HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.000 1996-1998 ~
W.H. SHIPMAN, LIMITED
KEAAU ^A F
HAWAII ISLAND gy
n~~!-'-~----------------
December 6, 1996 c~°"rv co~~ai
Mr. James Arakaki, Chair
County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Arakaki:
Re: Bill No. 289 (draft 6)
We understand that this bill has been vetoed. As you consider what to do
with this, we ask that you consider some of the problems we have with the
bill.
The basic problem is that it favors larger commercial farms that are
involved in long term crops. This is at a time when many smaller farmers
are attempting a start, particularly displaced sugar workers, and many of
their crops are short term, as they are unable to finance, and wait for long
term crops to pay off. Another problem with Bill 289 is that it requires
the government to get involved in some decision making that the
government is not equipped to handle.
Specifically, our problem areas are:
Section 19-56 Agricultural Use Assessment
The only way this bill allows one to get an ag assessment rate is by
dedicating it for ten years. There are many, many crops that have short
growing cycles, and the commitment to a long dedication tune is not in the d 2
cards. Especially if a dedication is breached and there are resultant roll ~
back taxes and penalties to pay. Without this special rate, all crops will pay ~ v
a "unified" assessed value of $2,000 per acre. Many of these crops are now ~ v
paying much less that the $2,000 assessed value, and this would really jump ~ m"
their taxes. We should confinue the present crop specific rates, o a- ~
~ ~ ~
F ~ aY
P.O. Box 950 "A Kamaaina Company Contributing to the Planned Growth of Hawaii" Phone: (808) 966-9325
Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Established 1923 Fax: (808) 966-8522
bundling them as proposed in the bill seems fine, but allowing a
bundle specific rate, and then further reducing if and when
dedication occurs. A small farmer growing dry land taro which is a
short term crop and therefore will not be dedicated, should not have to pay
taxes based on the $2,000 assessed value. Papaya farmer whose crop is
only for three or four years, and then is either left fallow for several
years, or moved on to another parcel, should not have to pay based on an
assessed value of $2,000.
Also, we have a large amount of acreage that is zoned ag but is very
marginal in use. Right now we get a low assessed value because of this and
if this goes to $2,000 per acre our real property taxes will go up by over
$200,000 per year.
Also, why is it that ag land can be used (but not dedicated) for ag for many
years, and then, finally when the land is rezoned for Urban use roll back
taxes are charged. If we are truly wanting to support ag why not support
it while in use, and not penalize it when changed? Why not be thankful for
the ag use that it had?
Section 19-57 Dedication to agriculture
Why is it important that the ag operation be "commercial" ag? It seems to
us that as long as it is established that it is in ag, that should be enough. We
have many small farmers who lease small acreage, to grow for their
families, friends, and maybe sell some to others. In addition, the farmer
needs to get the government to agree on the crop he wants to grow. It says
that in the course of the government deciding if the farmer can grow what
the farmer wants to grow, the government shall look to the "overall
development plan of the State and County". Why is this? Why is it any
business of the government what the crop is, as long as it is legal? Who is
taking the risk here? I believe the farmer is taking the risk, so why does
the government have to second guess the risk taking farmer? It should
simply be required that the farmer certify that he is indeed
growing a certain crop, the crop that he has dedicated. Likewise,
when the farmer wants to change his crop....why does the government have
to agree to the change? Who knows better what the farmer's situation is,
the farmer or the government? Why not simply ask the farmer to
re-certify that he is, indeed growing this new crop.
Section 19-58 Native Forest Dedication
It says "Native forests" means land which have 60 percent or greater native
species forest cover." What does the 60% apply to? Does this mean 60%
of the land area is covered (with native species) or 60% of the plants on the
land have to be native species? Additionally, it defines "indigenous" as
those plants that "became established or evolved in the Hawaiian Islands
without the aid of human beings". We believe this would eliminate Ulu
trees and perhaps coconut trees. What is the problem with just having
forest dedication and perhaps with an extra incentive available if it is a
"native" forest? This section is overly cumbersome, and will
result in a lot of cost to administer. We believe that leaving land in
forest, whether native or not is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Tn general, this bill, while, as we understand it, is attempting to take care of
the gentleman ranchers in Waikii special treatment, vastly overreaches and
causes more problems than it solves.
We offer our help in considering changes that will help with the plight of
the small farmer, and ourselves.
Sincerely,
/ ^ ~l
vcp`-C`S d
Ro rt E. Cooper
President