HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2023/05/02 (2022-2024) Committee on Finance
loth Session
Hawaii Civic Center
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
May 2, 2023
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at 2:40 p.m.,
ORDER: in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Acting Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member, Acting Chair
Ms. Cindy Evans, Vice Chair(via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member
Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member
Mr. Matt Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, Member(via videoconference from Hilo)
Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member(via videoconference from Hilo)
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member
Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later)
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.)
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Clerk, Communication 12.9.
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
Comm. 12.9: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: MARCH 16 —31, 2023
From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated April 12, 2023.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any questions, comments from members? Seeing
none, all in favor?
FC-10 May 2,2023
Vote on Comm. 12.9: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 12.9.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 13.9: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: MARCH 16 —31, 2023
From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 11, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Section 2-12.3 of the Hawaii County Code.
Vote on Comm. 13.9: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 13.9.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 14.5: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED
NOVEMBER 30, 2022
From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 5, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Section 6-6.3(h) of the Hawaii County Charter.
Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 14.5.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any comments or questions by members?
MS. EVANS: Chair. Hilo.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. Director? So, I'm just kind of curious because I'm new
at this, that it is May 2nd, and we're getting a report that's telling us about
November. Why does it take so long?
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address
the members of the Committee.)
Page 2
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. SAKO: So, I think we've talked at previous meetings about this. It's just been
taking our staff a little bit longer to go through some of the processes this year.
There's been a lot of things on our plate, so we've been helping other departments.
So, that's why you have four today. I believe we're caught up, and so we'll be
more on time in the future.
MS. EVANS: Good. Has there been any discussion about when there's a variance
between the estimates and the actual numbers? Because I'm looking at
percentages, and I'm looking at adjustments; I'm looking at year-to-date. Is there
anything that when it's unusual? Like if this month, the variance is over 10 percent,
we highlight it to the Council, and you know, explain why there's that much of a
kind of off what your estimate was. Do you do that?
MS. SAKO: No we don't, and part of that is because we look at the budget as on a
year-to-date basis. So, there are some expenditures that might not actually happen
till June, and they're not necessarily programed to happen 1/12 ' each month. So
there's different things, we might enter into certain recurrent contracts every July
for some departments. It might happen in December. So, we don't budget by
month, but rather on an annual basis.
MS. EVANS: So, if a department has expenses that are kind of out of control,
when would you kind of red-flag that? Would that be in the month of March
because you're heading up to June 30'', when would that happen?
MS. SAKO: We do review it regularly to find out if somebody's like way over and
we're not aware that they just encumbered the entire security contract, maybe.
Then we do bring that to their attention as well, and normally they're talking to us
at that point also. Because they know they cannot legally go over the budget. So,
we would be trying to take action already to help, you know, cure whatever issue
that is. Maybe a bid came in really high, but it's something we have to have.
MS. EVANS: Right. One more question about the actual revenue side. What if
your estimated revenues are falling way short?
MS. SAKO: Then there's provisions that we would come in before Council to
either reduce the budget or draw on the Budget Stabilization Fund, otherwise
known as our "Rainy Day Fund."
MS. EVANS: Okay, alright. Thank you very much. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any other members with questions,
comments? Hearing none, all in favor please say "aye."
Page 3
FC-10 May 2,2023
Vote on Comm. 14.5: The motion to close file on Comm. 14.5 was carried by the
Filed following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 14.6: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2022
From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 5, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Section 6-6.3(h) of the Hawaii County Charter.
Vote on Comm. 14.6: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 14.6.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 14.7: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED
JANUARY 31, 2023
From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 11, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Section 6-6.3(h) of the Hawaii County Charter.
Vote on Comm. 14.7: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 14.7.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 14.8: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 11, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Section 6-6.3(h) of the Hawaii County Charter.
Page 4
FC-10 May 2,2023
Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 14.8.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any comments or questions by members? Council
Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. This is a question for Director Sako. Are
you still there? Okay, great. Sorry, also being new, this is in the Mayor's
expenditures section. What is the Hawaii County `Trek the Trails' for $96,000 that
has not been expended at all this year? Is that expected to be expended? Is that for
an event?
MS. SAKO: I believe that's one of the newer grants that they received. And I
believe they do expect to expend it. If not this year, right after the beginning of the
fiscal year. But I think it's scheduled to all be spent before June 30''.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, because I didn't see it in the upcoming budget. Thank
you so much. Then the Game Management Advisory Committee's is also in that
section. Is that because that is a committee that is supported by the Mayor's
Office? Is that why that's in there?
MS. SAKO: That's correct. Yes.
MS. KAGIWADA: They have spent very little of their money. Is that because
they have not been meeting or have they just not needed that money?
MS. SAKO: I believe that's a fairly active commission. But you know, it depends
on when they meet and where the commissioners come from. So you know, they
may be doing Zoom, or they just may not have incurred a lot of milage or other
costs. I know some legislative sessions have been very active for them and they've
traveled to Oahu. I'm not sure that that happened this year. So, it just depends on
what's going on in that area.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. Those were my two questions. Thanks so much. I
yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any other questions, comments by
members? Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. Okay, so, I'm noticing on Police grants, the police you
know, most people look like they're pretty well on track getting to June 30'h in their
expenditures. But when you look at the Police grants, they haven't spent a lot.
MS. SAKO: So, it could be one of two things. One is they've spent it. A lot of
their grants actually cover overtime. Such as speed enforcement, cellphone
enforcement, those types of things. So, they might incur the overtime, but haven't
done the expenditure adjustment to get it into their grant account.
Page 5
FC-10 May 2,2023
Then, the other thing that sometimes happens, is our grants are for longer than one
year. So, it may be a two-year period that they're allowed to spend it over. Then
we have a lot of holidays coming up, like Memorial Day, graduations. Those are
sometimes when the DUI (Driving Under the Influence) checkpoints are more
active. So, it just depends on the timing.
MS. EVANS: It's just really interesting. Because like I said, I can just, you know,
look at some of these grants, like Distracting Driving, and they've only spent
10 percent.
MS. SAKO: I can follow-up with them.
MS. EVANS: You know, it's probably Priority Drug Analysis. Like zero has been
spent. I don't know that particular and just under the Police, I'm just looking at
Police grants, that's all. But it's just in terms of expenditures and your
appropriation amount. Then it looks like some of them are zero and some of them
have some but very little. It may be because of the transition to a new Police Chief,
but it'll be nice to point out to him that there looks like there's a pot of money in
there.
MS. SAKO: But we'll work with their team because it's possible that we haven't
moved all the expenditures to those grants either. Because like I said, a lot of those
grants, they do on overtime. So, would just get charged to the officers' normal
expenditure account.
MS. EVANS: Okay, alright. Thank you very much. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any other members in Hilo or Kona?
Seeing none. All in favor,please say "aye."
Vote on Comm. 14.8: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 14.8.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 60.1: THIRD QUARTER REPORT OF UNCAPITALIZED DONATIONS:
JANUARY—MARCH 2023
From Finance Director Deanna S. Sako, dated April 14, 2023, transmitting the above
report pursuant to Resolution Number 408-22.
Page 6
FC-10 May 2,2023
Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 60.1.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any comments or questions by members? Council
Chair Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to take a moment to mahalo all
the nonprofits, Federal and State agencies, and individuals that help us do our work
by making donations to the County.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. I did actually have a quick question for
Director Sako, and it's just about the title of the item. It's uncapitalized donations,
so could you explain that.
MS. SAKO: Sure. So, these are for items that are donated to the County that we do
not capitalize in our accounting records and track as an asset. Meaning like, if
someone gave a park bench, that's something that we would capitalize and keep in
our accounting records that we send down to Council every August so you can see
all the items the County is accountable for. But these are things that may be trips or
other consumable items that would not be tracked in such a way.
So, as you can tell from this report, we get quite a few of those. So, it's a way to
inform the Council without having to come to Council with a separate resolution for
each of these items. So, one resolution instead of 24.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Seeing no
other lights on, all in favor?
Vote on Comm. 60.1: The motion to close file on Comm. 60.1 was carried by the
Filed following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas
and Acting Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1.
Excused: None.
Comm. 231: SECOND QUARTER REPORT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER A
CONTRACT FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS: OCTOBER 1 —DECEMBER 31, 2022
From Human Resources Director Waylen L. K. Leopoldino, dated January 5, 2023,
transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.5 of the Hawaii County Code.
Page 7
FC-10 May 2,2023
Vote on Comm. 231: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 231.
Filed Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 231.1: THIRD QUARTER REPORT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER A
CONTRACT FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS: JANUARY 1 —MARCH 31, 2023
From Human Resources Director Waylen L. K. Leopoldino, dated March 31, 2023,
transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.5 of the Hawaii County
Code.
; and
Comm. 231.2: From Human Resources Director Waylen L. K. Leopoldino, dated April 20, 2023,
transmitting a correction to the second quarter report end date.
Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 231.1.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. Is Director Leopoldino in Chambers in Hilo?
CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, he is. He's coming forward right now.
MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Director,just looking at these two reports, I see
there is a contractor who appears in both quarter two and quarter three reports.
Second quarter of 2022-2023 and then third quarter of 2022-2023 fiscal year. Are
these people contracted for just short spurts—it looks like a month and then we do a
new contract again, or are we going to employ them? How is this working?
(Note: At this time, Director of Human Resources Waylen Leopoldino
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. LEOPOLDINO: Waylen Leopoldino, Director of Human Resources. It looks
like the Office of Housing and Community Development, it's dependent on
operational needs. So, it looks like they did have the same person contracted twice
with a break in service.
So, it looks like they needed an additional month for assistance in their existing
housing division. So, they did another contract for one month.
Page 8
FC-10 May 2,2023
MR. INABA: Okay, for these contracts are you, as the HR Director, consulted or
you gave approval, or is that just done with that office and their Corporation
Counsel?
