HILO — The Windward Planning Commission wants to see a stricter short-term vacation rental law than currently proposed by the County Council.
In an almost all-day session Thursday, the advisory board recommended greater changes even than the county Planning Department, which had 16 of its own proposed revisions to Bill 108. The bill, already more than a year in the making, goes to its next stop Sept. 20, when the Leeward Planning Commission takes it up.
Commissioners questioned why the bill applies only to unhosted short-term rentals, which are rentals of 30 days or less where the dwelling owner does not live on the property. What about also regulating people who rent out rooms in their homes or in buildings on their property, they asked.
Commissioners pointed to the estimates of 2,600 to 5,000 short-term rentals already advertising on the island.
“There’s apparently so much money to be made that half the island could be short-term rentals before you know it,” said Commission Chairman Joseph Clarkson.
Clarkson said that most complaints centered around noise, but there are more problems than that. Parking and traffic in neighborhoods is one issue, he said, but even more important is the displacement of homes for long-term residents as more single-family dwellings are converted to short-term rentals.
Commissioners asked if there could be a quota, but were told it can’t be applied retroactively. The short-term rentals aren’t illegal because there’s no county code currently governing them.
“You can make laws going forward, but you can’t take away the property rights from people who are using it legally under today’s code,” said Amy Self, a deputy corporation counsel who represents the Planning Department.
Commissioners also wanted to know why there is such a long grace period for vacation rental owners to register with the county — 180 days after the bill’s effective date — rather than 60 days or 90 days.
“If they can’t get it together and fill out an application in two months, why give them six months?” Clarkson asked.
Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai said the department also needs the time to collect the applications and answer questions.
“It’s pretty draconian because it hits hard,” said Arai. “You miss your deadline by a single day, you’re out.”
Commissioners’ questions came after about 20 people testified, some favoring the bill, some wanting to see it made more strict and some who thought the bill went too far.
The commission increased initial registration fees from $250 to $500, with $250 annual renewals for those requiring nonconforming use certificates. The commission made it clear that fees and fines are intended to support the program, including extra staff for inspectors.
Commissioners also voted to increase the documentation showing a property was already being used as a vacation rental when the law went into effect, to now include property tax records, state and federal income tax returns, general excise tax filings and filings for transient accommodations taxes.
“There’s apparently so much money to be made that half the island could be short-term rentals before you know it,” said Commission Chairman Joseph Clarkson. seems like this is a little over the top? I do not think it would be that high. But in that case why not figure out ways to make it affordable for local people to build here? There could be tax incentives for new builds, reduced water and power connection. Architectual assistance. Speed up the permitting process. All suggestions.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe a State can require the production of Federal documents (i.e., Federal Tax Returns) for anything, let alone something as trivial as this.
If they could, NYS would have done this years ago with Trump…
Maybe the intent is to allow federal tax returns as an option, not a requirement.
Interesting thought re: States being unable to require Federal documentation in general. Wondering if some exceptions might be related to: Federally-regulated industries (e.g., securities); programs or benefits related to veterans; anything where immigration status is pertinent? Just guesses, though…
The commission made it clear that fees and fines are intended to support the program, including extra staff for inspectors.
Does ANYONE believe the County will use these monies to hire staff to administer this program?
This is a hidden County revenue stream on the backs of property owners…give a liberal a way to tax, fine or impose fees and they’ll take it!
The Windward Planning Commission is on the right track. Hopefully the Leeward PC will carry this more restrictive approach further! This is a slow cancer eating up the residential housing supply in residential (and agricultural) areas. This is fine for resort-zoned residential areas, but not where the maka’ainana live!
As for the “non-conforming” rental uses being allowed indefinitely because they already exist, maybe at least add a provision that for property taxpayers who were given “Homeowner” real property tax rate status, they will be RETROACTIVELY assessed and required to pay the higher real property taxes that would have been assessed if this “business” activity had been disclosed to the County RP Tax office. This is significant, because the tax rate (and thus the amount of tax payable) is approximately double for residential and ag property owners who have any kind of a business operation on their property, including rental units or even ag itself. The difference could easily be $1,000 per year higher, and likely at least $1,500. Multiply that by the number of years an applicant says they were already in operation, and that will be an impossible sum for most to pay. That will help cut back the number of “grandfathered” vacation rentals.