HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0020.000 1996-1998 11. 08101 THLT 11:03 FAT 8083265697 f~j001
~~~J 4_
~ Stephen K Yasa4a~uo
~y~
M~e,eging
- Mat~agnnS erector
Coasts of I~asvai~ . 25 A Stmt Ras. 275 • 3~0 ~davaaia ~632p • (80B) 96t-8211 . Fau (~08) 9~a-653
c~
c~
December 5, 1996 ~ ~ -
r:Z
-
t C.~ _
Honorable James Arakaki
Chair and Members ~ N
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street o
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Council Chair Arakaki and Members:
Re: VF~g. MESSAGE BILL 2„89 Draft ~
IVDING CHAPTER 19 Qk` ~H~ HAW II CgL~NTY CODH 1983
(1995 EDSTION), RELATING TQ REAL PROPEI2T3t TAXATION
In accordance with Section 3-12 of the Hawaii County
i
Charter, I am disapproving Bill 289,. and returning it to you.
fi Section 2152, Hawaii County Code, requires all wills and
ordinances amending the Hawaii County Code to be written in the
form prescribed by the Corporation Counsel. Pursuant. to
~ Part III of the County of Hawaii Legislative Drafting Guide
issued by the Office of the Corporation Counsel in October 1994,
"[t]he Rantseyer format is used when ,an ezistinr~ section or
l lesser division of the HCC is being :amended. New matter is
I. underscored, and matter being deleted is bracketed. Generally,
the mattez being deleted is immediately followed by the matter
+ being added."
Bill 2$9, Draft 6 as transmitted to me is nvt in Ramseyer
format and is therefore noncompliant with Section 2-152, Hawaii
! County Code and Part-III of the County of Hawaii .Legislative
Drafting Guide(1984). Bill 2B9 is farty~one (41) sia~gle spaced
pages long and contains extensive rev~.sions to Chapter 19
relating to real property taxES. The failure to comply with
i
! 0
?'11e ~o. C
itef. Tot
,L _ _ ED®C 0 619 6
~1 THU 11:10 FA% 808x265697 _ _ ~ ~ 001
Honorable James Arakaki
Page Z
December 5, 1996
Ramseyer format requirements in a bill of this magnitude not
only greatly increases the difficulty of review, but also
increases the likelihood of errors in publication of the amended
sections. For the foregoing reasons, I am disapproving Bill
289, Draft 6 as presented to me.
Although I have not completed my review of the substance of
Bill 289, I already have same substantive concerns. Por
. instance, the amended Section 19-56 would impose a "unified
agricultural value of $2,000 per acre, regardless of the type of
agricultural use" €or lands County zoned agricultural and not
i dedicated pursuant to Section 19-57_ This could be an
overvaluation of less productive agricultural zoned lands,
creating hardship for the owners.
I appreciate the many months of hard work which the Finance
Department and the Council have put into Bi11 289. rn order to
ensure the best return on those labors, I am rejecting the Bill
in its present form. This will give the Council an opportunity
to put the bill in correct form and address additional
substantive concerns.
Sincerely,
EPHEN SHIRO, Psayor
IMT:ch
24421