COM 0118.026 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Shintani, Earlanne From: Thomas E Burton [tburton@brahea.com] ~ L: j' Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:54 PM , 70: Fred Holschuh - rv, Subject: Comments on Bill 49 Draft 3 as presented in Pepeekeo on 16 Sep - r\~ Dear Fred, First, congratulations on your landslide victory. Running unopposed is best, but cruising to a landslide is not bad either. r.J I want to thank you and the rest of the county employees for the effort to explain Bill 49 to us. Most of it is pretty clear to me, and what I understand seems fair and reasonable. There is one source of great confusion. I'll address that in the next section. In the following section I'll make a suggestion about the related topic discussed at the end of our meeting: offering the homeowner class to the dwelling occupied by the landowner. ONE SOURCE OF CONFUSION The way this law works with tenant farmers confuses me greatly. The presentation started out on firm ground: the tax classifications go with the land. That statement seemed clear: The $2000 threshold criterion far commercial agriculture applies to the land, and therefore to the owner of that land. If the owner operates farms on several parcels, then this criterion applies to the owner's entire operation. The clarity evaporated when questions started: What about one owner's operation with several small tenants? What about a small land-owner leasing his small parcel to a large farming operation which farms many parcels? How is the criterion applied? Confusion grew when someone said "it depends on whether the lease contract is written to pass the taxes onto the tenant". (Gosh, that might have been you.) Soon I was totally confused. My suggestion is, Stick to your guns: "the tax classification goes with the land." That means that the criterion of $2000 is applied to the person responsible for paying the taxes to County: the owner. Then it's the OWNER'S farming operation that counts. The owner should supply evidence of $2000 or more gross sales on his set of ag parcels. If she leases a portion of a parcel, an entire parcel, or several parcels, then she must obtain the gross-sales evidence from the tenant(s) and pass it onto the state. For this reason, it makes sense for the owner to pass along the cost of taxes to the tenant: it gives the tenant incentive to cooperate with owner and cough up the sales receipts, because if he doesn't, the consequent higher taxes are passed onto him. Tenants or no, it's the owner who transmits the taxes to the County. The County should deal only with the owner; tenants are in the background. And the criterion should be applied to the OWNER'S business. The scope of the tenant(s)' business(es) should not enter the picture. The other interpretations are too confusing. That's my view. THE HOMEOWNER CLASS ON AG LAND As I suggested to you outside after the meeting, I favor an amendment to the fair-minded notion that aowner-resident of a home on ag land (and possibly the owner-landlord of a farm worker living and working on that land-I'll avoid this issue) should enjoy the benefit of the homeowner classification: half off the tax on the home. I propose that this benefit be capped at, say $200,000, for homes built on land taking advantage of ag tax rates. Thus, an owner-resident of a home assessed at $400,000 would receive full Q Comm. No. ~ o'Zb Ref. To: (i Ref. Uate