with the planning committee meeting of january twenty one two thousand and sixteen please come back to order it is now february fourth two thousand and sixteen my name is diane couch before we get started please everybody turn off your cell phones or at least turn them into silent mode so we don't want the meeting interrupted by people's phone calls first of all off all will talk with will talk and we have with us today we have the privilege of having this extra special court counsel deputy first deputy corporation counsel a who she good morning and also we have our legislative attorney greg our no good morning good morning and committee secretary probably in martin's good morning and we don't have any of the district offices here because there is no testimony this is a we can reconvening of the january twenty first two thousand and sixteen meeting so members we're going to get right into it we have we're working on p c ten which is  the revisit of the short term rental homes ordinance that we did three years ago we've so far had nine committee meetings one last term and eight times this  term to discuss the department's proposed amendments the most recent version of the bills they want to pass to the request for legal services dated november thirteenth twenty fifteen we will continue working from the matrix summary of the memo to the bill that is da january twenty first twenty sixteen is this green and white paper you know we've made a lot of progress we've just got a couple more things to deal with but first i want  we don't have mr goodman is going to be here shortly i guess that's everybody i wanted to let you know that we've been working on this as i said for over a year and we've been making some good progress there are some concerns and i understand your concerns but i just want to remind everybody that this is a not only a maori county problem not only state of hawaii issue way this is a business that a lot of people i mean even i when i went to europe i wanted to stay in a short term mental home there are people who want to do that if we don't have that inventory here they'll go somewhere else so this is something i'd rather see here and regulated as opposed to with the way the internet works now it would be on the black market in under the radar as much as possible you know so i'd rather have people come out be able to get a permit and then do it the right way legally and according to our regulations you know i am one who doesn't like a lot of regulations but this is something that we need to at least ensure that the neighborhoods are ok that there's no disruption in through so far through looking through some of the enforcement issues in the complaints the ones that are getting claims to the ones that are not permitted the people who are permitted don't want to lose their permits so they're having their gas total line so it's important i think to get these folks permitted get them in compliance and then you reach a second point of diminishing returns i guess or what a tipping point where they can start policing start policing themselves because if you get enough folks out there with the permits and they have big enough voice they're going to work and police each other so that's another extra added benefit in my opinion we've seen that happen before on other things so i just hope we can buckle down and work on this last little bit i know it's the hardest part but at least get it done in get something that everybody can live with all right the first thing we wanted to talk about today is on page one and two of the matrix we want to i want to revisit the the c p r separate lots we had a lot of discussion about it and we wanted to come back with some language and so i did come up with some language and that is on your amendment some reform page one that's been handed out should be in your binder maybe at the back of the  this martin ok in the back of the binder amendment summary form page one and i'll just read it off this is what we pretty much discussed on the the revised proposed bill attached to that of correspondence dated november thirteenth two thousand and fifteen to the department of corporation counsel by deleting the proposed third and fourth sentences showed in bold facing on the effects section below and inserting in its place the following to be tended to the end of the second sentence and that pendant appendix is except when lots are subject to a condominium property regime pursuant to chapters five one four a five one four b y revise statutes the following shall apply one the applicant owns all condominium lots on the unit only one permit permit may be granted for that live two if the applicant does not own all the condominium lots units on the lot each condominium unit will be considered a lot for this chapter and each unit owner will be eligible to apply for a short term mental home permit and three irrespective of ownership each condominium unit shall be considered a separate lot for multiple units that were built for short term mental homes they are single family homes and the way the law reads now they are not allowed only one of them are allowed to get a short term my dish if there's an apartment and they have two or three single family homes on the lot and their condominium ised and it's much less density then a full on apartment would be allowed to be there so it's actually less dense use on that land but anyway this will allow each one of those people to get a short term mental permit if they wanted to  we treat condominium ised units individually when we tax them and several other times so i don't see why we shouldn't treat them any different here so those are some of that that's what i wanted to talk about for the condominium ization i don't want to get the motion yet i'd like to discuss it with the members in the department first to see if it's something that we want to move forward with questions thank you chair as we said last time we're not supportive of the of the proposed amendment there aren't any other circumstances in the planning department where we treat gina and i were just talking through some other things the notification and planning commission review thresholds it can be a little bit tricky because if now individual c p r lots are being treated as as distinct lots let's say you have a proposed s t r h even not even on a conduit lot but within five hundred feet is is a condominium building then those individual units will be considered individual lots for the purpose of protest thresholds so that puts the protest threshold much much lower than it otherwise would be because typically that parcel would be considered one lot rather than all those individual lots and it does greatly increase the potential for s t r reaches beyond what we felt was the original intent and we think it does make it problematic that an owner of one condo lot might want to apply for an s t r h permit and then his co owner next door doesn't there might be a shared driveway shared common elements and we'd be saying well the other guy you know we don't he doesn't really have much to say even though they jointly own those common areas this guy can still go ahead and apply even if if the other guy who jointly owns common elements isn't supportive of it and and we think that could be problematic as well know on the department side of it what procedures would you have to set in additional procedures that you would be burdened on or other than just the deal idea of commonality in that and we haven't done this before so you know what additional procedures are you looking at or burdens to the department if this were to be oppose to gina brought up a possible scenario if there is a violation on on one of those units right now we cite all owners of the property if there is a violation and so there are you both owners would be responsible for that violation even though it would be occurring only on one of the c p r lots i'm not how we would reconcile that by making one owner responsible for something that truly they really bear no responsibility for but under our our current enforcement  ahead may i ask or counsel if your has any better ideas or statements or regards to what the department has just mentioned a good dual responsibility sounds like a joint responsibility joint liability and which could possibly trigger a planning commission review so anyway mr khush but legally from the state standpoint the circuit guys lease as a single ownership from our county's code so division side i think the definition of subdivision from the title eighteen is for a more units or lots of property then they would have to apply regardless of subdivision or condo cut the condo rob they would have to comply with all the other requirements street dedication road w if they go under that threshold then we don't even look at it but in terms of this ordinance i'm not sure what the problems would be from the planning planning department site thank you thank you condo the common areas i guess are under the master the master who are at the but each owner of the c p r unit has its own t m k correct correct so i'm just saying if they're concerned about dealing with  term a lot then maybe we need to change it somewhere to say d m k i'm not sure where that changes take place  ok right now the language in the proposed language change says except when lodge are subject to a condominium property regime if the applicant olds all condominium lots only one permit may be granted for that lot if the africa does not own all the mean lots each condominium unit will be considered a lot for this chapter and that's that's key to it for this chapter and each unit owner will be eligible to apply for sure so we can see each instead anybody chair would you mind repeating that i was talking with sure it says right here if the op going does not own all condominium units on the lot each condominium unit will be considered a lot for this chapter and each unit owner will