Bill 132 (to require transparency and council approval in major sales of county land) and prospective TAT state legislation: My pitch is that if you support Bill 132 you should consider helping wage a battle with the State Legislature over the Counties’ TAT revenues.

Bill 132: Mayor Kenoi has come up with a plan to close a portion of the County budget shortfall – by selling our precious county land to the highest bidder during a bottom of the barrel real estate market. Many of us do not want him to sell these lands – but if he does – at least we want some transparency of the process – such as no sealed bids and a report to the County Council as to a prospective buyer and his intended use of the land. (I personally would also like a covenant to be put in any dead that the land shall remain in agriculture for some 20 plus years and prohibit the use of GMO on the land. However if Mayor Kenoi were to change his mind and not sell this land… then how do you suggest he close the massive budget gap?

And yes there are some other possible alternatives, like taking from unfunded county job positions, but those solutions only go so far, and I do not concur with a blanket de-funding of those positions.

Others have suggested furloughing county employees or firing a few. Well I am opposed to that solution. As President Obama has repeated over and over again, we need more productivity, not short-sighted solutions that reduce productivity. [Clearly Governor Lingle hasn’t heard Obama’s message yet, hence the State continues in its downward economic spiral.] Now I have other suggestions, such as fair impact fees and a tax on the rezoning of ag land (which would probably require state legislation).

In any event the economic forecast for the state and county remains bleak. In fact, this next year we as a County may have a budget shortfall of some 65 million. So time that we start coming up with additional solutions, and not just fighting to protect our long term capital asset of County land. What I am asking is that if you are supporting bill 132 and or voicing opposition generally to the sale of our County land, please also join an effort to prevent the lost of the 18-20 million in Transient Accommodation Taxes (or “hotel” tax).

The TAT taxes were imposed to help the Counties address the burden of the visitor population on public facilities. When first introduced, the Counties received some 95% of the tax revenues, with the state only retaining 5% to cover its administrative costs in handling and distributing proportionally to the Counties. It is the Counties which are responsible for maintaining the public facilities impacted by tourists. Therefore logically these funds were turned over to the Counties to address the burden on their public facilities from tourism.

Over the years however State legislators saw these tax revenues as an easy grab and repeatedly increased the portion of the tax being retained by the state. This past year, the Counties were only receiving some 18-20% of the revenues – far from the initial portion of 95%. Next year the State wants all of the Counties TAT tax revenue—every penny.

The answer to our State legislators should be a resounding NO. In fact I suggest we ask our Big Island Legislators to introduce a bill to re-allocate at least 50% of these TAT revenues to the Counties.

Remember it is the State that has the power to put in place major new revenue initiatives and taxes. For example: an inheritance tax on the wealthiest estates versus raising excise taxes, tort reform legislation; a gay marriage bill, and internet lottery and bingo gaming.

I suggest we ask Senator Kokobun to introduce this “TAT Fairness to the Counties” legislation. He is a “big kahuna” on the Senate Ways and Means (Finance) Committee. Then we ask all our Big Island legislators to co-sponsor this bill. That is only Step 1.

The reason I am writing this blog is about Step 2. Step 2 is asking everyone in the community, you and me both, to wage a battle to support legislation that the Counties keep 50% of the TAT revenues.

Will you go to Honolulu and speak at a Senate Ways and Means Committee hearing and insist the Counties retain a fair portion of the TAT revenues? Perhaps a priority should be that every member of the various CDP action and steering committees attend a state legislative hearing. And if you cannot go to Honolulu to attend a state legislative hearing – will you assist others in attending by contributing airfare? And if you can’t do that – will you circulate a petition in favor of County retention of TAT tax revenues?

This island is an ohana – and we can argue among ourselves on various important issues – such as about Bill 132. But we must be adult enough to come together on issues of mutual concern – such as if a tidal wave hits our shores or when the “take the Counties TAT tidal wave” arrives early next year. If we don’t do the necessary “TAT” disaster planning now, not only our County lands will be lost but also you can expect many other important programs to be put on the chopping block.

Last year I fought to keep the 2% land conservation deposit funding (which helps the economy if you are a tad bit far-sighted). We lost that battle, but with Pete Hoffmann’s help, we made a few adjustments in the bill so as to decrease the amount to be held out from that important fund. At the same time however, I decided to do what I could do to help in the effort to save the County from losing its 18-20 million in TAT funding that the State was proposing to take. So I went to Honolulu and testified on the TAT funding bill (SB1744). To my knowledge I was the only private citizen there that day, March 27th I believe it was. Four of the Mayors were there, and a number of Council members from the various County Councils. At the hearing the Mayors and County officials were treated shamefully. For example rather than allowing the Mayors to testify when the hearing commenced, instead several state bureaucrats were first asked to report (which reports could have been postponed until later in the day). Then when the Mayors were allowed to testify they were told they only had one minute each. Not one member on that Senate Committee took exception to how this committee meeting was handled. Well I can assure you if there were a crowd of constituents from each of the districts of the members on that Committee – these Senators would have acted a bit more respectfully and a bit more interested in what was said. By the time I testified many of the Senators had left the room.

In my testimony, I gave some of the history of the TAT fund legislation. In response the Chairperson sat there shaking her head as if I did not know what I was talking about.

Now you can credit all of the County Mayors for thereafter working behind the scenes with various Senators to retain this year’s TAT funding – but they will not succeed next year unless combined with a massive effort by us voters.

Think about it.