with the february eighteenth two thousand sixteenth meeting of the planning committee please come to order my name is don couching on the chair of the committee and before we get started any further can please everybody put your cell phones on silent mode  would like to conduct and i'm doing my now we'd like to do the meeting without any interruptions and we'll well ask who it was and if the call is important we'll hold the meeting up if we hear your phone and i'm sure the t v will find joining that phone and then excuse for the whole meeting is council member victory you know ok and with us from the administration we have from the planning department we have michelle supporter but it's to help architect this so thank you she's done the good job of getting this going we also will have with us from real property tax scott therea morning deputy corporation counsel michael hopper morning legislative attorney greg our no good morning the morning committee secretary pauline martens she's already doing some stuff and then we have the district offices we'll get to in just a second all right members we have one item on the agenda p c ten which is amending the conference of zoning ordinance relating to short term rental homes we're going to accept testimony only on that and for individuals testifying in the chamber please sign up at the desk outside the chamber door if testifying from rote testimony site please sign up with the district office staff looks like we have at least one ok testimony will be limited to the item listed on the agenda today pursuant to the rules of the counsel is testify or will be allowed to testify for up to three minutes per item it looks like we only have a couple testimony testifiers so also being allowed to be allowing an additional minute to conclude testimony when testifying please state your name first and then any organization you may be representing there will be a lighting system you get three minutes green one minute on yellow when it turns red please include your remarks now also want to welcome counsel chair mike white money chair all right let's let's get started here with testimony without objection have right now signed up to testify is carol perry and you know what we have another one signed up behind her good morning my name is carol perry and i'm a resident of maui meadows and i'm here this morning to ask the committee to reconsider the issue of raising the from five by another five bringing it to a total of ten first of all i'd like to thank the committee for all of the amazing amount of effort that and attention that all of you have put into the many issues related to s t v or my husband larry shapiro has spoken before about our hope that we could run our house out periodically when we're traveling all file and the house is not a potential long term randall we just want to at least have the option of running it out from time to time on a short term basis to help supplement our retirement savings i've attended most of the hearings that the committee is held and one consideration that comes up again and again is the effect of t v ours on the character of the neighborhood and i just wanted to share a few of my own thoughts about that as a resident of maui meadows for many years i grew up in a row house in an urban neighborhood we knew our neighbors all around us for blocks around us we even shared a front step with our next door neighbor we could look out our kitchen window and look across the back driveway and look into the kitchen of our neighbors on the street behind us short term renner's in that kind of a neighborhood would have been very very obvious and would have had a pretty big impact on life in the neighborhood i think now in meadows of course is completely different socially and physically most of the houses are set back from the street many of them either down or up very long driveways the lots are large and heavily landscaped and all of this makes it rare that you even see your neighbors there are very few children certainly none playing outside many of the houses are not occupied by their owners at least part of the time and it's not uncommon for owners who do live there to have roommates but they rent their rooms out too so all of this for better or worse makes mowing meadows and neighborhood where residents come and go fairly anonymously having an additional five permitted s t v yours will not have any effect on this existing character and when it comes to parking in noise which are two of the factors which are frequently cited by opponents of s t v ours the rules are very strict in order to get a permit you have to submit a parking plan showing that there ample off street parking and to mitigate any potential noise issues you have to strictly enforce house rules about quiet hours and overall sensitivity to the effect of guests activities on the neighbors the basic fact is that anyone who has gone through the arduous process of getting an s t v or permit isn't going to allow anything to happen that would jeopardize it and that's very likely the reason why there haven't been any  neighborhood or to our neighbors we just want to be able to use our house in a way that helps meet some of our financial needs while complying with the law and respecting our neighbors mahalo again for your consideration mr perry members any questions to the test fire seeing none thank you next up is larry shapiro followed by eric salvator morning council members and chair couch while short term rentals are still under discussion i wanted to ask you very respectfully to take another look at raising the maui meadows sub cap i wanted to offer a quick recap of my prior testimony and add some new facts and comments my wife and i as she has testified live in maui our home is not a rental and we have deep roots in the community our goal is to run our home when we are travelling i appreciate your patience during this time when the when the ordinance is being reviewed and listening to testimony about the how about how the law is working and being open to suggested changes as you know he s t v your quote it is four hundred island wide of which one hundred are in t hey these are very small numbers as a percentage of the overall housing market these quotas represent a reasonable balancing of the four competing and legitimate interests of neighbors renner's homeowners and our vital visitor industry but the special maui meadows type cap of five i really don't think is appropriate no other neighborhood has such a cap i'd like to offer a little history i was on the maui meadows neighborhood association board at the time the full law was enacted the sub cap was set very low because of a great fear that there would be problems with license rentals it turns out that that fear was totally unjustified the fact is there have been zero complaints and zero problems with the permitted rentals and  not even not even one complaint against a permanent rental i believe that maui meadows can very easily accommodate five more units rural rural areas like maui better those are ideally suited for short term rentals it's an area where a small number of permitted rentals would have a very low impact as i've mentioned before maui meadows is about three hundred twenty acres comprising six hundred thirty half acre wooded lots with plenty of elbow room and where neighbors rarely run into each other and in many cases don't know each other are going is a non issue because off street parking is mandatory ten s t v ours is really a very tiny number it represents only one point five percent of the homes in maui meadows my neighborhood will not be overrun with vacation rentals i'm asking to raise the cap to ten which is ten percent of the south now we call it of one hundred this reflects the fact that now in that rose has ten percent of the homes of south maui so it would have ten percent of that quota finally i wanted to point out there's been testimony about concerns regarding b and b but these concerns i really think should be looked at separately under the b and b law i don't think it's proper to lump b r s together b m b's are very different operations their owner occupied have unique rules that are governed by completely separate and different laws if someone is unhappy about being bees that issue should be dealt with another time not in the context of this review of the s t v or law i believe it's only fair to balance the various interests by making a small adjustment in the  meadows cap this is especially true now that we have had only positive experience with permitted rentals and most important actual facts to use as a guide instead of simply emotion or fear thank you very much for your opportunity to talk to you about this again thank you mr shapiro members any questions that testify or mr shapiro do you have that in writing  kind of sort of if you can submit that to the committee either right there or if you want to type it up and submitted via e mail that would be appreciated but i do that this afternoon  good morning everyone can get a little closer to the bring the microphone or thanks good morning everyone my name is irate salvator vacation rental industry has changed a great deal i think since our sometimes to set ordinances to govern what seemed to be at that time maybe an unregulated and possibly out of control situation and  a great deal i think has changed during that time recently the association of travel agents funded by cond nast traveler magazine cited vacation rentals as the fastest growing segment of tourism globally and one of the interesting things that they had to say about it was that diversity of tourist dollars spent by people who utilize vacation rentals on their vacation was much broader than for people staying in hotels and if we look at what's happening all over the united states and certainly what's happening why there's a great demand for tourism and i know where i live in place we've seen quite a few new restaurants in the last few years and and i believe three new commercial buildings that i would say have a lot to do with tourists to have been staying a vacation rentals there now there has been concern in the past about vacation rentals taking up short term rentals but if we look at the data and we look at a non emotional way we've approved four hundred three cation rentals which is