COM 0118.031 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ocean View Community Meeting September 21, 2004 Bill 49, Draft 3, Agriculhiral Land Taxation Mr. Tyler questioned why there would be any rollback tax penalty on non-dedicated Ag parcels. Mr. 'hakai stated there would only be a penalty if the property were subdivided into smaller parcels or if it were rezoned to anon-agricultural use, such as Residential. Discussion ensued regarding the different zoning districts and diffierent sizes of parcels and the what would be eligible and what types of changes would constitute a breach. The group discussed a situation in which grandparents or parents wished to subdivide a property to leave separate parcels to their children. It was stated that if the property was subdivided before the end of the dedication, there would be a breach. In addition. if the property were not being used for agricultural purposes for more that 12 consecutive months, a breach would occur. Mr. Tyler said if a family wanted to subdivide a property to disperse to their children, and the resulting separate lots were kept in Ag, a breach should not occur. If the property were changed to an urban-type use, then rollback penalties should be applied. He stated to force a family to keep a property in Ag use to avoid higher taxes and possible penalties is wrong. It would cause an unnecessary burden for the family to have to consider farming, coupled with the desire to pass the property to the children. Mr. Masuda suggested that Mr. "fyler propose an amendment to provide for this type of situation. He stated that if the property were subdivided, the owners would be subject to rollback penalties. He stated an example where a property of 9 acres was left in a trust to two girls. The parcel was broken and given two separate TMK's. He stated there was no provision for this type of situation in the proposal. Mr. Tyler stated he did want to make an amendment. He feels subdividing Ag parcels for family should not result in penalties. Ile stated it further complicates matters when the family's property is not in the Agriculturally zoned district. Discussion continued on the issue of subdividing Ag lots for the purpose of passing land on to children. Mr. Masuda suggested Mr. 'I~yler review HRS 247 as an example of language to amend Bill 49. Mr. 7~yler stated there should be no penalty if the properly remained in Ag use. Mr. Takai said if the property were in dedicated Ag use, there would not be a breach upon subdivision. Mr. Tyler moved into discussing "gentlemen fanners." 'these are property owners who purchase a parcel of high-value agriculturally zoned land and build amulti-million dollar house there. Mr. Tyler stated that if the portion of the property that is not the house site is in bona fide Ag use, they should be able to get the Ag rate on that portion, and the house site would be taxed separately. Mr..lacobson clarified his statement. Mr. 'fakaba stated they were not allowing that benefit in these instances as it leads to speculation. Mc 'Tyler questioned the fairness of this decision. He stated if the Ag use ceased, then they shouldn't get the Ag rate. Mr. Tyler then questioned why the Ag use was based on five acres of land. Mr. 'Takaba stated this provision is not a change from the current law. Mr. Oshiro asked him if we wanted to let people subdivide 5 acre Ag lots down to one acre lots. It defeats the purpose of protecting Ag lands. Mr. Tyler stated the County is trying to state what should be the minimum Ag lot size. He expressed confusion as to what is being taxed, the size of the lot or the use. Mr. Takaba clarified that Mr. Oshiro's statement concerned subdividing Ag parcels down to smaller lots. Mr. "Tyler stated that as Ag land value goes up, the tax office is looking at the size of die lot to qualify for Ag dedication. Mr. Takai stated that the Page 3