������Ƶ

This past week, the state House of Representatives voted to decrease Oahu’s share of the Transient Accommodations Tax from 44.1 percent to 30 percent, claiming it is time to revisit each county’s share of the TAT. By any criteria, allocating only 30 percent to Oahu is absurd. I voted against the measure.

Oahu generates the highest total in tourism-related revenues. Over 60 percent of tourists to Hawaii visit Oahu, spending 46 percent of all visitor days here — almost as many visitor days spent on all the neighbor islands combined. Oahu is also home to about half of all transient accommodations units, including 61 percent of all hotel rooms.

With all this activity comes a significant burden in terms of services, and Oahu spends almost as much on visitors as all the other counties combined.  In fact, Honolulu spends approximately $116 million on visitors but only receives $41 million from its share of the TAT, or about 35 percent of its total expenditures. Oahu taxpayers had to fund the remaining nearly $75 million in visitor expenses.

By comparison, neighbor island counties combined spent $120 million and received about $52 million in TAT revenues or about 43 percent of their expenditures — 8 percent higher than Oahu. Neighbor island taxpayers were responsible for $68 million in visitor expenses, which is almost $7 million less than Oahu taxpayers.

In other words, based on visitor expenditures and revenues, Honolulu should actually receive more than 44.1 percent of TAT revenues!

However, as a representative answerable to the entire state, I believe that it is in our collective best interests to keep county allocations at their current percentages. Neighbor island counties are putting their TAT revenues to good use in support of the visitor industry. But if others continue to push to take TAT revenue from Oahu in order to increase the shares to the other counties, I will fight to protect the interests of the residents of Oahu.

Neighbor islands support keeping the current division of the TAT. Kauai receives 14.5 percent, Hawaii County 18.6 percent, Maui County 22.8 percent, and the remaining 44.1 percent goes to Oahu. It has been this way since 1993, and it works.

The argument that Oahu should get less TAT because it enjoys the benefits of the Convention Center is also incorrect. The Convention Center barely survives economically on Oahu and would fail on any of the other islands. The Legislature determined that this is the only place the Convention Center can be located.

And with the “benefits” of the Convention Center come significant burdens. For example, when the 2011 APEC Convention was held in Honolulu, the city spent approximately $13 million to support it, none of which was reimbursed by the state or federal government.

Finally, neighbor island counties support keeping the current division of the TAT. Currently Kauai receives 14.5 percent, Hawaii County 18.6 percent, Maui County 22.8 percent, and the remaining 44.1 percent goes to Oahu. It has been this way since 1993, and it works.

So why mess with the percentage that each county receives when none are asking for a higher percentage? We have to mess with it because of the cap placed on the neighbor islands’ and Oahu’s share of the TAT. All they’re asking for is that the cap be lifted.

In this debate, let’s stay focused on the merits of that issue.