not even one percent not even one percent of the single family homes on this island the next thing we've talked about is saying people who are applying for fish  vacation rentals shouldn't they know about the loss right shouldn't they have been informed about the laws and i would say yes certainly but that's not easier said than done and i think that this committee when talking about the ordinances regarding placation rentals has also had a certain amount of confusion about what's allowed and what's not allowed so i imagine the lay person who's just stepping in they have a great deal of confusion too i know that the committee is now looking at what to do about the five year ban but i ask you what purpose does the five year ban do if somebody is actually trying to step up and do the right thing should we be more concerned with aiding them in doing the quote unquote right thing or do we really want to place our emphasis on catching them doing the wrong thing you know the economic tides are changing there's a great deal of talk about recession a global recession that may be coming and i do believe that maui can really use the vacation rental income in a smart way in a regulated way in a way that's really going to help people come forward and i ask you to help people come forward and as we're looking to revise this ordinance please don't add additional things that make it more difficult for people to apply the application process is also arduous and should they have they should they have faulted in the past you've all faulted in many ways but allow them the opportunity to make it right both whether it's in paying their real estate taxes or state taxes or whatever other matters are concerned which will allow them to get this vacation rental permit thank you thank you mr salvatore members any questions the testifier mr white thank you for being a morning do you have a for one the interesting thing is because we now we've been working with the state to catch up on our t eighty we just found out that there's actually short term rentals are not subject to t eighty and i don't know if this committee knew that so if you are looking for housing in the state of hawaii and you do not have another dhamma seal in the state of hawaii and you're ranting any kind of union while you're looking for housing you're not subject to short term vacation rental tax  are active military personnel prior to deployment you're not subject to transfer in accommodation tax we didn't know this and so now in working with the state to catch up with our taxes they're actually going back to say ok we've over calculated ok we'll come back with them because that we still can't hear you so well can we have one more testify or hopefully just i know joe's eyes were going on he's been walking around trying to get this fix so we have one more testify in the chamber  oh i chair a low a committee tom croly tonight i could just giving you some remarks personally here ralph waldo emerson wrote life is a journey not a destination if i can borrow from mr emerson i would say that regulating short term rentals is a journey and something that we will never complete short term rentals are a part of our visitor industry and there will always be and it is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry therefore it is something that deserves that when we regulate them we are regulating them in a in a way that mao you would most like to see but none of us here should ever begin to think that this issue will ever be finished the industry will evolve and our regulations will have to evolve with it in the review of this ordinance i believe we've addressed many of the many items that will help get the make the permuting process better but make no mistake will never be done permuting and will be never be done chasing the non compliant it's no different from any other law we have building permits speed limits tax compliance people using cell phones while driving we're never going to reach the point where we say we have one hundred percent compliance in any of those and we won't here in  regulation of short term rentals i did some research into the five year ban that got a lot of discussion at the last meeting and i was reminded that the idea originated in this committee on july ninth two thousand and twelve and much of the discussion that took place on that day was very similar to the discussion that took place that your last meeting you were warned by corporation counsel who's here today that doing this was it's going to create a conflict and that for people to come in and prove their tax compliance at the same time complying with a law that says you if you are operating then you're not allowed to apply for a permit was a conflict and eventually that really came true and just as mr khushi warned you in the last meeting having this conflict here is maybe a problem and maybe not legal and may lead to some lawsuits so i hope that we can resolve that today but it was a comment made by council member base of the really crystallized the issue for me she pointed out at that time that three years into the b and b ordinance since it had been passed we only had fifty eight b and b permits that had been approved out of the four hundred that were allowed and she recognized and she's so right that it was going to take more than a year probably more than three years for us to permit the four hundred  short term rentals that we have made accommodations for  i do believe that everyone who previously operated i'm sorry i lost myself by train here but let me let me jump to this a ban should only be applied after someone has just refused to comply with all the warnings and has been cited by notice of violation and has exhausted their appeal of that violation exactly the same as what the planning department argued to the planning commission in two thousand may of two thousand and fourteen the ban is really for that problem child that we can't do anything with and we just give up but for those who want to come forward i think that we need to ensure that there are tax compliance we need to ensure that they've closed down we need to ensure that they're going to play by the rules and then allow them to come in let's get these permits issued in the most expeditious way possible thank you thank you mr crawley members any questions of the testifier seeing none thank you all right let's see if joe's i was able to get things going there where the planning committee meeting of february i'm sorry yes february eighteenth two thousand six hundred please come back to order ok i think we have a workaround it's not exactly solved but i think we have a workaround go ahead  six that we do have rentals rental and most of them are eagle what does this to our lifestyle is unbelievably negative my husband m and be able to enjoy our retirement however now that they are equal renters they air and people who are renting equally to outsiders who intrude not on our lifestyle but on a whole environment of home along we go to bed at night not knowing who is on the roll and if you know how more rewarding it is dark i mean we continuously call the police department the fire department or infractions that we feel are infringing on our lifestyle not to mention at all of these that most of these renters are equal renters using air b n b we even have a state senator who lives there and who runs that eagle air b n b through his renter one minute left now all of this impacts on our lives it impacts when we don't know who our neighbors are we don't know what they're doing or if they're wandering around we've even had to really lock car door and just go to town for fear they would be in for our safety and our privacy is infringed upon our neighbors are afraid to say anything because they too have to have a lifestyle that to make a living now in the air and it is just unbelievably yeah i think you think you know and mr mrs cashman for being there and thank you for coming to testify in step three now i know it's not easy to speak you know about the neighbors but so i want to thank you for that courage to do so i was going to have the privilege of being in the town of a week ago and went to take a visit and went down to a home or so i know that rode the narrowness  the issues with big trucks and our equipment they have to go down your road because they can't make that new bridge on the turn and the visitors and on and on so i just want to go back to your comment in regards to dropping mrs cashman thank you very much for your testimony but i'm trying to you know understand all of this that we can discuss it later on you are you've made complaints you've called the planning department and i can't imagine i probably would go to it anyway thank you very much for your testimony and we'll look into this thank you thank you thank you members any further questions the testifier seeing none thank you mr cashman mr mrs cashman anybody ok thank you and we have one more person the sign up to testify here david good morning chair and members i'll keep this brief because i got my fingers crossed that your house this measure out of committee today the gentleman you just heard from  fact that he's made repeated complaints to the planning officials and there's been no effective enforcement i'd like to say that i think the thing you can do about that is to look at the proposed amendment which i'm hoping your counsel chair will bring forward shortly which changes the language of the enforcement portion of this chapter the language right now says that if the planning department is made aware of an illegal advertisement in force meant to make amends they're not obligated to do anything the amendment which i hope you'll give consideration to today says that in force which shall commence it shall commence if the department is made aware of an advertisement which doesn't have the required permit number if the owner is in control of that advertisement and if the member of the public has gone to the trouble as this couple did of providing the planning department with a physical address or t m t number d m k number so that's my thank you members seeing that there's nobody running down the testifying nobody in the offices that objection will close public testimony testimony is close thank you all right members were the request for legal services dated