HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0739.225 2016-2018p� Y CLERK
From: Lucretia Worster
a ���
To: Council Testimony '' COMM- Z818JUL 10 M Ti 06
Subject: FOLLOWUP: 0"Nara Amendments to Bill 108 Testimony
Date: Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:44:02 AM
I know that testimony had to be submitted before yesterday at noon, but the testimony I sent in did not address the
absolutely ridiculous amendments proposed by Ms. O'Hara — I did not see those until last night's meeting hosted
by Jen Ruggles. I am very grateful that I learned about them and would like to address the council on that topic.
Sliding Fee Structure
The sliding fee structure is unenforceable. First, there is a question of if it is even legal. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights
states that "Taxpayers have a right to be assured that their dealings with the Department of Taxation will be kept
confidential." Requiring us to tell the planning department how much we pay in TAT is illegal.
Also, if you hold several rentals under one business license and one TAT license (as the tax department has said is
allowed), then how would you know how much TAT I am paying for an individual property? Or would I have to
pay the fee for my entire TAT bill for each house?
Keep in mind that if you are doing TVRs for a living, and hoping to pay your bills with that income, according to
MIT's living wage calculator you need to make about $51,000 per year (if you don't have kids). This means you
would be paying $5,100 in TAT each year and according to Ms. O'Hara's chart, would have to pay $700 each year
per property to get a non -conforming certificate. No other license or certificate that our county issues is such an
exorbitant cost and required to be renewed every year.
If the goal is to get people to follow these new regulations and to pay the proper amount of taxes, insanely high fees
is not the way to do it.
For zoned or non -conforming businesses?
Though Friday night Ms. O'Hara said that the requirement to to pay an extra $100 in registration and annual fees
and to have notification letters sent to surrounding property owners is only for TVRs in the permitted zones — this
is not clear and appears to apply to everyone. If the intent is only for TVRs in resort zones, it needs to be clarified. If
the intent is more legislation on top of all the other requirements, it is overbearing and needlessly burdensome.
Removal of Change of Ownership Clause
It appears as though Ms. O'Hara is proposing taking out the change of ownership clause. Since this bill has no path
for future rentals, it effectively is killing'the industry. Considering that rentals are the single most income producing
industry in the Puna district, an area of the island that desperately needs income now more than ever, it is not only
an industry killer, it is a livelihood killer.
The tourism industry on the island is suffering right now. Especially the areas of Puna and Kau, 'where there are few
other job options. Please keep this in mind when making decisions. You are here to work for your people, not for
yourselves, your personal preferences for your own neighborhood, or your personal pet peeves.
Comm. too.
Ref, Date JUL 10 20C