now they can do that within ten minutes of home instead of driving nearly an hour to a hotel they may not even be able to afford. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG-TIME NEIGHBORS Bill 147 would prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from continuing to operate — and it doesn’t even grandfather in the people who built these properties under the old rules, paid their taxes, provided jobs, and have been solid neighbors the whole time. These properties were built when there was no bedroom cap on hosted rentals, based on the rules in place at the time. And now, not long after Hurricane Lala hit our island hard, this Council isn’t meeting about hurricane relief — it’s meeting about a bill that would push more existing hosted rentals out of business over an arbitrary bedroom count. THE NUMBERS BACK THIS UP The County paid nearly $100,000 for an Economic Impact Study from Hunden Partners in 2025, and it’s worth listening to what that study actually found. On page 33, it states that hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” Page 10 puts the economic impact at close to $1 billion a year, and that same page estimates regulation like Bill 147 could cost the island over 12,000 full- time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs. 1 And what would that accomplish? Not housing relief. People need jobs before they can afford housing. Plenty of residents — myself included — depend on income from hosted rentals to make living here possible at all. And the study itself, on page 60, found that only 4% of vacation rental owners said they’d actually convert their property to long-term housing if forced to stop hosting — meaning this bill is unlikely to add meaningful long-term housing stock. There’s also a real ambiguity in the bill about where a host has to live relative to the rental. Right now, a host can live on the property without living in the same building as guests — and the study shows 93% of vacation rentals on the island operate exactly that way, including mine. Bill 147 muddies this by referring to a host living on the “same building site” as the rental, without defining what that means. It should be changed to Tax Map Key, so it’s clear that living anywhere on the same TMK counts. A REASONABLE FIX EXISTS Grandfather in everyone currently operating a hosted vacation rental where the host lives on the TMK, regardless of bedroom count. That lets people like me keep the income that makes it possible to stay on our land, while still letting the County set stricter limits for new hosted rentals going forward. That’s exactly how the County handled it when un-hosted short-term rentals were first regulated, and hosted rentals — most of which are run by people who actually live here — deserve the same treatment. To sum up: everyone running a hosted short-term rental should register, pay their taxes, and be a good neighbor. We can get there without costing people their jobs or their ability to stay on their land, simply by grandfathering in rentals that are already operating under the rules that existed when they were built. Mahalo, Todd Reinke-Walter 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Kenneth Ridley <keaweikiplace@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 9:29 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Alexa Ridley, and I live here in North Kohala. I’m a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I wanted to write in because I’m worried about Bill 147 as it’s currently written. I’m totally fine with the idea of hosted rentals registering with the County, paying their taxes, and being good neighbors — no argument there. But the part of this bill that shuts down existing hosted rentals? That’s a real problem, and I don’t think folks realize how many people it would actually hurt. Here’s my personal stake in this: the only reason I was able to buy my property here was because I could rent out the back house. That income is what made the numbers work on the mortgage. Without it, buying here just wouldn’t have been possible for me. So this isn’t some theoretical policy debate for me — it’s directly tied to how I was able to put down roots in this community. Think about how few places there are around here for visitors to actually stay. Family reunions, the Kohala Reunions, King Kamehameha Day, the Kohala High School 100-year anniversary — when people come into town for stuff like this, they need somewhere close by to sleep. Right now that’s a ten-minute drive. Take away hosted rentals and it becomes an hour away, at a hotel a lot of people can’t even afford. THIS BILL HURTS GOOD NEIGHBORS WHO’VE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT Bill 147 would stop existing hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating — and it doesn’t grandfather in the people who built these properties under the old rules, paid their taxes the whole time, and have been genuinely good neighbors. That seems backwards to me. These properties were built back when there wasn’t any bedroom limit on hosted rentals, so owners planned around that. And now, right after Hurricane Lala tore through parts of our island, the Council isn’t meeting about hurricane relief — it’s meeting about a bill that would put more of these rentals out of