february twelfth two thousand and sixteen that's what they've incorporated staff is incorporated everything that we have discussed up to that date ok a lot of progress has been made and we're we're almost there it's my intention for the committee to consider the last remaining issues and hopefully take a vote on the bill today we have four issues to discuss first one i'd like to talk about is the amend the c p r language limited to one permit per owner applicant if you take a look and section sixteen point one thousand point six five point zero three zero a two is a bottom of page seven to the top of page eight in the latest version of the proposed bill so you have a spot to look at it which are owned by the same owner no owner may hold more than one s t r each permit i believe that was our intent if that's the case would like to add just to be clear even though it says in one thousand nine hundred five zero three zero age an applicant may hold no more than one short term rental home permit i wanted to add some language potentially to you know ask your thoughts on adding the language at applicant does not own all condominium units on the lot each condominium unit will be considered a lot for the purposes of this chapter and each owner will be eligible to apply for a short term rental home permit no i want to say i want to add except that no applicant or owner may hold more than one short term rental home permit that just you know enforces the one before it just makes it clear any concerns with the department as far as adding that language back to that so that they're treated the same ok i'm fine with that members any question any concerns about that ok chair yes i don't know if the just department get the testimonies that are sent in to us yes because i'm looking at mr van dorn's yes one in regards to fairness and if we're going to do c p r it's you know has about all the other types of zoning and things for others issues here that he's talking about in regards to what we're doing here at the c p r and allowing them you know more and more stuff they can do with their properties i mean is there standing here in his testimony in relation to what we're discussing here r lots as individual lots for building permits for tax purposes so i mean there's there's already precedence for that and we we kind of discussed that prior to that because we do treated specially taxation purposes ok well just looking at it very briefly any other questions concerns on that the condominium eyes i know but you you didn't ask for consensus on what i thought he did i'm sorry you said question or was there consensus on adding that language is it we already had the discussion about confused about it i'm going to withdraw the i'm going to withdraw it because this is just to make clear that no applicant or owner may hold more than one short term rental home permit it basically repeats section so if you want to do in writing we can take a recess and do it but will be here past lunch because i'm not going to close this meeting until we come to conclusion on this ye language to nine hundred six five zero three zero eight two to read after the word permit take out the word and and say except that no applicant or owner may hold more than one short term mental home permit and and so  alright any comments you want me to read it one more time no ok so all those in favor please say i oppose gay that but the record shows for eyes one and three we might have gotten this wrong or not gotten it wrong in our discussions we might have put the wrong word in wording in here basically it currently says an individual with an active state of hawaii real estate license to service manager except for properties located in the hannah or lawn i community plan areas where an individual may act as a manager if required by state law i believe we said we wanted to say if allo by state law or add i'm sorry as allowed by state law not if we quired by state law i'm pretty sure that that's what we want to because we want to say that people in han and why they don't have to have a real estate license if they're allowed as allowed by state law any questions or concerns about that chair miss cochran this except for so this is because we thought there are estate agent that is a property manager ok well they're managing some properties there are they real estate agents yes mr carroll are there  got word from the from nona community that there were no real estate agents manage the property managers in a hotel room no there is one allowed instead of if required that's the only well i know you agreed but things change as we progress through this and have new information is shown to us and revealed so i was just there i understand and so did you see the realtor's license do you have that information i can probably get it but you know you're going to move this through before lunch and hang on how happy i am about this subject so it's all whatever you decide department ok there are two managers i believe who do hold real estate licenses they're not active right now they don't have a broker that is willing to broker and hondo that used to take this business died in a flood a number of years ago there hasn't been a broker that's come in recently so the the realtors that are there are doing it are doing it under the state caretaker provision  they've come in testified perhaps that's the case that you've had i'm not sure so there has to be a brokerage that allows that is the the um ok any questions anybody else so it seems like we're going to need to do a motion so i'll entertain a motion to change the language that says if required by state law to as allowed by state law second any further discussion of those in favor say aye opposed ok the record show passes six zero with mr victor in those permanently excused for this meeting the procedure of the application in public notice ok let's do that at the end ok just remind me ok as we had some discussion this is the six month grace period for you to operators put paid taxes discussing when we broke the last meeting ok so everyone now has a highlighted version good we're going down the page i'd like to we're actually going down by items so we will get your after and some comments on this one first of all let's go into the whole if we can pay back taxes kind of thing i have that at the last meeting we had questions about how to require the applicant to pay real property taxes and we have mr president who is the administer or property tax division to answer questions as to how this might work so scott can you come on up please possibility of an appeal we don't know if we can have it where you can just pay the difference but not have the full ability to appeal  if we would be able to do and i've said amended assessment that's not under our authority under three forty can can you add to that you know if somebody takes the homeowner exemption and they really don't qualify for  that it also in three forty eight it already states that if you did not were not entitle to a home exemption that we have the authority for make that as the calculation for an after the tax i'm sorry after the after the fact are met well i mean this this is the i thought that the information that you were getting was to get away from the five year rather a in order to become eligible after the five year ban the taxpayer voluntarily pays the amount under here right that would be listed it's not an amended assessment and if it is not paid then the consequences that the five year ban correct i guess stays in place now if someone is banned for five years and that's the that's the determination generally something like that would be subject to appeal in a contested case hearing so the right of the person to apply for a permit that something that may be although it's really not not not a right it's an additional property right but you know something like that generally i think is would be a decision that could go to the b v a for for consideration and so you know i don't see this as much as a an amended an amended assessment and i think that mr expressed concerns with that and i don't think that's necessarily what it would be i think it would be a situation where the property owner would agree to pay a certain agree to pay it show it show evidence of past compliance and pay any back taxes due in exchange for the ban but that wouldn't really have any effect of settling if there is past due taxes you know nessa's it would necessarily be  complete in compliance with any other section of the code that required payment of the tax it would more be this new section of the code would be the only thing a pleasurable in that case but i think you know mr brings up some of the complications with the five year ban and this is a way to to get away from the five year ban it's a bit it's a bit i think different than what we've seen as far as things you have in this zoning ordinance and you know that the five year ban in realm so so that's a concern but i think the the approach as i've discussed would be a better approach than saying you do an amended assessment for everyone who gets a five year ban ok turia if we were to say this was a a payment of some sort maybe an after the fact he would you be able to make the calculation for the department yes we should be able to make the calculation i guess the question at some point will be is that we just forward that number over to the department and or is it expected to be billed out through the treasury division you know i would i would assume and i think the members were we're of the same mind and if not let me know members that the it wouldn't go through your department it would just be that was ruby an after the exchange but as as a compliance mechanism just to have the ban lifted again you know the relationship between the two is something the committee would would want to consider so that's that's an issue it's not really a fee though ok in the in the sense of the fees that we have in in the budget as i understand them anyway all right well that will be a policy question that we want to we want to discuss and i would like to discuss it  remember you received a in your binder some testimony from katherine clarke and she talks about mr coo she's comments that i think mr testifier brought up i would like us to to consider you know get rid of