COM 0118.032 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pepdekeo Community Meeting September 16. 2004 Bill 49, Dr. 3, Agricultural Land Taxation A question was asked on the repercussions of a property owner in the case of a dedication breach by a lessee. Mr. Takaba replied that the primary farmer is identified in the dedication and farm plan and he would be subject to the provisions of the dedication. The dedication pertains to the property, not the person. Further, it was asked if the owner could continue with the dedication if they lose the primary farmer. Mr. "i akai and Mr. Takaba stated the dedication would continue, as long as the proper use continued. Dr. Holschuh asked what would happen if a farmer was inflicted with an intermittent disability; he could farm for a length of time, then he couldn't for a length of time, and so-on. Mr. Takai stated they would have to have a physician's statement, and this would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Anderson asked who would be responsible for the dedication on larger parcels with many lessees who hold leases of different lengths. He wondered who would apply for the dedication. "1'he farmer- lessees live on the land, and at the end of the lease, the owner sometimes has difficulty finding a new lessee. Ile stated the dedication program becomes contusing in this situation. Mr. Takai stated that in this situation, the landowner would he ultimately responsible for the dedication, as he is the manager of the situation on the property. A question was asked if the owner could prove the operation was making the required $2,000 per year, would it matter if a portion of the property goes out of use. Mr. Tulang expressed the importance of providing for fallow land. He stated to maintain a viable agricultural operation, there must always be a portion tallow. At this time, Mr. Johnson stated that the revisions in the bill were good; they have no impact on his situation, and he had to leave. He suggested that the annual income requirement for a commercial operation of $2,000 is too lenient. It takes from the intent to put more land into agriculture. I Ie stated further that farm dwellings need to be inspected. If the buildings are being rented or leased to the farmers working on the leased land which they're living on, then the Ag use rate should apply; if they are working a neighboring land or elsewhere, they are just renters, and this is not Ag use. Mr. Oshiro asked if the Ag use rate would apply if the dwelling is rented to a farm hand, rather than the lessee living in a dwelling. Mr. 'Takaba stated that providing for renting to farm hands is not a part of the current proposal, but there has been discussion on the subject. Mr. Johnson asked if there had ever been discussion on a 5-year Ag dedication. The answer was no. Mr. Smith expressed concern with page 18 ofthe bill, subsection (f)(1)(B). He felt that the need for the farmer to "petition" for a change in use is too severe. "fhe disposition of the entire subsection seems insensitive to farmers. If the farmer wants to change the type of crop on his land, he should be able to just nobly the Tax Oftice of the change in use, not to ask permission through a petition for change of use. He feels the language in this subsection should be changed to reflect more cooperation with the agricultural community. Mr. Takai responded that this subsection pertained to a time when there was a long list of Ag uses. He feels it is appropriate now to change the language in this subsection. However_ he stated the 'l'ax C)ttice must know, because some crop changes require a conversion period to be included in the dedication. He stated some use changes require a 2-year conversion period. Page 5