HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING JULY 18 2024 WRITTEN TESTIMONIESPacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anne Dericks
Thursday, July 18, 2024 6:14 AM
cohfinance
Testimony for Draft Revision of Proposed Tax Rules Relating to Agricultural Land
Aloha,
I am writing in opposition of the Draft Revision of Proposed Tax Rules Relating to Agricultural Land.
There are many issues, grey areas, with this document that opens the county to lawsuits due to discrimination/lack of clarity and they need to be amended before proceeding.
Including but not limited to the following:
1.The bill does not mention Hawaiian people and their ability to practice agriculture and andsustainability as it aligns with their cultural practices. Where do they fit in? This is an opening forlawsuits.2.The county already is understaffed and having difficulty filling job openings. Who is going toprocess these applications? How will they decide if one qualifies? How will the county support andassist landowners in navigating this process to promote successful applications?3.Why does one need to have a business to qualify for this designation? There are many forms ofagriculture that do not necessitate the need for an agricultural "business", ie homesteading andtending to sustainability is a valid agricultural practice. Many people already work day jobs and tendto agricultural pursuits after work hours. Many families contribute to sustainability by growing foods fortheir family and communities to reduce imports.
This document is discriminatory and lacks clarity and needs to be amended.
Why is the state wanting to reduce agriculture? The freedom to practice agriculture is what makes Hawai'i Island great.
Sincerely, Anne Oericks Hawai'i Island Resident
1
DEPArl.H.�l::NT OF t=-!M/',t!CE
DATt:: rtr.'i': J_ll_� _J _8 __ 3_024
ROU7"' -
CC?. ,,,,..... ... .� .� I"\_, •• • 4 WI+ ..._ • • • � � � I,...._�
Fii..E:
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From: Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Candice Tan
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 6:03 PM
cohfinance
Kimball, Heather
Testimony for RPT Hearing
1.Please consider lowering the minimum size for pasture land to 5 acres to include smaller farms and
ranches which are valuable contributors to the community.
2.Properties that have been in the non-dedicated ag program for several (8-10) years definitely deserve
to be grandfathered in to either a 3 or a 1 O year program, their choice. That would save wear and tear on
quite a few folks.
3.If this whole change was instigated by a small number of "cheaters," it is only fair to make it a little
easier on the honest folks by having a template to fill out, more community meetings, and assistance for
those who need help applying.
Candice Tan
1
DAT� :'.[C.'iJ·
rw: .. r ...
JUL 1 8 2024
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To: Finance Director
---·--------
DATE [:[.C''2: :J..U.U, ___ 2-.2aZ.4..
/..C-1 •:.: l � ,-: � ..... , ... ,.._ __ -=-Diane and Fred Holschuh Friday, July 12, 2024 1:31 PM f-1!.E., ..,.,.......-......,=-...,__-•. , -. ·-� -cohfinance Testimony in Opposition to the Proposed Changes to the Real Property Tax
From: Diane (Miyose) Holschuh
Thank you for allowin$ me this opportunity to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to
the real property tax requirements for landowners who currently are participating in the nondedicated ag.
program. Your changes and requirements are onerous for the local farmers and ranchers whose parcels
are less than 1 0 acres and the minimum of $2,000.00 in revenue per year is difficult to meet. Although
you may have made these changes to prevent wealthy landowners from taking advantage of the farm
dedication programs, you've created some unintended circumstances here where you are making it
difficult or impossible for the local landowners to retain their lands. Many of these lands have been
passed down to us for generations and it is our desire to continue this legacy with our
grandchildren. Your changes do not provide us with enough options to afford retaining our
lands. Ultimately, the irony is that the only people who will be able to afford these lands are the wealthy
landowners whom you were trying to discourage from taking advantage of the farm dedication programs
in the first place! Please reconsider the changes you are making with the plight of the local landowners
in mind.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane (Miyose) Holschuh
l
DATC !'[C'D: J�l:_ !. __7 2o24
Pacheco. Crvstallene K.
From: AC-1 ·: ,: : � :: ·-• , .... • •·"'---='"
Sent:
sharkgss
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 3:58 PM r-'li.E: .....,._..,__ . ._��-·····•...,, .. � ...... ..,.
To: cohfinance
Subject: Draft Revision of Proposed Tax Rules Relating to Agricultural Land
Aloha,
Currently 80% of Hawaii county is zoned agricultural and there are many residents affected by these tax code changes. Many of us have day jobs, but still conduct several forms of agriculture on a daily basis for self consumption which is a popular form of sustainability to reduce import on goods with the goal of a healthier lifestyle. The goal is for Hawaii is to be food and energy sustainable by 2030's; this proposal may have the opposite effect due to the extensive paperwork, approval process, government oversight, infringement of privacy1 and bureaucracy involved.
The proposed tax code changes are confusing, ill explained and fall short in several areas. There is too much grey area and the document needs considerable re-vamping so that application process is non discriminatory and simplified.
Below are just a few questions that need addressing:
1.The document states that not all applications will be approved. Why does one have to have a "business" toqualify for a viable application and who is the county to decide if that business qualities? The public needs
access to various "approved" farm plan templates.2.The county offices are already short staffed; who will approve/disapprove and inspect all of these
applications and make judgement on the viability of a business? What are their qualifications and who willoversee this? A disapproval can be Interpreted as discriminatory and opens up the county to aFederal lawsuit.3.What about families that grow their own food and raise livestock for meat and milk for self consumptionwithout a business? Is there any benefit to them to carry on this practice? What is considered market value ifone does not submit a plan? How is per acre land value being decided from one lot to the next?
4.What if one has already spent tens of thousands of dollars in years past for farm related equipment,
procuring livestock, and fencing? Asking for 10K in receipts for the last 2 years is very unrealistic whenthose large investments have already been made years past.5.How will personal tax information submitted be safe guarded in government cloud storage?6.The IRS will allow one to take a loss for so many years after which time you are not required to tile for farmlosses as part of personal income tax? Do these people have to start a new business to qualify for this I owertax rate?7.What about those farmers that barter for goods and don't make documented income? Is the county trying todiscourage a sustainable community level practice?8.What about herbs grown that are used in medicinal and beauty products? How does the county assess
income from a business that contains "some" farming but included other industry?9.What about horses? They have been part of Hawaiian culture and agriculture for ranching to move cattleand serve as a "low carbon" option as opposed to gas powered A TVs.10.Anyone in farming knows there is variable income and loses from year to year based on weather and pests.How wilt this handled?11.The rollback taxes are not adequately explained.12.GE tax is based on gross income, but does not take into account losses which are common and extensive infarming. It is unacceptable to expect one to pay tax on gross income without any deductions that are a partof operation, especially when there is no profit. In most instances GE taxes have already been satisfied atleast once in the purchase of goods and materials to conduct farming.