MR. LEOPOLDINO: No, we do ours, Human Resources Classification and Pay
will do a review of the contract before we approve and move through the process.
MR. INABA: Okay, thank you so much, Director.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any other questions or comments by
members. Seeing no other lights on, all in favor, please say "aye.
Vote on Comm. 231.1: The motion to close file on Comm. 231.1 was carried by the
Filed following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions.
Res. 158-23: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR
AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR
CONTRACT FOR HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGERY FOR THE HAWAII
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a new four-year agreement with Pictometry
International Corp., with an estimated annual cost of$516,735.75, for access to
current imagery of subdivisions, businesses, developments, and roadways.
Reference: Comm. 262
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend adoption of
Res. 158-23. Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any other comments or questions by Council
Members? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair Galimba. Anyone from the
Police Department in Chambers in Kona?
MR. HENRICKS: No representatives here in Kona. Maybe on Zoom?
Page 9
FC-10 May 2,2023
MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: There was a question from someone of the
press, and I wanted to get a little bit of information. The B-52 is pretty clear.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Seeing no further questions or
comments, all in favor please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 158-23: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 158-23
(Approved) was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Res. 159-23: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, PURSUANT TO HAWAII REVISED STATUTES SECTION
46-7, FOR A GRANT TO THE HAWAII COUNTY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Allows for the receipt of$965,600 in federally-derived funds, which would be
used to assist individuals that have been adversely affected by the COVID-19
pandemic to enter, return to, or advance in high quality jobs.
Reference: Comm. 263
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend adoption of
Res. 159-23. Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any other questions or comments by members?
Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKEIWICZ: Thank you so much, Chair. Appreciate it. We have our new
Deputy Director for Research and Development, Frecia Cevallos, here in the
Gallery. Frecia, I wondered if you might come up and kind of speak to this
particular award. Almost$1 million to support economic recovery. So, exiting
opportunity for our County,just considering all the work that's happening with
R&D. So, if you could just provide a little bit more details and timelines so that
folks are aware of opportunities coming to them in the near future.
(Note: At this time, Research & Development Deputy Director Frecia
Cevallos came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
Page 10
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. CEVALLOS: Thank you. So, the timeframe for this particular Quest Fund is
for a year-and-a quarter. We anticipate 35 interns paid internships to be supported
by this fund, and we're looking at 180-day intern positions. Not housed within the
County in particular, but with our workforce development partners, such as
Goodwill Adult Dislocated Worker Programs.
Let's see, we are also looking to leverage our WIOA (Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act) funds as well to see how we can provide additional services for
the dislocated workers.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. I was just going to ask if WIOA was
involved in anyway. So, as more internship opportunities are available, will you
kindly let the Council know so we can make sure to promote these opportunities in
the community.
MS. CEVALLOS: Will do. Thank you.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much, and congratulations on this award.
Chair, I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you and congratulations, Deputy Director as
well.
CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, can I say something?
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Go ahead.
CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Just congratulations to Ms. Cevallos.
Congratulations to the position, Ma'am. I think Mr. Adams made a good decision
with you. You're excited?
MS. CEVALLOS: Yes, I'm very honored and excited. Thank you.
CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good. Well, I look forward to seeing what
you, and for the record, could you state what WIOA means for anyone in the public
who doesn't know what that means and for the transcription people.
MS. CEVALLOS: I believe it's Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.
CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yep. Thank you very much, thanks for
being here, Deputy Director. I yield Chair.
MS. CEVALLOS: Mahalo.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Okay, we're ready to take the vote. All those in favor
please say "aye."
Page 11
FC-10 May 2,2023
Vote on Res. 159-23: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 159-23
(Approved) was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no object from the Council Members, the
of Business: following item was taken out of order
Bill 45: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 22-63, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 2023
Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants —QUEST (Quality Jobs,
Equity, Strategy, and Training) Disaster Recovery account($965,000); and
appropriates the same to the QUEST Disaster Recovery account. Funds
would be used to assist individuals who have been adversely affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic to enter, return to, or advance in high quality jobs.
Reference: Comm. 263
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder (B/R)
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend passage of Bill 45
on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: And note, this is the companion bill to the
resolution that we just passed. Any comments or questions by members? In
Hilo? All in favor please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 45: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 45 on
(Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 12
FC-10 May 2,2023
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Motion passes. Moving to Bill 44. So, to note, I am
a co-introducer of this bill, but I can continue to Chair, if there are no objections.
Seeing none, next item, Bill 44.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business.
of Business:
STATEMENTS The Chair called Carolyn Pellett, who registered to comment on Bill 44
FROM THE (Comm. 218) and came forward when called by the Chair.
PUBLIC ON
BILL 44:
Bill 44: AMENDING CHAPTER 19, ARTICLES 1 AND 7, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY
CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO COMMUNITY
FOOD SUSTAINABILITY USE ASSESSMENTS AND NONDEDICATED
AGRICULTURE USE ASSESSMENTS
Seeks to implement recommendations of the Real Property Tax Review Working
Group and Agricultural Committee's September 2019 Final Report and the 2021
Annual Report of the Real Property Tax Board of Review by: establishing a sunset
date for the definition of"Nondedicated agricultural use assessment"; adding a new
definition for "Community food sustainability use"; establishing a sunset date for
Section 19-57 of the Hawaii County Code; and establishing a new section titled
"Community food sustainability use assessment".
Reference: Comm. 218
Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Galimba
Postponed: April 18, 2023
(Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba to recommend
passage of Bill 44 on first reading.)
(Note: The following from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, transmitting
proposed amendments to Bill 44, was circulated: Comm. 218.1 (dated May 1,
2023); also, Comm. 218.2 (dated May 1, 2023)transmitting supporting
documentation to Bill No. 43 and Bill No. 44.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. So, welcome back to Bill 44. This was part of
the conversation about the Real Property Tax working group and Ag Committee
report, which recommended modifications to both the long-term dedicated Ag
program and the nondedicated Ag program.
As I was working with my fellow Council Members, Council Member Galimba and
Council Member Richards prior and the Real Property Tax Office, you know, when
we were looking at what we wanted to do, we wanted to ensure, as I think,
everybody on the Council does, that the Ag tax programs were being used
Page 13
FC-10 May 2,2023
appropriately and not being abused based on we've all seen. But at the same time,
anybody who was legitimately farming or legitimately contributing to the food
systems had a pathway towards some sort of tax benefit.
I want to just really make a brief distinction between Bill 44 and Bill 43. So,
Bill 43 which moved on to Council has to do with dedications, and that's a
commitment of either ten years or three years to keep your property in that
agricultural uses in the categories that we allow.
Bill 44 with the community food sustainability assessment, it's a year-to-year thing.
It's not the same level of commitment, but we are trying to put some guardrails on
that in that you would need to have a farm plan or submit documentation. There
would be a financial threshold that you would have to meet in terms of either
donating food or selling food.
You would note on the commercial foods sustainability program, that pasturing is
not an option, and that's because that is the most frequent abuse, I think, of the
nondedicated Ag program is folks stick a fence around their property, throw a goat
on it and keep it as a pet and say that they're farming, and that's, you know, not the
type of thing that we want to give a tax credit for.
So, that's the purpose of the community food sustainability program, as something
different from the short and long-term dedicated programs. Now, I don't have
this is an idea, I'm not married to it. If there are concerns about it, I certainly,
don't—I'll leave it, you know, to the decision of the body as a whole, if they think
this is at all a good idea. I do have an amendment with the dates, but what I'd like
to do is actually, if it's okay with the Chair, invite Keita Jo and Lisa Miura,
Administrator for our RPT and Deputy Administrator. They did provide and it's in
your pinkies, a really nice overview of impacts as examples of these programs, and
I'll let them kind of go through that a little bit.
A little leeway here that we're going through all of these at one time,just because
the two bills are inter-related, and I believe they have to take a test tomorrow, so,
we wanted to have this presented today. Thank you. Administrator and Deputy
Administrator, take it away.
(Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura and
Deputy Administrator Keita Jo came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
MS. MIURA: Thank you, Lisa Miura, Real Property Tax Administrator. If we are
given the leeway, Keita is going through each of the slides, and I believe they are
setting it up so that we can run it from Hilo instead. There are several bills, so I just
want to clarify that the agricultural program, whether it's the short-term, long-term,
or nondedicated is very confusing. So, if any Council Members feel like we need to
cover a section or you need to clarify, please don't hesitate to stop us, because I'm
Page 14
FC-10 May 2,2023
anybody watching this is going to be equally confused. There're not just these
changes, but another bill is proposed. So, if at any point, Corporation Counsel feels
like we've gone beyond what can be discussed here, then let us know.
As Council Member Kimball pointed out, tomorrow Keita and I will try and be here
as soon as we can for the next bill that's showing up at Council, but we are required
to take an exam tomorrow morning that starts at 8:00 a.m. We have four hours for
it. Keita's a lot faster than me at finishing, because I read everything twice, and so
he may be here sooner than I am, but we will get here as soon as possible if you can
just push our bill to the end of your day tomorrow.
I don't see it up on our screen, so I'm not sure, Council Member Kimball, if it's
available or we're just going to read through it as is?
MS. KIMBALL: It should be available over there, if not, do we have it here? We
could put it up over here. Is Relley in the room over there?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, not right now, Chair.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Alright. So, Council Members you do have the slide deck
in your pinkie folder. We'll see if we can set up and run over here. But in the
interim, why don't you just go ahead, and we'll go from our printed sheets.
MR. JO: Keita Jo, Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator. What we've
prepared for you today is a few slides to walk through the various agricultural use
programs as both exist now and the fiscal impacts that they may have if the bills
were to move forward.