the six month grace period  not have a grace period and go back to way back when we kind of discussed this i know mr boozman wasn't on the committee at the time but that at the time of notice of a violation that's when the five year ban kicks in if you get notice of warning that gives the applicant their due process they've gotten a notice of warning they now have the opportunity to either comply or not if they don't comply by the time they get a notice a violation they're done sorry you had your chance i think it's if you take a look at the testimony it's  pretty clear and pretty compelling that and i know i understand the department doesn't want to do it this way because there are they're afraid that people are just not going to operate until they get they're not going to apply until they get their notice of warning keep in mind that there's about what they're called into the department eight hundred notices of warning out there so there's a lot of people who have gotten notices of warning already so they you know the next step for them isn't always a violation if they get that notice a violation they're banned if we go oh that route you know according to the suggestion by this testimony i'd like to have a little bit of discussion on that i think that will solve you know we've got this holds six months great amnesty period this blah know it if you've got no notice of violation now too bad if you've got your notice of warning coming in comply which is what we do with all almost every other permit you know when they get a notice of warning they say please come in and comply i think to be a bit consistent on there this might be a way to settle this going back and forth and what not any thoughts from the members missed by so i know where you coming from and i can support miss cochran any comments notices because there are not even looked at so just judging from the little community that i've visited in the east end of this island i think it's staggering so i think people are aware of what's going on and i really dive her department believe they want their hammer and you're trying to take that away and i don't agree and i think you have yes not people into shaping come into ban can appeal so you have to go to the v a which the partment handles and go through that whole process at the notice of warning time as opposed to notice a violation that way we can also get our back taxes and get our you know make sure that they're complying with their t a t and g e t so we make sure everybody's in compliance and then give them a chance to apply planning there would be no incentive whatsoever for anybody to apply for a permit and till they get their notice of warning there'd be absolutely no reason for them to at all they get there and i w o all apply they pull their advertising then we have no way of proving violation and no way to correct in these cases if what they need to do to correct the violation what you're suggesting they need to do to correct the violation is to get a permit well that takes time so you'd have to give them i don't know let's say thirty days which is very short to put an application together then a longer period of time for that application to be processed it might have to go to planning commission so we'd have to give them a long period of time before we would go so far as to issue a violation so that's during all that time they're still operating without a permit because in fairness that's what we do we issue a notice of warning to give a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance what will happen is that so we don't issue a notice a violation intil that time has transpired and they haven't achieved compliance so if we issue a notice of warning to somebody who has no intention of applying we say you know we saw your ad notice of warning you need to apply for a permanent cetera they pull their advertising their obvious advertising i should say because they'll still advertise they'll still do their ads on the weekends and at night when they know that we're not monitoring which is what they do we won't be able to issue an n o v because we will not be able to find evidence that they're continuing to operate advertising is our key evidence when people get notices of warning they pull their advertising we cannot it is very difficult for us to then prove continued operation so if you wait until i know v we're not going to be able to put it to you another way when you issue the five year ban how do you know that they they're still not advertising they're still not operating they get the ban based on the n o w because the law says and it ties i understand that but how do you go are you checking everybody on the five year ban list every you know very often they're the band gets imposed at the n o w i understand that so mr hopper has been banned a month from now have you checked to see that he's still not operating there i don't see any difference from notice of violation you know then they get their band vs notice the warning that they get their band you still have to check we do because we will issue the notice of violation which is when the fin so yes we do so you do check between notice a violation they take it down so you do somehow check and if we don't find anything then and we don't proceed w image searches from when we first found the ad so we search for those images right wherever they may pop up so we we do what we know to do  t yeah there are there are websites that will not respond to hawaii ip addresses they at they advertise at night and on weekends i mean they have figured out how to so this goes to another point that i think we may want to bring up maybe in budget or during our seven the discussion is that hiring a group for a couple of years to go out and catch him on the weekends catch him at night if we were to you know if you were to ask for some money in the budget for professional services to do that for at least a year if not two that would alleviate your issue as far as your concern of ok we issued a notice of warning and they're going to shut down their advertising but they're still going to operate if we give a really good incentive for people to for you know good r f p and get people out there actually doing that that takes away that concern and that's still it's my my thought that if we have this you know if the if you want to call it a fever you want to call that whatever the back taxes and the g t and everything is you know the longer they wait the more they're going to have to pay in those back taxes and whatnot so i think that's more of an incentive then you know if you come up and say your but your band at notice of violation time versus i'm sorry notice of warning time they're going to do exactly what you say they would do if it was a notice a violation i don't see any difference other than the timing as to they're going to do exactly what you said you're afraid they're going to do notice a warning time at north a violation time and still operate if if that's the case unless we get somebody you know a professional services to go out there and get them be they wouldn't be banned at knows the violation time the notice of warning time if we if we go with this and members of i want to ask your opinions on this if we go with this noticed of warning we have this sort of professional services out there just double checking that they are not operating and they actually come in and apply for a permit which is what we want them to do that's the whole idea is we want them to come in and apply for the permit once we get the four hundred where we're done with this so get them to apply if they don't come in and apply within the thirty days or whatever a reasonable amount of time is and i mean apply they have to at least apply then they get the notice of violation and they're banned period no grace period no nothing they just have to come in and if the department thinks thirty days is too short make it forty five or sixty days but to actually come in applied to show that they are really doing it and then if they go through the process and they find that they can't or whatever then they have to stop or they're banned period if they get that notice of violations they are bad and he thoughts members missed by so care when you stated the way you stated it sounds much more clear much more everybody knows the process is so we're not so we're getting caught up in  any other thoughts i know mr chair white had some quick critser as last time and mr good everybody had some concerns i would you provide a hammer if you feel that they're not going to come in and why you think they're we're taking away the incentive you're you're referring to what we've outlined as far as that have to pay their have to show proof that they've paid their duty and have a t v license g t n g t license and then be willing to pay the back taxes so are you your concern is that will lose your hammer if if this is implemented can you tell us how we would be able to maintain the hammer we're talking about two different things i understood the chair to say he didn't so your feeling is that the rest of it as appropriate and you're you're concerned that by eliminating the the six month grace period you're losing your hammer no i may be totally confused on this note there at the six month grace period that just suspends the hammer briefly the hammer to me is imposing the five year ban as soon as there is evidence of operation so at n o w rather than it and that to me is the hammer because really there is no incentive to apply for my until you get the n o w in my book recollection of our discussion last week was that we want to provide an opportunity for people who were either not subject to a notice of warning correct or had received a notice of warning to proceed with the permit and if they could prove that they had been painted eighty if they could prove that the g t and if they were willing then i think mr hopper stated it perfectly they were willing to agree in order to get a permit they had to pay back taxes based on whatever rate would be applied to the short term rentals but our my feeling is if we do this for six months after that they're on their own the main point is that if when does the violator have the opportunity to become legal if there is an opportunity for them to become legal what might my sense