Honolulu, HI 96817 July 5, 2024
CERTIFIED MAIL# 7020 0640 0002 0821 1494
County of Hawaii Director of Finance Office in Hilo 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2103 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
1--------------1
,) .. . I.· .
-••·-·-· ----. •r��-. ! • ,-,._, .. ' .... : ..._ .... .,. ..... , . ....._._..... ���= � .. _..-•:.:..-.:� .. --• ... �•,�·----
Re: Written testimony submitted in advance of July 18, 2024 public hearing
This is my written testimony in strong opposition to the proposed rules and regulations and their enabling County Council legislation, concerning the public hearing notice that I
received on June 18, 2024, which affects TMK #s: 6-4-030-012 and 6-4-030-013.
I am a fourth-generation resident of the State of Hawaii who resides in Honolulu; and both my deceased parents were born and raised on the Big Island. My family acquired the
properties, which are the subject of your notice. in 1943. Since then. those so-called "important agricultural lands" have regularly and continuously been used for grazing of cattle. There are no farm dwelling or other structures on the land besides fences.
Despite my efforts over the span of many years now to heighten the agricultural use of my Waimea property, from grazing to high-level diversified agriculture. my land has been relegated to its lowest use, predominantly because of local governmental roadblocks. Years ago, my application for irrigation water was summarily rejected by the State Department of Agriculture
(without any intelligible reasons for the refusal). Perhaps. it was retaliation for two lawsuits
brought by me against the State of Hawaii over my trusfs property rights in the land. Also, the State's and County's designations of the land as being --important agricultural lands'' and the like never involved my participation or input.
My point is that from I 943, my trust lands have always been used for the lowest agricultural use of grazing (through no fault of mine) and those lands have always been taxed for
real property tax purposes based on its actual agricultural use. instead of a speculative market
value approach. To now impose a Hobson' s choice on small landowners like myself is plainly confiscatory. That is, if the proposed rules are adopted to implement the complained-of legislation, I am essentially forced either to dedicate my lands and thereby forfeit valuable
property rights ( without just compensation), or suffer an exorbitant increase in property taxes based on your so-called market value approach. That is not a real or fair choice. Ironically, if the County proceeds with its harebrained scheme of taxation. only the wealthy will be able to enjoy their full property rights and protect themselves. Therefore. if your new market value approach is implemented, in my particular situation the County"s actions would amount to an unjust "taking .. without adequate compensation being paid, in violation of the federal and State Constitutions.
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
County of Hawaii Director of Finance Office in Hilo 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2103 Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Ernest Freitas Wednesday, July 17, 2024 4:27 PM cohfinance Written testimony submitted in advance of July 18, 2024 public hearing; copy of certified mail sent on July 8, 2024 DEPAf',TM:::NT or-FH•!AN��-
DATC r.[C'D: JUL l i 2024
ROU.:::. IC':._
This is my written testimony in strong opposition to the proposed rules and regulations and their enabling County Council legislation, concerning the public hearing notice that I received on June 18, 2024, which affects TMK #s: 6-4-030-012 and 6-4-030-013.
I am a fourth-generation resident of the State of Hawaii who resides in Honolulu; and both my deceased parents were born and raised on the Big Island. My family acquired the properties, which are the subject of your notice, in 1943. Since then, those so-called "important agricultural lands" have regularly and continuously been used for grazing of cattle. There are no farm dwelling or other structures on the land besides fences.
Despite my efforts over the span of many years now to heighten the agricultural use of my Waimea property, from grazing to high-level diversified agriculture, my land has been relegated to its lowest use, predominantly because of local governmental roadblocks. Years ago, my application for irrigation water was summarily rejected by the State Department of Agriculture (without any intelligible reasons for the refusal). Perhaps, it was retaliation for two lawsuits brought by me against the State of Hawaii over my trust's property rights in the land. Also, the State's and County's designations of the land as being "important agricultural lands" and the like never involved my participation or input.
My point is that from 1943, my trust lands have always been used for the lowest agricultural use of grazing (through no fault of mine) and those lands have always been taxed for real property tax purposes based on its actual agricultural use, instead of a speculative market value approach. To now impose a Hobson's choice on small landowners like myself is plainly confiscatory. That is, if the proposed rules are adopted to implement the complained-of legislation, I am essentially forced either to dedicate my lands and thereby forfeit valuable property rights (without just compensation), or suffer an exorbitant increase in property taxes based on your so-called market value approach. That is not a real or fair choice. Ironically, if the County proceeds with its harebrained scheme of taxation, only the wealthy will be able to enjoy their full property rights and protect themselves. Therefore, if your new market value approach is implemented, in my particular situation the County's actions would amount to an unjust "taking" without adequate compensation being paid, in violation of the federal and State Constitutions.
Moreover, to impose a minimum 5-year agricultural lease to-be-recorded requirement, as well as a minimum annual revenue threshold of at least $2,000 per annum requirement, on little guys like me in our particular situations, are arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonaqle on the part of the County. Actually, your proposed revenue requirement is going to primarily hurt my month-to-month tenant, whose exemplary agricultural activities on my land have and do substantially and directly benefit the community (multiplier effect). Specifically, my tenant is now going to have to pay 133% more in rent (than he has had to pay for approximately S years), thanks to this land use scheme of yours.
The County's actions and approach in this matter defeat the policy objectives and violates the letter and intent of Hawaii Revised Statute Section 205-46 . If the County Council had wanted to curtail the abuses of preferential agricultural use valuation, it could have done so without abolishing the common sense and fair approach using actual
1
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ric wirick Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:59 AM
cohfinance
Re: Written testimony regarding the proposed County of Hawaii AG programs
Sincerely, Frederic Wirick/ Sharon Walker TMK: 160051350000
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11 :52 AM ric wirick wrote: Finance Department Attention: Dianne Nakagawa, Director Written testimony concerning the proposed County of Hawaii AG programs
To whom it concerns, The NOA program has treated us all equally with the AG property tax deduction. The new County Ag program segregates and discriminates. It not only eliminates reductions for "subsistence farmers· and others - but threatens to increase our property taxes up to 10-times what they are today. Whereas - both the State and Federal government are promoting "subsistence farming" - food security and sustainability - by providing incentives . . For those of us that live and work small subsistence farms in Hawaii County, Puna District 5. This NOA property tax reduction has allowed us to put more of our limited income Into fencing (to protect crops and trees from wild/ feral pigs), installation rainwater catchment (for watering crops when needed), instatlatton of temporary structures including a greenhouse, cold frames and chicken coop, annual purchase soil amendments (because soil is very limited in Puna District), and the purchase of seeds, plants, trees and chicken feed. Now - is the time for the Hawaii County Council and the Mayor to take notice of what both the State and Federal governments are doing to promote subsistence farming - food security and sustainability. And to vote to rescind the new County Ag programs and restore the NOA program - and expand its outreach to subsistence farmers island-wide. Sincerely, Frederic Wirick
1
DEPAr.TMENT or-r-,M;;i-CT J
DAT: -rC'D: Jm-:1-'J.� RO UTL , �·, • -·-····--_ .. ·--· __CO["r' . l • . .. ·- •.• - ---
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern.