So, we have the long-term commercial agricultural use dedication. These are
changes that are being proposed in Bill 43 to change the ten-year existing
dedication that we have. Bill 43 also touches on short-term commercial agricultural
use dedication. So, creating that new three-year carve out as far as dedication.
Then Bill 44 today is the Community Food Sustainability Use Assessment, and this
includes language to phase out our existing nondedicated agricultural use program.
Then finally, I want to briefly cover our homeowners' program and the implications
of having both the homeowner's exemption as well as participating in an
agricultural use program.
So, the second slide you'll see covers our agricultural use benefits. This is an
estimation based on the current fiscal year or the fiscal year to be approved through
the budgetary process. But it assumes that the tax rates are not changing. So these
numbers could change a little bit if that were to occur.
Page 15
FC-10 May 2,2023
But currently, commercial agricultural use dedication, which is our ten-year
dedicated program provides $7.5 million in benefits. So, this is the difference
between what would be paid in taxes if properties were assessed at the market value
versus the discount that's being received in exchange for participating in one of
these programs.
So, we have 789 parcels participating in our current ten-year dedication. The
average benefit for each parcel is more than $9,500. That's the annual benefit.
This encompasses almost 240,000 acres across the island, and the average parcel
size for our dedicated program is 304 acres.
The nondedicated agricultural use benefit as it currently stands that may be
impacted by Bill 44, that provides $27.3 million in benefits across more than
7,800 parcels. The average benefit in this category is close to $3,500 in terms of a
reduced property tax liability. The total acreage is 278,000. So, it averages
35 acres per parcel. So, substantially smaller in size.
The next slide covers this transitional period. So, if the proposals are pushed
through Council; they're approved; once they're codified, the idea is that
individuals that are participating in our nondedicated agricultural use program,
that's the 7,800 parcels that are currently participating. There would be a decision
to be made, and that decision period would start September 2nd of 2024; run all the
way to September I" of 2025.
There're four choices that would impact an individual participating in that
nondedicated program. They'd have the choice of going to that long-term
commercial program, that ten-year dedication under Bill 43. They have a choice to
go to the short-term commercial agricultural use dedication, that's the three-year
dedication that's being added with Bill 43. Then the third choice is the community
food sustainability use assessment in Bill 44. Then they could choose to
discontinue their participation in these programs.
The next slide covers a brief timeline of how these different programs will impact
whether it comes to the application process, and then also when the tax benefits
would be received. So, as it stands now, and I believe the language may change in
terms of some of these dates, the nondedicated agricultural use program last
application would be received on September 1st, 2024. So, that would be the last
date an individual could apply for our nondedicated program as it exists today.
Then all the applications received after that point would either be for the short-term
agricultural use dedication, the ten-year dedication the community food
sustainability program. Applications will be received September 2nd 2024 moving
forward.
The division would have a review period. I believe the language may change to
extend the review period out to September 1" of 2027. That would allow the
division to go through all these applications, understanding that there's nearly
Page 16
FC-10 May 2,2023
71800 parcels that are participating in the nondedicated program. It will take the
division quite some time to review the applications; conduct site inspections. So,
that's why there's this long period of review that's occurring.
Come July 1st of, I believe it's going to change to July 1st of 2028. That's when the
nondedicated benefits that people were receiving, the 7,800 parcels, will stop
receiving that benefit, as of that date. So, moving forward from July 1st, 2028 on
they're either going to receive a benefit that's tied to the short-term Ag use
dedication, the community food sustainability assessment, or the dedicated ten-year.
So, that's that provision there. Lisa, did you want to add anything?
MS. MIURA: No, I believe the screens are probably going to be the most
confusing, and if nobody has questions, it might be because it's not really
understood. There should be questions. Some of the dates that are applicable on
here are when you're seeing the January 1st, 2026, is to the short-term agricultural
use.
So, I think it's important to remember that there are two bills, one's already passed
through Finance Committee, and today's discussion on the community food
sustainability use assessment is the one that would not kick in on the tax year for
those nondedicated Ag's until that 2028 tax year.
But if there's any questions regarding the slide or anything, I think it would be a
good stopping point to take that before the scenario starts to get even more
confusing. Okay, so everybody's got it.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any questions from members? Council
Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. I think I was maybe understanding this differently in
terms of having the sections be repealed. So, by having this September 1", 2024
date where no nondedicated Ag applications are to be accepted, at what point then
does the program itself end, or does it not?
MR. JO: So, that would be the July 1st, 2028. I believe there might be a floor
amendment coming in to modify that date. But the benefits would continue all the
way up until that point. So, if you're in nondedicated agricultural program, you'll
continue to receive that benefit until that point in time.
MS. MIURA: Council Member Kimball, are you there?
MR. INABA: She's here, yes. So, yeah, the question is that by September 1", 2024
close of an opportunity to apply, the furthest they could be out is 2028. Would that
be the nondedicated Ag program? Is that how it's ending or sunsetting or what is it
we're calling it?
MS. KIMBALL. Chair, if I may, I can respond.
Page 17
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. GALIMBA: Council member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: One of the things to there's a year-long period which people
can apply for the dedication or the nondedicated program starting September lst
ending July 31"the following year. After that time period elapses to apply, it takes
effect the next tax year, which starts in January. So, that's what gets a little wonky
with all of this. So, what's going to happen here is, it's going to take RPT a little
time to generate rules to start up the community food sustainability program.
To give them that break, for the nondedicated Ag program, they will not take any
more applications after the September date of 2024. So, those folks that had
applied for that previous year, they will have to then the next year apply for one of
the other programs. But we're going to hold them there in nondedicated Ag until
RPT has reviewed all of the previously nondedicated Ag applications; shifted them
to the other programs, and then we'll transition everybody over and end the
program in 2028.
MR. INABA: So, right now the nondedicated Ag program is a year-by-year
application? RPT?
MS. MIURA: Technically, it is a year-by-year program, but there are so many in
there. We don't require annual refilling's of it. We require refilings when the
property is sold, if there's a change in use; if we go by and we can't confirm from
the road or imagery that there's agricultural activity. But we don't have all 7,800
participants refile each year.
So, I don't know if this helps. So, let's say on August 31st, 2024 and I file a
nondedicated Ag, the way the amendments are written right now on the bill. I
understand that, if I come in August 31", 2024 and apply then I will have it for
2025. But if I don't reapply to one of these new programs in 2025, I will not
continue the nondedicated Ag value for the tax year 2026 forward. I believe that's
how the amendments are written.
MS. KIMBALL: That's correct.
MS. MIURA: That's correct? Okay.
MR. INABA: Then, I think I'll save my thoughts, so we can keep going through
the presentation. That's all I have for this. I thank you.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any others? Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Lisa, good to see you; Keita, thanks for being here. I
just have a clarifying question. When they apply, you mentioned they can begin to
apply on this date, but they can continue to apply throughout the course of that
entire year?
Page 18
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. MIURA: Which date were you referring to?
MS. LEE LOY: Let's start with the September 1st, will no longer accept
applications, but beginning on the 2nd, we will. I see this like Qs in a line of a ride.
Right, you get to ticket counter on September 2nd, I'm going to apply. Then you
have the fast lane, or you have the, you know, I'll get in the scary rollercoaster lane
or whatever, and we'll get shuttled into these different lanes, my question is, after
September 2nd, can they continue to apply or get in this ticket line throughout the
course of the year?
MS. MIURA: To the sustainable food program, yes. They no longer can apply for
the nondedicated Ag, which is the September 1"2024 cutoff.
MS. LEE LOY: Then the advantage to that, whether you come in in September or
April, right, is when we do the assessed values and when the triggers of your
benefit occur, correct?
MS. MIURA: Is the April you're referring to 2024 or April 2025? Okay, if you're
April 2024, then this hasn't kicked in yet. This new community food sustainability
use assessment. So, you would remain in the nondedicated Ag program. But you
would still have to reapply and tell us which way you're going to be looking at
going.
MS. LEE LOY: Got it.
MS. MIURA: From how we read the amendments and what the current bill is.
MS. LEE LOY: No, I get what you meant about it being kinda wonky, because
there's a fiscal year, there's a calendar year, and then there's any time of the year
you can get on this ride.
MS. KIMBALL: If I may add, Chair, a little bit more confusion to that? The
reason we kind of put everybody in a holding pen, if you will, then shift everybody
at one time once RPT has done all their reviews, is there is going to be a tax impact.
So, in order to make it fair, we didn't want people to have their tax shifted based on
when they did the application for the new program. Because then what you're
going to get is everybody waits till the very end and it's going to be a nightmare
mess. So, that the idea, you have this time period when everybody can apply to a
different program. Then once all of those have been reviewed, everybody shifts.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I get it. We will amend, we've got to let them set, right,
before we shuffle them into the right category. I'm going to reserve comment until
we get to the amendment, which I think actually helps set those dates where we can
begin to understand both Bill 43 and 44 better. Thank you. Thanks Lisa, thanks
Keita.
Page 19
FC-10 May 2,2023
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Do we have any other questions, comments at this
point? I think you can continue.
MR. JO: Alright. So, the next slide is the agricultural use benefits. I have four
different scenarios on this slide, and we're talking about a vacant parcel in
Scenario A. So, this is a 20-acre vacant parcel. There's no agricultural use benefit
whatsoever on this property. If that property were to be valued at$400,000, the
actual annual tax that would pay for this particular property would be $3,740.
In Scenario B, if this property is participating in our current nondedicated program,
the assessed value drops $400,000 to $60,000, and based on that assessed value, the
annual taxes would be $561. Below that you'll seethe savings. So, that results in
almost$3,200 savings. So, this shows you the benefit of our agricultural use
programs. It's not reducing a tax rate; it's reducing the value of the land that you're
being taxed on.