is of the discussion was if in fact you have been paid right j t j t we're willing to let you through the case right if you haven't been paying those and i'm not comfortable with those who have just now gone to the tax department to try to pay back taxes because they've been they've avoided it thus far and right and only now that the threat is there are they going back in and try to clean up their trail so my my feeling is that we want to provide access to people to get a permit but we also make that that available to those who have been following other laws were given or a break on whether they were following what the county was doing so right and  at the last meeting we said that we could support those six months i don't to go so far as to call it amnesty because there are strict requirements for people to be eligible for it but then after that six months is over then we resume where we have been which is issuing the ban at n o w and that is and as we talked last time it is as a co commented we didn't start imposing the ban until late may so it has not been a tool that has been in place for very long and so we think that that is going to be effective the word gets out and with this opportunity for those who have been paying their taxes i do think that people will be coming in to take advantage of this six months knowing that that ban has been  has been issued on a handful of properties already and your understanding is that would be allowed for those who have received the notice of warning and those who have not received any notice that that's what the council said last time so is that still and that's only up the first six months after six months it's but you're aren't you suggesting that you remove the six month i'm suggesting we remove the six month and move the band to notice of violation time because that's the way we do all or other permits our other notices warning violations we give them a warning to come into compliance here we're not giving them a warning to come into compliance that's my but if somebody comes in and has not apply or has not given got no notice of warning and they can't show that they have paid their back taxes and have you know have a t and t license or permit then they're going to get banned correct right even after the six months but so do they have to go to the next step and issue a notice of violation at that point when somebody comes in to apply or i'm not sure what we're gaining by moving it to notice a violation because we're going to have some people coming out in the line that can't show that they've been doing the right thing and they're going to they're going to get banned regardless right then and they're right but for those who come in they get their notice that if we do it at notice a warning time they get their notice of warning they come in and want to comply and and pay you know a show that they paid all the g t and t a t they come in they get a chance to apply if they if you if you do it the way the department wants it is even if they don't have a notice of warning the department looks back and says oh i see some action back and sort of you're done you don't even get a chance to comply now and i were trying to get people to comply that's the whole idea is to get everybody in here and do it the word is out she's mr mclean is very correct the word is out that you guys are going to come in you've seen people say oh i'm coming in  so it's the chairs thought that the word is out there come in comply right now or you know because a lot of these people have already gotten their notices a warning so they've got their clock is ticking they've got to come in and do it some of them did come in and they said well you've been operating so we're banning for five years now they have the opportunity to go and do a b v a part of variance in appeals which is fine but i think that's going to overburden them myself but because we're not giving them a chance to comply that's my thought but i you know the department disagrees with me in no it's very very rare that we have this disagreement but this of course as you mentioned has been going on and it's meeting after meeting after writing and of course i am as anxious as everybody else to put this to bed i've been working on some cereal that i would like to share with the members as well as about yourself in the department so yeah i think might help one of them is a farm and the other is some revised that i was talking about the page twelve which he said we take up later but there are going to be an with the planning committee meeting of february sixth eighteenth please come back to order right members despite the passed out of form and some language to go with the form apparently some spice or can you do a little bit of a ok and what i'm trying to see is if we had a forum like this and if everybody's wondering why we have signatures signature signature signature we could put it all in one statement and have it signed but we've discovered it people are very good at saying nobody told me i didn't hear that well if you had to look at it and sign individual e then i think we have some really hard evidence that you read and you signed and you dated and so this to me would be a great thing to use when there is a notice of be a violation and the first thing comes in and you say ok fill out this form and you say i own this one i think it kind of takes care of covering us in making sure that the person understands that you have testified to all of this and this is the evidence we need and if this form  indicates that you have this property you have been operating and you haven't paid all your taxes then as far as i'm concerned i essentially that's what this form tries to summarize one cleese where we handle all the issues that keep coming up because individual be very confusing but i think it's pretty clear that you know we've got just about everything and this is again just my thoughts and i don't this is not something that is i'm not wedded to but we're trying and trying to put enough in some place where everybody is informed and everybody's notified and we covered the major issues and in the verbiage there is similar refers to similar things so it's really just a clarification that you would in put into the ordinance so you know i don't let anybody like this if they do we can discuss it we can't leave all of it in we can take one part out but trying to put this all together it seems like we're all over the planning have you had a chance to look at th s yes we have thank you chair and  we get applications with site plans and floor plans and we go and inspect the property and they put in their application a  layout that simply does not exist we ask people there are people sitting in this gallery who have lied to our faces signing a piece of paper you know i don't know at what point we would then catch them the statute already allows permits to be revoked and began to be issued for submitting false or misleading information that's already in there i just i don't know that this will how much this will filter out the bad here or whatever they are we created like when we did the bed and breakfast ordinance which i'm unfortunately very familiar with and we're going oh we know this ordinance is not perfect we've never done this before and so we're going to try and we're going to review this after a couple years to see where it is and if we need to tweak it then we will i don't think that this committee is going to come up with a better mousetrap that's going to be perfect we will come up with something that's better would china do it a problem but i am willing to bet money that in a very short period of time maybe two years maybe sooner this committee will be back listening to the same thing again and trying again to deal with issues so we can sit here for ever trying to come up with the proper language to correcting the right amount of fees down the prices but we're to make mistakes we're going to try based on what we know and that's all we can do but you know for us to try to sit here and say what changes word and change that word and whatever we're never going to get this out of this committee and so i'm very concerned i really think that we've got to go with the best information we have that most of us feel comfortable with and know that it is not going to be written in stone thank you sixteen which basically gives until the end of this year even if you have to have received a notice of violation and are basically i'm assuming that anyone who has received a notice of violation of been banned  anybody's received notice a warning has been banned yeah i don't know but we're we're addressing that with ok with what we were with our proposal but then up until the end of this year even if you had a notice of violations all you have to do is agree do it out after the fact permit fees but there is no there's no nothing in there regarding what we discussed and agreed on last year our last meeting and is in the body requiring that t a t and g t to be paid and and property taxes and so forth and then they signed the signed agreement that is being proposed i'd like that like a signed agreement but you don't have to sign this agreement unless you file after december thirty first of two thousand and sixteen so we have eighteen hundred people out there with most of warning and they're not going to have to comply with anything that i can see in this so if we take that the whole date thing out and just go with the signed statement and all the other stuff but still it's got its yeah right miss by saying comments on that one well again just chain to give people some time to get in and take care of things i don't mind i mean if the committee did it's not comfortable that well let's take it out like we need something right so if we get rid of just basically number nine and take the after for applications submitted take out the after twenty december thirty first two thousand sixteen but that's been going with what i've been talking about as well it's and knows a violation time this as opposed to notice the morning time yes mr hopper i think there's an underline missing from this it says i think this is new language says effective in  five right it says effective january first twenty seventeen rop reading without a permit that should be underlined the i think that's