HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-28 Letter to Sylvia Luke re SB 1290 SD2 HD1 relating to the Transient Accommodations Tax Ntr os� ' Wil Okabe
�I��%�f ` Managing Director
Harry Kim ,• r t'�'� •
Mayor =
Barbara J.Kossow
re: +�'�` - Deputy Managing Director
Countv of Pa x f l
Offirt of file C uvrur
25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553
KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740
(808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440
March 28, 2017
Rep. Sylvia Luke, Chair
Committee on Finance
Hawai'i State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Chair Luke and Committee Members,
RE: SB 1290, SD 2, HD 1
Relating to the Transient Accommodations Tax
Thank you for this opportunity to testify against the latest draft of SB 1290, SD2,
HD1 which deals with the Transient Accommodations Tax. We ask that the Committee
substantially amend this version of the bill before going to conference.
SB1290, SD2, HD1 would reduce the counties' share of TAT to $93M. An earlier
draft (SB 1290, SD2) increased the share of TAT funds that go to the counties to $108M
per year. We have hoped for a share even larger than $108M, and although we know
that the State faces a financial dilemma not dissimilar from that faced by the counties,
SB1290, SD2 recognized that without an increase in the counties' share of TAT, the
counties would be forced to raise property taxes and/or reduce services to levels that
most would find unacceptable.
My understanding is that the TAT was originally established to assist the
counties, but the Legislature has always had the prerogative to determine how it will be
apportioned. Given Hawaii County's limited resources (and seemingly unlimited needs),
we are fortunate that the Legislature has never wavered in allowing the counties to
share in the TAT, and we thank you for that.
History is important, and the TAT should really be thought of in two parts. When
the TAT was originally established at 7 14%, the counties were the intended
beneficiaries. Later on, when legislators took the politically unpopular step of increasing
the TAT to 9 1/4 %, it was the legislators' necks that were on the line, so there is less
County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
Rep. Sylvia Luke
March 28, 2017
Page 2
reason why the counties should feel they have a claim on that second part of the TAT,
the extra 2%.
As stated above, the Senate has proposed, in SB1290, SD2, to increase the
counties' share of the TAT from $103M to $108M. While any increase in the counties'
share of TAT is appreciated, we cannot help but express our belief that the counties'
portion of TAT should be much higher than $108M. Based on past commitments, and
the tough vote that the state legislators took, we understand why the counties cannot
expect to receive 45% of the total revenue generated from the TAT. However, we do
believe that we should receive 45% of what would be collected if the TAT were still 7 '/
%. And we think the history creates a strong case for why this is a position we all
should endorse.
We are told that the TAT is expected to generate about $472M this year; if the
tax were 7 '/%, only $369.9M would be raised. But 45% of$369M would be $166M, not
$108M. The State then could receive 55% of the moneys collected at 7 'W%, plus all of
the revenue from the second, enhanced, part of the TAT (the extra 2%). (The State
should then pay for the various carve-outs from its total share.)
Although, as calculated above, $166M would seem to be the fair share for the
counties, we are not blind to the State's needs, and if the Legislature feels that it cannot
take such a large financial hit this year, we would propose that the restoration to 45% be
phased in over two or three years. The statutory language could provide for fixed sums
of, say, $125M in FY18 and $150M in FY19, with 45% to be effective in FY20 and
beyond. If the Legislature locked in those numbers now, there would be the added
benefit that you would not have to waste so much time dealing with complaining
counties, year after year. And we all could plan our future budgets with greater certainty.
Since the State and the counties serve the same constituents, it is important that we
continue to work as partners in meeting the needs of our communities. As demand for
services is ever increasing (and so is the cost of those services), it is equally important
that revenue be appropriately shared so that the demands can be met to the best of our
combined abilities.
Many may not realize how important the TAT is to the County of Hawaii (and to
the other counties). It is, in fact, Hawaii County's second largest source of revenue,
behind only the property tax. Unless we continue to receive a reasonable share of the
TAT, we will be pressed to raise property taxes about $19M (5.1% of our total budget),
and that would worsen the pressures on the portion of the population that is currently
managing a paycheck-to-paycheck financial existence. It would hurt a major portion of
our population, affecting renters and homeowners alike. Property taxes, after all, are
not simply absorbed by a landlord; they are passed on, in whole or in part, to a tenant.
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
Rep. Sylvia Luke
March 28, 2017
Page 3
The chart below reflects how small a portion of the TAT comes to Hawaii County,
and how the percentage has shrunk over the years.
TAT — Total vs. Hawaii County Portion
500,000,000 25.00%
400,000,00 20.0%
300,000,000 15.00%
200,000,000 10.0%
100,000,000 5.00%
Q.00%
Z 403 Ott; { 4 4 4� 4AN`
Me TO-AL-4,- aF` County !t Ccuntyof tct
We appreciate your consideration as we all attempt to best serve our joint
constituents, the people of Hawaii. If our largest industry, tourism, is to flourish, both
the State and the counties must be financially healthy, and able to deal fairly with the
demands tourism places on our infrastructure and communities. Please help us help our
fellow constituents by amending SB 1290 to better reflect the history and the equities
described above.
Res.ectfully submitted,
CSV L'�
Harry Kim
Mayor
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.