So, Scenario C is a 20-acre coffee farm just like Scenario B. If this particular
property went into the short-term dedication program under Bill 43, the assessed
land value would actually increase over Scenario B. It would go from $60,000 up
to $90,000. You'd still see an annual tax savings of$2,900 over doing no
agricultural use. It's just that the benefits is a little bit less in terms of that
particular property.
Scenario D is the Community Food Sustainability that's covered in Bill 44. That
takes a 30 percentage off of the market, right? So, if we have this $400,000
property, we take 30 percent of the value. That's the agricultural use assessment,
which is $120,000. The actual annual tax on that would be $1,122.00. You'd still
see a $2,600 savings over not participating in agricultural use. But it is an increase
over what the current scenario, which is Scenario B would be. Any questions?
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. I think the big question, I mean I can see Scenario A
and Scenario D are based on your market value, and that's like current sales that
you see in the neighborhood. But then Scenario B and C is assessed land value.
How do you determine an assessed land value when there's no, supposedly,
market?
MR. JO: So, in order to come up with an agricultural use value assessment, what
we do is we take a look at the net income that's produced by that particular
category. So, for example, coffee. How much would a 20-acre coffee farm net in
terms of income? What would be their net profit over that 20-acres? You take that
number, you divide it 20 acres, and you get a price per acre value. That's
associated with other types or orchard crops. So, you get kind of a general orchard
value. So, right now as the nondedicated agricultural use assessment stands, that's
pegged at$3,000 per acre is the net profit for a coffee
Page 20
FC-10 May 2,2023
These values are pegged to a State census, which has not been done for quite some
time. But as we understand, these actual agricultural use rates or values are
probably lower than what typically would occur on the market.
MS. EVANS: So, is this Department of Agriculture that tries to collect all that
data? So, do we do it by County or do we do it by State?
MR. JO: So, this would be the State as a whole.
MS. EVANS: So, they don't use it by our own County and what we produce? Our
Kona coffee for example. Is it at a much higher value maybe than another County?
MR. JO: You would think the difficulty is the amount of data that you can gather
based on the different crop types. So, coffee is considered an orchard crop, so it's
grouped in with other things like papaya and whatnot. The idea is to simplify it and
keep it very simple, easy to understand. But gaining that data across the whole state
or even specific to our island, becomes much more difficult because you don't have
a lot of data points.
MS. EVANS: Well, that makes a lot more sense now. Because I can understand
income is what you're basing the value of the land on versus, you know, what you
would sell on the market. Very interesting, especially when you look at short-term
dedication three years. Interesting, because I'm assuming, every year you're
adjusting the assessed land value based on coffee income?
MS. MIURA: No, so this hasn't been adjusted for many years. I'd have to look
back to see when it is, and when we do adjust it, it would come before County
Council. So, it's transparent to the public. We do have the—and they call it land
agricultural assessment rates, but it's really the assessment land value for
agriculture.
MS. EVANS: Okay, so do you ever review. I mean, what's your normal? You
review it?
MS. MIURA: We review it to see if there's any new data out there that we can
utilize and grab from to try and change the values. However, the last time it came
up, it was suggested to go up considerably, and that was before I even came into
Real Property Tax, so it's been over 13 years, and it would have driven orchids up
quite high. When they took a look at it, it didn't pass through Council.
So, it's not an easy thing to raise the values of agricultural land up, and we have to
look at it over the long-term and not the short-term. So, this year coffee might be
doing good, but mac nuts are really tanking because nobody's even buying it. They
can't even get people to come pick it.
Page 21
FC-10 May 2,2023
So, they do look at a lot of items over the years, and it's the same for the other
counties except when they go to percent of market. Because the market fluctuates
every year. That's something easier to track.
MS. EVANS: Sure, but okay, so does the actual onus is on the Council to be
looking at these numbers and see if we should adjust annually because there is an
annual adjustment being done through statistics by Department of Ag, or do we
wait for you to come to us and say, you know, we haven't raised anything in the last
15 years? There's been a trend, you know, the revenue has definitely always been
going up. We should probably readjust. How would that go?
MS. MIURA: Typically, we would come to you, to County Council to have it
adjusted, but it is not being figured out annually by the State. So, that's our first
issue. It is not a report that's being done to this degree of level annually by them,
and it was stopped a considerable number of years ago, and that's part of it. Now,
there's part of the agricultural industry that's coming back and there's data for it,
but not overall. We can follow-up on it. I mean, that came up years ago when we
researched it, and there was not enough data to increase or lower the actual
agricultural preferential use values.
MS. EVANS: So, it's just discretionary, whenever it happens, happens?
MS. MIURA: No, every several years we are supposed to take a look at it to see if
there's data there that we can come back to County Council for.
MS. EVANS: So, it is a requirement?
MS. MIURA: It is, but we have to provide enough data for you guys to make a
decision to change it.
MS. EVANS: Right if the data is not there you can't do it. Wow, alright, good to
know. Thank you. Appreciate it. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: First,just a quick clarifying question. So, for the long-term
dedication is that similar to Scenario C as well?
MR. JO: So, the long-term dedication, we're talking about the ten-year dedication,
which is an existing program, if you took half of Scenario Bso, you drop the
annual tax and divide that by two, that would be the actual annual tax for long-term
dedication. So, you'll note that on a smaller scale for a 20-acre coffee farm, locking
yourself in for a period of ten years and you weigh that against the tax benefits, it
might not be, you know, when someone's going through the decision-making
process, might not be worth it from a fiscal point of view to have a property locked
in for ten years.
Page 22
FC-10 May 2,2023
So, that's why we see the ten-year dedication on larger acreage above 50 acres; 100
acres, that's where you start to see enough of a financial benefit that outweighs
locking in that particular property for a period of ten years. By being in that
dedicated program, you can't sell the property for ten years; you can't subdivide for
ten years. So, there's some very specific criteria that would be considered breached
if you were to do those things.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, so you would have a lower tax rate than either C or D,
though, if you're locked in for long-term?
MR. JO: Correct.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you so much, I yield.
MS. MIURA: Just to clarify, it's not the tax rate that's lower, it's the value of that
land, right?
MS. KAGIWADA: Right. Sorry.
MS. MIURA: That's okay.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone else in Hilo? Council Member
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. You know, I would like to
mahalo whoever put this together. The bill's goods, sorry, but this communication
that we all got, and I'm hoping, okay, you do got it up. Because this is really
helpful, and I was laughing because I'm looking at the homeowner's exemption and
the homeowner's classification, this big disclaimer bar. "The homeowner
exemption & homeowner class are not the same. Homeowner class includes the 3%
CAP and the homeowner tax rate."
It does get a little confusing with the terminology. I think sometimes we know
what we're talking about, but the words that come out of our mouths don't always
add up to what you know it as, and I've had that problem my whole life. So, I just
appreciate you putting this forward.
I know we asked for some examples to help us understand what the impacts are
both County and for our community. So, thank you for putting this together. I
don't have any questions right not, but I just wanted to say that. Thank you.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Anyone else? I think you can continue.
MS. MIURA: I just want to clarify for the public who seen it. I don't know why it
looks so ugly on the screens, but I promise what we submit doesn't look that bad.
So, I don't know if it gets dumb down so if it goes online it can show up better.
Because when I'm watching stuff and I see the slides, and I'm like, why don't they
Page 23
FC-10 May 2,2023
submit something nicer? But I do promise, it did look a little bit better, and I give
Keita credit for coming up with these sides, because it's not easy.
As he gets into slide number 6 regarding home exemptions, this is something even
Council Member Sue Lee Loy has termed out after eight years, still have a lot of
confusion with. I know we do RPT 101 and 201 with Council, and this is still the
biggest issue that comes up. How come? And I'm like, remember this little
scenario. So, Keita will go through it more clearly.
This is another area, home exemptions, and when people sit there and go, "why did
the Tax Office make this so confusing? I'm going to say it was County Council
who has made so many changes to the Real Property Tax Code, and we only abide
by the County Code, which the only people who can change that is County Council.
They're done over the years, you know, for the constituents for various reasons.
But we are here to adhere to what Council approves in the changes, whether we
always agree with them or not.
MR. JO: Alright, here we go. Homeowner Exemption. So, again as Matt had
mentioned, homeowner's exemption and homeowner's class are not the same, so
let's decouple those two items. You can receive a homeowner's exemption which is
based off of your age and the fact that you are principally occupying your house.
The homeowner's exemption has different amounts based on your age, so if you're
under the age of 60, you get a $50,000 base amount. That amount is taken off your
total assessed value. Now, there's also another component to the homeowner's
exemption itself, and that's an additional 20 percent of the assessed value. So, you
take those two components, and you add the two. That is what's considered your
homeowner's exemption.
MS. MIURA: So, to clarify, I am 60 or under by a little bit. The max exemption I
could get for my house is $150,000. As long as I'm living there primarily. I'm not
going to get into short-term rental right now, that's a whole other issue, and my
property is valued at$500,000 or more. Because that up to $100,000 makes a big
difference. Lately, all our values are so high that it's not really making a difference.
But if I was 77-years-old, then the max I would be able to get if I had a property
valued at$500,000 or more would be $210,000. So, that's just the exemption side.
MR. JO: Okay, there's the other component to homeowner's exemption and
classification. The whole program as a whole, and that's the tax rate. That includes
two items. The first item is what's called a three percent cap, meaning that the
assessed value cannot increase any more than three percent in any successive year.
So, this is a huge benefit over the last two, three years when the market was really
robust, and values were going up. Individuals that were receiving the homeowner's
classification or homeowner's rate had that three percent cap. The other component
to that homeowner's classification is, as I mentioned, the tax rate, and that rate is
$6.15. So, it's a substantially lower rate.
Page 24
FC-10 May 2,2023
So, with both homeowner's exemption and the homeowner's classification, those
two components and you get a pretty substantial tax benefit. What prevents you
from participating in the homeowner's classification or getting that classification is
on the next slide. That is if you're participating in amongst other things, if you're
doing commercial activity.