George Magoon
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11 :51 AM cohfinance
Testimony against Hawaii County tax increases
DEPAnTMENT OF �CE
Re:I am writing to provide input and testimony regarding the land tax changes to the Agriculture use in Hawaii County.
I would like to express that for ever action, there is a reaction for the changes that you make especially when it adds an
additional tax burden on privately held lands. There are many people that are living on the ag lands that are on the
poverty level and using their land to survive on. They do not have the ability to pay the going tax rate based on some
rich out of state purchaser willing to buy the adjacent lands at the latest market rate. This is very unfair to the local
community. This push for acquiring more tax revenue will add to the homeless situation which is already on an epidemic
level or force others to sell their land that should not have to .. Some of these reactions are not a benefit, rather it is a
detriment for the welfare of this community as a whole.
There are also some unreasonable expectations that the ag department has for example the number of animals that an
acre of land can support or for the other types of uses as well. Some of the smaller farms can not survive with this
additional tax burden and meet those expectations, they will also be forced to sell their lands. Very few operations are
successful on a level that can support a high level of the expected production .. Many farms will not be able to meet
that level of expectation then have to pay their property tax based on the market rate from the latest sale. This is unfair
to the existing tax payers. Please do not do this.
Maybe instead of raising the tax rate, the tax department should keep the tax rate the same and help to provide other resources for small farmers to sell their goods, provide. outlets for sales and help them to thrive instead of being
additionally burdened. Maybe provide a slaughter house or help to open up markets directly to Oahu. This could Help
the small farmer, not add an additional tax burden!
Additionally, This tax proposal will not help to protect the ag lands, just the opposite, it will eliminate that use
requirement on all ag lands turning every small ag lot into a residential or urban type of use .. There may be other
reactions, such as the loss of the existing uses and they will lay unproductive. A lot of these lands will end up as a big
yard and have no other use at all. Is this just a push to transform smaller ag lots into an urban use?
These kinds of increases will have reactions and will only hinder the ability for local people to keep and live on their
lands. It will add a burden to the community instead of benefiting those with high enough incomes to pay for the tax ..
Instead of requiring local people to pay a tax rate based on the latest market sale, how about keeping our tax rate set
when we purchased our land until we have to sell it, This would help to keep Hawaiian people on Hawaiian land.
Thank You for reading!
Respectfully submitted,
7-17-2024
1
Pacheco, C stallene K.
17 DA r::. r.[C'D: - ---
From:
Sent:
To: .... ,-�
Cc:
Subject:
Jeff Pereboom Wednesday, July 17, 2024 6:00 AM
cohfinance
Kevin Harrell; Mary Gherardi
7•18-24: Rules and Regulations pertaining to Real Property Tax
We would like to submit written testimony in advance of the 7/18 meeting. Here are our comments:
1.Will the inclusion of people who lease their land out to businesses be in the final tax rule? This isrelated to Heather Kimball's FAQ #5. Cattle graze and rotate around our property as part of a 10 year
USDA NRCS conservation plan, not sheep. There is nothing in the proposed tax law that covers thisscenario.2.It seems like this new legislation will prevent new businesses from starting. How are you supposed tostart a new business with the expectation that you're making $2000 right away?
a.For instance, if you're starting an orchard. some trees take years, maybe a decade, to producefruit. So even though you plant an orchard you may not see income for 8-10 years. So eventhough you are following the ag plan and looking to produce food for the community/business,
you are expected to pay more tax for those 8-10 years while those trees maturing during thesame time that you aren't making income. This will be a hindrance to new business and deterpeople from growing food for our community.
b.Heather Kimball said that you did not have to make $2000 in gross income as long as you havea farm plan and comply with the "accepted standards and farming practices" but the proposedtax law is very specific to say the $2000 income was a requirement and mentions noexceptions:
"Rule 31A.3. A. 2. All applicants shall submit the Schedule F (IRS Form 1040) or State of Hawai'i tax form G-49 from the previous tax year as evidence of long-term commercial agricultural use minimum of $2,000 annual groll income."
3.The ways to leave the program are very restrictive.a.The only way out of the program is for the county to remove us from the program or to havesomeone die. Otherwise we're liable for back taxes? If we've met five years of the 1 O yearprogram every single year and produced more than $2000 in income and then a familyemergency happens and we have to sell the business and the new owner does not keep the tax
plan, now we're liable for back taxes and a 10% penalty fee? This is going to cause significantissues, impede new business growth and should be rectified.4.Why do I pay more tax currently in the non-dedicated ag program for 30 acres than Parker Ranch paidfor 21,000 acres? It seems like the new rules only benefit the large companies and not farmers.
5.Regarding overall sustainability, why are we penalizing the people who grow food and enough tosustain themselves and their neighbors? This tax legislation seems like it's going to actually make ourisland produce less food and be less sustainable. I understand that there are many people that havetaken advantage of the ag tax program, but it seems that this program is the wrong way to approachtrying to rectify that.
6.The previous law that had just been replaced was sufficient-the problem was with absolutelyinadequate enforcement of the law. The burden was on the county however, and at least people were
not unfairly deprived of a deserved tax break. The new law shifts the burden onto the landowner, andadds a ton more "red tape", and will effectively price many, many people out of their land and property,despite the fact that they are indeed contributing an agricultural benefit to the county.
1
Laupahoehoe Livestock Company
July 16, 2024
County of Hawai'i
Director of Finance Office
25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2103
Hilo, HI. 96729
RE: Written Testimony for Revising Administrative Rules Relating to the Real
Property Tax Division Specifically Agriculture Exemptions, Section Rule 31A
This written testimony is specifically written for the revision to certain sections
of the Rule 31A as it relates to tax exemptions and dedication for land in
agriculture.
