Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0387.000 2000-2002 Jet".®F M~& Harry Kim ~ William Takaba Muyor Director r; -r Nancy E. Crawford +y.~~w`M"`,~P~ Deput}' Director ~r~ os•H~,•a~ County of ~-Iawaii Finance Departanent 25 Aupuni Street, Room ] l8 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8234 • Fax (808)961-8248 October 8, 2001 The Honorable Chairman James Y. Arakaki and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members: Bnclosed is a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 19, Article 11, Section 19- 90(g) of the Hawaii County Code relating to the minimum tax. On June 28, 2001 Mayor Harry Kim requested that the County Council defer action on Bill 93 relating to the minimum tax. The deferral was requested to enable Mayor Kim and his staff to gather data and develop a proposal that would address the following issues: • What is an appropriate, fair, and equitable minimum tax amount; • How to structure any increase to mitigate the impact on senior citizens on fixed income, the disabled, and low-income residents; • Minimum tax for useless land inundated by lava; and • Minimum tax on the land assessment of Hawaiian Home Lands residential leases. Research Conc9ucted. Staff of the finance department began its work by researching and analyzing the following: • The Hawaii State Constitution; • Various reports by the Hawaii Tax Review Commission; • Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code; • The County's operating budgets for various years; • The U.S. Census reports for the years 1990 and 2000; Comm. No. ~i ~ File No. Ref, fio: Ref. Date QC~ 2 ~C101 The Honorable James Y. Arakaki and Members of the County Council Page 2 October 8, 2001 • Real property tax reports; • Testimony presented at Council meetings in Kona and Hilo; and • fetters written to the Council, Mayor, and media on the subject. IUleetings Meld. Additionally, numerous meetings were held with staff of the real property tax division, the Director of the Hawaii Tax Foundation, and individual members of the Council to discuss the subject. Guiding Principles. Based on what was found, it was determined that the minimum tax proposal must: • Be fair to all taxpayers; • Consider the resources of individuals affected; • Be simple to understand and easy to administer; • Consider the value of lava or unusable land; and • Enable taxpayers to share in the cost of government operations and services. IVlodels Considered. Five proposal models were then considered: 1. Assigning a fixed amount as the minimum tax Major advantages: easy to understand, easy to administer, minimal operational change. Major disadvantage: Does not consider the income or resources of the individual. 2. Assigning a fixed amount, with a lower minimum tax given to homeowners Major advantages: easy to understand, easy to administer, minor operational change, adds another benefit to the homeowner. Major disadvantage: Does not consider the income or resources of the individual. 3. Assigning a fixed amount, with exceptions based on the homeowner's adjusted prose income Major advantage: Considers the income of the individual. Major disadvantages: Difficult to administer, process is cumbersome, may lead to abuse, need more staff to carry out. 4. Assigning a fixed amount, with exceptions based on the value on the homeowner's improvements Major advantage: Considers the resources of the individual. The Honorable James Y. Arakaki and Members of the County Council Page 3 October 8, 2001 Major disadvantages: Harder to understand, may lead to more appeals, requires computer change, not a direct test of means. 5. Providing an additional exception for property covered woith lava Major advantage: Provides tax relief for property covered with lava and other unusable property. Major disadvantage: Less revenues to county. evaluations. Evaluations were based on how well each model addressed the issues and guiding principles above. The administration used the evaluations to select its proposal. Proposal Selected. The administration's proposal for the minimum tax combines models 4 and 5. The enclosed ordinance amends Section 19-90(g), increasing the minimum tax to ____100, with exceptions provided if: • the owner receives exemptions resulting in the minimum tax, and the value of the property's improvements is less than or equal to $75,000; or • the property is assessed at a market value of less than or equal to $500. Rationale for Selection. Real property taxes accounts for 60% of the county's General f=und budget and is a very significant source of its revenues. Services funded through real property taxes range from police and fire protection to park maintenance, recreation, and senior citizen activities. It costs the county $650 per resident to support the many services provided through real property taxes. As the cost of government rises and the population of the Big Island increases (23.6% since 1990), we must ensure that adequate funds are available to continue serving the needs of our residents. We believe that a minimum tax of $100 is reasonable considering the level of services now provided through real property taxes, and the need to at least retain this level as our population grows. The average real property tax bill in Hawaii County is $647. Exceptions to the minimum tax requirement are being proposed to hopefully address the needs of persons with limited resources and to recognize the inequity of increasing the minimum tax on properties with market values of less than $500, which includes land recently inundated by lava. The minimum tax on the land assessment of Hawaiian Home Lands (HHL) residential leases will not be treated as an exception. We plan to review the taxation of HHL leases as part of our comprehensive evaluation of the county's real property tax laws that is now taking place. The Honorable James Y. Arakaki and Members of the County Council Page 4 October 8, 2001 If this measure is approved, an additional $2.4 million in real property taxes will be generated for the County of Hawaii. Conclusion. The minimum tax for Hawaii County was last increased in 1990. We believe that this amendment is well justified and is one of several proposals for real property tax improvements that the administration will be offering in the months ahead. We would appreciate it very much if the department of finance would be allowed about twenty minutes to explain this proposal in greater detail when it is reviewed by your Finance Committee. Should you have any questions before then, do not hesitate to call me. Thank you very much. William Tak ba Director of Finance AP ROVED: Harry Mayor Enclosure