But the dedicated agricultural use program, the nondedicated Ag program, and
native forest program. If you're participating in any of those three programs,
you're not eligible to receive that preferential tax rate. You don't get the three
percent cap. So, as the market increases, and your building becomes more valuable
over time, you're increasing with the market.
So that speaks to what's going to come up on Bill 28—is really focusing on when
someone's participating in both the homeowner's program and getting the
homeowner's exemption, what do we do about the classification? Okay, any
questions? Okay.
So, I'm going to go through a few scenarios on the next slide. There's Scenario E
through H, and this is really speaking to that agricultural use benefit parlayed with
the homeowner's program.
So, currently, in Scenario E, that represents somebody who has a house and land
that's worth $750,000. They are over the age of 60, so they're 61-years-old. If
they're just participating in the homeowner's program, their annual tax levy would
be $3,471.
Scenario F is if currently, if they're participating in the nondedicated Ag use
program as well as the homeowner's program. They lose that cap. So, if you look
at the bottom, there's an orange flag. Scenario E has Home, that means that means
it's the homeowner's tax rate. Scenario F is an agricultural tax rate. But if you
look at the assessed land value, you're going from $400,000 in Scenario E down to
$59,000 in Scenario F. So, that's that Ag benefit, right? You're getting a reduction
on the value of the land. But in exchange, you're pegged to a higher tax rate, that
agricultural rate. So, that particular individual, their annual tax that they're
participating in nondedicated and homeowner's program, their annual tax is
$2,270.18. They still save money based on that scenario over just participating in
the homeowner's program. So again, Scenario F is someone who's participating in
both the nondedicated and homeowner's program.
Scenario G is if Bill 44 passes, and that's the Community Food Sustainability
Program. So, if they move from the nondedicated Ag use and they go into the
homeowner's program, this particular scenario shows that their annual tax levy
would be $2,747.03. So, they're going to go up about$500 in taxes if Bill 44
passes.
Page 25
FC-10 May 2,2023
Scenario H is a combination of Bill 44 and Bill 28. If you recall, Bill 28 is the bill
that brings in that homeowner's tax classification if you're participating in Ag. So,
not only do you get the reduced assessed land value, you'll also get the preferential
homeowner's tax rate which is that$6.15. In that scenario, the annual taxes would
be $1,806.87. You'd be saving almost$500 more than how it exists in Scenario F,
currently.
MS. MIURA: So, this is why when Council calls and says they have an idea, we
get a little bit nervous, because there's a lot of implications, we have to try to figure
out how our system is going to handle. So, even us just doing on paper and Excel,
we have to make sure the system can apply it across the board. So, before we get
into the next page, is there any clarifications on this? Because this is another one
with a lot of numbers on here. But this is really just one scenario of what can
happen when Bill 44 is passed, and then later on if Bill 28 is passed which was
already advanced to Council.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have a question in Hilo.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair Galimba. Question, so
Scenario E, F, G, H, why is the assessed land value so low in Scenario F as
compared to E?
MR. JO: So, under Scenario E, because the property's participating in the
homeowner's program, it's assessed at the market value. So, this is assuming that
first year. Remember what we talked about on a few slides previously. There was
a scenario where we talked about the agricultural use value. So, that's where you're
dropping from $400,000 down to $59,800, between Scenario E and F.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, not clicking. Try again.
MR. JO: Okay.
MS. MIURA: So basically, Scenario E has no nondedicated Ag application or
they're not actually doing any nondedicated Ag. So, this is just as is,just
homeowner. Whereas Scenario F, they have a nondedicated Ag. We've approved
it, and they are participating in the homeowner program. What this tells you is how
things look currently.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then this is for 61, so this would
be for someone who owns a larger parcel, who's over the 60 thresholds in the, let
me get this right, homeowner's exemption, correct, not the classification?
MS. MIURA: Yes. No, right now, the way the current code sits, if you want to get
that lower ag land value for doing farming, you don't get the three percent cap and
the homeowner tax rate, which is what Bill 28 tries to address.
Page 26
FC-10 May 2,2023
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Then just to check because we had a
discussion and it is confusing, okay. Homeowner's classification does not apply in
F, because they've taken on the ag use in the homeowner program. So the tax rate
changed, yeah, from $6.15 to $9.35 per thousand in valuation.
MS. MIURA: Correct.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's a huge thing in the community is how
come you guys raised the tax rates, we didn't, they're still the same. Why is it
higher because the valuation went up. Just that piece has been big for community
understanding, yeah, from what I've seen.
MS. MIURA: You're right, that's definitely where the public has been very
frustrated because they feel like here we are farming and our taxes keep going up
because the improvement, the assessed building value continues to go up. They're
not protected by the three percent cap. So it's a choice they have to make, and on
the next page, Keita goes into because there's a lot of, we heard people say you're
double dipping if you give both. And so, we're trying to address that on the next
page as well, but before getting there we wanted to make sure if this one is
confusing, and it may make sense right here and tomorrow you might get back and
go what on earth did they say, and we can cover it again.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so then stepping forward to G. G is the
community food sustainability piece, which is Bill 44, and being in the
homeowner's program, and that bump up in the assessed land valuation.
MS. MIURA: Okay, so with the nondedicated Ag, you're at two times the
commercial rate, with Community food sustainability, Bill 44 is 30 percent of
market value. So, that's why you're seeing the assessed land bump up, and it's not
a nice round number because what our system has to do is for that 20 acres with the
house, you're taking 30 percent of the market value on the land for 19.75 acres.
The way the bill is written, it's a 100 percent market for the quarter acre where your
house resides. So, our system can do it, but it's not going to be a nice even number
that you're seeing on some of the others.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is that not going to be a pain in the ass for
your guys?
MS. MIURA: Well, they're all pains, but it's just what, you know, Council feels is
better for the public that we do, and Deanna is behind me in case she wants to say
something to that.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Well, I mean I'm looking at this and actually
you're showing an increase to the tax payer with this new Community Food
Sustainability Program, and then a savings on scenario H.
Page 27
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. MIURA: Yes, and that is because Bill 28 addresses the homeowner exemption
that if you have agriculture and you are living on the property, then you can get the
homeowner tax rate. So, all three of them, when you guys passed it before if I'm
not mistaken with the wording was that you wanted to see this all together and see
how they work. And so, that's why we have all these different scenarios.
I do want to clarify Community Food Sustainability and the 30 percent of market
value is something I believe Council Member Kimball got out of the
recommendation from the Agricultural Working Review Group.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so what I'm seeing from this. Bill 44
actually increases people's taxes; in this specific example you've given us. There's
actually an increase in taxes by $476 to the tax payer. Not to the County, to the tax
payer, correct? But if you tie it into Bill 28, all of a sudden, we have a substantial
savings, so is Bill 28 doing the savings?
MS. MIURA: Yes
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And it has nothing to do with Bill 44?
MS. MIURA: No.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you.
MS. MIURA: Can clarify just one little thing?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, of course.
MS. MIURA: Okay, so if you're in the nondedicated Ag program, you don't have
to go into Community Food Sustainability. You could go into the short-term
dedicated or the long-term dedicated, which I believe is what is trying to—it's just
another option. And we didn't provide all of those scenarios because it was already
a little bit confusing as it was, but I think Keita covered that on just the 20 acres
without the homeowner.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and I'm going to go back to the very
beginning of your slide deck. I'm looking over these different pages 1 and 2, but
what really caught my attention is both of these; their average acres being 304
acres, this is the amount of parcels divided by the amount of acres.
MS. MIURA: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So the average being 304 acres and the second
average being 35.4 acres. Really speaks to this is not your average land holder in
the County of Hawaii, this is fairly large holdings by a very small number of
people. Would that be an accurate ?
Page 28
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. MIURA: Well this is 7,800 parcels. So I'm not sure. I don't think we have
the number of how it increases and how many parcels are in there that are under 10
acres, and maybe that's something we need to provide so that you get in a better
idea of where the numbers are. I guess, are you trying to figure out for people who
have the homeowner's—what is their typical land size?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER:
Yes and no. I'm looking at the commercial ag use dedication for 10 years, Bill 43.
And just going by the total acres that we're considering across 789 parcels and your
average being 304 acres average per parcel, that just tells me we're not looking at—
these
tthese are not small farmers. Yeah, these are large landowners.
MS. MIURA: Correct, for the commercial, yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and then for the nondedicated ag use
benefit, Bill 44, 278,000 acres averaging at 35.4 acres per parcel. And of those
numbers, might be a little bit skewed, but it still speaks to the size of the parcels
we're really looking at and who's going to be affected by this. And it does bring
me back to that Tax Working Group Board Review, which was a certain number of
pretty large land owners, actually, yeah. Okay, that's all of my questions for now.
Thank you, and again, Keita, thank you for putting this together. I yield, Chair.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy, no? Anyone
else? Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Personally, I think the confusion is we just added a new category,
Community Food Sustainability. And I think when you have all the other ones, all
of a sudden, it's, does this apply or not apply. If I go this route, will that also be
applied. And that was where I was trying to wrap my head around the difference
between land use versus land use classification, and now it's not only that, it's a
homeowner's program, right. So we're not talking about—there's no slide that says
non-homeowner. Could you be a non-homeowner,just like plain old land with no
house on it and that's another scenario?
MS. MIURA: Yes, that would be page 5. That's just a 20-acre orchard, in this case
coffee-farm example. No house, no homeowner exemption with Bill 43 and 44.