I have been in agricultural production in many forms and facets for the past 22
years and have grown agricultural businesses from small scale to larger scale
production both in crop farming as well as livestock production. I know
agriculture well. Actual producers should have been part of this discussion
beforehand and during the creation of the law, but here we are and changes to
the rules are needed.
I have some issues with the proposed rules that hurt the agricultural producer
on Hawai'i Island. Any step to deter or implement new rules that can cause
financial harm to any agriculture operation in the State of Hawai'i should be
thoroughly considered from all views, small production to large scale
production. Any form of agriculture in Hawai'i that produces food locally and
minimizes foreign dependency on imports should be celebrated. Paperwork
processing and further restrictions should not be barriers to producers, nor
should costs to producers increase because of further red tape and the LAUPAHOEHOE, HI. 96764 r-----------� DEPAr:TMENT OF f-lNANC..E_ JUL l 7 ,u� DAT!:: r.CC'D: _-_-_ -·-ncu--·-, I\ t L 1 1 .... : ____ • ..-�----
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Magoon
Wednesday, July 17, 202412:18 PM
cohfinance
7/18/24 Ag Property tax meeting Input TESTIMONY
To the Hawaii Property Tax, County Finance and all concerned,
As a long time small farm and ag land owner, I would like to submit my thoughts AGAINST this n�w
property tax plan for Ag lands.
We have been filing and paying the appropriate required taxes for our ag land, as well as from any income
that is made from sale of our animals. We are not the family that just has 1 sheep or 1 cow to gain Ag
benefits. To now require that small farm owners have to jump through government hoops will act as a
deterrent for people having and using additional ways for them to support themselves, their families and
community. The cost of living in Hawaii is hard enough to deal with and is getting ever higher and as you
well know is driving local people away because they just cannot afford to survive here. This new way
that big government is again stepping in to control things, add more costs and complexity to basic living
and surviving in Hawaii is frustrating.
Ag land is already restricted from certain uses that would act as other ways for kapuna and locals to
subsidize their income that. Now you will be adding more cost to our bottom lines no matter which way
you cut it.
It does not really seem like you are working with the Hawaiian people when new measures such as this
are put in place.
These kinds of increases will have reactions and will only hinder the ability for local people to keep and live on their lands. Local government "claims" to be concerned about this. It will add a burden to the community instead of benefiting those with high enough incomes to pay for the tax. Please find a better
way.
This is a maddening and BAD plan you are wanting to put in place.
Hawaii is already known as a non-business friendly state, this just adds another reason to the list!
Mahalo for your re-considerating this measure to benefit the small farmer and families in a better way.
Kimberley Magoon
l
DEPARTM:t'-ff OF :=!NANCE
-------CC�Y TU . . ••·-----·--' I"� --... 1 • • M...,t "•·•• ... ,: .....,., .. • .. , ..... ,.�
f.lLE.: � .. ...-.. ·:....--....,._ ........ --�-�
Pacheco, Crvstallene K.
From:
Sent:
To: Cc:
lhirota
Monday, July 15, 2024 3:50 PM
cohfinance hLE:
Subject:
lhirota240715 Public Hearing Written Testimony - Chapter 19 HCC
Name:
TMK:
Lyle Hirota, Trustee
4-6-008-020 and 4-6-008:054
The upcoming changes to Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code (HCC) were apparently based on the Real
Property Tax Review Working Group Ag Committee Report dated September 20, 2019 (REPORT).
1.Changes to the Non-Dedicated Agricultural Program were recommended "to encourage agricultural
activities in the rural areas while reducing the opportunities for and perceptions of abuse of the
system" (page 7 of REPORT) as well as to increase annual revenue from approximately $580,000 to
approximately $6.SM (Item 5, page 8 of REPORT).
2.What the changes fail to consider is that old time owners of agricultural properties on fixed incomes
may need to sell the properties, most likely to people from outside Hawaii, if they are unable to afford
the increase in taxes. So, while the County and Administration often preaches the need to take care of
Kupuna and keep lands in the hands of local residents, these new rules have the opposite effect.
a.While the "SIMPLE" answer under the new rules is that property owners can apply for three
other programs (Community Food Sustainability, Short Term Commercial Dedication -3 year
dedication, and Long Term Commercial Dedication -10 year dedication), it is not as "SIMPLE"
as it sounds, especially for older people.
b.My parents acquired these properties somewhere around 1960 and raised cattle on the
properties from that period until my father became too old to maintain the properties and
therefore allowed the properties to be used for pasture by others at no cost in order to keep
the properties in "agricultural activities" up until his passing in 2015.
c.The Lyle I. Hirota Trust subsequently acquired the two properties and continued to allow the
users to utilize the properties for grazing to maintain my parents' legacy and honor the years of
hard work which that my family put in to make the properties what they are today with the
intention of passing the properties on to the next generation. So, while it may not meet the
requirements of "Commercial Operations for Dedicated AG" (Item 7, page 9 of REPORT); it
meets the goals under page 7 of the REPORT in "encouraging agricultural activities in the rural
areas". If sold, it is likely that it would purchased by people from outside of Hawaii who may
not utilize the properties for agricultural activities in contravention of the stated goal of these
new rules.
3.Due to my age, it is not feasible for me to directly utilize the property for commercial agricultural use,
which is the basis for allowing another entity to utilize the properties at minimal cost under a License
with the Trust with the Trust responsible for payment of the real property taxes. While I realize that it
is possible to lease the property with the lessee responsible for payment of the real property tax (HCC
19-60(d)(5) and HCC 19-Gl(a)); the problems that the County and this Administration has failed to
consider are as follows:
a.As a Kupuna, I do not desire to leave encumbrances on the property upon my death or severe
disability as my heirs would likely held to the terms of the lease, especially as the Lessee would
be responsible for payment of the real property tax and HCC 19-60(h)(3) and HCC 19-61(g)(3)
1
Pacheco, C stallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Gherardi
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:14 AM
cohfinance
Non Dedicated Agricultural Program
We received your letter regarding the ending of the NDA program and the three proposed replacement
programs.
My questions/comments are:
We own 45 acres in Hakalau on the forest. A local rancher has been grazing the land for the past 20
years. We have eight cows and a bull. We produce about 6 to 8 keikis a year who the rancher then sells. I
have no doubt he makes at least 2000.00 a year. But this scenario is not covered in the new regulations.
So, if I'm not personally making 2000.00 a year I don't qualify for one of the new programs? And, if his
profit would qualify, I then have to ask him for copies of personal tax forms? He cannot afford to pay us
2000.00 a year for a lease, market value is about 600.00 a year. It seems antithecal to what local
politicians articulate and seem to want to encourage "diversified agriculture".