business over a number that feels pretty arbitrary. THE COUNTY’S OWN STUDY MAKES THE CASE The County spent close to $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study from Hunden Partners back in 2025, and it’s worth actually looking at what it says. Page 33 states hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” Page 10 puts the total economic impact at nearly $1 billion a year, and estimates regulations like this one could cost the island more than 12,000 full-time jobs and 30,000-plus part-time jobs. We offer an affordable rate for Kamaaina and half of our guests are 1 locals traveling from other islands for work and other parts of OUR island (hilo, kona) for work. Because Hawi is so small, we do not have any other lodging options like hotels for people to stay while working, we need to offer short term rentals. And for what, exactly? This bill won’t fix the housing crisis. People need jobs first, before housing even matters. A lot of us — me included — depend on rental income just to make living here possible in the first place. And the study says it straight: only 4% of vacation rental owners said they’d actually convert to long-term rentals if this passed. So it’s not going to meaningfully add to the housing supply anyway. There’s also a confusing part of the bill about where a host needs to live relative to the rental. Right now, a host can live on the property without being in the same building as guests — which, according to the study, is how 93% of vacation rentals on island already operate, including mine with the back house setup. Bill 147 just says the host has to live on the “same building site,” without defining what that even means. It should just say Tax Map Key instead, so it’s clear that living anywhere on the same TMK counts. THERE’S AN EASY FIX HERE Just grandfather in everyone currently running a hosted vacation rental where the host lives on the TMK, no matter the bedroom count. That way people like me can keep the income that made homeownership possible in the first place, while the County can still tighten the rules for anything built going forward. That’s basically what happened when un-hosted short-term rentals got regulated the first time, and hosted rentals deserve the same fair treatment — especially since most of us actually live here. Mahalo, Alexa Ridley 2 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Madeline Ross <rentals@bigislandlastresort.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 4:16 PM To:Council Testimony; Hustace, James Subject:Oppose Bill 147 Aloha Council Members, My name is Madeline Ross. I am a wedding planner and property manager, who has lived in North Kohala for the past 7 years. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. I am writing to register my opposition to Bill 147 as currently written. While I support provisions in the bill that provide for hosted rentals to register with the County, pay taxes and follow good neighbor policies, I am very concerned about other provisions that prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to fully operate and provide jobs, housing and other benefits to myself and the community. As a property manager, I work directly with homeowners, cleaners, and guests across North Kohala, and I see firsthand how hosted vacation rentals function as a small but essential part of the local economy. The cleaners, maintenance workers, and property staff I coordinate with rely on this work, and the property owners I support built and operate their homes under rules that have been in place for decades. North Kohala has very limited places where visitors to the island can stay. That includes visitors for family reunions, the Kohala Reunions and events like King Kamehameha Day and the recent 100-year anniversary of Kohala High School. When we have friends and family come visit, they are able to stay at vacation rental properties within 10 minutes of our house. Otherwise, they would have to stay at hotels (assuming they could afford them) almost an hour away. THIS BILL HARMS GOOD, LONG TIME NEIGHBORS I am very concerned that Bill 147 prohibits existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from operating as hosted rentals. Even worse, it fails to grandfather in currently operating hosted rentals who have complied with all the rules when built, paid their taxes, provided jobs and otherwise have been great neighbors. Further, under the old rules that have been in place for decades, there was no limit on the number of bedrooms that a hosted rental could rent. So, these property owners built their properties with that expectation in mind. Now, shortly after Hurricane Lala devastated huge parts of our island, this Council is having a meeting not about Hurricane relief, but instead on a bill that would further suppress economic activity by putting existing hosted rentals that exceed an arbitrary number of bedrooms out of business. THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF This Council should be aware of the economic impact of its decision since it spent almost $100,000 on an Economic Impact Study by Hunden Partners in 2025. This study confirms what I know from managing 1 properties on island every day – hosted vacation rentals serve an important economic lifeline for the