MS. EVANS: Okay. For me when I look at new ideas like this, I always have to
go back to the purpose clause; what really was the intent of the bill. I was under the
impression that we really want to encourage people that might have 1, 2, 3, 5 acres,
who are having like so many citrus, and avocado, and amazing mango trees on their
property. Encouraging them to be part of the food sustainability that we really need
on our island. So trying to get them to you really have something of value, don't
let it just fall on the ground. Is there a way to get you value so you end up giving us
value. So to me, it was looking at it from, how do we incentivize the people with
small, small properties to be part of our food hubs, because I believe in legislature.
I haven't read the law, but I understand they improved more money for food hubs
Page 29
FC-10 May 2,2023
for our island. So we're going to have food hubs all around the island, well, we've
got to have produce coming into those food hubs. So that's kind of what I thought
this bill was about, but I would give it over to the authors of the bill, Council
Member Kimball and Galimba, to tell us and make sure that we stay with the intent
and achieves your intent. And I would look to you, to see if you think this would
achieve your intent. Thank you, I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I can respond to that. Thank you, Council Member Evans,
for actually kind of really eloquently saying what the intent was, and that's exactly
it. We're trying to incentivize people to contribute to our food systems by
providing a tax benefit. And just wanted to clarify for Council Member Kaneali`i-
Kleinfelder that, you know, the short-term program and the commercial food
sustainability program, well I should say the Commercial Food Sustainability
Program is less of a savings than people currently get under the nondedicated Ag
Program. Administrator Miura was correct, that's because I'm using the
recommendation in the tax report, which was to change it to 30 percent of the value
which Deputy Administrator will talk about next. But you really should be you're
comparing the nondedicated program to not having a program at all, and the
Community Food Sustainability Program to not having a program at all. It is
intentionally designed to be a little bit less of an incentive because we actually want
to push everybody to three- and ten-year dedication programs. This is just the last
little bucket, again, to incentivize participation in our food system by people that
could be, you know, contributing products from their property by donating it or
selling it to local markets. Thank you, Chair.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member
Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: I don't know if this is a question. But Lisa and or Keita, if I listen
to the author's intention, right, is to get kind of these left overs into either the ten-
or three-year program, and I'm looking at your slides. The kick is when you have a
house, right. So, if we want them to contribute to this food sustainability larger
goal of our state, they, actually, under Bill 44 if I'm reading this correctly and Lisa
or Keita help me; on slide 5, if you don't have a house under scenario D there's a
savings of about$2,600, but under scenario G it's when you have a house that it
increases your taxes. So the house seems to be—did I misunderstand that?
MS. MIURA: Yeah. So on page 5, you would be comparing scenario B as in boy
to scenario D as in David and you'll see that the annual tax does go up, whether you
have a house or not, right. So, you're seeing an increase just on the vacant land. I
think you're comparing the green highlighted with savings as comparing scenario D
as in David to A, which has no Ag at all.
MS. LEE LOY: Oh, no Ag?
Page 30
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. MIURA: Yeah.
MS. LEE LOY: Got it. Thank you. And so, it's either 800 properties or 7,800
properties that we're looking at for Bill 43 and 44,right? I'm just trying to simplify
it as best I can in my head. So on slide deck 2?
MS. MIURA: Yeah, it is sort of simplified. Other counties would say get rid of
nondedicated Ag and it's super simply, you just go straight to commercial, which
some counties have done. But I think the reality is we're too far down this path of
giving an agricultural use benefit, that it's really hard to pull away from without
most of you probably not getting re-elected again in the future to be the reality of it.
But most of the people in the Commercial Agricultural Use dedication is 100
percent; I wouldn't say 100 but there's always room for loophole, is legit. It's the
ones in this nondedicated agricultural use benefit, and I know there are people
watching this that worked in the County 20 years ago that are saying, " no that's not
true." I'm telling you when we find the loopholes and we find the people that have
the one sheep, the one goat, the one donkey; it's in this program. And so, to do
nothing is the easier option. However, it's not holding people to do what's right for
the island or for taxes, because they're getting a benefit that I mean if it's
Council's will that you get a benefit for having that one donkey and 10 acres that's
one thing, but the more I hear from people and Council is that's not what you feel
the Ag benefit is for. So, I'll just end it with that on my part.
MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Lisa, maybe offline you and I can have a conversation,
because what I also appreciated about your slide deck is kind of the applicability of
Bill 28 with 44 or 43. Then, that will all adjust based on age too, and so, as you
guys begin to kind of use this recipe book to come up with what we collect in taxes.
I think we would love to see offline, you know, how some of those age designations
also add benefit.
MS. MIURA: Okay. I'm not sure 1100 percent understand. So, yeah, we're here
for sure.
MS. LEE LOY: Great. Thanks, I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone else?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair Galimba?
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Lisa and Keita, this was really excellent. I really
appreciated how simple you made everything. I think the bills that were
introduced were a bit complex, you know, and very theoretical in nature until you
get down and dig into the numbers. And the scenarios really helped with that, and
when you layered the potential of different bills like 28 and 44 and what that could
Page 31
FC-10 May 2,2023
mean, that's really great. What I'm hearing is this is potentially our taxes; a carrot
or a stick, right, to incentivize the most productive use of land. So, I can
appreciate that, but with all the scenarios I want to make sure that I'm
understanding the full impact and implications, because we don't want to penalize
anybody that is looking to, in a meaningful way, contribute to our food eco-
system. Can I reach out to you folks to better understand potential implications for
my district? Understanding commercial, nondedicated Ag, and even the acreage
because every district is unique, and I want to be able to speak as much as possible
to the merits and potential consequences if we were moving forward with this
legislation, so folks are aware.
MS. MIURA: Absolutely, and I think looking at it from both yours and Council
Member Kaneali`i-KI einfelder's districts is very different than looking at it from
Council Member Evan's district or some of the West Hawaii Council Members.
Because when you look at that 30 percent of market value, there's a good chance
when we ran scenarios before that in your areas it actually ends up being lower
than what the nondedicated agricultural use value is because you figure at$3,000
an acre per orchard,people aren't dedicating it because their market values are
cheaper. And so that's been a complaint and that's where the percent of market
came from to try and make it more fair. Just a little tidbit. So we have no
problems, we just need to get through our exam tomorrow or you'll have new
people running real property.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Again, I really appreciate you folks taking the time to put
this information for us together. I'm going to be making sure that my constituents
tune into this presentation because it was really well done and I look forward to
working with you to come up with different scenarios for the impact on, you know,
the districts of Puna. Thank you, Chair. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you.
MS. MIURA: We do have one more slide to finish.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Yes, please continue with the final slide.
MS. MIURA: Okay.
MR. JO: Alright, we're going to make it a little bit more complicated. So, one of
the concerns with Bill 28 was this idea of what's called a double dip and it's really
tied to how we value the assessed land value when we're looking at it from an
agricultural perspective or versus a homeowner's perspective, right. The
homeowner's is typically at market value, whereas an Ag, it's a lower agricultural
value.
So, going back to a scenario where we have a property receiving the benefits from
Bill 43 and 28 if they're both implemented. So this is a long-term or short-term
commercial agricultural dedication whether it's three or ten years, they parlay that
Page 32
FC-10 May 2,2023
with the homeowner's program and they get the tax classification. The concern
was how we treat the home site. So the way that the program is written is we take
that 20 acres and we take 19.75 acres, and we charge it$4,500 per acre, which
would be an agricultural rate for orchard if it was participating in a short-term
commercial Ag use. Then, the quarter acre that's left over that the house sits on
would be assessed if it's participating in the Ag program at$500. Normally, on
that box on your right-hand side, if someone was participating in the homeowner's
program, that quarter acre would be assessed at the market value. So what's the
market value of half a quarter acre? $5,000 in this scenario and so, there was this
concern that if you parlay the tax class as well as the agricultural use and
someone's also getting a benefit on this home site that they wouldn't ordinarily get
if they were participating in the homeowner's program. So, it's kind of what do
you do with that home site? We took a look at this scenario, $400,000 20-acre
coffee orchard getting the homeowner's benefit. The difference between what
they would get under 43 and 28, if they were implemented to what some would say
it should be at market value, is $30, not all that significant.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Do we have any questions about the last slide or
comments? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I'm kind of going back to a
comment that Ms. Lee Loy said, she said it better than I did and maybe I'm not
getting it still, but Bill 44, scenario D, page 5, it's compared to, I'm trying to think
of our community, yeah. The more I'm thinking about it—I'm trying to
incentivize this and provide tax breaks. I'm thinking we're looking at someone
who is living on property and has an amount of acreage and is trying to run a farm,
that's what I was thinking in my head. That's kind of the people that I'm looking
to incentivize. When I look at these bills, I realize they're not helping these
people, and if that's the intention, that's the intention. And if we're looking at
larger pieces of land where our farming is happening, you're raising, you know, or
you're growing 50 acres of one of our crops you designate as, is that orchard
crops? Is that correct, intensive Ag orchards or diversified Ag? If we're just
looking to incentivize that, okay, but if we're trying to incentivize farmers who
own a home and have a property and are trying to grow 10 acres, 15 acres, there's
got to be more than 5 acres, right, to get into these programs, is that correct?
What's the minimum acreage?
MR. JO: Yeah, so for the dedicated program if you're looking at pasture 10 acre
minimum, if you're looking down at truck crops, yeah, I think you're looking at a
quarter acre, and then for orchard it's one acre. So that kind of gives you the
range. But I believe the Bill 44, the community food sustainability use allows for a
carve out if you don't meet those acreage requirements. You would provide farm
plans to help substantiate the commercial viability of that property. So you could
enter into that particular program if you're less than those acres.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I'm kind of back to
scenario D versus scenario H, non-homeowner, basically, with the same amount of
Page 33
FC-10 May 2,2023
land, correct? 20-acre parcel, 20-acre coffee farm, with or without a home
basically is what I'm seeing, right?