We have a farm plan on file with the USDA NRCS although our 1 0 year lease with our rancher has expired.
I'm sure we can sign a new one but will this qualify for one of the new programs?
We've taken fallow. marginal sugar cane land and turned it into productive pasture land and it seems like
we're being punished for it. The new programs do not address this scenario!
We get absolutely no county services. We just spent $10,000 on rock for our private road. The new
regulations seem to shift the burden of enforcement from the county to the landowner. Why not enforce
the current regulations?
The proposed regulations are going to kill whatever local farming/ranching is currently going on. Short
sighted in my opinion.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Gherardi
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
l
Having to prove profit, or
There is also nothing in the rules on pasture-raised poultry, how this looks like, and how a
Property Tax Appraiser will vet these farms.
Many of the requirements for the application to the programs fail to take into account that
starting up a new farm requires time, and the time needed to start planting crops or raising
animals to the actual time one can harvest can be up to several years, especially for fruit trees.
All this time a starting farm needs to reach a point where they can prove income disqualifies
them from qualifying for agricultural property tax exemptions. That is not fair, and it will
significantly put our community's food supply at risk, as it would prevent people from starting
farms and contributing to our food independence from mainland supplies.
A few weeks ago, I had a phone conversation with one of the Kona Appraiser named Jennifer
(who is the appraiser for my area). She stated that my farm wouldn't even qualify as my
chickens aren't housed in a coup. That implies that appraisers will need significant training in
basic agriculture procedures and reading/understanding farm plans or NRCS plans.
From what I understand, the study used to create the new rules was done by large
organizations that seem to have their own interest in mind, and there was no input from
unbiased entities like the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources from the
University of Hawai'i (CTAHR), or the USDA/NRCS who could have given a more valuable,
ecological-responsible input.
I request that the roll-out of these new rules be postponed for at least a year so that all of the
community as well as independent entities like CTAHR and NRCS can have their input too, so
that the proposed rules can be improved for execution and fairness, and that tax appraisers will
receive intensive training on agricultural practives. These rule changes were done without much
transparency, and discriminatory to our Island's small farms.
Respectfully,
Mia-Pia Cummins-VanHerreweghe
Captain Cook, HI 96704
Pacheco, Crvstallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
DEPAflTMi:NT OF FINAMCE
DAT: r.[C'D:JUL � 2._�
RO!JTC iO:_ ... ·-- . cc:-iv re. __ _ 1-.c:, ':':PATRICIA RAVARRA l ;; ,·: � ....... , ___ ___ Tuesday, July 16, 2024 5:33 PM PiU:: .,_ __ .... ,_ .. _ .. _ cohfinance Testimony Regarding the "Revisions to the Administrative Rules Relating to the Real
Property Tax Division"
To the Tax Division Officers:
I am writing to provide additional perspective on the proposed changes to the Rules and Regulations of the Director of Finance as they pertain to agricultural properties and practices, and related tax status categories on Hawai'i Island.
I would like to first extend my gratitude to the Real Propertr Tax Division for their efforts to protect and maintain the unique character of Hawai i Island, in particular the long history of agriculture. That this office has made the decision to strive to reduce andlor eliminate acquisition of prime agricultural properties for the sole purpose of individual luxury living is highly commendable.
However, in the process of doing so, it is beginning to appear that a lot of babies are being lumped into that bathwater, and are in danger of being tossed out because of it.
The county has a long history of working to attract people who would dedicate their lives to providing food for themselves and their community. That there are small lots (under 10 acres) designated to agriculture is ample proof of this. Now, though, owners of these smaller lots are in danger of losing everything because the newly-determined acceptable lot size for legitimate agriculture is a minimum of 10 acres.
I am the owner of 7.88 acres designated as agricultural in Honoka'a. of those 7.88 acres, because of the contours of the land and historical flood plain considerations, only approximately five (5) acres can be considered viable for the orchard and pasture land we are establishin�. When we purchased our land, we were assured that we would have no difficulties qualifying for ag land status, based on the verbal description we provided the tax office. we have made investments over the past several years to meet those goals; but now we are sadly discovering that we may not qualify at all, after all.
so I am writing to ask for a reassessment of the qualifications for myself and others in the same situation. Many small farmers are able to produce copious quantities of produce on smaller parcels, and we do so, and have done so for decades. Should we be disqualified from our agriculture classification because of what seems like an arbitrary decision, or one meant to discourage those with no real farming endeavors on their properties? I would hope not. And I hope that you will agree.
I therefore ask for reconsideration of these limitations, and will be happy to provide personal testimony at any time in support of this request.
Mahala,
Patricia Ravarra Nanaina Malie Farms Honoka'a
1
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
DEPAP.TMct\lT OF l=INANCE
Subject:
rrincon
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:03
AM cohfinance Fwd: Ag Exempt Bill DAT[ f'.[C'D:-l.UL 1 1 2024
ROUTC iO:---------�
co::Y TO:------
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rachel Rincon
Date: July 17, 2024 at 8:25:29 AM HST
To: cohfinance@hawaii.gov
Subject: Ag Exempt Bill
To Whom it may concern,
I am writing to you regarding the new Ag Exempt Bill. We are a young family, with both
parents working, who lease land, varying from 5 to 100 acres, to raise cattle for an extra
source of income. With an increase in property tax, that would mean an increase in our
lease. With this increase, we are concerned that our extra source of income might no
longer be possible to maintain.
Thank you for yourtime,
Rachel Rincon/Dusty De Luz
From: Sharon dewenter
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 9:13 AM
To: cohfinance <cohfinance@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: Repeal of Rule 31, Written Testimony
--·--------DEPAr.nli::NT or-r-!l'JANCE
DAT::: r.cc·DJU.U_L 2024_
fl.OUT;: ,C: ______ _
CC�Y TO.-·----_. ________ _
Sharon Dewenter Rincon
Rincon Family Farm
Kamuela, HI 96743
07/17/2024
Director of Finance
County of Hawaii
Subject: Testimony in Support of Exception from Long-Term Commercial Agricultural Use Dedication for
Farmers and Ranchers Over the Age of 65
Dear Director of Finance,
I am writing this testimony to express my strong support for an exception from the long-term commercial
agricultural use dedication for farmers and ranchers over the age of 65. I propose that farmers and ranchers
over the age of 65 are able to continue to benefit from the commercial agriculture land tax benefit granted in
2023 and years prior without time commitments.
My name is Sharon Rincon, and I am a farmer from Kamuela in my late 60s. I have been farming in Kamuela for
over 30 years. I have dedicated my life to farming, contributing to the local agricultural economy and
community for several decades. As a farmer who is approaching retirement, I believe it is crucial to address
the unique challenges faced by aging farmers.
