HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0577.001 2002-2004 ~~a~
Tyler, Curtis
From: caber [caber@kona.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:49 AM
To: Harry Kim; Tyler, Curtis r
Subject: Agricultural Property Tax Rate / `~~e ~ tax
A1100001.htm
To: Harry Kim, Mayor
Curtis Tyler, Council Member
From: John Bertrand (caber@kona.net)
Re: Reassessment of Agricultural Property Homes
Earlier (Nov. 3rd) I contacted you with some ideas about the revision of the property tax system. As a sidenote 1 indicated
that we all have a responsibility to pay a fair share of the tax burden and I was not unhappy with our present taxes. The
new reassessment policy has changed that situation a lot.
We have a home on 8 acres of agricultural zoned land. The increase due to the revised policy about assessing homes on
ag land has resulted in a projected $600+ increase in taxes, with almost no underlying change in market values. It is not
just the fact of a substantial increase that is at issue. If I understand the situation, it is the basic unfairness of (a) adjusting
the assessment of the dwelling site to the level of residential properties, while (b) applying a tax rate almost double (based
on this year's rates) the residential rate to both the site and the structures. If the county is going to treat farm dwellings like
residential property it simply must do it in a rational manner and do it completely.
I understand that the tax rates for next year are yet to be set by the Council. I do hope that the Mayor's office and Council
will agree that a basic unfairness exists in the present situation and will take steps to correct it. If my projections are
accurate, I will still see a modest increase in taxes, but a more reasonable one with some level of fairness.
On another issue, I understand the general reaction to the proposal to increase the tax on gas, but 1 disagree. Of course,
the proposed 6 cents a gallon increase was small compared to the market fluctuations which are taking place on a regular
basis. Still, I would not be opposed to such an increase if it resulted in more and better roads and traffic control. However,
I would suggest that any kind of proposal like this be implemented in a gradual manner, i.e. one or two cents a year, rather
than as a sudden, all-at-once increase. People need time to adjust. Everyone complains about the price of gas (and
perhaps with good reason vis-a-vis oil company profits here) but if the price of gas in the 1970s had continued up with the
cost of everything else we would be paying $3/gallon or more. And we would have adjusted and accepted it if
implemented on a gradual basis. The price of vehicles has gone up even faster than inflation generally (for a better
product) and people complain, but they continue to buy new cars.
I had composed the this letter in April, but did not send it because the newspaper was suddenly full of similar info,
including indications from Council members that the new assessments were not fair. I therefore expected that there would
be an adjustment in the tax rate. However, as we get closer to the deadline I see nothing actually occurring to give me
hope. So I am renewing my effort.
Mahalo.
Comm. No. 5 71 • •1
Ref. To: Prsse ~
1 Ref. Uate _ IL]N 700A