a new language so he really only saying the five year ban begins effective the five year ban it notice a violation time effect i say would be effective as the date of the ordinance i'm fine with that but then but then again i say i see now what we talked about last time is doing a six month and not necessarily a grace period and then at notice a warning time and it is it doesn't even have to be notice of warning it's if they say look back and see any kind of violations so  the problem i'm having with this is that i agree with the department they have to have a hammer to get people to come in by saying i can get banned until motive sort of violation and taking away that hammer and i really agree with the department on that last meeting we agreed to open up for six months give people an opportunity whether they're under notice of warning or no notice to come in and apply and as long as they can prove that they've been  you know they've been complying with other laws other than this one then they can move forward i'm i'm not comfortable moving from that position because i think we're you know we're we're just trying to throw the barn door wide open and i think good the department is very correct in saying we're dealing with a whole lot of people that are not being truthful they're not following laws or not being truthful with them and i think the result of this is that we are going to throw that the barn door open and say hey no matter what you've told us no matter what you've done come on in and i'm just not feeling the love for that you know i have i've been managing a hotel for thirty years and i have to follow every single law rule that applies to us there are a lot of them i don't like but it's my job to follow them and it's my job to go find out what those laws are and as i said before i totally support doing short term  different places around the island but i expect to deal with people that are up and up right i don't think we should be rewarding people who have been skirting the law and i'm just not there i don't think any of us are there well should see any of them there are some of us who are not they're not i'm just not willing to bend on that because everyone's got to follow the rules and i'm sick and tired of government bending rules for themselves and bending rules for others and i think it's high time that we expect people to follow the rules and i don't know that we're going to get anywhere by twelve so i understand where you're coming from was like ok if you are going to impose a five year ban on the initial investigation which is the warning then the department serves as the judge and jury and the police right then and there there's no way out of rectifying the ban at the first stage there's no way of getting past that as i guess an illegal person just you know you're not given any opportunity to get legal after the warning and so my question is how does that process work you guys investigate you determine that there is a probable cause to issue a warning and then you then you imposed a five year ban but that probably cost could be challenged  right then the notice of morning is based on evidence collected and so we don't issue a notice of warning until we feel like we have sufficient evidence of a violation there recourse for someone who receives a variances in appeals that would be their recourse but the law is the law the sickly says that you impose the bad as soon as the trigger is pulled on the notice will they fight that in the appeals board well they they would have to show b v a and certainly they would have the opportunity to show us as well but they would have to prove a that they were not in fact in violation of the law whether it was a ghost website and things like that people have been able to share that information with us  and the band hasn't been imposed i think that's only happened once or twice but of the bands that have been issued none have been appealed and they are informed that they have the opportunity to file an appeal would via mr hopper mr robert just said the law currently basically states operating without a valid permit is prohibited evidence of operation may include there's a variety of things and then it says operating without a permit shall result in a property owner being eligible to apply for a permit for five years that's what the law currently states that lasts proper eating without a permit shall result in a property owner being in eligible to apply for a permit for five years and so i think would the discussions been is that i think the department and others rightfully so are looking for perhaps more detail as to when exactly the five year ban would kick right right now it does say in the and under the department's administrative rules is going to result in a warning that it could be that but there's also the separate provision other than the general enforcement provisions that basically say operating without a permit shall result in a ban for five years now i think counsel this is counsel's opportunity if it wants to alter that conditions on that and put more detail into that it can do so and i think is encouraged to do so so the department and others can know what's going on i think the department is looking at basically saying keep it how it is and operating without a permit shall result in a band and so i think they correctly stated that they would provide the evidence of operation it's state you know you to apply based on this evidence we found and then if the person did want to appeal the issue would be they would have to show i never operated without a permit because if they did operate with a permit they'd be banned for five years in accordance with this again a ban like that i don't know really any other code sections that has has it been like that sir in the council think consider whether or not it would like to have a ban like that in place i would also know that there are provisions in the law that consider if someone in the past has operated illegally that's also in any past noncompliance with any government requirements can be a factor in considering someone's application so we have had applications denied  in the past based on evidence of past past operation so that's a factor that the planning commission can consider at the department can consider in addition to other things you know and so some and how if there is evidence some operated in the past but weren't subject to to the ban for whatever reason based on the evidence or the timing that's also a factor that the planning commission or the or the department can consider and in fact they're planning commission at explanation it seems to me that the imposition of the band has been although mr hopper says she shall be you know in so many words triggered upon evidence that they do kno that they're operating illegally it seems that the application has been you've been used by the department any discretionary matter and i would assume that that's your hammer if it were discretionary position to use it i'm trying to wrap this you know right wrap this around so if we were to impose a six months  amnesty with all the conditions here i wouldn't want to call it amnesty but exceptions afterwards you still would have the hammer and discretionary there's into process because of the  six month ban because my conflict was ok how do we the one principle is to incentivize or at least allow the department to have a half and the other principle is is there due process given to people to allow them to keep in compliance and so mr harper is indicated that you know in so many words that the department still has that discretion to impose it or not impose it it seems to me we can tweak that to allow them to have a without a permit i mean it the department would first need to determine their person is operating without a permit and there's a variety of evidence that they can look at it says in this section here there's a variety of things it does say that they're operating without a permit shall result in a ban so if there is operation without a permit in the department have it as evidence of that and i think the department saying we're going to treat it we've got evidence of a notice of warning that's a good indication that we have found evidence that that the person is operating illegally i think they're saying that they will be imposing a ban in every single case regardless of mitigating circumstances that if they do issue a notice warning they're going to be banned because of that evidence if there's a desire to make this either more discretionary or to pinpoint when exactly the ban would kick in i think that type of amendment would be encouraged at this point but you know ari i just was trying to rationalize in my mind why did you park and did in hose the five year ban until of last year of may of two thousand and fifteen so in my mind the department was using a discretionary power that may not have been in the ordinance itself are they were you know their own violation of the ordinance i don't know this but i the easier it is for the department i guess the more smooth it will run and i have to defer to what the department is recommending because i'm not the one working the system i'm not behind i'm not in the machinery ok did you put department looks like they wanted to say something i just wanted to comment that having a ban of some sort is going to be effective again we think it's more effective it notice of warning and something else member bice's said earlier reminded me of a really good quote that i read the other day don't let the perfect get in the way of the good we we need changes to this ordinance there's a lot of merit to everything that's been discussed today we're running out of time if this doesn't get wrapped up today it does and it's unlikely that this will get handled until budget after but excuse me after budget you know where where we have our opinions just as each of the members of the committee have their opinions we seems like there's still agreement that a ban will exist in some form and some point we just love to get something moved out today i think that you all feel the same way  so a ban of some sort is or a five year ban at some point in the process is effective we'd like it earlier and we've given our reasons why anything just leave it up to you folks at what point you feel