be eligible to apply for a short term mental home permit instead of each unit owner how about each t m k owner i think we can administer it as it as it is now ok yes we think there could be problems with that but the language itself is ok i think it's clear enough ok any other questions members so then in this case because i did it amendment summary form under duress and i would die entertain a motion  but there was one more issue that we had talked about and that was in previous discussion about this topic of allowing separate c p r units to apply at one point there was a discussion of still keeping the maximum number of federal tax per lot i don't know if that still the chairs intended but we wanted to put that out there for discussion i will open it up to the it to only six rooms for the whole lot then only either six separate people can have one bedroom bit international colony or if there are two five bedroom homes on the condominium lot how are you going to say well you get three you get two and then how are you going to enforce that i would think it would be easier to say you get its permit each permit and i believe that says further on in our language that the permit get six rooms up to six rooms no more than do you have that  and the question was whether by allowing by allowing this concepts you would be potentially increasing the density multiple multiple times on any given lot vs what it's allowed to do but that's on any given the just doesn't happen to be subdivided at this point maybe because it's too smaller or whatever it's a situation where  it's something that we allow in the law now to get around other things that we have in the law so it's far as the chairs concerned i think that's that's ok but it that's up to the members miss cochran t but just and mr coo she just was trying to explain in my head i'm trying to distinguish why do people go through c p r zx what are they bypass mean what is the benefit what is it meant what's making it easier for these people to get that designation versus go through the subdued vision process and all this stuff may think it was mentioned by mr spencer perhaps interview that you know they're already getting these benefits and now we're going to give them more and all this stuff but i understand too that we want revenue and if they're taxed properly they come legally and tax part relieved and we could you know garner more revenue into our coffers for the county so i see that part but if someone kid certain to spell it out for me a little clear as to what you know with the differences and why people go through c p r s to begin with an ownership mechanism so if you have a property i think one of the typical scenarios that we see is you have a house in an ohana and the lot isn't big enough to  subdivide it doesn't meet the minimum you wouldn't be able to subdivided meet the minimum lot size eg land is a good example that's where it's very it's pretty common to see that on ag land so you have a two acre ag lot and you have your main farm dwelling and then you have the farm dwelling that's limited to a thousand square feet on a two thousand square foot lot or excuse me a two acre lot that lot can't be subdivided anymore it's a two acre minimum but you r it to create two different ownerships so one owner owns the main house and has exclusive use of the main house and the other owner owns a thousand square foot house and has exclusive use of that so your two separate owners you know you can paint decorate landscape however you want to you that your you you own that there are also and th it's called limited common elements because technically both people own the property but they have this condominium agreement that says i have exclusive use of this you have exclusive use that then there are also common elements which are often utilities so when that original property was developed you know the utilities came in and went to each you know water electrical and so forth so there was a off the driveway it's often a shared drive me to goes to both those are common elements that they own jointly so both are able to use the common elements so it's an ownership mechanism whereas you wouldn't be able to subdivide and if you were to subdivide you'd have to have separate utilities and separate driveways and in some cases there are other improvements that public works or other agencies might require in order to subdivide and so it's a way to create ownership but but to have now the one element would be parcel one two three four zero zero one and the other would be one two three four zero or two there were zero sorry most d m case just have four different numbers but then condos have an additional or if it's a condominium eyes it would be zero zero zero one zero zero zero two depends on how many units are on the net original t m k number all stows also still exist as it's never would have to be spelled out in the condo docs right how it sorted out because they can be separately metered electric would probably be separate but they could be together and then they just have to figure out how to arrange that i mean i see a lot of that end up they can administer because that's where i feel you know those great lines and how do you and one person interpret it this way and the other person to prison that way but if it's spelled out correctly and again not my favorite subject matter but i just want to make sure that it's administered properly and of course people are billed properly and whatever and we get what's right and it's the chairs thought that you know if we allow houses to be built on the lot because it's condominium eyes then we should allow the use just because it happens to be we have if we allow two houses with five bedrooms each they should be able to use it that way in my get additional homes because you c p r did and that's what we're saying is just because you've c p r that doesn't mean you should get more opportunities for as terry permits than what's allowed now that one lot  with the two structures today gets one permit and the proposal would lead them to get to permits where you know instead of six bedrooms total on the property you could get twelve if you have the two homes hard to and how many dwellings you can have on there there there are some residentially zoned lots that have a number of dwellings on them and right now that whole property would be allowed just one permit and six bedrooms and under this each one c mean could they come in there you know just for you know like i said the very worst case scenario where you do have separate ownership ownership and they collaborate among each other and somehow you know create a hell i'll see you all the separately go out and get permits and individually and then after they get the permits create an l l c and each one of them are members of competing with hotels because that's a whole different category than my own i understood it and i recreating the ability to to compete against hotel i i personally don't think so but i'll mr white since we have but but we also have that they could do that if they wanted to do something like that they could do it with a conditional use permit already so it's it's one of those things i agree i agree billion to do it without going to conditional use permit i mean they still here said like individually go out and get their permits and then collaboratively create some type of resort they could do that if they were subdivided yeah they could do it if it was a subdivided to neighbors could do the same thing i think i'm just a little bit cautious about the tent city and right like what mr mclean was saying wow that that that's a lot of room for one little area but it's not generally it's not one little area that's that's the thing we'll keep can we have different these restrictions long time ago as short term rental homes there are twenty eight or twenty six whole homes on a lot a single lot think they even have a an office a check an office and what not that was their intent and now with the way the law is written only one of them can get a permit the rest can't that's that's an extreme example i believe there's a situation like that on to beach club or something like that the other example on the in a middle is certainly in my district on a street maybe new street there way back when they were zoned a one and or a two but the owners said you know i i don't want to put a big apartment building here i just want to have a house here and in order to help on the size of luck as an oceanfront live condominium eyes and put a second house because they're allowed in a one in a group put a second house and so we now have two houses we live separately but it's condominium eyes and they may i think only one instance so far as asked want to both be short term meadows and that's the place you want on the ocean front mostly in an area that is kind of especially in the canada where that's where we're asking people to tourists to go so it's one of those situations and then it at the very extreme other end is you've got as ms mclean said you've got a one dollar and then a ohana unit so when you add density if this has six pad rooms and this is a two bedroom ohana you're adding two extra for the lot but why does this person get privileges over this person when we tax them separately know my sense of this has always been that maui competes against the world yes the visitors and i don't have a problem with providing accommodations basically what this allows maui to do is provide accommodations in places that are not available now in many cases or north shore there's virtually nothing but a lot of people want to stay there i'm happy to have that happen because the way maui benefits it by having more more people occupying seats and in aircraft because that ensures that we will maintain the lift so i think we all understand that there are limited amounts of capacity that can be expanded in the resort areas but it's critical that