Farmers and ranchers over the age of 65 are often not in a position to commit to another ten years of farming
or ranching due to physical limitations, health concerns, and the natural progression toward retirement. The
requirement for long-term commercial agricultural use dedication imposes an undue burden on senior
1
farmers and ranchers, who may not have the capacity or resources to meet such stringent criteria without
facing penalties. By providing an exception for senior farmers, the County of Hawaii would be demonstrating a
compassionate and realistic approach that recognizes the contributions and limitations of its aging agricultural
community as well preventing farmers and ranchers retiring earlier then desired due to the need to commit to
another ten years of farming or ranching or face penalties and/or unaffordable tax rates.
Thank you for considering my testimony. I hope that the County of Hawaii will take this important step to
support its senior farmers and ensure that agricultural policies are inclusive and fair for all members of our
agriculture community.
Sincerely,
Sharon Dewenter Rincon
Kamuela, HI 96743
07/17/2024
2
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Stanley Keolanui
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11 :59 AM cohfinance
Testimony to the Finance Director Rules & Regulations
Testimony for the proposed changes to agriculture land rules - first hearing 18 Jul
24.docx
Aloha, my name is Stanley Keolanui, and I am submitting the attached testimony pertaining to the
Finance Director Rules & Regulations hearing scheduled for July 18th, 2024, at 5:00pm, County Council
Chambers, Hilo, Hawai'i.
In summary, I strongly oppose the acceptance of proposed rules 31 Band 34A, as written, pertaining to theadministration of agriculture lands within the County of Hawai'i. However, I have offered recommendations that I believe would make the rules more acceptable to small scale farmers/ranchers, and also better support the goals of the county and state in achieving it's goals pertaining to food security and self-sustainability. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Stanley Keolanui Laupahoehoe, Hawai'i 1
DEPArl.TMcNT or-:=!MANCE
DAT[ r.cC'D: JUL_ l _? 2024
-�-,. -, .. ,.. -..... _ . �
the meeting did not understand the reason for establishing minimum lot sizes. If the intent is to insure the agriculture operation is viable, then I'm sure this can be verified when the properties are inspected by the assessors. Additionally, I did not see minimum lot sizes specified in the County Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-61, Short-term commercial agricultural use dedication. The only place where lot sizes were mentioned is in the old Rule 31 that's been deleted. Any concerns about the viability of farming or ranching on small acreage should be addressed in the applicant's farm plan.
4.Eliminate the restriction of three consecutive three-year terms under rule 31B.3H. Ibelieve the Short Term dedication serves an important function by offering an alternativeto the long term dedication program, and is not merely a stepping stone to long termdedication.
Rule 34A, Community Food Sustainability. Add the agriculture category "Pasture" to the list of eligible categories. Based on feedback from farmers and land owners at the community meetings, it appears that many are using their land for grazing and crop production, of which many are "giving away" the crops they produce, and in some cases that includes meat from the slaughter of livestock. Since the goal of this program is to feed people, and "meat" is food, why not include this as well. This would encourage farmers to maximize the use of their lands through grazing and crop production, while contributing to the community and supporting the County and State goals for self-sufficiency. To minimize potential for abuse, require applicants to indicate what portion of the land is being used for crops, and what portion is used for grazing -this should be specified in the farm plan or an application form.
As you see in my recommendations, I am an advocate for a farm plan. I strongly encourage the County to develop a template, or a fill in the blanks form that captures essential information to satisfy the County's needs to validate a credible farming operation. Additionally, the farm plan can assist the assessor during inspections to verify that what they see is what the farmer said they were going to do. A simple farming operation would likely have a simple farm plan. More complicated operations would have greater detail, and possibly require attachments to the plan in order to address all facets of the farming operation.
In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of this most important issue. I'm certain that with the involvement of the small scale farmer/rancher community, and a focus on keeping agriculture land in active production, the County of Hawai'i will achieve its goal of developing and sustaining viable agriculture that benefits the community and the county, for now and the future.
Mahalo nui,
Stanley R. Keolanui Jr Laupahoehoe, HI
Pacheco, C stallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sylvia Dea Sunday, July 14, 2024 7:30 AM cohfinance Zoom registration
j DEPAf:Hl:;� lT 0:-: '."l" U,? '':E
f Df...T: f'.[c·::,)�L _l 5 2024
r •• f"'I r,1-:.:.: ,� .. ---....
Aloha, I would like to complete the registration process and obtain meeting login information for Zoom meeting on July 18, 2024.
Also would like to submit following written testimony: What would be the best classification to apply for if property has a year to year lease to grow ginger and sweet potatoes?
Sylvia Dea
Sent from my iPhone
Pacheco, C stallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aloha Director of Finance,
thomas benton
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:35 AM
cohfinance
Ag dedication rules
This is testimony for proposed long term ag dedication rules.
..: .EC'D: _____ _ nouT: ,·c: __
AC', �,; ! � ,·: c-.... , _ ... � •. ........_....
f-•JL.E: dm:"' • ...--�::.:.-:,..._• ••.• ,.-..,,.......--·
We have completed 2 20 year dedications and upon completion of our second 20 year dedication we were advised by
the tax department that a nondedicated ag exemption was better. Now our nondedicated ag exemption is being
sunseted . The last two years is the first time in 40 years we wouldn't have qualified for the new requirements. Our
avocado orchards have been Devastated by the new invasive avocado lace bug. We have always been certified organic
and sprayed hundreds of gallons of every organic pesticide available to no effect. So we have given up our organic
certification after 33 years as we have no crop now. We are still maintaining our land and hoping a natural predator will
populate the orchard to control the lace bug which happened before with the Persia mite. If not we are trying to save the
money to replant the orchard with root knot nematode resistant and coffee rust resistant coffee trees. That will cost
$10,000 an acre just for the trees, which will need to be maintained for years before they'll even pay for their annual
expense. Hard for us to do when we've lost our farm income and might have our property tax raised by thousands a year.
So in conclusion I see nothing in the new rules to help farmers in duress such as our example. Also I see nothing about
land stewardship as a qualifier. Our land is immeasurably better after our 45 years of stewardship. We've gone from an
all rock a'a' flow to rich orchard land with 6" of soil we've built with organic practices. We would like to continue building
soil and tilth on our 7 acres of farmland but the new proposed rules for long term ag exemption is a hinderance instead
of a help. I thought ag exemption was created to help farmers. Please include in your regulations help for farmers under
duress from invasives etc. and recognize land stewardship as a beneficial farming practice for farmers dealing with
invasives etc. that are going to keep coming.
