COM 0426.006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Agricultural tourism is an innovative concept. The marrying of agriculture and tourism is important for the following reasons: a) consumers become educated about the growing, processing and selling of the agricultural commodities that they purchase; b) farmers and/or processors become educated about the wants and needs of consumers about their specific commodity or commodities; c) agricultural tourism will increase the revenues of the farming enterprises, resulting in more collectable taxes for the government and d) agricultural tourism will require trained guides and salespersons, thereby possibly increasing the labor pool. For the year 2003, as reported by the Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service, there were 89 farms in this county with agricultural tourism activity with an estimated value of $12.6 million. About one-half of those farms were engaged in growing coffee and/or macadamia nuts and the balance growing flowers and/or nursery products. During that same year, 65 more farms in this county were planning to enter the agricultural tourism market in the future. Statewide, in 2003, there were 187 farms with agricultural tourism activity with an estimated value of $33.9 million. The County of Hawaii accounted for 48% of the farms with agricultural tourism activity and 37% of the total value. Therefore, it can be concluded that agricultural tourism is becoming a vital economics tool for farmers and it will also become another important revenue source for the county. In that light, an ordinance that encourages, rather than discourages, the use of agricultural land in non-traditional ways would be a benefit not only to the farming community, bul also to the County of Hawaii. The Big lsland Farm Bureau is in support of the current draft of Bill 148 as written, except for the following: I. Under Section 25-2-75, the plan approval application requirements should also include a notification about the proposed agricultural tourism activity to all parties who may be affected, using the criteria set forth in Chapter 25, Section 25 E-4 of the Hawaii County Code. However, no public hearing should be required and the affected parties should be given a specific timeline in which to file comments to the Planning Director. Another condition to the plan approval application requirements should be an on-site inspection of the subject parcel of land by Planning Department personnel to verify the validity of the proposed agricultural tourism activity. 2. Under Section 25-4-15 (d) (1), the minimum amount of verifiable gross sales should be changed from $10,000 to a value that is commensurate with the land area and the type of crop produced. For example, according to the Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service, in the 2003-2004 crop year, one acre of macadamia nuts produced $1,800 worth of wet-in-shell nuts and one acre of Kona coffee produced $5,700 worth of cherry. Other crops produce different average gross incomes per acre per year. Depending on the area of the parcel of land in question and the type of crop produced, the gross sales will vary substantially, therefore, an across-the- board fixed value cannot be assigned equitably. On the other hand, a parcel of land with newly-planted macadamia nut trees will not produce any income for at least five years and not reach its maximum yield for at least ten to fifteen years. Thus, using strictly an income basis to determine the validity of an agricultural tourism activity is wtally without merit. An income tax Schedule F form should also be required to verify the income status of the agricultural operation. ]n closing, the Big Island Farm Bureau requests the members of the Planning Committee adopt tha current draft of Bil] 148 relating to agricultural tourism with the aforementioned revisions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue. Sincerely, Howard T. Yamasaki President