we maintain a good amount of lift for the airlines or we lose the flights and to put it in perspective and i don't know what the i don't know what the number is now but that old number was that for every flight that lands it generates over three hundred thousand dollars and economic benefit to the to maui economy so those flights are much more critical to all of us than to worry about whether there's you know fifty more sixty more a hundred or two hundred more rentals and then thank you mr white for that i also want to remind everybody you know we're thinking globally which is what we do but keep in mind that there's only four hundred permits allowed out of fifty thousand single family homes so we're talking a really really really small amount and  those four hundred permits these some of these units provide a lot of jobs they have a housekeeper they have a person they have a landscaper a maybe it already explains it i think taxed accordingly our real property at this point yes accordingly i like we have an ideal but i don't use i believe we have it as commercial commercial because on what we're allowing and i think that's sort of like in response to mr guzman's concern is is that density so that's that's my it's ok and i know mr holcombe is going to bring up the taxation or are they all over the place i wouldn't want to answer that it's more prevalent on the other ok just see here in density and the numbers and ag being great ag lots they didn't changes only in all that stuff into residential rur and allowing these other types he uses and income and this and that so your infrastructure really was never intended to have twelve bedrooms on this law initially be it was supposed to be rooms or allowable size of the homes if it's analogous to a crowd what you get you can have you know twenty five rooms if you want to hear your main house but you only get a ten thousand or a thousand square foot on it period so there were not increasing any density that isn't already allowed whether it's long term short term or you know long term rental long term living in it or short term same amount of people in those units at one time that makes sense yeah but i guess it's a different kind of use right rather than a family living there full time having a car verses day in and day out maybe it can be switching over to new transit people but they're still sleeping and they're still you right right so i don't know i mean just turn around my head around that there's it's different well yep understood anything else on this one ok chairs open to motion as do i need to read it stuff for you you have the minute summary form here proposed bill attached to their correspondence dated november thirteenth two thousand and fifteen to the department of corporation council by deleting the proposed thirty four sentences and inserting in its place the following to be appended to the end of the second sentence and that is except when lots are subject to a condominium property regime pursuant to chapters five one four a or five one four b a y revised statutes the following shall apply one if the applicant owns all condominium units on the lot only one permit may be granted for that lot two if the op could does not own all the condominium units on that lot each condominium unit will be considered a lot for this chapter and each unit owner will be eligible to apply for a short term mental problem home permit and three irrespective of ownership each condominium unit shall be considered a separate lot for purposes of notification and planning commission review  after that meeting when jeff was here to follow up and she did some research looking into state law and actually came to a similar conclusion that coo she shared which is said yes they can be considered individual lots she didn't go any farther than that she just wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be anything on the state level that would make it problematic to treat them as individual lots and that's what she found that it would be ok ok and that is as far as her research when it didn't go into any any more detail or any policy implications then that's what she was going to research we're not saying is it ok all right been moved that we had that language all in favor say aye opposed you know kate let the record show that there are four eyes and one no and two excused ok thank you members that's number one all right now we want to talk about the let's go look at page oh yes page nine of the matrix we're talking about the five year wait five year ban and look back for vision from and talk to about both  i believe we also had some statistics we have we got the list that ms cochran wanted which you've got a link to it and it's available i believe in cd or it's online as  we had some concerns about a five years and b this is and this is a tough one for me we have people we gave an amnesty if you call a period told people to come in people didn't think we were serious i mean pretty sure that's what it was and they said we'll see what happens and things went on just fine until about six eight months ago i believe and then the department said ok you're you know we want you to come in here to fix all you you've been operating so you're banned for five years understandable not sure that the five years at this point is warranted for the first time or at least for what we're trying to do is get we've got one hundred fifty ish hundred thirty permits now we want to get compliance we want to get people paying their fair share of taxes and following the rules we have strict rules here for short term mental if they're not following if they're not permitted they're not following the rules so we want to get people in the compliance we do that for every permit we have here in the county we have after the fact permits we have the ability to come in become compliant that's the whole idea to have this one sector say you've been operating illegally and you're trying to come in now but you've already operated illegally so it's five years your band be mediately i think we need to be a little bit lax on the first time if there is any other concerns and i'm fine with banning forever it's one of those things but i want to try and get people in and licensed and permitted that way we get things up acetic any thoughts members i know mr goodman thought a two year ban and i think  mentioned a two year ban mr white thank you chair i went back to my hotel after our last meeting and pulled out my t t license  some testimony sent in that i think makes makes some good sense my feeling is if somebody has is unaware of a county law i can somewhat buy that somebody is operating without the understand that they would have to pay g t and i am sorry you're not going to convince me on that they can read really hard time convincing me on t t i can accept the fact that they might have  they might have missed what we were doing even though it was very well published so my feeling is that a possible approach to this is if you can show that you have a if you can't provide proof that you if we find that you've been advertising and operating and you aren't painty eighty or g t then you are subject to a five year ban ok so sorry because i can buy that you you know that those two taxes and this and g t especially are simply something you're totally unaware of right i just can't i can't buy that and i think there's got to be a part of what's what mr a pas was sharing with us was that the five year plan is what's making people come in and apply right and so i don't think it's appropriate for us to they should be subject to if you want to permit than you got to pay for the period you've been operating you've got to go back and pay the taxes that the commercial rate or whatever rate is assigned to your type of operation  but i agree that it's in the the band is a challenge but it's there for a purpose and so i think there's there's some room for us to play with sure and then it's the chairs concern is that you know if somebody gets a notice of warning because they've been maybe unknowingly breaking the law but who knows ignorance of the law is no excuse but if they've given given a warning they say oh ok i'm going to come in and and apply because i didn't know i had to and then and they the department is saying and that's the way the code is saying well you've been operating so you're banned for five years we can't of a better term hard term so i agree with your comments as far as you know if they've been if they've been thinking they've been doing it with they've got g t and they've got t a t and they've been going along even putting their tea i think they're required to put their t t number on their advertisement according to the state i think so they think they're going along ok and didn't know about the county and they get their warning i think they should be allowed to like you say pay the any back property taxes and continue on but if they haven't been paying any of their even g t or t a t i can see that you know you you're messing with us no slack right in the and they call it de facto corporations they go back and say it looked like a duck you quack you walk your corporation so they back me a tax them on the back taxes that they have to remove pay any back taxes on property then maybe we can lessen the five year ban to maybe two or long one issue is how do you prove when they started has right on their start date so if they have to prove that they've gotten the t eighty and it says when they started so like that that exception and then less than a lesson the bad maybe to a five i don't know or one or six months i don't know but every yes but that concept of keeping the five year ban and allowing an exception such elements are proven right then yeah we can do less and the bad in lessening the band i would think that during the application process which apparently is taking around eight months already heard or close to is you stop operating you