Hawaii County planning committee takes amendments to rental rules after hours of testimony, delays final votes

The Hawaii County Council policy committee on planning, land use and development spent July 8 taking extensive public testimony on three related measures aimed at regulating transient accommodation rentals, bed-and-breakfast operations and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). After the public record and several rounds of amendments, committee members approved technical fixes to the draft ordinances but postponed final action to give staff and the public more time to review legal, tax and infrastructure implications.

Chair Ashley Kirkwitz opened the meeting at 9:01 a.m. and the clerk outlined the public-comment order and time limits. Dozens of residents, hosted and unhosted short-term rental owners, realtors and county staff delivered three consistent messages during public comment: call for an independent economic impact study, concern about higher fees and steep fines, and requests for clearer definitions so small owners and farmers are not unintentionally penalized.

“Now that Hawaii County is collecting the TAT tax directly, I believe that we need to have a complete list of all transient accommodations so that everyone is taxed equitably,” said Stephanie Donahoe, Administrative Director of the Kohala Coast Resort Association, urging better data collection. Multiple other testifiers, including homeowners and small-farm operators, urged the committee to delay action until a fiscal analysis is completed and to avoid measures that would make basic hosting unaffordable.

Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura told the committee the county’s tax code treats rental activity differently and said changes to the transient definition could trigger retroactive tax adjustments for homeowners who lose the homeowner tax class. “This has been a source of confusion and has resulted in rollback assessments,” Miura said, noting staff have already collected millions after compliance reviews.

Committee action and amendments

Council member Heather Kimball, sponsor of the TAR (Bill 121) and ADU (Bill 123) measures, said the bills aim to create a single, clearer registration pathway for hosted, operator-hosted and unhosted rentals while adding ‘‘good neighbor’’ operational standards, a three-tier enforcement penalty schedule and a tax-amnesty option for owners who register. Kimball moved several planning-department housekeeping amendments (communication 675.16) to clarify definitions, renter-limit calculations and quiet hours; the committee adopted those edits on a roll-call vote (several members recorded no votes but the amendment passed).

The committee also adopted a separate amendment to the hosting-platform reporting language (communication 675.162) so platforms such as Airbnb/VRBO would provide parcel identifiers and TAT registration numbers monthly, while preserving platform privacy obligations for customer-level details; platforms agreed to provide additional data to investigators on request.

Several more substantive changes were raised in committee debate — including whether the county’s housing-related laws should define transient accommodations by 180 consecutive days (to align with state TAT rules and real-property tax practice) or 30 days (the planning department’s longstanding threshold). That discussion exposed a technical tension: moving the county definition to 180 days could force the county to re-open registration for many existing listings (31–179 days) and create a large compliance workload and retroactive tax exposure; keeping a 30-day standard leaves better continuity with prior permit practice but diverges from the state TAT definition. Council members asked staff to propose grandfathering or staged compliance language rather than decide the change in a single session.

Public testimony and concerns

Opponents of the current drafts argued the package, as written, risks harming small, hosted family operators, farm-based guest offerings and worker livelihoods. “These bills are absolutely damaging to farmers,” said Michael Tibanna, who represents Hamakua Coast farmers and described the fee structure and nonconforming-use penalties as unaffordable for small property owners.

Hosts and local realtors urged the council to adopt the amendments that would make the ordinance more workable — clearer definitions of hosting platforms, events versus gatherings, and simplified registration procedures — but many said the council should not advance final votes before commissioning an economic impact study. “We should not put the cart before the horse,” said multiple speakers from Puna and Kona who said that TAR revenue supports household budgets and local jobs.

Committee outcome and next steps

After extended discussion about definitions, registration requirements, the scope of reporting by hosting platforms, and the relationship between county code and real-property taxes, the committee voted to postpone final committee decisions. Bill 121 and its pending amendments were postponed to the August 20 committee meeting to allow additional drafting, further review by Real Property Tax and Public Works, and community outreach. Bills 122 (bed-and-breakfast repeal/clarification) and 123 (rename ‘‘ohana dwelling’’ to ‘‘accessory dwelling unit’’ and related mechanics) were also edited for technical issues and deferred for further work.

What’s next

Committee members directed staff to return with clearer, consolidated drafts, clearer cross-references to county tax and building rules, and options to limit unintended consequences (for example, staged grandfathering or targeted exceptions). Members also asked Corporation Counsel to report on relevant case law about residency requirements and distinctions between owner-hosted and operator-hosted rentals. The committee will reconvene on the postponed items at the next scheduled planning committee meeting (follow-ups were scheduled and members referenced an August committee calendar).

Attribution note: Quotes above are drawn from the committee transcript and mapped to speakers who identified themselves during testimony. Where speakers were introduced by the clerk rather than self-identifying, the article attributes those remarks to the name used in the record.