island. Indeed, on page 33, the study that this Council paid for states that existing hosted vacation rentals “are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island. Many Kama ʻ āina rely on \[this\] market for employment or assistance in affording their homes.” According to page 10 of this Council’s study, the economic impact of the hosted rentals is nearly $1 billion a year. To put that in simpler terms, this Council’s study on that same page suggests that regulation, like Bill 147, would cost the island “more than 12,000 full-time jobs and more than 30,000 part-time jobs.” And, for what? Not to solve the housing crisis. First, in order to have housing, people need jobs. Second, many people rely on hosted rentals with more than five bedrooms to be able to live here. Third, this regulation will not increase affordable housing on island. Your study on page 60 states “only 4% of current Vacation Rental owners and operators said they definitely would convert their property to a long- term rentals. . . This suggests that the likelihood of STVRs converting to long-term housing for residents is minimal.” Further, this legislation is ambiguous as to where the host must live on a hosted rental property. Currently, regulations allow for hosts to live on property, but not in the same building. This is good since according to the Economic Study, 93% of vacation rentals on island do not have a host living in the same building as the visitors. As someone who manages these arrangements day to day, I can confirm this is common practice and works well. This bill is not clear about how this would continue to work because the bill refers to a host living at the “same building site as the TVR.” The term “building site” is left undefined. It should be changed to Tax Map Key to make it clear that a host that lives on the same site as the rental property is a host. THERE IS A CLEAR COMPROMISE There is an easy fix for this legislation. Grandfather in everyone who is currently operating a hosted vacation rental when the host lives on the TMK regardless of whether they have five or seven bedrooms. This will allow these hosted rentals to continue to provide jobs and services to the community while allowing the County to restrict the number of bedrooms in future hosted rentals. This is what happened when the County originally regulated un-hosted short-term rentals. The hosted rentals – the vast majority of which are owned and operated by folks living on island – deserve no less. In closing, I believe that everyone that owns or operates a hosted short-term vacation rental should register, pay their taxes and be a good neighbor. We can accomplish that without loss of current jobs and loss of places for quality visitors to the island to stay by grandfathering current hosted rentals in under the prior regulations. Mahalo, 2 Madeline Ross Manager, The Last Resort 303.859.0131 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Jesse Rubendall <jrubes216@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2026 9:41 PM To:Council Testimony Cc:Hustace, James Subject:Bill 147: Written Testimony in Opposition for Current Regulations Aloha Council Member Hustace and Council Members, Hope this email finds you well. My name is Jesse Rubendall, and I am writing to register my strong opposition to Bill 147 as it's currently written, as it could greatly affect my livelihood and my family's ability to live here on Hawai'i Island. I've lived in North Kohala for six years now, and I work as a property manager, primary maintenance manager, farmer and landscaper for short-term rental properties in our community. I am currently a constituent of Council Member James Hustace. Much of my livelihood — and my family's home — is directly tied to my ability to manage and maintain hosted short-term rentals here in Kohala. I also run a small farm that is located on the same property as our short-term rental units, of which the rental revenue is used to subsidize the agricultural operations. The majority of the food grown here on the land goes directly to feeding our local community of North Kohala. Additionally, we create authentic and land-based immersive experiences for our guests by offering them insight into local agriculture. My wife and I live and work here on the farm/rental property as the hosts, while raising our two-year-old daughter. Our daughter's future could be directly impacted by how this bill unrolls... While I do support (and currently take part in) the system requiring hosted rentals to register with the County, pay their taxes, and follow good neighbor policies, I am deeply concerned about the provisions that would prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals from continuing to operate as they have for years, cutting off thousands of jobs, housing stability, and community benefits for people like me, and my family. THIS BILL THREATENS MY FAMILY'S HOME AND MY LIVELIHOOD I don't say this lightly: the properties I manage and maintain are not abstractions to me. They are how I support my family, put food on the table, and keep a roof over our heads. Bill 147 would prohibit existing hosted vacation rentals with more than five bedrooms from continuing to operate, and it fails to grandfather in properties that were built, registered, and