COM 0118.032 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pepe'ekco Community Meeting September 16, 2004 Bill 49, Dr. 3, Agricultural Land'faxation At this point, Ur. Holschuh turned the proceedings over to Mr. Takaba, who stated concern that the public attendees at the meeting in Waimea were not aware of the changes in the law, and he would like to take the opportunity to explain them. He referred to Comm. 1 18.23, a document prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office, which contains on page two, as Exhibit A, the Agricultural Use Codes and Kates. Mr. Takaba stated that the Agricultural community as a group had not had an opportunity to give their input to the process. He said there is a lot of misinformation out there; that it is okay if the community does not like the bill, but they are mistakenly judging something that is not in existence. At this time Mr. Takaba brought forth a handout of the major proposals in Bill 49, containing nine points for discussion (see Comm. 118.24). He went over these nine points and answered various questions from the attendees. He pointed out that the definition for commercial Ag usc, which is not currently in the Chapter, has been added, and that the land must be in commercial Ag activity to quality for the 10-year dedication benefits. Mr. Johnston expressed concern for those farmers and Native I lawaiians who barter their crops or who grow their crops for sustenance. Mr. Takaba replied the bill states the required annual amount to claim Agricultural use can he in dollars or worth and that a County representative will go out to inspect the operation to ensure there is truly a farm operation. He stated if the farm is just starting or if it can be proven that the land is required to he fallow, as long as standard farm practices are being followed, it would be acceptable. The Schedule F will not be required in these instances. Ms. Anderson asked similar questions regarding the $2,000 annual income requirement. What would Ure County ask for prool? Mr. Takai stated the County would use its judgement when it reviews farm plans. Anew submittal will not be required every year. Only if challenged or complaints by neighbors. He stated the Tax Office will require a representative with agricultural expertise to help them determine proper usc. Dr. I~olschuh asked if the certification could be considered a farm plan. Mr. 'Cakaba explained that the certification might be an initial step in this direction. The County would have a certification by a farmer that they will be doing these activities. If there is a question about the use, a Schedule F may be required. Dr. Holschuh stated that the overwhelming majority of people are honest and they would be able to write down what they're going to do and the County could take their word. Mc Takai clarified there is a form each for non-dedicated and dedicated Ag use. If the farmer is asking for Ag benefits for the first time, a form would have to be filled out, and an assessor would he sent out to determine if the land is in the proper use. The form is the trigger to the Tax Office that they need to go and verify the use. There was discussion on dedicating Ag use on Residential zoned properties. Mr. 'Takaba stated that now you can dedicate Residential property to Ag, with no parcel size specification, but that the new proposal would require the land to be zoned Agricultural to qualify for Ag dedication, or be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Mr. l~akamura stated that in numbers one, two and three in the handout, you have to dedicate to get the rate. and you must be in commercial use activity to qualify as well. Yage 2