HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0118.033 2002-2004 lJ~ve.,U l-v~ Y,' QCf~`([ ~vtw 12R+Tff ~~..Y
1 pew
eau/ T ~ u~,,.,..q ee*+._ Aw
. c Qv ~y r,._ c l 1~,~ , f,,,1ls ~a r ~ J r
Introduction < < ~ - Via, _ [ 't[ ~ w
~ .j.
I'm Chuck Moss, and am here to put forward some thoughts bout
where we should be going on Ag Real Estate Taxing, and some ~ -tt ~G,~
dissatisfaction with the recent change in methodology on assessing the value ~ ~
of homesites on farms. - G c rl ~t, ~ ,`j ti. ..y -
c-o~ - h try ~,c4~ ,s ~/.-eairy.
qCi, T tea. 4 r cw_. Yt a ~ c.
Just two days ago I had my appeal on the homesite valuation on my property
denied by the County Real Property Tax Board of Review. The meeting
started out by stating that the board was not there to consider the legality of
"Rule 7" or the philosphy behind the new method. The appelants were also
handed a two page rationale provided by the assesors. Included in this was
the statement that "The Hawaii County Council is aware of the homesite
assessment procedure, and has NOT taken action to change that assessment
procedure. The County Council did however, approve Ordinance 04 67, Bill
26a effective on June 14~', 2004, in a response to the homesite valuation." I
'f~I.i, 41fV fC!H'
read this as imp~ymg that the county council, through inaction in NOT
changing the procedure adds validity to the procedure.
Not only was the appeal board not willing to address the appropriateness of
f~"""`~ assessing a homesite on a basis in violation of the local zoning, it did not
Mus consider the agricultural use of the homesite for subsistence. Nor was the
~w~( fact that one of the buildings in the homesite is a hoshidana used to dry
coffee produced on the property after it is pulped in the same building. As a
i~,~if matter of background, the property in question has been assessed as
agricultural since at least 1944 according to the available record/worksheets
in the notebooks at the tax office.` While my parents owned it the property
was dedicated as Ag for 28 years. Since then it has been in the Ag use
program. The property is being used to grow coffee & cattle for sale, as well
as a good deal of tropical fruits & vegetables for our own consumption.
I counted 64 fruit trees, or vegetable patches within the .9 acre homesite.
These include avocado, mango, lichee, orange, tangerine, sapote, banana,
ulu, Surinam cheery, fig, loquat, papya, taro, asparagus, lemon, lime, etc.
There are some 27 different varieties of producing edible plant in those .9
acres. My wife & I eat a lot of what gets produced, excess, especially
avocados and mangos go over the pasture walls to supplement the cattle
pasture.
And, the forty or so chickens that graze the yard provide us all the eggs we
need, over a dozen a day during the spring & into the summer, about half I 3~
l Comm. No.
L ~u~ Cc'f~.._.~x~, Hla~~.~ rry ~i Cr..3-•7~ - i+.+c 4'!/ c.. A .tyO G u- y Ref. TO' Pfeieefed
. nn
~tse4fp.,q 5a~ CVVr-~..Ly boo ~f ~K •vc~c/ Y9 ~.ia. fr w_e a^er<~
y/~c>
Ot/
that most of the rest of the year. Virtually all of the ground on the place is
receiving sunlight & water and converting it to food.
And, oh, by the way, if you rent out an ohana on your place, as far as the tax
assessor's office goes, none of the homesite is eligible for the $5.55
homeowner rate. I guess we can create mythical subdivisions for value
assesment, but not for rate assesment. It is a home site for value, but not for
rate? Make sense? /l.,d r^°. r r~ ~ c.,"r,.Y ~ ~c.r.. Y „.Qy
'71,< ~»ly f ~~'t~n~jrr ~i r.:, l.y 'jl_ P ("t:~
OK, enough whining about my specific case, let's talk about where were
going. I bring up the subsistence ag issue as one thing is clear, we don't Save ~ ~ ~ rf
a definition of ag. I'm not sure if commercial sale is required or noy~fnder c, d ~
the current assesment rules. I do know that my assessor led-Co believe it <<~u+-~~~~
was. But the dictionary definitions of agriculture don't a ess whether or
~.~r
not you raise cash on the land. They basically say a ~ ulture is what brings
f,~r,,,, <<.,,;
food from the soil, whether by plants or animals. et's keep it simple and E, r~ .
define agriculture the way the rest of the world does! !
And, let's fix the recently created problem of arbitrarily saying that the farm
dwelling land has a value of a residential lot. As far as I'm concerned, it is
simply part of the overall parcel for which a meaningful value can be
established. An illegal to sell pseudo parcel is about as logical as saying that
the parcel is valued as if it was oceanfront located. It is neither, and should
be assessed for what it is, not what it isn't. It is X% of a larger lot with some
particular value.
Make sure we're protecting agriculture, including the fallow land, the place
where the farmer &/or employees live, and the land where the produce gets
processe~zd and stored. /7 _ .
y~ 4.~?,e ~ j1.~4/ice Q{s, ~uv ~ AG°! fir" / ~I/(l /'"CC<~kin( r•Y~ L~n r(~~TT
Thanks, and good luck with this one. ~ ~j; `
`u ,
r~ /~av'T"~ ~ ~?~S S7lr.c e 7 ~
+ ~f, N/ art Y..~ W+ ~R ?
r~7., /ni N < Y' C7"~ / ['~~tiC.1 ~ ,F r- ~t T ~r et Y
r 2
9/j/y