MS. MIURA: Okay, scenario D as compared to maybe scenario G. G has the
home without Bill 28 passing.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay, let's look at those two.
MS. MIURA: Okay.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So for scenario D, they're paying an annual
tax of$1122. Scenario G, as in golf, their taxes actually are lower than they would
be without the program, but they're increased over just nondedicated Ag use.
Maybe I got to go review this, I'm not getting it. But I just feel like we're not
helping the little farms.
MS. MIURA: I see what you're saying. It is going to be a lot of different
scenarios, because we picked a 28-acre parcel for $400,000, which is, you know,
to be honest it's going to be more than what you guys have in your guy's areas. 28
acres for $400,000 is probably not comment, and yet for West Hawaii, a 20-acre
farm in Holualoa is going to be way more than $400,000. So I understand you're
trying to find the balance, and maybe on that we do need to work with you
separately,just to see what would be more of the common.
I could be speaking out of turn so if Council Member Kimball wants to correct me.
I want to say the idea for the food sustainability isn't to make it cheaper or the
same, it's to encourage people to actually do community food sustainability. So,
you are going to get push back from people that are in pasture, right? They have
the horses, they've been getting it, so I think there's a lot of implications that's
going to happen, if it does get passed. Even when it comes to the dedicated
programs, there is the minimum sizes Keita spoke about, but I also recall and this
is where I need her to correct me if I'm wrong, that if they can prove through the
plan or their information that they may not need to have the minimum
requirements, but they'd really have to prove. So, like let's say they're growing
sprouts and they're not going to hit the quarter acre, they could get mushrooms is
another one that comes up so that their minimum size may not be met. But
Council Member Kimball, can I verify that with you?
MS. KIMBALL: Yes. That's correct, if the farm plan allows for a smaller acreage
and they can show that they are commercially viable on a smaller acreage, then the
standards can be adjusted.
MS. MIURA: But you're right, not everybody is going to save money with this.
Some people will go up at the 30 percent market, some are going to go down.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I guess, I am weighing the benefit of
what's going to happen, and we do have a lot on the table with three bills floating,
Page 34
FC-10 May 2,2023
all potentials. We're talking about all three although we're just talking about Bill
44 right now. I want the intent of this—when I read, "community food
sustainability use" assessment, that can apply to a lot of folks, but if we're trying to
push resiliency, sustainability, you know all these different things and key words
we like to promote, and we've used one in this section title then you got to make
sure your homeowners, your small farmers whether they just own land or they own
a home and land, or doing it all on one, they were helping them out. And if I'm
reading this wrong, I'm reading this wrong, but just from what I'm getting, that's
where I stand right now. But thank you. Thank you for helping me. Yeah, thank
you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to respond to Council
Member Kaneali`i-KI einfelder's comment and with all due respect, you're reading
it wrong. This is very much intended to continue to support our farmers, it's just
that with the nondedicated program that's where we see the abuse with the
gentlemen farms and what not. So, this body with respect to Bill 28 wanted a little
bit more assurances; these pair of bills, 43 and 44, do that. Most people in the
nondedicated program, I think, they're likely to shift into the short-term dedicated
program if they're engaged in any kind of commercial agriculture, and we had a lot
of way clause for them to demonstrate that that's what they are doing. We're
actually probably going to capture a few more people and incentivize folks, as
Council Member Evans suggested,just been letting fruit dry and die on their trees
and fall to the ground and not get used. If we can get them to start actually
collecting that food either selling it or donating it, then they might be able to take
advantage of this other program. I'm happy to talk with you a little bit more about
this offline and clarify where I think perhaps the misunderstanding is, it's really
about this homeowner piece and that's maybe not the correct issue. You are kind
of comparing apples to oranges, and I'm happy to spend some time offline to
clarify that with you further, if necessary. But I want to make sure and actually
also highlight the comment that Administrator Miura made, that with the 30
percent assessment rather than just the flat rates for ag use. The lower your land
value, so the areas of the island that have lower land values may actually see a
greater benefit than the areas that have the higher land values. And that was
intentional, like we wanted to build a little bit more fairness into the system
through that percentage mechanism. Thank you for the leeway, Chair. I yield.
MS. MIURA: If we're allowed to make one more comment before you wrap up?
I know everybody's really tired and you're pretty over all the numbers. When it
comes to implementing these changes with the exemption programs, so I'm not
talking about the guys that aren't living on the property, every single category will
result in some type of loss in revenue to real property taxes or a higher benefit to
the farmers. And so, we didn't have time yesterday to put this in writing to submit
with the slides, especially because the tax rates aren't final yet for 23 (2023). So
the total loss in revenue, if Bill 28, and Bill 43, and Bill 44 passed and assuming
people from the nondedicated Ag went all in, okay. Let's say they all left
Page 35
FC-10 May 2,2023
nondedicated Ag and they all miraculously were able to qualify for a program and
they were all doing legitimate community food sustainability, we would go down a
$1 million dollars approximately in revenue, and it's just a little bit more than that.
This is just kind of addressing the concern that you're going to see increases and,
again, this is only for the homeowner exemption programs; the ones that they have
on file, and they're already approved. If everybody said I'm going to go to short-
term Ag because my taxes would be even less, then the County would be at a loss
in revenue of approximately $1.7 million. If everybody qualified in nondedicated
Ag and went into that program, if you did no changes and only Bill 28 got
approved, then the total loss in revenue is $2.1 million. So, I think what we're
trying to say is with respect to the homeowners, the County will give more of a
benefit to the farmers where there are homeowners. The areas that are going to be
seeing it affected more is when there's no homeowner exemption. Did I do that
right? Thank you.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you,just wanted to clarify the information provided on page
9. I'm just wondering, it looks confusing, but I think what information is provided
in scenario I to compare how Bill 28, oh, it's scenario I(see Comm. 218.2), my
apologies, it's a new page. Okay, the net taxable is $266,500 in this example
without Bill 28 passing, but the actual tax bill would be $2,491, so if we were to
compare it to Bill 28's passing then the actual tax bill would be $1,638, so that is
what's factoring into that$2.1 million potential loss that you folks are talking
about, right? I'm just wanting to make sure that my colleagues are able to kind of
track side by side what Bill 28 would do to any property that is in the Ag program.
MR. JO: You are correct, the numbers provided by Lisa do speak to the
combination of Bill 43 and 28,providing that additional benefit. So dropping it
from almost$2,500 in annual taxes down to a little over $1,600.
MR. INABA: Okay, and what is that highlighted $27.68 difference?
MR. JO: That's the difference between taking $500 minus $4,500, the difference
between the market value and how it's actually calculated out; you multiply that by
the $6.15 to get the $27.68.
MR. INABA: What part of that or what bill is that?
MR. JO: So that would be a combination of Bill 43 and 28.
MR. INABA: Okay. I don't know that I'm following this example, but it's okay, I
think I can, for the most part, I'm understanding what's going on.
MS. MIURA: No, it's okay, because we're looking at two different things. So,
what we were trying to prove in this slide is there's been a lot of concern or some
concern from other Council Members and the public that if Bill 28 went through,
Page 36
FC-10 May 2,2023
then it's a double dip of savings and benefits to the tax paper, which isn't fair and
that what we need to do is go based on market value rather than just allow for the 3
percent assessment cap to occur. And so what Keita was trying to prove is your
$89,400 in land value is based on how the program is currently written, but the far
box on the right where it says $5,000 of market value is what your home site
would go up to so that in essence, gets rid of that double dipping theory. And so, it
can be done with a lot of work not just on our part but the system, but is it worth it
for Council to save the $27.00? So it's not speaking about your Bill 28 by itself,
it's Bill 28 with the double dip scenario, which we were trying to get the public to
see it's not so much a double dip when we really look at the numbers. Not so
much that Bill 28 is bad or anything, it's just that's just the difference if you made
our lives considerably harder by changing that quarter acre.
MR. INABA: Okay, got it, got it. Thank you. I'd like to see this conversation
kind of maybe tuned back in specifically to Bill 44 at this point. I think we've
gotten a good overview of the potential interplay with these three bills, but we
have Bill 44 on the agenda today and we can focus back in there, I think it would
be helpful to all of us. Chair, I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. At this time, I'd actually like to go forward
with the amendment. It's in your pinkie folder, it's Communication 218.1.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 44 with the contents
of Communication 218.1. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. This actually is mostly to clarify the dates in
the bill, and I think this actually speaks to how long because it's so complicated
how long this has actually been worked on, because by the time we finally got it
introduced none of the dates made sense. So you'll see to your previous question,
the whole Nondedicated Agricultural Use Program will be officially repealed as
of 2028, in that nobody will be getting that form of benefit anymore for this bill.
Although the point in which we start to stop taking applications is actually in
2024, it just takes that long to get to the tax year where we're actually not going to
see that happen. So by the time, the end of 2027 is when everybody will have to
have chosen a new program, RPT (Department of Real Property Tax )will have
to have reviewed all of the applications, people will be shuffled off into their
various tax programs, and then the Nondedicated Ag Program will be officially
sunsetted.
In addition to clarifying the date and the various timing aspects, we did actually
make that clarification that Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder requested last
time, which was to make it clear that here under Section 6 of the amendment that
it's clear that at least one of the documents is required, not all of the documents. I
Page 37
FC-10 May 2,2023
just wanted to make sure that was correctly understood. And then, we actually
brought in that language from the Commercial Ag bills that one of the
documentations that could be required is receipts demonstrating investment of a
minimum of$10,000 of farm equipment, fertilizers, or soil amendments for use
on the subject property. In the Commercial Ag bills, Bill 43, it was at$2,000,
we're bumping that up to $10,000 and, again, this is just a form of the multiple
forms of documentation available that people could use to show that they're
actually contributing to the Ag program. So, primarily, this amendment is about
the dates, but there are some clarifying language, there's also a few other
editorial amendments.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any questions on the amendment?
Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. I'm going to be supporting the amendment to
kind of get this bill to a Draft 2, specifically because the dates in the original one
makes it stale and it's not going to work. After we get to that, I think there's still,
and I get a sense from my colleagues that there's still a lot of questions out there,
especially how it impacts everybody's district. Clearly, there will be some
benefits to some but definitely some other tax hits to others. I know personally, I
want to have an offline conversation with Lisa and maybe even explore, not only
the impacts, the benefits, and the constraints, but take a look at and I'm hopeful
that Lisa and Keita can run some of the numbers of how it impacts the various
council districts. I think there's ways to do that, too. So for right now, supporting
the amendment, getting it to a place so that the dates are viable; however, going
forward I'm going to start asking for either a deferral and/or just maybe getting
everything caught up to one place so we can evaluate (Bills) 28, 42, and 44
altogether. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone else, Hilo, anyone there?
Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. Yes, I really appreciate the former Council Member
Lee Loy's comment that I like this amendment clarifying the dates, I think that's a
really good change. I do have some questions a little bit more on some of the
other things in this amendment, but I could save those until later, because I would
like to see a Draft 2, in front of me and compare it to (Bills) 28 and 44. And the
bigger question for me, if we get this passed this amendment, is going back to the
original one. The big question for me is do we treat each one individually and
just do this individually or should we really be looking at all three of them at the
same time. But that can be—we can talk about that later. Thank you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Yeah,just wanting to make sure in Section 2 of this amendment,
we say we're not going to be accepting new applications after September 1, 2024,
but in number (3) on page 2, you know what, no, I don't have a question. I was
Page 38
FC-10 May 2,2023
misreading, apologies. I guess,just one question,with the September 1, 2024
application close date, what is the reason for that, is it because we already started
allowing people to apply for that tax year, so we need to keep it open until then?
MS. KIMBALL: It's actually tied to the need to get rules in place in RPT to start
the other program. So, September of this year would be too soon. I think that if
the body ultimately decides to not continue with pursuing the Community Food
Sustainability Program and we're really just looking at the short-term program, no
I take that back, the short-term program is not going to be able to be eligible until
2024 either. So, that's why.
MR. INABA: That's the reason.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah.
MR. INABA: Okay, I couldn't find Bill 43 fast enough. Alright, thank you,
Chair. Iyield. I'll support this.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone in Hilo? Council Member
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. So I'm thinking back at
what you guys said, potential loss if Bill 28, 43, and 44 are implemented would be
a $1 million in revenue. These are numbers you just threw out or $1.7 million
under the short-term dedicated.
MS. MIURA: So, the short-term agriculture dedicated for $1.7 loss in revenue
would be if everybody currently in the Nondedicated Agricultural Program,
because that's going to be repealed at some point, when only to the short-term
agricultural dedicated program. We were trying to find the maximum dollar loss.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, and then the million in revenue
was?
MS. MIURA: If everybody went to the Community Food Sustainability Program
instead.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So if we did nothing, we'd be a
million plus in revenues. We change no bills, bills 28, 43, and 44 didn't make it,
what would happen, we sit as normal?
MS. MIURA: Yep, you sit as normal. So, it's not an increase, decrease, it just is
what it is.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So a million dollars in revenue stays in the
County?
Page 39
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. MIURA: Correct. This is just for the exemption loss, right. So I just want
to clarify, these numbers only apply if you have a homeowner exemption and
agriculture.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If we implement these bills, we lose a
million in revenue?
MS. MIURA: Correct, but the farmers get more of a benefit.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Okay, seeing no other comments or
questions, I would like to ask all in favor of the amendment to Bill 44, please say
Ic aye.
Vote on Motion to: The motion to amend Bill 44 with the contents of Comm. 218.1
Amend: was caried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee
Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Now onto the bill itself, as amended. I'm hearing
that we would like to potentially postpone or defer. Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'm happy to defer, if I could just hear from everybody
real quick if that's their preference to continue to leave it here in committee or
shift it in so it's next to Bill 43? It does get a little confusing to talk about them
all separately. I do think there is the—of the community food sustainability
question, it's an important one and I think we need to take our time on it and
again, if we want to just go to short-term, long-term dedicated Ag, I think that's a
perfectly viable option. To the issue at hand, is that the nondedicated program as
written is not working for us the way it's intended. So that needs to be corrected
one way or another. The other thing that I think is the threshold of$1,000 of
donation or sale of food, I think, that's a conversation that we need to have to,
whether that's the appropriate threshold. We just put in a number as a
placeholder, but I'd like to have a further dialogue, so with that I'll just ask if I
can quickly hear from my colleagues if you would like to postpone and if so, for
how long?
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I would like to see all three bills together
and have them in front of us. I think that's a good idea, it really gives us a better
Page 40
FC-10 May 2,2023
sense of the overall picture. So, my preference would be to hold off until we can
see all three of those together and I don't know, for speaking about some of the
things you mentioned. You know, my feeling is we need to get rid of the
Nondedicated Ag, we've heard that's where the issues we're having, where
people aren't doing Ag, but they're getting an ag benefit. So, I think it's really
important that we do move away from that, whether it's to only short-term, long-
term Commercial Ag or we have some other stepping stone like this Community
Sustainability Program. I think we have to get away from that Nondedicated Ag,
so. Those are my feelings, and happy to support postponing.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: On the merits and the idea that Bill 44 brings, I'm still unsure. I do
want to see it go in a Draft 2 form with Bill 43, so we can haveI don't
necessarily care to see them discussed with Bill 28, because Bill 28 and its
language is, like we talked about at the last meeting, is going to be dependent on
what if either of these 43 and 44 get passed. So for me, it's just having 43 and 44
side by side. So for that, I would like to see it move forward, and we can have it
both in Council for first reading, is that right? Yeah, thank you.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. In Hilo? Council Member Evans.
MS. EVANS: Thank you. Well, I can throw another confusion to this. I'd like
us to look at putting 44 aside for a while, I'd like us to look at 43 and 28, you
know, the community food sustainability has a lot of merit, in terms of what we're
aspiring to and why we're doing it. But, you know, I'd like to see it totally
separated from 43 and 28. Because I think 43 and 28 is more down to what we do
today, this is how we run things today and let's address how we do it today. If
we're going to add a whole new other idea into the mix, which is community food
sustainability, I'd just like to see them separated out. So, again, this is the third
option I'm throwing out, so I don't know where you're going to go, Chair
Kimball, but that's my take. I yield.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member
Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: I actually have a question for Clerk Henricks. I'm wondering if
we can re-refer 43 back to the Finance Committee tomorrow and then we would
have both 43 and 44 together in Finance. Is that an option for us?
(Note: At this time, County Clerk Jon Henricks came forward to address the
members of the Committee.)
MR. HENRICKS: Yes, you can. You can make a motion to refer Bill 43 to
Committee, not today, tomorrow.
Page 41
FC-10 May 2,2023
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Tomorrow when we hear Bill 43, we can make a motion
to refer it back to Committee. In which case at some later date we could review
both 44 and 43 together in Committee, you know, that's my sense of where the
work should be done, personally. So, I'm willing to throw that out there as a way
to keep the discussion alive on the two bills together.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, Council Member
Inaba.
MR. INABA: I appreciate Council Chair Kimball's creativity, but then we're
going to have to hear it one more time. So, I'd rather just see this move forward
and if the Council doesn't like it at any form, the Council can do what it wants
and dispose of the bill at first reading is my thought. So, I'd rather just see this go
on and not send something else backwards.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Any other Council Member? Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Wow, talk about clear as mud. At first off, I want to just give
credit where credit is due. Chair Kimball bit off a topic and a sphere of highly
technical expertise in working with the tax office. Thank you, guys, for creating
these scenarios that made it easier to look at what would be affected, how it would
be affected, and at what capacities. I, myself, am fine to bring it back and then in
our next Committee meetings to have both of these side by side in order for us to
look through them just to do it all in Committee, but if the will of the body is to
move it forward and then we do it side by side in Council, that's okay too. So, I
kind of feel like we're at six one and a half a dozen of the other right now. Yeah,
and I suppose I'm a little bit curious. Chair Galimba, for when you want to share
your thoughts before we go to the vote, because you were a part of this legislation
as well, correct?
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Correct.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, yeah,just kind of hear what you're thinking and feeling.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Okay, thanks. So, I guess, on the three bills at this
point, I think they actually work together really well. On the one hand, Bills 43
and 44 sort of make the commercial agricultural dedications more rigorous, sunset
the nondedicated, and also leave a less rigorous program for folks that want to
sort of get started in agriculture is kind of how I'm looking at it. Then, if Bill 28
actually really helps the folks living on their land and doing agriculture to get
some more of the benefit that possibly some of them might have lost in
transitioning from a nondedicated to a community sustainability classification.
How that's going to work on each particular piece could be a little bit different
depending on all the different variables that were hinted at by our Administrator
(Lisa Miura) and Deputy Administrator (Keita Jo). So, I can completely
understand people wanting more time to look at how it would impact their
particular districts. Given all of that, for me, I think I would like to move it
Page 42
•
-
FC-10 May 2,2023
forward so that they can both be in Council and if we decide that some or all of it
doesn't work, we can always vote it down. That is my feeling.
So, any other comments and if not, I would take the vote to move Bill 44 forward
with a favorable recommendation as amended. All in favor, please say"aye."
Any opposed?
Vote on Bill 44: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 44, as amended
(Draft 2) to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following
(Approved) roll call vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:59 p.m., Ms. Villegas moved to adjourn
MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba,
Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and
Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Inaba and Kierkiewicz—2.
Excused: None.
ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Motion to adjourn with nine ayes.
Approved:
Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kle nfelder, Chair (Date)
Finance Committee
MK/dt
Page 43