show your proof of tax compliance and you pay your back taxes you should be able to i would think ok you know somebody came and told me a story that they you know and i don't know if they're telling a story if they were legitimately they went to the state tax office and got their t eighty tax and the says right on there you know i this is your you got your tax now your tax clearance i don't think it says the word permit on there i can't remember now but so they said oh ok that was easy i got my permit i'm ready to go not knowing that there's also the county level and when the when they found out they said oh my gosh i didn't know i don't know if that's a legitimate it seemed that way i'm sure there are people out there like that but there are also others that are trying to game the system as there are but i'm kind of feeling like if you've been paying your g t n t eighteen you can prove it and you should be able to apply without without a penalty whether you know without going back two years or year whatever think you know we've got to give the department some sort of a hammer yet the people's heads are they're not going to come into compliance and they're right chasing after all these legal bribery wait ms mcqueen well we have a hammer and the hammer clearly hasn't been working given all of the illegal operations that are out there that's one of the strongest enforcement tools that we have and we beg you not to take herself i seem to get all the calls enforcement refers the calls to me for the people that receive the ban so i talk to a lot of people they know they need to take out a permit and they tell me i was waiting for the county to catch me  typically the response i was waiting for them to notify me and then i was going to come in for compliance that i didn't know that if i violated the law and got caught it would have implications so that that's t how how many of those do you get twenty so far it's really hard to talk to people but if you're very honest with them and i often ask them questions were you aware of that and then i want to know what why didn't you apply well i didn't know what would happen with my real property taxes i saw the application it just looks so complicated i have some things that are permit it so i knew that would be a problem that's that's typically what i hear property tax and so over the stretch of time you know i'll be generating this much income then if i get caught ok so i'll stop operating for a year or two years but in all that time leading up you know  that was that was my business choice and gina mentioned she believes real property said that they can't back tax for an illegal use so in terms of recruiting property tax  we don't know that they'd be able that real property would be able to recruit property tax i'm not suggesting that they would be the ones that would have to enforce that i'm suggesting that as a part of getting a permit there be abuse you would have to be you  have to pay those back taxes i don't see that as being an unfortunate action by the by the tech support but rather part of the deal if you that's just sorry you know you got to be responsible for paying your taxes and and if you're not then tough luck we would have to try to reconcile how long they been operating first is how long they'd been paying their taxes so if they had three years of their tax records but we could find evidence that they were operating prior to that you know that they weren't paying their taxes the whole time they were doing it i don't know how that would fall out with the idea that you were talking about that we just again i have sat here i know will has  here john has sat here getting understandably pounded for our lack of enforcement from the community from the council and this is what one hammer is as you said that we have and just really acid it not be it not be taken away ok members are going to take a probably ten minute break i see people wandering off to to take care of need so we're going to take a ten minute break but actually i have a break till ten twenty were in recess we left off with this concept of the five year ban and paying back taxes et department what are your thoughts on the whole paying that you know if they've been operating and paying taxes the payment of back taxes isn't so much a land use and planning issue i would think there should be some mechanism to to  requirements are and following that thought she wanted to give a little bit more information on how operators were notified after the original bill passed and that the five year ban we really didn't start imposing until may of last year so in terms of people knowing the permit process after the original ordinance was passed they had quite a few years to come into it to apply and even if we were in foreseeing and they were getting notices of warning they were still able to come in and get and apply for and obtain their permits up until up until about me but applicants were consistently notified and informed they could come in and apply and they were in the beginning i would get a lot of calls from people i didn't know that the bill of just passed can you help me and then we would help them get organized less so over time that became less so i would get comments that would be more well i got my notice and now i need to apply this kind of a standard reaction that i had and then we would help the people come in and fill out the permit up until i think about may when we started enforcing the ban but it's not that we weren't doing in forstmann or notifying people prior to that date we were doing  that it's just that the ban didn't take effect until recently about three years after the initial permit passed and it's interesting because i would often talk to people about the other requirements just to make sure that they were aware did they realize if they're not living in the state or why did they know they needed to have a have to pay a hawaii state income tax on any income tax earned in the state there's a lot a lot to running in this business thanks let me ask you know go ahead i just want to make one other point i've been really curious about what happens with people to get the ban and a number of them have i discussed with them their options of what they can do that they can go to a long term rental and a lot of cases i have heard that that's that's been their choice is is to convert it to a long term rational which i you're saying you have yes in the beginning we had a campaign where we did send out notices through in the beginning we sent them directly to people and then later we put a link in which we heard was problematic but we any time a complaint came in we did send out a notice of warning in the notice of warning did instruct them that in order to do this you see you needed to obtain a permit so it came in only it was on the ones that you got complaints on not i can't remember if  proactive in the very beginning and i actually went as far as to say it's ok to put my phone number and then i kept track of the calls and i think i had eight hundred calls so a year period there was a lot of interest in a but not everybody could  qualify because a permit ing issue ok when you say permitting issues usually i screen the people when they call my perceive the warning i'd like to apply what do i need to do and i'll go over with what the requirements are and the number one reason i hear that they don't apply is because they need to go get it has to be properly permit it in order to come in it needs to be safe because that's often why people don't come in ok mr thank you i want to follow up on i guess a question our clarification you said that you started imposing the five year wait creator of the ban last may two thousand and fifteen  i don't read it words that it's discretionary shouldn't you have been imposing this ever since the passage of the ordinance itself and why and i guess the second prong second question to that it would be why haven't you why weren't you opposing it prior to may two thousand and f a simple answer to your question is that yes we should have been imposing it once the ordinance was enacted it took us quite a while to develop the application procedure  the ordinance as you know is very detailed to figure out how we could ensure that the structures were safe we applicants have the choice of doing a miscellaneous inspection with a public works department or doing a home inspection took a while for us to create the home inspection form so there were a lot of procedural and administrative steps that we needed to figure out  that where we weren't completely able to process all the applications efficiently upon the nachman of the ordinance so it took us a while to do that and then we were also trying to do some of the proactive enforcement and or should say proactive notification to get people to come in and it didn't make sense at that time  contacting people telling them to come in and apply and then to say oh ha ha you've been operating sorry you're banned and so we did want to give people an opportunity we did want to do outreach and then it wasn't quite a year it was i want to say it was roughly six months it with i think it was a date that was specified in the ordinance it was a date certain and on the forty six was enacted roughly six months present six so six months or whatever that grace period was up until may of two thousand and fifteen you never implemented the five year wait period or the bat so basically you've given them an extension of the grace period for a couple of years yes ok thank you chad thank you members any other comments or questions so far what i'm hearing is that if they've been given a notice of warning and they can prove that their ged n t a t have been paid while they were operating that that they are allowed to apply and that year i don't think having a notice of warning should be a part of the trigger because i'm sure there are folks out there that are operating without