Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0624.003 2002-2004 Shintani, Earlanne - i From: Amaury [amaury@lava.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:02 PM C~~ly fl'~ 1 r] (U~ q 1 C) To: fholschuh@interpac.net Subject: tax appeal /view point ~ COUPS ( ' L""_I ATT00002.htm1 For FRED HOLSCHUH and all County Council Members: I am also sending along under a separate email the resolution that was passed Saturday in Waimea at the Democratic Party County Convention.That resolution was passed and we're hoping for positive and meaningful action on it soon. Thanks for taking a look. PAUL BRYANT 880-1444 I hope the newspaper can run this as a VIEWPOINT article: Thank you. PAUL BRYANT Many affected by recent reassessments of their farm/homesteads are wondering what the best answer is? Personally, I'm hoping all affected parties have spent the required fifteen dollars to file appeals but the real answer is probably not just those appeals but what and how we will be (dis)served by our county council and the county tax office in the future. In 2003 my 12.06 acre sheep ranch was market valued at $86,900 with an assessed valuation at 1/8th that figure or $6,800. In 2004 the market value went to $134,700 (a 55% increase) while the assessed value went to $45,700 (a nearly 600% increase over the previous year!) NOTE: This 2004 assessed value is almost half the 2003 market value and nearly 1/3rd the 2004 market value. Neighbors having almost equal acreage WITH similar agricultural dedications (but no homes as yet) are allowed extremely low assessed value figures (averaging 199-215 per A). They have the same sort agricultural land (with AG-20 zoning) with poor quality pasture that I have. Since farm dwellings are an approved use for ANY agricultural parcel, I've suggested in my appeal to the tax office that, at most, my assessed value equal that of comparable neighbors: i.e., $199/A or $2400 for my 12.06 A. This figure should further consider that portion of my property given over to federally approved and in place practices for conservation (ponds; diversions for rain runoff; windbreaks; access road; fence lines; etc.) which would delete approximately 2 A from my 12.06 A and thus lower the above figure to $2000. As my farm dwelling is not a separate house lot and CANNOT be separated from the rest of the property (rules of AG-20 zoning) the tax offices so-called 'house lot' has then NO additional value! As for building value, I would guess replacement value is approximately $80,000 since the house is only 60'70% complete, and since I have NO intentions of selling my farm and home -its value is a moot point in any discussion. Page two of three Comm. No. Ref. To: PreNttfel It's also my opinion that with over two decades having elapsed Ref. Uote MAY 1 9 7004 since county rule #7 was written, this intervening period fails to meet normal legal expectations of enactmenUenforcement and these rule(s) are dead from atrophied neglect! To resurrect such outdated laws almost twenty years after being originally presented is an affront to every property owner who has purchased land in the intervening time. I venture to say that perhaps these rules, should they remain in effect, will spawn a flurry of well-deserved lawsuits against every seller and the county for non-disclosure of this very important factor before effecting the sale. I should think every office handling any aspect of land sales would be calling their legal counsel so as to be prepared for the onslaught that will surely follow should these rules not be disallowed promptly! But how can this situation be rectified without causing undue hardship especially on the farming portion of our community? I have several ideas that hopefully can be the basis for a review and reworking of the Hawaii county tax code. Council members might begin to pay special note from here, beginning to think outside their normal boxed mindset(s). Bona fide farmsteads must not be burdened to prove their home and acreage should not be value compared to small acreage house-lots even within the same community. I suggest that from the moment any house, farm or property is put onto the realty market for public sale, the county be given the right to start assessing a tax suitable to the type of property or home based upon its full market value. If that property has a time framed dedication that is being reneged upon, then retroactive tax figures could be construed and applied. New owner(s) would not be able to reconfigure their purchase (read market here) value downward and any newly assessed valuation will be based upon actual purchase price modified by the real (not intended) use of their acreage. Notification of the tax map key number by the registering realty agent to the county tax office would seem an easy step to making this a practical system. And should the sales be handled completely privately, then a rule could denote the first day of January of the sale year (or even the prior year) as being the starting date for assessed values to be readjusted for tax purposes. A not perfect solution perhaps but at least a step toward making an equitable system where those who benefit from selling their property are part of the solution vis a vis paying a fair share of the tax burden. Page three of three And throughout the county we have landowners who have fenced parcels that are low-end taxed because they have said 'that land is pasture!' But the truth is, never do they have any animals in residence therein barring the occasional wild pig and an ever-growing mongoose population. It would seem that county assessors would do well to be keeping an eye out for such parcels of questionable use and make sure the owners are not banking that land in hopes of a future payoff when a sale is made. Agriculture is supposed to be a valued component of our county and should be both applauded and supported, but those skirting these land use laws are no better than common thieves taking from the public good for their own benefit. I know many are upset with current assessments but what we need is for elected officials on ALL levels of county government to rethink and redo tax rules so those who've been part of the revitalization of diversified agricultural do not shoulder the burden of this unfair and certainly unequal taxation. Be assured that if the county continues with this patently prejudiced, capricious and arbitrary application of an outdated set of rules so late in the game, it will be vigorously assailed and appealed by many beside myself. PAUL BRYANT / Papa'a Loa 2 Mr. Bryant moved to the Big Island in 1990 developing a sheep ranch in the Hamakua district as well as a gallery in West Hawaii. Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 I Virus Database: 428 -Release Date: 4/21104 3 Many affected by recent reassessments of their farm/homesteads are wondering what the best answer is? Personally, I'm hoping all affected parties have spent the required fifteen dollars to file appeals but the real answer is probably not just those appeals but what and how we will be (dis)served by our county council and the county tax office in the future. In 2003 my 12.06 acre sheep ranch was market valued at $86,900 with an assessed valuation at 1/8`h that figure or $6,800. In 2004 the market value went to $134,700 (a 55% increase) while the assessed value went to $45,700 (a nearly 600% increase over the previous year!) NOTE: This 2004 assessed value is almost half the 2003 market value and nearl;~ 1/3rd the 2004 ~..arket value. Neighbors having almost equal acreage WITH similar agricultural dedications (but no homes as yet) are allowed extremely low assessed value figures (averaging 199215 per A). They have the same sort agricultural land (with AG-20 zoning) with poor qualitypasture that I have. Since farm dwellings are an approved use for ANY agricultural parcel, I've suggested in my appeal to the tax office that, at most, my assessed value equal that of comparable neighbors: i.e., $199/A or $2400 for my 12.06 A. This figure should further consider that portion of my property given over to federally approved and in place practices for conservation (ponds; diversions for rain runoff; windbreaks; access road; fence lines; etc.) which would delete approximately 2 A from my 12.06 A and thus lower the above figure to $2000. As my farm dwelling is not a separate house lot and CANNOT be separated from the rest of the property (rules of AG-20 zonings the tax offices so-called `house lot' has then NO additional value! As for building value, I would guess replacement value is approximately $80,000 since the house is only 6070% complete, and since I have NO intentions of selling my farm and home -its value is a moot point in any discussion. ~ C r, C CD ` _ - C7 Page two of three It's also my opinion that with over two decades having elapsed since county rule #7 was written, this intervening period fails to meet normal legal expectations of enactment/enforcement and these rule(s) are dead from atrophied neglect! To resurrect such outdated laws almost twenty years after being originally presented is an affront to every property owner who has purchased land in the intervening time. I venture to say that perhaps these rules, should they remain in effect, will spawn a flurry ofwell-deserved lawsuits against every seller and the county for non-disclosure of this very important factor before effecting the sale. I should think every office handling any aspect of land sales would be calling their legal counsel so as to be prepared for the onslaught that will surely follow should these rules not be disallowed promptly! But how can this situation be rectified without causing undue hardship especially on the farming portion of our community? I have several ideas that hopefully can be the basis for a review and reworking of the Hawaii county tax code. Council members might begin to pay special note from here, beginning to think outside their normal boxed mindset(s). Bona fide farmsteads must not be burdened to prove their home and acreage should not be value compared to small acreage house-lots even within the same community. I suggest that from the moment any house, farm or property is put onto the realty market for public sale, the county be given the right to start assessing a tax suitable to the type of property or home based upon its full market value. If that property has a time framed dedication that is being reneged upon, then retroactive tax figures could be construed and applied. New owner(s) would not be able to reconfigure their purchase (read mazket here) value downwazd and any newly assessed valuation will be based upon actual purchase price madified by the real (not intended) use of their acreage. Notification of the tax map key number by the registering realty agent to the county tax office would seem an easy step to making this a practical system. And should the sales be handled completely privately, then a rule could denote the first day of January of the sale year (or even the prior year) as being the starting date for assessed values to be readjusted for tax purposes. A not perfect solution perhaps but at least a step toward making an equitable system where those who benefit from selling their property are part of the solution vis a vis paying a fair share of the tax burden. Page three of three And throughout the county we have landowners who have fenced parcels that are low-end taxed because they have said `that land is pasture!' But the truth is, never do they have any animals in residence therein barring the occasional wild pig and anever-growing mongoose population. It would seem that county assessors would do well to be keeping an eye out for such parcels of questionable use and make sure the owners are not banking that land in hopes of a future payoff when a sale is made. Agriculture is supposed to be a valued component of our county and should be both applauded and supported, but those skirting these land use laws are no better than common thieves taking from the public good for their own benefit. I know many are upset with current assessments but what we need is for elected officials on ALL levels of county government to rethink and redo tax rules so those who've been part of the revitalization of diversified agricultural do not shoulder the burden of this unfair and certainly unequal taxation. Be assured that if the county continues with this patently prejudiced, capricious and arbitrary application of an outdated set of rules so late in the game, it will be vigorously assailed and appealed by many beside myself. PAUL BRYANT / Papa'a Loa I'm sending each member of the county council a copy of the letter I sent to the local press. I hope you will give some consideration to its message. Thank you. PAUL BRYANT P.O.Box 201 Papa'a Loa 96780 ~,a~ ~ ig~