HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0118.026 2002-2004 Shintani, Earlanne
From: Thomas E Burton [tburton@brahea.com] ~ L: j'
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:54 PM ,
70: Fred Holschuh - rv,
Subject: Comments on Bill 49 Draft 3 as presented in Pepeekeo on 16 Sep -
r\~
Dear Fred,
First, congratulations on your landslide victory. Running unopposed is best, but cruising to a
landslide is not bad either. r.J
I want to thank you and the rest of the county employees for the effort to explain Bill 49 to us.
Most of it is pretty clear to me, and what I understand seems fair and reasonable. There is one
source of great confusion. I'll address that in the next section. In the following section I'll make a
suggestion about the related topic discussed at the end of our meeting: offering the homeowner
class to the dwelling occupied by the landowner.
ONE SOURCE OF CONFUSION
The way this law works with tenant farmers confuses me greatly. The presentation started out on
firm ground: the tax classifications go with the land. That statement seemed clear: The $2000
threshold criterion far commercial agriculture applies to the land, and therefore to the owner of
that land. If the owner operates farms on several parcels, then this criterion applies to the owner's
entire operation.
The clarity evaporated when questions started: What about one owner's operation with several
small tenants? What about a small land-owner leasing his small parcel to a large farming
operation which farms many parcels? How is the criterion applied?
Confusion grew when someone said "it depends on whether the lease contract is written to pass
the taxes onto the tenant". (Gosh, that might have been you.) Soon I was totally confused.
My suggestion is, Stick to your guns: "the tax classification goes with the land." That means that
the criterion of $2000 is applied to the person responsible for paying the taxes to County: the
owner. Then it's the OWNER'S farming operation that counts. The owner should supply evidence
of $2000 or more gross sales on his set of ag parcels. If she leases a portion of a parcel, an
entire parcel, or several parcels, then she must obtain the gross-sales evidence from the
tenant(s) and pass it onto the state.
For this reason, it makes sense for the owner to pass along the cost of taxes to the tenant: it
gives the tenant incentive to cooperate with owner and cough up the sales receipts, because if he
doesn't, the consequent higher taxes are passed onto him.
Tenants or no, it's the owner who transmits the taxes to the County. The County should deal only
with the owner; tenants are in the background. And the criterion should be applied to the
OWNER'S business. The scope of the tenant(s)' business(es) should not enter the picture.
The other interpretations are too confusing. That's my view.
THE HOMEOWNER CLASS ON AG LAND
As I suggested to you outside after the meeting, I favor an amendment to the fair-minded notion
that aowner-resident of a home on ag land (and possibly the owner-landlord of a farm worker
living and working on that land-I'll avoid this issue) should enjoy the benefit of the homeowner
classification: half off the tax on the home.
I propose that this benefit be capped at, say $200,000, for homes built on land taking advantage
of ag tax rates. Thus, an owner-resident of a home assessed at $400,000 would receive full Q
Comm. No. ~ o'Zb
Ref. To: (i
Ref. Uate
benefit: his assessed value cut by one-half before the tax is computed; and one valued at
$800,000 would receive only half the benefit: his assessed value cut by one-quarter.
I offer this amendment in the spirit of the graduated RE tax measure being floated elsewhere to
assist poorer residents put at risk by rising valuations. So I think that the upper limit of $200,000
should be set consistently with that other measure.
I expect that my upcoming "farm dwelling" will be assessed at over $one million, so I'd be caught
by this amendment. My home will be built on a 30-acre parcel zoned A10. My reaction would
probably to subdivide it into a 10-acre homesite with full homeowner benefits, plus a 20-acre
parcel with ag benefits. Other farmers with big houses will probably do the same.
If it were possible to subdivide my 30 acres into a 1-acre homesite surrounded by a 29-acre ag
parcel, the intent of my amendment would be subverted. Which brings me to my final point:
Everyone's attempt at fairness will come to naught unless the planning people hold firm. FEWER
ZONING VARIANCES PLEASE!
Thanks and regards,
Tom
Tom Burton
808.640.4571
P O Box 232, Hakalau HI 96710-0232