having received a warning at this ok so at maximum zero notice a warning if they've been given a nose a violation too bad so sad that we're saying but if they've only been given a notice of warning or not and they can prove that they've been paying their ged and t eighty that they be allowed to apply so long as they pay back taxes now because they agreed to pay back to agree to pay back taxes let me ask corporation counsel if that if we can put that into i mean we can put anything in an ordinance but is that how is first time i've heard about about it i'm not sure the committee has discussed it before but my initial question his or response is why should the county be to tax collector for the state no no i'm sorry the back taxes property tax property taxes not the correct we're just seeing that if they have been paying the g g e t n t t if they have been we just want  g t and they can prove that then they have and they can proceed with an application only if they have agreed to pay the back taxes at the rate that would have applied had they had a permit i'm trying to comply but good i'm banned from complying so you know if any restrictions on your property rights you need to have the owner and get the owner having you to comply but why i do appreciate mr white suggestion of hyperactive basically to allow an exception if they can prove certain elements that may be are going to a monetary fine or a lesser year and ban lesser in years for the ban if they can prove that number one they've been paying their taxes and number two they pay back taxes on the property correct and then number three would be i'm not sure there is a number three but if there is a number three would have to go down as one of the elements that they are to present in order  director probably because it sounds as though they were using discretion at some point because from the grace period up intel two thousand and fifteen and may they weren't really enforcing the bad so it was kind like to me discretionary so maybe if that's they need a hammer they can have the discretionary element once the applicant has proven that they've you know all the conditions ok mr chair white the reason i'm comfortable with the ban is because if if we're implementing the ban based on the fact that they've broken two state laws and not pay the appropriate amount of taxes i think that's enough reason for us to be able to satisfy the need for any legal qualification course it's easy to say i'm not a lawyer if it were to apply to people that we had already cited that could be difficult for us to administer it it pulls the legs out from under our enforcement efforts but if as you said a notice of warning hadn't been sent out yet you know these are applicants that haven't been subject to enforcement so far if they come forward and apply and we look and see that they've been operating but they show us their taxes that then i think that's something we can work with but if enforcement has already started on them i don't know how we can pull back on that in force i'd like to respond to that and then go ahead  mr white my comment was notice of violations if they receive a notice of warning that's the whole intent of a notice of warning is to get them to comply but if they received you're right that they've they've had their chance at the the ordinance says that once you get to the notice of warning stage because advertising is considered evidence of there really is and the only thing that can be done at that point is for them to refute that they were advertising by you know a ghost website or something like that that really doesn't ever happen in the advertising is it is legitimate it's we've had past applicants who have stopped advertising they were operating they were advertising and they stopped in order to apply and those might have ghost websites out there but it's very very unlikely that when a notice a warning is issued that there was an operation so the violation has occurred and correcting the violation is what they do to correct the violation and mediately is to stop advertising it's hard for us to say whether they've stopped operating that's very difficult to prove  and i think that's why we're here to to fix any problems that we have with the ordinance and this seems like i think the intent of the body has always been you know if you get a notice of warning you've got to come in but the way it's written i guess we we made it a little too strict yes ms scenario i have two questions first what would be the incentive for anybody to come in prior to receiving a notice of warning and then second question is when i'm now dealing with somebody who's gotten a notice of warning and they're trying to show me their taxes but taxes aren't do tell up to a year after you've collected the money what do we do in those a month ago when my taxes weren't due i just started that day by the way we're talking about g t and try to do in advance they have a license they're issued before they can do it and it has a start date on that much but your taxes aren't d on that date in their self you tell them what it is it's not like the state is there monitoring you're just putting down whatever number you want so those are just two things one what's the incentive under the scenario for anybody to comply and to how do we actually administer that they're looking at the payment of the tax and it's not well yes you for tax clearance if it's within the year that they applied if they're if they're t a t notice which has a start date on there if it's within the year they put applied i'm guessing that's not an issue so we're just going to make sure that they get a tax license they have the license and if it's within the year the they apply then yeah of course you can't look back because they're not due until the end of the year but if it's for four years but we're not going to have an advertisement from four years ago  an advertisement from last month not understood but when you look at their t eighty licenses a oh they've been have a t eighty for four years so they have to show that they've been paying for the last four years which they can with the tax clearance and then they pay property taxes you know back taxes for those four years you have it i mean it's right there it's as a i've had my tea a tea license for four years that works in that scenario and somebody gets a t t license for that use often businesses combine their different businesses under one life but i thought we could look at ways if you want to be real clear about how we were to do that but  and then mr what sorry just again if a notice of warning has been issued we've already started enforcement action that means there was a  complaint most likely that there was a complete it just as gina said what would the incentive be for someone to proactively apply you know if if this moves forward as we're discussing then we're not going to get new applicants it intil they get a notice of warning and then they'll come in and share their licenses you know the idea is to get people compliant and this is you know really a big break for a lot of operators to have the chance to come in and not be banned but to say that oh you can still get a notice of warning the county can still started foresman action against you and then you have to be compliant it just it eighty then if we do this you're going to have an incentive to come in and apply for the permit now that doesn't mean you're going to get it because you may be kicked out because of other other reasons right so this is just simply eliminate one you know one problem by having them show that they pay their other taxes and in you know and all other enforcement instances through the department the whole idea with a notice of warning is to get people to come in and comply for after the fact permits or war or whatever outs that you issue notices a warning for to treat this differently seems to be a bit unfair but i i that i guess that's up to the committee i mean everything else we say you've got to get in after the fact when we find you after the fact permit fee which is what we can do for this we can have i guess we enable a fee and after the fact fee so it can be more than a thousand dollars i think but you can we have an after the fact permit fine we call it and then there they get their permit and they get compliance and that's what we're trying to do here as well but it all happens at the notice of warning time not prior to notice a warning in all other instances is that this unless i'm mistaken then you can stop giving us a hard time about enforcement of this particular use just in my thoughts i kind of agree with the department on what exactly is the incentive of calming in prior to getting a notification  so if i am operating without you know a license or permit was incentive for me to just come in because now you're saying all come in if you can mean look at the probabilities of people still do it with of the probability of getting caught is like you know point zero five percent or something like that i'm not sure if those numbers are correct but it's very low so and most people would probably take the chances that of not coming in and just taking the chance of any of maybe someday i'll get caught i'm just trying to figure out what is the incentive right for them to com thought is that this is a different scenario because they're actually advertising that hey i'm in business so it's easy to see and we have enforcement going on as we speak that  get a permit and then somebody comes by or you want to sell your house and they say this this room is not available i mean has not been permitted you have to pay after the fact free and get the permit well chair you don't have any incentive to do that unless you get caught so it happens in every other instance where we issue permits we give them the chance to come back and pay and after the fact in my understanding i may be there are there are instances where people