COM 0042.027 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i- 3-05; 9:13AA~;iB085283463 100352~3J63 # y: y Honorable Petc Hoftinann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, and Members Committee on Planning January 3, ?005 ~ Page 4 3 ' • It is the proper role of the Legislature to establish the standards and criteria for important agricultural lands (IAL), following which it is incumbent upon the State to identify those lands which meet the criteria. Legislative proposals considered in the deliberations of the "Agriculture Working Group" and during the 2004 Session of the Legislature contemplated an important role for the Counties in designating IAL for identification by the Land Use Commission. We expect similar proposals to be reintroduced in the 2005 3 Session, and LURF will support them, as we did in 2004. However, the General Plan shoetld not attempt to preempt the Legislature by identifying ]AL. Drafts 1 and 3 contain references to "important agricultural lands" which skirt close to suggesting that the County has already made this identification. • From the overall perspective of consistency in planning and implementation, the County's real property tax assessments need to reflect what is discussed in the General Plan. For ~ example, if the intent is to encourage and support agriculture, then the real property ~ taxation policy and practice should reflect the need to tax agricultural lands at a realistic assessed value and rate that is indicative of agricultural use. A policy of assessing agricultural lands at "fair mazket value" based on comparable sales is not consistent with i the objective of preserving and enhancing the agricultural industry, unless of course the + real intent is only to protect open space, and not support agriculture. In summary, we will be watching to see that the revised Genera] Plan becomes a meaningful guide to public-private investment in the region, rather than a regulatory document requiring individual project consistency with the Plan and developer responsibility for concurrency of ~ infrastructure as preconditions to future development approvals. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this matter, and look forward to further + discussions with the Council regarding the General Plan Revision Program for the County of Hawaii. f