it's a pretty thank you for that comment i will hear from everybody who wants we have  you i just want to point out that this does apply to ineligible applicants just the wording that we have in that section at age twenty two page twenty two for six up to six months after the six months as an assist months they're they're on their own i mean there's got to be an end of this some at some point so i feel i feel that we are adding a new and additional level of due process just by passing this because we're allowing those people have gotten a notice of warning another bite at the apple as winds they come in within the next six months so i'm comfortable with what we've got here on page twenty two and i'm comfortable with the recommendation think what missed by sis put forward has a lot of merit with respect to the signed statement as far as the the change to a notice of war name being the only time that the ban applies i don't i think we're just throwing them the gate open so you're saying notice of warning it should apply i'm because that's a hammer that's going to get people to come in and apply and prove that they've been doing stuff we don't if we change him notice of violation ok miss cochran you know you're doing something illegal and you should be banned and never to be able to do it again we are as simple as i'd like to see it i mean why are we sitting here giving leniency giving more loopholes to people who are doing an illegal act activity here that's just driving me crazy right now and what's the use in having a hammer if the hammers and picked up and pounded can drive you into harness and walk you to the front door yeah they're smart as you said maclean they took down a sign they took down there and they took on every trail that you could even trying to sniff them out that's gone unless you physically go there see people walking and walking out suitcases or whatever you know and i know you don't have them out hard but i'll tell you again if it takes l t a's in whatever department you want to right there so i mean that's what it's going to take i spoke to neighbors who would speak to me about their neighbor that's what you get on the ground to understand what's truly going down in these on the streets and so you know and another thing is chair there are professionals people with licenses people who are property managers managing illegals why not cash money everyone's making money all the way around so who's looking that they're perpetuating the issue we're trying to address here you know i mean that's mad mean as it is and you know the unintended consequences in this is the sadder part of all of this and it's so condensed and such a little town where long offshore out of town owners of these homes have all switched to short term rentals they were once long term because that's how they can make their income now they have an alternative option to make way more money they have all turned those homes used to with but let me tell you don't keep putting anymore the union see for them and ways out and you know what that to me is out of control and then the homes that have our residents in twelve eighteen twenty people under one roof imagine the cars when they're all home these are called the sacks so unintended consequences yeah it's happening so if it comes down to keeping that hammer there but making sure that hammer is picked up and use i'm all for it if it takes money to do that then by all means let's make it happen because it needs to be addressed and it's horrible horrible in our little communities right now so i got so obviously my favorite subject this bison ok you know it's wonderful when we have these kinds of decisions for us it's amazing to so this is exciting but you know it it really is a situation that is emotional because it involves people's livelihood and anything that involves people's livelihood of course becomes very important and i agree totally  about the idea of if we need people to go out and get physical evidence and stick up the house to watch whether the suitcases are coming in or not again they will say those are relatives because i've heard that too you know how many relatives do you have coming in and if they're blond blue eyed and you're in a hallway and how something is strange how does this happen every day i mean i think you could you could you know get the evidence you needed but again this hour and we don't have it and i think that we should seriously consider it even for a short period of time because you know if you want to scare people into better know that big brother is watching otherwise don't care if you live in harm or how many people are out there ticking to see what's going on you know we heard evidence today about a situation i think it's really important that somebody go out there and see what the heck is really happening and deal with it and if it requires that we have to spend money on  then we have to spend money on able to use of proportion personal service or contracted services or whatever it takes i'm watching the honolulu city council and they're doing it because they're getting really tired of listening to people complain and so maybe we have to do that and instead of worrying so much about how do we going to do this we better figure out how we can get somebody to go there and enforce the laws people have finally you know they're going to they're going to try every way they can to make money lose i can try again to keep my business going so you know i think a ban is a threat but i don't think it's a cure i i think did i like what i heard from  think i can live with that i think it's kind of a compromise you know we are giving people an opportunity and you know i did hear this group at their last meeting agreed and we thought it was very and i am opie with ever you know after we try everything and we've given these people a break and if they continue to try to get caught then i have no problem with the ban but it should be the last thing ok one one other thing let me point you folks to page twenty three eight to eight says sixty days from the effective date of this ordinance and each year thereafter the department of or by th to the state department taxation and the county department of finance real property tax evasion a current list of unpermitted operations with the internet advertisements for short term rental and unpermitted short term in a home operations identified by the department  quests for service for the department shall notified listed operations of the need for short term mental home permit and information on how to obtain one were telling them here that they got to come in to apply and when they come in apply say you're banned for five years something is wrong so which one do we take out do we take out come in and apply you know what do we take this section out or do we  apply which is why we have this in here and if you don't then your band that's that's were my concern is we have this information in there we put it in there to allow constantly i mean they certainly don't do that with every you know zoning violation or s m a violation that it would have to enforce a bit of an arbitration the intent may have been too to get notice out early but this is kind of  paragraph we do not read to be in any one requirement it was a one time thing that we did when the ordinance was adopted and actually in our initial chart of proposals we we propose that that be deleted it was a one time thing and we did it and so it should be deleted while i seem to recall the discussion then i will have to look at the minutes again but i think the whole idea is to get people to come in consistently i believe that's why we we put it each year thereafter but without having looked at the minutes that this is where my concern is we're trying to get people to come in and we're trying to get them to comply we tell them to chair we just done that if we if we put in the wording on page twenty two we're doing that we're saying come in and comply for the next six months then i've done it right people aren't coming in and it's not because they don't know we never ever ever ever hear someone saying i didn't know i needed a permit and they  know they waited so they didn't get delayed didn't get caught or in some cases they don't meet the requirements of the permit they have too many bedrooms or there might be some other reason that they don't comply with their requirements but they know the legislature and somebody would make a statement that really resoundingly with me the the practice would be i would like mr chair would like the record to reflect miss cochran's words as though they were my own i'm trying to do what i think is right and somewhat fair i say somewhat fair because i think there are a lot of people have been pushing a whole lot of people's buttons around here by not following the law and i'm not here to clean up the mess that the people who have not been following the law have made for themselves imo i'm willing for a short period of time to relax things a little bit because i agree with you we want to get people into compliance but it hasn't worked very well so far we've got a whole lot of illegals out there and most of them probably know exactly what the hell they're doing so i 'm getting i don't i don't get to the end of my graciousness with very often but i'm real close so if if the committee would like to go back to the existing language i'm to go forward we have the language that we agreed on it appears that that's not going to there's no there's no changes being  supported but i would go ahead i would i would like to make a motion to support the recommendations from the department that was provided them testimony from this mclean yes section it says he's trying to find a care i think agreed to and pay and has paid i'm not sure why that what would come out i think it was important to the finest apartments that there be a reference to an agreement but that they would be agreeing to make this payment and that it wouldn't be a reassessment that would be the one thing that we would maybe recommend keeping in as far as the as far as that section on  i'm sorry it would be sorry he won b there's a bracketed agreed to pay and has and your greed to pay and has paid in full oh yeah if i were right what i would not want that removed a secondary will yeah i guess