have to remove church well you get a permit not the compliant or perhaps they might apply for a variance that they may or may not get and they have to remove  ban same thing is a ban they have to if they can't comply they get banned i mean they have been in a way that i'm trying to find out where the fairness is mr white has been waiting patiently to respond you produce that this type of evidence and then you can reopen you can actually apply what is the incentive actually to come in the initially i think it's so narrowly terror tailored to those people who are completely just forgot about that third step and applying it yeah i didn't know how many of that category of applicants exist you know like number one they would then they just completely forgot about the property taxes are coming in and i don't know how many it's so narrowly take tailored to one category of of a violator i'm not sure if that's just is what you know it's going to resolve a lot of the issues maybe in a way we can do create another grace period and say ok if you bad and it's just that's set up i guess i'm i would be willing to look at that is just i expect to have another grace period but they've got to supply the our families moving to howard where they're rentals and obviously some of these were turned into some of those types of you know housing and dwellings that are needed on this island so i'm for  that and i'm looking through and thank you for all these reports to which there is a way that i was trying to cross reference if there's off there all these years if there's the same names popping up who said yeah ok i mean legal i'll shut it down know next year here they are again and there's a gentleman here who actually got extensions on his worries or whatever because he was prepared and god forbid him having to not let these people they had nowhere else to go and that think i'm the if the interest is to have people come into compliance i'm willing to give them a break if they what we do but you know i'm i'm ok with you mean give me a little bit of slack if they the police followed those two laws and if they haven't followed those two laws the five year ban is is implemented and you're out of luck came quickly and i do agree with mr wayne ok now mr goodman brought up an interesting thought as well whether it's a notice of warning or a no notice of warning for the next six months this is your last chance and the thoughts and that members  i've i know where mr clean is coming from in the slammer but not not allowing it to apply to a notice of warning but i have a problem if we're going to do it for people who have not caught yet there's really not that much difference from from the people that have been caught so if if our intent is to have more people comply yes  right but i think mr guzman's point was if you've paid your taxes year t t and your t eighty in the next six months know whether you got a warning or not you come in and apply which is what we're trying to do is get them to apply and apply your good but after six months no ifs ands or buts i guess i've been blinded jersey today but if that's what he said then that would i would be in in practice of yeah that's exactly what i was trying to convey was ok if we're going to do a grace period and another grace period the conditions as set forth by mr white have to be part of that grace period  it can't just be an outright correct open grace period you know it you know it's for the you know if we impose over six months grace period yes anyone and everyone can comment but you're only going to be allowed to apply if you fulfill the conditions that g e tax paid back the that back taxes on the property that i'm ok with if you know that type of grace period and then after that grace combine those two ideas and give the six month grace period if the taxes and only paid and then after that six months then it's back to the status quo we can live with that ok let me throw in another monkey wrench how about it at you know we have we have an after the fact see can we have an after the fact s t sheaves like five thousand bucks or something that would have to be put in the budget because our would would that be something that we would want to consider we already charge after the fact fees elsewhere so but i don't think we can do last five years five years times whatever the application fee per year is should be paid to the county one application if you are well you know right after the fact application free application  so members if you're ok with our crack staff coming up with the right language we'll have that for the next meeting chair one yes yes what about people who have already i don't think will be fair to fair to treat some of been paying their taxes any differently than somebody who's paying their taxes ok so can't finish it today we have we have to get to go ok we have tuesdays available ok ok so we're going to try and i think we're good with that we're going to get the language taken care of right stuff yes i i w ok so we'll go with that and we'll come back with that now as part of this how about this look back right now what happens is when they go for the five year ban i guess we don't need to look back provision if there's if we have the grace period after that boom you're done so i don't think we need to deal with look back language what that is is right now what they've been doing they said somebody comes in and wants to apply and they look back to the beginning of the ordinance and say well you've been operating they found evidence you've been operating so you can apply your band that will happen after the six month period you know they'll take it up unless we change a give them direction on how far they can look back any concerns questions on that members after the six month period at the gig yep sorry yep i think that's fine staff i'm sorry department i agree there's no need for it ok and i think it's very generous given that the grace period ok all right members we're on to density related trigger to planning commission review you know we talked about this is right now if there's one s t r eight unit within five hundred feet it goes to planning commission and we heard planning commissioners that we had them up here so thank you for the request mr goodman but we heard one plan a commissioner said we made a mistake by making this law well we're the council we're the ones to set the policy if he doesn't like it that says opportunity to come in and either lobby us or you know going for council and change the law we have some members here that don't like it but we are a majority body so that's the right at this point the policy set by the council but you still have a least one planning commissioner who is basically saying and has several quotes in several minutes saying i don't like these i'm not going to vote for him so having them go to the planning commission just because there's another one with it in five hundred feet is a little onerous to me this doesn't mean that if somebody protests within five hundred feet that rule still stands if you get the two protest within five hundred feet they're going to go to a planning commission but if somebody has neighbors who like it and say it's fine and yet there's one within five hundred feet i'm you still have to go to the planning commission where they're pre disposed least some of them to not allow the permit i think that it's a waste of county time in and i don't think that's something that we need to do so we talked about this a little bit before it was it was to prevent clustering we turned out there isn't been a whole lot of clustering going on and the idea is to get people through and get them the permits and get them compliant so i've submitted  feet if existing s t r permits are over ten percent the planning commission review is triggered what that means is if you've got twenty homes within five hundred feet then you get up to the say twenty five homes within five hundred feet you can have up to three within five hundred feet because that's ten percent that's in the memmott summary form number two remember that up real quick sorry but so you're basically we have gone through this so i was kind of reference enough for green and white pages yes but this section you were talking about now is something that we're he had gone through and department suggested now we're going into we've had testimony and and the chairs suggestion this is in the planning department suggestions that the green and white the matrix ok it was only there suggested revisions now the committee gets to make their suggested revisions as well ok i thought we had those are just things we want to go back to we differed because of initial discussion and certainly we had where you know we had i did yeah we hadn't come to any kind of consensus on the five hundred foot trigger ok and again keep it in and i'd like you all keep in mind that it's not five hundred foot notification that still there and any that can send people if the neighbors have an issue are my concern is that if the neighbors don't have an issue then why did i have to go to find a commission and so i came amount of applications going to planning commission just because of the amount of work that it takes to bring him to commission in the amount of time that it takes the department of which to do that part of the reason the planning commission schedule is aren't so full is because were don't have the time in the staff now to spend on some of these other applications to bring before them so in your binder in the first page is an analysis of how much time it's taken and up until july two thousand and fifteen we spent about four thousand hours in the very beginning it starts with correspondence from august fourteenth two thousand and fifteen in a response and then in exhibit a i did go through how many hours staff is spending on this what's the very first one to make it easier for you if you just go to the very beginning