Thank You,
Thomas Benton
Benton Family Farm
Sent from my iPhone
1
Pacheco, Crystallene K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
tly
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:32 AM
cohfinance
Testimony Re: Proposed Real Property Tax Rules (Agricultural Use Dedication)
AGRICULTURAL VALUES JUNE 14 2024.pdf
Aloha Finance Director Nakagawa:
The following are my comments/ testimony I questions regarding the draft rules to be discussed on July 18 at the public hearing:
1.For non-dedicated ag lands, the first page of the attached statement of Agricultural Assessment Values states thismethod of assessment is no longer available, with the last application accepted 911124. The end of the 2nd page states allproperties in the program will need a new application between 912124 to 9/1125. AS such, it is unclear what the deadline is
for properties in existing non-dedicated program as opposed to those to start in the program before the sunset date ofJune 30, 2028. Does one still need to apply for the existing non-dedicated lands by September 1, 2024?
2.Similarly, if an application is to be made to short term dedication (3 years), what is the deadline for that (September 1,2025?) and can one then stay in the existing program without reapplying by September 1, 2024 for non-dedicated?
2.For lands already in the long term dedicated program, is there a deadline to reapply, before the current dedicationdeadline expires, and what date is that? For example, for those already in a long term pasture dedication that expires in afew years, can they wait until the current dedication term expires, and then reapply or must one apply by a certain date?
3.From looking at the rules, some comments are:
A.Is there a farm plan form available to review yet?
B.Whose agricultural guidelines are being used for criteria in the review of dedication applications? See 31A.3(1) and31 B.3(1). They should be specifically identified or published from time to time.
C.Where minimum lot sizes are required, except as to commercially viable operations, shouldn't there also be a statedexception which acknowledges that contiguous or non-contiguous parcels that are part of the same operation can beconsidered commercially viable? Compare Definitions at 31A.2 (4 and 5) and 31B.2. 4 and 5.
D.For 31A.3(K) and 31 B.3(K) there should be a requirement for an attempt to provide a prior written notice of inspectionat the owners/lessees' mailing address of the date and time. Owners should be given the opportunity to meet with the
person and discuss.
Thank you the opportunity to provide this testimony. It is hoped that the above is considered and that more information can be provided by your department tomorrow.
Tom
Thomas Yeh Law Offices of Yeh & Kim, LLLC 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 217
Hilo, HJ 96720 (808)961-0055<tly@yeh&kim.com>
1
DEPAP.TM!::I\IT or- f-lt•!J.NCE
P'LE· I•�-...11.·L..-:..-.. -, ...... ..,.,_�
/ J..: .. :i -� =: .. .-. L-
•
••• ·�-�=Wayne M. & Verna S. Fukunaga Kealakekua, HI 96750-0788 ;.;:..c:: =--. ·-· _.,, .... _. ,...._1:42z----------
July 16, 2024
Director of Finance, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720
To Whom it may concern, As owners of two lots, a 2.5-acre coffee fann and a 1.2-acre Ulu Orchard currently classified in the Non-Dedicated Agricultural Program, we are deeply concerned about the impact of these Rules changes on our operations. We believe that local fanners like us, who play a crucial and irreplaceable role in the community, should be given due consideration in decisionmaking. Thriving small businesses are the largest employers in America. We are seeking a high level of transparency in the decision-making process. We want to understand how the new rules were detennined, where the supporting data is, and how the $10,000.00 minimum over two years of farm expenses was justified. We also want to know how each classification's minimum income and lot sizes were derived. Have these rule writers made a living fanning in Hawaii? Did Caterpillar, John Deere, or the Globalist UN Charter Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030 influence these rules? Successful local self-sufficient individuals are our strength. These new rules have a detrimental effect on the livelihood of local lifelong fanners. Hawaii is the worst place to do business as these rules are anti-Kamaaina. We are locally born and have paid our taxes while farming our lots in Hawaii for generations. These rules clarify that the County is only money-driven and anti-Hawaiian culture. The County wants multimilliondollar houses to tax rather than locals making a living off agriculture. These rules are just one more reason to move out of Hawaii or be a fool to play by your stupid rules. These rules ignored the lifestyles of the Kupuna and were written by some ignoramus of Hawaiian life as it exists. Maybe this works in some globalist socialist paradise, but the reality is different. It would be best to study what exists before breaking the paradigm. Agriculture in Kona is unlike Honokaa's or Puna's farms. Soils, geography, and rainfall are different. Kupuna knows what works, unlike you. As entrepreneurs, we strive to innovate to survive sustainably in our microctimate. Are you aware of the recent droughts, the impact of the Coffee Borer Beetle, and coffee rust on crops? However, your rules seem to be anti-innovation and a straitjacket to us. They seem to discourage the kind of innovation many clever people use to make a life in Hawaii, doing things beyond your imagination. Over-regulation is pushing us out of Hawaii, and if this trend continues, you will end up with an economy devoid of innovation and small fanns. Hawaii's economy needs diversification, and these rules seem to do the opposite. They seem to encourage aggregation into more extensive operations, which is not what our local economy needs. Recall the displacements when Big Sugar failed. Local diversity guided by Polynesian wisdom is our strength. Instead of implementing these rules, we urge you to study what exists and how local folk make a living in our geographical Polynesian microclimates. We implore you not to make new rules in a vacuum but to show your work with supporting local data. We believe that the County has a duty to be a champion for local fanners, not a force that pushes them out with unrealistic rules that only work in a Globalist Utopian one-size-fits-all idealistic fantasy. Centralized command and control, such as these rules, have failed everywhere it has been tried.
Mahala, Wayne and Verna Fukunaga
Date: 7117/24
From:Eric Weinert, land owner 26 acre ag zoned parcel in South Hilo District
Current use: Pasture and self sustaining regenerative agricultural,practices
Re:Testimony to changes in Ag dedication. Pursuant to Chapter 91 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and
Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code, public hearing by the Finance Director of the County of Hawaii for the
l. These ordinances should be repealed and revisited with full public participation
The affected land owners were unaware of the changes to the law until after they were passed. This is evidenced
by the large public participation in meetings by agricultural land owners after being sent a letter this June 2024
trying to explain the implementation of the changes and the hoops they needed to do to comply. Review of the
video of the council meetings when the law was passed in 2023 had almost no testifiers. if the affected land
owners had known, these ordinances would never passed as-they currently are written..