operated in full compliance with the rules in place at the time. These property owners built with the expectation that the rules wouldn't be pulled out from under them retroactively — and the people who maintain, clean, service, and manage those properties, myself included, built our livelihoods on that same expectation. North Kohala has very limited lodging options for visitors. Family reunions, Kohala Reunions, King Kamehameha Day, and events like the recent Kohala High School 100-year anniversary or Takata 10o-year, all depend on nearby hosted rentals, since the alternative is a hotel almost an hour away- if visitors can afford one at all. Most resorts/hotels on island cost double or more per night for visitors to stay, while the majority of that revenue goes straight into the pockets of large corporate hotel chain 1 owners, rather than supporting those families and small businesses that reside here on Hawai'i Island. THE COUNTY'S OWN DATA CONFIRMS THE STAKES This Council should weigh the nearly $100,000 Economic Impact Study it commissioned from Hunden Partners in 2025. On page 33, that study states that existing hosted vacation rentals "are vital to the livelihood of thousands of families on Hawaii Island," and that many Kama'āina rely on this market for employment or help affording their homes. Page 10 puts the total economic impact at nearly $1 billion a year, and the same page estimates that regulations put in place like Bill 147 could cost the island more than 12,000 full-time jobs and 30,000 part-time jobs. I truly don't want my family, or the families of the people I work alongside, to become part of that number. This bill also wouldn't accomplish its stated housing goal. Page 60 of the study found that only 4% of current vacation rental owners and operators said they would definitely convert their property to long-term rental housing — meaning the likelihood of meaningful conversion to resident housing is minimal. The reality is that most of these STR properties are small family businesses, not set up for long-term rental usage. The income they generate is essential for communities to thrive in rural Hawai'i. I'd also note that the bill is ambiguous about where a host must live relative to the rental. Current regulations allow a host to live on the property without being in the same building, which matches how 93% of vacation rentals on this island already operate, per the Economic Study. Bill 147's reference to living on the same "building site" as the TVR is undefined and should instead reference the Tax Map Key (TMK), so hosts living anywhere on the same parcel are clearly recognized as compliant. A REASONABLE PATH FORWARD There is a clear compromise that addresses the Council’s concerns without harming small family businesses or working farms in our region. I am not asking the Council to withdraw Bill 147, rather I am asking for a more clearly-defined and reasonable path forward. The solution I see: grandfather in all currently operating hosted rentals abiding by the current rules and regulations with a proper registration system, where the host(s) live on the TMK, regardless of bedroom count. This lets existing rentals continue providing their essential services and countless jobs for our local community, while still allowing Hawai'i County to set stricter bedroom limits and other regulations for new/future rentals. This is consistent with the County previously handled non-hosted STR's. I fully support registration, taxation, and good-neighbor accountability for hosted rentals. But I'm asking this Council from the bottom of my heart to please, not to achieve that at the cost of my family's home and the livelihoods of thousands of others who work to keep these properties running. Please amend Bill 147 to grandfather currently operating hosted rentals under the prior regulations. I also encourage you to take a deeper look at properties zoned as Agricultural land, and carve out ways for agritourism/short-term rental operations to directly subsidize and support the high cost of agricultural production for our local communities. Mahalo nui loa for your time and consideration to this important matter. 2 -- Regeneratively yours, Jesse L Rubendall Jrubes216@gmail.com 603-831-0179 3 Tsuneda, Kaci From:schneckenburger@comcast.net Sent:Monday, August 31, 2026 8:16 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:Bill 147 NO Aloha, Please vote to table Bill 147 until Hawaii County ﬁgures out how to implement the related Ordinance 25-50 that was to take e?ect December 1, 2026, but has been delayed multiple times until September 1, 2026, or really December 31, 2026, and then give it a year to see how the implementation has worked out. There are many problems with this bill. I will just mention one. If someone is Hawaii County is signiﬁcantly exceeding the speed limit—say by 30 mph—imagine someone driving 65 mph in a 25-mph zone like say, Alii Drive. That would be serious and dangerous. And the ﬁne would be $270. Now imagine someone making an error or missing something on their vacation rental “registration” with the County. Much less risk of injury to others’ life, limb, or property. And the ﬁne is $5500 to $10,000. Reduce the egregious and unconscionable ﬁnes when you pass the bill. Joe Schneckenburger Kailua Kona 1 Tsuneda, Kaci From:Guy Whitman <gcwhitman@outlook.