and go to pages three pages back and there's color striping on the bottom one help you oh yeah ok ok so given that it is our job to balance what we bring at the same time protecting the character of the neighborhood it is our larger mission so we're not saying we don't want to see this number change but my first comment when i looked at the table was it's kind of upside down in that the areas where you have smaller lots and higher densities where you generally have the higher impacts so the areas that we look to protect the shark put neighborhood even some lots in other areas in the west side you're going to have lots of lots for example in piii one of the ones we permit it on nauru road you have eighty eight lots within five hundred feet so i don't know is the intent to allow eight within five hundred feet without any review of the neighborhood i don't know that that is it might be easier for the department just to have a number of three within five hundred feet so the fourth fifth goes  it would be easier to administer and i think we'd be comfortable with that and having heard her say that at the break it seems that  you're right that's the more compact but if you look at some of those especially on were you saying it are some of those you know a couple blocks away or does that work you know it's five hundred feet so you have it all but in that particular case you really do only have one access road well there is maybe another one behind that some of the lots could be hitting sometimes you you do have two different access roads and i see that the impacts could be less but with that the other thing i just wanted to point out is that when you're looking at c p r lots we would just want to know it seems like with what we just pass that this would also include the c p r lot so in an area like lanier poco where you would the fourth one would have to go so they're saying just say if there's three within five hundred feet we're good to go you don't have to go to a planning commission but if there's a fourth we've got a planning commission i'm fine with for members any thoughts on just saying you heard the department saying that you know they're trying to cut down on the amount of applications that go to the planning commission and because they've got stuff to do other work and so any thoughts on making that if it's three or less that's fine it doesn't have to go to it doesn't trigger that one particular thing doesn't trigger you still have the five hundred foot notice rule that if it's neighbors object then yes it does go to planning commission but that's why that's the initial reason we wanted to go to the planning commission is because neighbors object in the planning commission is really good at discerning whether it was really a frivolous objection or an actual objection and that's what i mean we discussed that from day one so i'm fine with saying unless a neighbor neighbors object if there's three years or less it doesn't have to go to planning commission or four that i still think it's you know i still have a challenge with us having too many you know and in one area  think i thought that there was going to be a proposal coming back and say that in this area this area this area the density is kind of ok to increase but in other areas it's not but that's not what we're getting we're doing  compromise i understand what you're saying no but the challenge of the percentage of high percent yeah yeah so anyway i'm i'm ok with two within five hundred  i mean they've been there for a number of years being as you know a second home or a rental is there an option to say well you know if you're on the ocean friday other than front street that that five hundred foot rule doesn't apply because they're all in a line supposed to be it's just that they happen to have single family home there that are there are going to be long term rentals not it but you know i understand the argument but i don't quite accepted because there are a lot of other rentals in line that are rooms for rent or pieces of houses so just to say that it's on the on the beach but it's not going to on the coastline that's not going to be available for long term rental and in any way shape or form and i don't think is correct  department we're going to go all right so members if you look at the proposal number three which is a separate a s f it basically says homes are operating within a five hundred foot radius and then on the back and this is because of the condominium my zation number af where it says that owner of the lot for which the short term rental home permit application has been submitted or a trustee partner or corporate shareholder or a limited liability companies member of the entity which holds the title to the lot is also an owner trustee partner of corporate shareholder or limited liability company member of an entity which holds title which is two they don't go together ok ms carter that was my question ok yeah so when he says three or more that this is these are triggers to going to the planning commission so three or more existing short term rental homes are operating within a five hundred foot radius of the proposed home they goes it goes to the planning commission you ok with that just to clarify on the so if if there are two existing short term rental this is not business as homes in an area within five hundred feet if there's another house that wants to do it and they have that third one has to go to correct commission correct ok and the fourth one that many yeah i think after that right ok yeah luckey the first  f can i do this by consensus or do i have to do an actual motion discussion with reservations yeah well let's see the language shake you will see the language way we're not going to pass it out today unfortunately because of i would like you to have a complete complete version of the the bill so you can see it i would like to get it passed out today unless the chair is ok with people looking at it in council and if they have any concerns or changes that we can make them on the floor  i'm i'm still a little bit uncomfortable with three or more because right now it's if there's one right so we're not saying there's we're not doubling it to make it two because three or more means that there's three there instead of two there so you're you're parsing of words tricky for a little while but i think i'm more comfortable saying there are two or more yes you're correct that if the intent is to say two would be allowed the third one trigger commission review right this morning should say two or  k so we'll add that mr chair you heard my proposal i mean i'm willing to pass this out today and have the clean version for the not the next council meeting but probably the following council meeting and if members have any amendments that they want to make we can do that on the floor or would you therefore the answer would be no which are i i you know department everybody you want everybody wants to get this out today and you're trying to make it so we can and then have it you know in its full written for full council and then we kind of started to committee work at that time if if there are concerns you know right and i mean i prefer to just have a nice clean copy to do another one so for and then do  before we go today we still have a couple more things to discuss so we haven't really taken a vote on the density trigger any other comment on the yes ok all right the next item is we've been getting again this isn't in the in the matrix anymore we've been getting requests all kinds of different requests but one of them is let's see we have established caps in section one thousand and six five zero three zero of the maui county code the caps are forty eight mccann to keep him a count of one hundred maui eighty eight i just remind the members that we've had testimony both ways on increasing the meadows cap from well we've had people say they want to just get rid of the mowing meadows cap because why is that why is that one neighborhood being sectioned out but i understand that it's a it's on the border between a resort area and not so i understand and it is easily determined delineated so i can understand that so somebody has requested that we don't change the cap somebody has requested we remove the cap and several people have said you know just double it or make it fifteen ten or fifteen any preferences from the committee mr chair white as i said in the last meeting this was a it was part of what brought a resolution to the initial passage of the of the ordinance and so i'm i'm comfortable leaving it as is we've we've made a bunch of other changes i think there's a there's a concern that there's already a bunch of b and b s that of you know the number of b and b s is grown and so i don't feel differently ok the chair you know part of this was you're right it was part of the initial thought i would like to ask  the department if you had any more complaints in the maori medals for the permitted ones have you and had any complaints on the permitted ones noise complaints do you recall in that area concerns about parking on the street that they were required to park off street so generally when you see the parking on the street i used to live up there and it's basically the people who live in the you know the neighborhood that are parking on the street at least that's been my experience i used to walk around it quite a bit and knew where the at that time anyway where the b and b s were and everything in that they weren't an issue with parking on the street there so i have mixed emotions on that one by anybody else have any thoughts on this i know there are folks that have come up here is that they they live there but they want to be able to go for a couple months and go on the mainland or wherever and be able to rent out their place and they're prohibited from doing that right now because there's only a cap of five and the chairs open to moving it to ten and i'm