A raft of controversial changes to how the county regulates short-term vacation rentals are no closer to being passed after an inconclusive discussion Monday.
A trio of bills — and several amendments for each one — that codify new standards for short-term rentals were the subject of an hours-long County Council committee hearing that ultimately ended with the matter being punted to a future meeting with the promise of further amendments to come.
Bills 121, 122 and 123 would redefine short-term rentals as “transient accommodation rentals,” broken down into three subcategories depending on whether their owner or operator lives on the premises. Those categories of TARs would be subject to their own requirements and a wide range of operational standards.
Among the more contentious aspects of the bills are requirements that all TARs have off-street parking, that owners of unhosted TARs be physically present at their unit within three hours of receiving a call from a guest, and a prohibition against new TARs being established in an ohana dwelling.
Monday’s meeting of the Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Development brought the measures back to the floor along with proposed changes recommended by the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. But while the committee adopted some of those changes and rejected others, the bills’ co-introducer, Hamakua Councilwoman Heather Kimball, ultimately moved to postpone any decision on the bills themselves until the committee’s Aug. 20 meeting.
Kimball said she and her team want additional time to continue to tweak the measures before any decision is passed.
However, the delay will also allow the council time to discuss a related matter today: Puna Councilwoman Ashley Kierkiewicz, the other co-introducer of the bills, will introduce a resolution calling for a study of the economic impacts of the short-term rental industry on the island. Several council members expressed Monday that they would prefer to discuss that study before coming to any decision on the bills themselves.
Among the proposed changes that were rejected was one that would define a TAR as a dwelling unit rented for 30 days or less. The current draft of Bill 121 sets that definition at 180 days or less, which Kimball said is more in line with state statutes.
Planning Director Zendo Kern said that change would likely constitute a significant increase in workload for the Planning Department.
Meanwhile, Monday’s meeting once again saw dozens of members of the public voicing their displeasure against the bills.
“If this dumpster fire of a bill actually passes, and nobody with power to stop it does so, and hundreds if not thousands of short-term rentals close their doors forever — I am so curious as to what the next step is? What will fill the void?” wrote Pahoa STVR owner Jason de Bruyn. “Besides the mental anguish so many will go through … is there a job creation bill to follow? Is there some sort of stimulus package for small communities that currently benefit from the tourist cashflow due to short-term rentals but don’t live around hotels?”
Hamakua resident Brittany Anderson — who is running against Kimball for her council seat this year — said it is crucial that the council hold off on any decisions about the bills until an economic impact study is completed.
Several testifiers pointed out that the bills have received nearly universal condemnation from residents since their introduction, and questioned the purpose of continuing to push for them — as well as the electability of the council members supporting the measures.
“If you move Bill 121 forward, you will begin to see the ramifications of your actions not only at the upcoming election but also economically as (short-term rentals) currently hosting guests will stop altogether and revert their tax basis back to pre (short-term rental) limits,” wrote Gordon Lindquist.
After a more-than-six-hour-long meeting, the council unanimously moved to defer the bills until next month.
Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