The members of the working committee who suggested these changes were made up of large land owners like
Wi-i Shipman and Kamehameha Schools,realtors and large ranchers. There were no representatives from small
farmers or self sustaining farmers.The input from these folks need to be heard and considered, before the law was
enacted, not after the fact.
2_ I hese ordinances are in direct conflict with the Hamakua Community Development Plan
Specifically eliminating growing food for personal use as a legitimate agricultural practice worthy of a agricultural
tax designation rues counter to the i-HCDP Please look at Objective#12 in the Hamakua GDP,which states
Preserve traditional subsistence practices and encourage a reciprocity(e.g.bartering)economy as a sustainable
complement to;Harr a ma's resource-based economy."
Growing one's own food with regenerative farming practices is the purest form of agriculture and is in fact the only
form of agriculture that is fully sustainable. Sustainability is one of Hawaii Counties highest goals.
Growing one's own food with regenerative farming practices generates no waste for the land fill,does not require
impartation of food to the grocery store whose packaging generates Most'of the trash in the land fill,does not
require fuel to transport inputs from out of state or trips to the grocery store. It makes our island more resilient in
the case of art emergency when importing food supplies may be suspended.
Self sufficient farming using regenerative farming practices should enjoy the most beneficial tax benefits.
3_C eeiinc a large bureaucracy to ensure enforcement from a hand full of folks gaming the system doe not make
economic sense_
Show me an economic study which contrasts the economic benefit to the County from enforcing the current law
on the few cheaters or those gaming,the system, versus the cost of labor and future benefits from County
employees to monitor and enforce this new paperwork heavy enforcement system. How many new County
employees will be required? How many man hours is estimated to implement this system? How many man hours
will farmers need to spend to comply that could be used to produce agricultural products? The cost?
4_ Roll back of land and home values to pre 2019 values.
The County Council now includes the 3% increase value limit enjoyed by residential use to those are in the three
categories of ag dedication. This was not available to those in non-dedicated ag program_ The Covid time period
drove up home prices and land values, in many eases doubling or tripling in valuation. To be fair to those in the
non-dedicated ag program it make sense to set the home and land value to the 2018 valuation and then only allow
a 3% increase each year,
July 17,2024
Written Testimony concerning proposed changes to agricultural land use for tax purposes
Submitted by Carol Gay Covington,'owner of Makea Farms, Pepeekeo, Hawaii
There is real need to address the appropriate use of land here in Hawaii for agricultural purposes and the
fair assessment of taxes. For those of us who are actually farming there areimany barriers to success in
our ventures. Land cost, lack of access to water,,poor condition of soil due to past;farrning practices,
high cost of fuel and equipment,agricultural theft and lack of reliable markets for harvests to name a
few.
The proposed changes will alleviate some of the expense and will spur additional land use. It also has
the potential to encourage additional farming that is harmful to the land. Landowners who want to
avoid paying taxes on assessed value may feel it necessary to lease their land to commercial farmers in
order to satisfy the usage requirements of the new ag designations. Many of these farmers find it
beneficial to farm other people's land because the methods they practice quickly deplete the land of
nutrients and poison it with chemicals making it no longer able to support crops or,if so,only with the
use of even more use of fertilizers and pesticides. I speak from firsthand experience. Parts of our land
were abused in this manner and though it has been years since this occurred,it will take many more
years to pick up all the trash and repair the soil. We have found 2 worker camps,an abandoned car,
several ladies'purses,empty and partial bags of fertilizers and pesticides andhuge rolls of irrigation line
for which I can only assume the water source was the stream since there is no other water on the land.
Many of these landowners are absentees and don't really care about the damage that is done because
their goal is investment appreciation. Ours,on the other hand is to hold this land for future family use.
We are using mostly organic farming techniques. We'have some spots which we have cleared and which
we mow to create mulch for compost. How would this space be evaluated for tax purposes?
31B.4 par A.1.a in defining"active agricultural use" refers to"rove of plantings"to maximize
productivity. Why is it necessary to regiment planting when trees especially are more"productive"when
allowed adequate space to grow and allow in air and light? It is also healthier from a disease
transmission standpoint as well. We have also located some of our fruit trees based on their adjacency
to roads on the farm to make harvesting easier and hand watering feasible in the event of dry spells.
I mentioned agricultural theft earlier.Our land was old cane fields and there is a remnant border along
the road which is dense,overgrown cane. It serves a necessary purpose in providing a visual barrier to
bad actors who might want to trespass for illegal purposes. It is even more important because we do not
live on the land. How would that be addressed?
There is a part of our land we call "no man's land". It has a drop off and floods when we have heavy rain.
Very uneven ground. I have been informed this could be considered "waste." (I would prefer to call it
not arable. It offends me to refer to the'aina as waste.)While it does not lend itself to haole farming
practices without major modification to allow mower access,we see the opportunity to plant'ohi'a,
milo, kamani, loulu palms, hapu'u and la'au lapa'u medicinals in the future. These aren't"cash crops"
iv,-)A4
Actirl f 24
but their existence has a greater value. Other landowners around us have taken dozers and tractors to
the land and reshaped it. 'I thought it was illegal to change the contour of the'land!!? We all live on the
side of a mountain and your sh** runs downhill on your neighbor.
Our dream is to use a small part of our land as space for cultural education. A hale wnich would be used
for classes,demonstrations and tours to be surrounded by more traditional plantings such as mai'a, ulu,
manako, niu and hala. How would this be treated for tax purposes?
Farming is the hardest job in the world! Everything you do requires backbreaking labor and money.
There are only two of us and I'm not much of a farm worker, but I firmly believe we are living up to the
highest purposes for our land. We are trying to be thoughtful stewards and care for the land for future
generations. I hope these goals concur with your tax structure.
Carol Gay Covington
Paul Chang
TMK 28000390000
7/18/24, 2:04 PM , Mail -TOM ADAMS - Outlook
Statement
TOM ADAMS
Thu 7/18/2024 1 :01 PM
To:Tom Adams
I am requesting the Council reduce the requirement for a minimum of 10 acres to qualify for the
agriculture status since that number appears to be arbitrary. I have a 10 acre piece of property that,
under the expired NOA, qualified for an ag status since I lease out about 7 acres to a local rancher for
grazing. Ranchers and farmers are allowed, under the new program, to aggregrate properties to get a 10
acre qualification. I and others like me, lose under the new rules which may result in the ranchers and
farmers no longer having access to the smaller properties ..
�+� '(Ct� =l-( c0/yt
�-�
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AQQkADAwATlwMTAwAC0wMAAyZi03MTQ0AC0wMAIIMDAKABAAWSZWUritKEauvMMIHH5fyQ%3D%3D?n... 1/1