certainly not open to removing it at all and fifteen might be a little high but the chairs open to five another five if the members are open to another five raise the cap across the board life and i know just a maui meadows cap and you know and even be willing to qualify that to say look it's only you you have never been you have and not been able to operate before if you have operated before and are you are on permitted you don't get part of that five because that's that's a commodity right now  and the more limited the more you have a limit the more it becomes a commodity like taxi medallions and everything so right now metals thing is a sort of a commodity other than you can transfer it but it's still something that the people hold onto so any concerns questions comments on that yes no leave it there white said d s p prefer to leave it mister terrill no no comments mr yeah i can appreciate both sides of the coin  i'd rather see it be left in place but if it's going to be done i would only raise it to two to more yeah ok that's an interesting compromise the next one is ok corp council had made some recommendations on the state special permit and real estate license issues i believe we have that language but i think i believe the part looked at that language is or isn't happy with that language so department the committee had previously agreed to have as terry chose as an accessory use in the county ag district and the amendment relates to when it was listed as a special use and but the concern we have with the language as it's written says that as to your ages in the state ag district have to get a state special use permit if state law were to allow s t or ages out right we don't want the county code to still say you have to get a state special permit and so we would be fine with making a clarification that short term rental homes in the state agricultural district have to comply with state law and whether that means a special use permit if that's what state law calls for or not if it doesn't it just calling it to people's attention that the county i district is one thing with the state ag district has other requirements so that's all that we would suggest but this this section has already been  pardon when you would say it's already been moved the committee previously voted if it's one of the items on the big matrix yes so it's no longer in the  especially use in the county yeah that's what i thought we had done and corps council wanted to see if they can had some language and i'm not supportive of this language either because we discussed it but it see if we can put people on notice that even if county zoning allows it one way you still have to comply with the right arguments ok members you were handed out what the court counsel wanted to do and that goes against what we had talked about before we greet to before so i'm not willing to change the language to this other than you know potentially saying you've got to comply with five h which you have to anyway it just kind of calls it out and and points out that anybody who's looking at it you have to get a state special use permit if that is required but if i'm not mistaken what the department is saying is if state law changes to allow it out right right and there is no space state special use permit correct this language says you've got to get of the languages she's suggesting just say you've got to follow the requirements of five to a five eight to a five you just have to follow the requirements of to a five if there are no requirements then you're good you're good you're good to go and you're saying you don't you don't want that i want that this this language that corporation counsel wanted to add that i just passed out restricted to you've got to get a state special use permit it says you must i'm saying i don't like that i just say you've got to follow whatever tool five requires a tourist to a five and i think everybody else is fine with that too ok yes this caucus so it is permitted on state on the state as an accessory use county zoning but the state a special use for many at this time and it cannot provide a little clarification ok so the state special use is for any type of use on ag land whether it's a concrete batching plant a boys and girls club or better breakfast or vacation rental unit by moving it to the accessory you section under the county egg we're requiring that it be accessory to the ag use which means you need an implemented farm plan so that they were not saying no farming we're saying this use is for the farming district for this this vacation rental that you still have to have an implemented farm plan whereas the state it's just a special use you just show it special the special use doesn't have any requirements for farming because you're doing something special it just seems more appropriate in that accessory and we're still requiring that implement a farm plan they asked if we could put that in and i said i'll bring it up i don't particularly agree with it and we we discussed it pretty late the last couple meetings ago so oh i see you wanted to there's two different things that's right individual with an active state of y real estate license to serve as manager these are people who are allowed to be managers to the extent such a license is required by law except for properties located in the hahn or law not a community plan areas where an individual may act as manager if allowed by state that was certainly in the hot area there are no realtors at all i think i think there might be one but he's not willing to do property management and i think that's the same in the law and i as well they don't have a pool of realtors to draw from therefore they can't comply with this because there's no way to do it mr white the the challenge with this i think is that it's state law that says that you have to have a real estate license if you're going to manage more than one more than one right so this would allow somebody to manage one but not to correct  so they only are the department only comment is that we don't need that language to the extent that such a license is required by law the council wanted it to be a real estate agent except in these other two areas so that they would be collecting the money and they would be using an escrow account following all those rules if for some reason the state law changes i don't believe you would not you would no longer want a real estate license person handling that from what i can recall the earlier discussions i think that was put in place for the consumer protection not simply because it was a state requirement so what happened with the hanta and lanai is we are allowing kent that caretaker provision for those two air which is allowed by state law but it was decided those two areas have unique circumstances which warranted that so that i think the department would just like what's underlined to the extent such a license is required by law that doesn't need to be and i would prefer to have that taken out so that you don't have the caretaker provision for anywhere it's only for these two small areas deal with this in the next meeting i'm ok during that i have a highlighted version ok showing my changes so i'm happy to provide here because we can't do this in five minutes i don't think members any concerns about that  matrix ok the green and white the green section so i had comments but if we're going to continue on to another meeting then i can just touch on that  go ahead real quick as i believe why did why did you submit this department this was the grace period for the commission trigger oh yeah this is the one that no because of the grace period we put this in there but the grace period is over so there's they're basically this basically requires the department to notify right listed operations of the need for short mental home permit but now well we can so we can still leave the said no at this point because we have the second grace period if it's left in we would want to know be there if there's not any specificity you know the kind of effort we need to make what kind of notification and how often do we need to make it what happens if someone isn't notified that that's a big question if someone for some reason doesn't receive notification from us and they they don't make it in the six month grace breaker in the taper credit they had gotten and we find do the you know can we get reimbursement for those if they claimed and they were truly allowed to utilize those i guess something like that to recoup monies back that's part of the back tax thing if if they claimed homeowners and circuit breaker and were operating they have to pay those back taxes including the exemptions and whatnot so yet no i haven't yet ok so february eighteenth we still have a committee meeting schedule that's been scheduled so and we'll get this out this would be the only thing on the thing but which would mean it would be a short eight there was some language that showed stricken and that's actually incorrect and so you know yes that's right and and just just so they could mean is that it was not decided by the committee yes right i page eight at the chairs intent that we're not going to strike this language it was core council's request they didn't want it in the to be in with when we first made the bill and they just days wanted to take it out this time i understand their concern but again members thank you so much were there were just there to enforcement is the last thing and we're ready to go and you will have the language i hope before the next meeting for the grace period thing and so that please look at it before and if you have any questions be ready to bring up your concerns and your potential amendments so we can get through this department thank you so much for your wonderful work in comments and staff and members thank you so much this meeting will be adjourned if we will have another full meeting on the eighteenth so this meeting is a