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2026 11:01 AM To:Council Testimony Cc:Darrow, Jeffrey W. Subject:Proposed amendments to Bill 147 re STVRs Good morning. My wife and I live in Victoria, BC, Canada. For many years we have owned a condo unit in the Kona Paciﬁc development on Walua Rd. In Kailua-Kona, which we make available for vaca?on rental through a local property management ﬁrm when we are not using it. At present this is a lawful use under exis?ng local laws, but I understand changes are contemplated to Bill 147 which will remove vaca?on rentals as a permi?ed use in Kona Paciﬁc, among other proper?es in Kailua-Kona. I understand that under the proposed changes, we would be en?tled to a non-conforming use cer?ﬁcate as the present owners, but anyone purchasing the unit from us would be unable to con?nue vaca?on rentals. Somewhat similar restric?ons have been enacted in Victoria and other Bri?sh Columbia ci?es a couple of years ago. It might be helpful to Council to hear the result of those restric?ons here, since Victoria is somewhat similar to Kailua-Kona in that tourism is its main industry, aside from government and real estate development. Some 2 years or so ago, reac?ng to a shortage of rental accommoda?on caused by excessive immigra?on, our provincial government enacted legisla?on prohibi?ng vaca?on rentals in several ci?es and larger towns in BC. Unlike the contemplated changes to Bill 147, this prohibi?on was immediate and complete, the only excep?on being a suite in a private residence which (depending on municipal bylaws) may s?ll be used as an STVR for a limited period each year. In making that decision, the government relied heavily on a study commissioned by the BC hotel industry which concluded that the long term rental shortage would be considerably ameliorated by elimina?ng STVRs, thus forcing investor owners to switch to long term rentals or sell their units. It was es?mated that some 1600 units in Victoria alone would be released for those purposes. The results a?er a reasonable period are as follows:  Hotel room rates increased drama?cally in the communi?es subject to the new restric?ons, in some case up to 100%. Other factors such as general inﬂa?on and an increase in Canadians travelling within the country have probably contributed to this increase, but the main factor has been the sudden shortage of accommoda?on for travelers and tourists.  Long term rents have stopped increasing, but have not signiﬁcantly reduced. Because other factors contributed to this change, such as a drama?c increase in mul?-unit rental construc?on caused largely by government ﬁnancial assistance, and a substan?al decrease in new immigra?on, it is diﬃcult to say how much of the change is due to STVR prohibi?on.  A signiﬁcant minority of mul?-residen?al building units, having been designed speciﬁcally for investors to rent as STVRs, are too small to be a?rac?ve to most purchasers or renters, being approximately the size of a small hotel room, so these do not help the rental accommoda?on shortage. This may not be as much of an issue in Kailua- Kona.  In Victoria at least, there is now a substan?al shortage of hotel rooms. In recent delibera?ons, our city planners have advised our city council that Victoria is now short approximately 2000 hotel rooms. Council are now planning to rezone parts of the city for substan?ally increased density, and to oﬀer a 10 year complete remission of property taxes to any new hotel construc?on or renova?on project, hoping to encourage new hotel construc?on and the expansion of exis?ng hotels. This represents a substan?al loss of income to the city, because in BC property taxes are the only tax municipali?es are allowed to levy so they rely en?rely on such taxes to provide services, including the increases in basic services required by any increase in hotel accommoda?on. The staﬀ report to council on this proposal noted that such a tax remission program would have the eﬀect of shi?ing the resultant tax burden (es?mated to be tens of millions of dollars) onto exis?ng 1 proper?es. This will not encourage businesses to locate or remain in the city, exacerba?ng the current (for other unrelated reasons) ﬂight of independent businesses from the downtown area.  Many individual investor owners of smaller STVRs who purchased units within the 2-3 year period prior to the change, have lost their investments and are le? in debt when the value of their units declined by 30-35%, causing serious hardship. For example, our local newspaper highlighted the case of a nurse who had invested her re?rement savings in 3 STVR units intending to fund her coming re?rement with the income, only to ﬁnd her savings wiped out by the immediate deprecia?on of her suites. I am providing this informa?on in the hope that knowing the results of similar governmental ac?on in other places will be of assistance to council in your delibera?ons. Although the proposed amendments to Bill 147, as I understand them, will result in a phased withdrawal of STVRs from the marketplace, rather than the immediate aboli?on that took place in Victoria, it is reasonable to assume that the end results will be similar. All of which is respec?ully submi?ed. Guy Whitman 2