COM 0118.043 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

8-04; 1~:34AM;1B085283463 ~BOB5283483 # 5/ t0 If lionorabl James Y. Arakaki, C'hainnan, and Members' County C until I Novcmbc 10.2004 ~ i i _ Page 5 since pl ntation agriculture closed across the State. The current large amounts of vacant, viable ,I agrcul al lands, in our mind, is more a function of the lack of qualified farmers than of ' Lando rs "land banking" lands. Moreover, land banking agricultural lands for future I I agricul~ al uses ,~hould be encouraged as a matter of policy rather than discouraged through punittvt; real property tax policies. Thtoq gut th~ 'seussions on agricultural real property taxes, it is important to understand t),raY ~ real p~ , erty tax s are intended to pay for municipal services. These services inclu a police, fire, sewer, ~ ater, etc., that are provided by the County. There needs to be a nexus betwAen the taxes being 1~ d and the services being received for the property being taxed. For example, residential propert s should, be taxed at a level proportionate to the demands they place on the municipal services in the case of agricultural lands, it is difficult to find that rational nexus to', justify a large to base, as agricultural users usually have little or no impact on municipal services. I In additi n, historically, the real property tax system was used as an "enforcement tool" to make Lando rs comply with agricultural uses. However, in today's world, the real property tax systems ould not be used as an enforcement tool for land use. If the land is zoned for agricul a but is not being used for agriculture, then the remedy is to pursue the matter as a zoning 'olation, not through some type of punitive taxation policy. Allowing agricultural land' ' to lie fal ow, particularly after scores of years of intensive plantation cultivation, is riot I necessa ly a bad thing. The federal government pays fanners across the Midwest a~td elsewhere unrlxr m lti-year,contracts not to grow crops. Finallypp hen I a peered before this Council's Finance Committee in August, the question was ii I j posed rle azding ow best to create a tax system that addresses the problem of gentlemen estates in the, ~ icultural district. The focus historically has been on attempting to define "farming," and if ` antleme~r estates" were not farming, they would be assessed accordingly..q. differer4t ; i I appro~~ may be, to focus on improved value on the property rather than the agricul}T,_val use of I the prop rty. Mtich of the concern we have heazd deals with the large and expensive homes ~ being c strutted on the agricultural zoned lands. The County may consider setting some I threshdl based on the value of the improvements made on the property that is reasonable to ~ allow fo active agricultural users who have a residence on their property. Howeve~, as home improve ent values exceed this threshold, the homeowner would be taxed at a higher rate. As a su gestion, we propose that the Council consider the following: 1. rid two new classes of lands (Section 19-53 (e)) under agriculture called utlusable or aste lands and vacant lands. Allow the Council to set a special rate for waste or usable and vacant agricultural lands. I li I i ~ ~l