that's good any further comment i would i would leave i would take out the brackets on the on the last part of a as well so it continued to read for the entire period after going has been operated without a permit ye because everybody had a chance to read it and i would just add to my motion to allow the staff to make something we have like this space between tax and licenses are and there's a space needs to be a space between the word tax and licenses number a between two in february yeah know that that's a given that is not substantial changes department you're the one that's made the recommendation can you explain it for real quick i'm sorry which part of why you made the recommendations it's just to clarify so someone doesn't come in like we have some pending applications and so and the february fourth day is when this concept was first introduced and so we need to see that prior to that date and while they were operating they've been paying their a supplement to an application that we have so the they can't play catch up they need to have been following those rules so for the members of the t v audience short term rental home permit and the permit application may be process provided that at the time of the application the ineligible applicant has a provided proof that prior to february fourth two thousand sixteen and during the entire period that the applicant has been operating without a permit the applicant is to had valid general excise tax and transit accommodation tax licenses and has and then goes on to what we've already had paid all a couple general excise taxes and transit accommodation taxes due and owing and then be agreed to pay and has paid in full real property taxes at the rate a look at both the short term mental home properties and has claimed no homeowners exemption for the tax years and which the applicant has been operating without a permit and see ceased and then the new languages and does not resume prior to the issuance of a permit any and all advertising operations are the short term rental that is subject to the application so those are the things that the planning department wanted to tighten up on that agreed department members any questions on that time ok but you know as you said for the t v audience and those who are have may not have seen this this essentially puts into effect that six months of grace that we have been talking about and it does take start ups on the adoption of the ordinance correct mr hopper and just to be clear it's not really a grace period whatever you're still not allowed to operate you need to cease this is just gets rid of the five year ban yes of course if you are for six months first for six months and it allows you to apply but if you operate without a permit that that is evidence that can be a basis for denying your permit this  let you apply may not get a permit and the commission has nine permits in the past for noncompliance so that that's something that needs to be noted it's not a grace period in the sense that you can just operate without correct which is just it's just saying you may not but i just wanted to clarify on item b it's clear that that someone wanting to take advantage of this would have to pay the equivalent of what their back taxes would have been if they had claimed a homeowner's would they be able to also pay that amount and be eligible for this or if it is if they claim the exemption that they're not eligible what's the committee's you made the motion so what your thoughts on is if they're willing to pay that money than they would be eligible for them i thought is that if if they've had a homeowner's exemption and a homeowner's rate then they would give up the right calculation would be based on paid in full real property taxes at the rate up a couple to short term in a home properties period yeah the bit about not claiming home homeowners you take that out because if they agree to pay what it what it was and that means they lose their exemption they lose their homeowner's rate and they have to pay right now it says if you claim homeowner's exemption operated your tough luck what's the committee's i'm ok leaving it in there because that yeah makes it clear that if you have claimed homeowners and you're operating a s t r each year you're going to be paying the the it would be nice to see if you were that brazen to but no homeowner's exemption stated and then even if someone was paying their ged and was willing to pay their back property taxes if they claim the homeowner's exemption they wouldn't be able to come in and apply and what was amended well it it's the council's call if someone is willing to pay their rent property taxes and forgo whatever homeowners exemption they may have taken then they would still be eligible and over t thought that you want to correct all the taxes that will be a question that comes to us surround will come in and say here's my g t here's my tea eighty you know here's my check for my back taxes and we'll say oh you claim the homeowners exemption and bad we're not going to know oh if they're willing to or are they sorry that's a lot well actually it yeah but it also falls into the category of because we're saying if they're not they haven't paid their t t in g t they they get banned right this is know that the members have in their binders highlighted copy of my prose amendments and basically they're all focused on providing  eighty in the department and providing for ability to enforce the highlighted portion because of the amendment has a lot of underlined items on the front  the first page of amendment a first page is just reflective of we're trying to find it in our binders and mystery way of trying to find it's very close to the back three or four documents from the bac oh i see no we haven't and we know we didn't make any decision on that at this point we're leaving that in we we haven't even discussed that we discussed it a little bit but there was no motion or anything like that ok and we'll deal with that ok so this this amendment yes it is has been somewhat complicated because it starts you'll notice on the top part way down page two of my  chair white the question i have for you this is we have an item in in p c twenty six that is this item if i agree to commit to you that we're going to february i mean march the second meeting in march which we have to give up our other seven b discussion but i'm fine with doing that the second meeting in march that we right if that's that's one of the the reasons why it was a separate item because that's fine ok so members the way we have it now i believe we've because this bison had her yes mr ok aged twelve so you want to put in just number ten and take take for applications submitted after a sign statement yeah just say yes mr happy to make them the motion if you go to section i'm sorry page thirteen halfway down the page is an eight number eight so i move we insert a number nine to read for applications and i would like to take out submitted after december thirty first and just say for applications submitted this is a little bit confusing maybe we should we should let the idea is to have the have this form signed statement that they can sign and the language that says what's on the statement correct which is pretty much page and defeat is proposed to be and again this is something the budget you know would have to be done through the budget before it could be paid there's a couple of different options basically i would what would want to remind the committee that any fee a fee is not a penalty it's not a fine it's an after the fact fee would be still would be to reimburse the county for the expenses incurred through its staff to process the permit so if if the department had evidence that it would cost twenty five hundred dollars to process and after the fact fee then that's fine but when that she is established it can be no greater than what it would cost a department to process the fees and only that's done through either a study and with the department could do for after the fact versus before the fact fees is say we'll recover twenty percent of our costs on a normal permit we're going to recover up to one hundred percent of our costs on the on on an after the fact fee but we're just generally caution that numbers like this would still need to be the most the county could charge would have to be the amount that it would cost the department to process the permit so i don't think there's a problem with the stablish in after the fact feeder when that actual number is there that would be need to be kept in mind in these actual numbers here i'm not sure if there are that there would be accurate as far as the department's expense to process the permit yes i agree the right it's ok any other questions concerns yes muskoka i just think it should be more like a fine or penalty we can't we can only do one thousand fines kick in until the time they stop they're still subject to those fines and that that process the problem is when you impose a fine they're entitled to a hearing a fee they're not entitled to any such hearing in the fee is going to be you've got to pay it because it's just reimbursing the department for its costs so you're absolutely right you can impose a fine but that's through the end of the process and that can be done if someone's operating illegally this doesn't change that that's definitely true ok well that's good  in the comments and the other comment is share that there's so many changes here i'm just really shocked that you want to just push this through without having the final i haven't i'm not jewish yet so i'm not finished so hold your shock question so all those in favor please say i all are opposed but the records show that it's five guys to excuse mr guzman and mr victory  we are as mr cochran says there are too many things here that have gotten tweaked so unfortunately our next meeting is scheduled for when march third i'm going to recess this meeting to march third recess and he objections to that you know we lost an hour with testimony so we know what the testimony is if anybody has any written testimony they know what's going to have it we're going to get this posted as soon as possible and will accept written testimony but i want to get this done on march third we're going to recess this meeting until march third