Committee forwards resolution to join statewide cruise-ship TAT agreement after legal questions raised

The Governmental Operations and External Affairs Committee voted to forward Resolution 288-25 to the full Hawaii County Council with a favorable recommendation after discussing pending litigation and logistical questions about collecting a transient accommodations tax (TAT) from cruise ships.

Resolution 288-25 authorizes the mayor to enter an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Hawaii and the counties of Kauai and Maui and the City and County of Honolulu to facilitate uniform administration of provisions in Act 96, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025, that extend the TAT to cruise-ship accommodations.

Public testimony included comments from Corey Harden, who supported the resolution and argued cruise lines should pay the TAT to fund hazard mitigation and destination management. Harden cited legal arguments raised by cruise lines (the U.S. Constitution'alleged tonnage-clause issues and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act) and urged the committee not to be swayed by those claims. He also offered figures, saying a 14% TAT would add ' by his estimate ' about $150 to a travel package and argued cruise operations generate large fuel and waste footprints; those claims were offered as testimony and attributed to Harden.

Committee members discussed whether to proceed while cruise lines had filed lawsuits challenging the new TAT application. Deputy Corporation Counsel Kira Wang advised that the litigation includes requests for an injunction that could prevent counties from implementing the law, and that the pending motions could affect the MOU language. Diane Nakagawa, Finance Department director, said county staff had focused on logistical issues of collection and coordination across islands and said she would check with the mayor's office about whether the county has a seat on the statewide committee considering distribution and use of the added revenue.

The committee considered motions to postpone action because of the lawsuits but after a roll-call vote rejected a motion to delay. The committee then voted to forward the resolution to full council with a favorable recommendation. The final committee vote was seven in favor, one opposed (Council member Onishi), with Council member Kani Lee Kleinfelder absent.

Council members discussed follow-up steps: coordinating with other counties and the state, clarifying whether a separate statewide advisory group will address how funds are spent, and whether the county should assert representation on state discussions of destination-management allocations. Finance staff said the counties and state planned a meeting the next morning to discuss next steps.

With the committee recommendation approved, the resolution will next be considered by the full County Council; members and staff said they would monitor the pending litigation and refine any implementing agreements to reflect the court'mandated outcome if the lawsuits proceed.