Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Tax Dedication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposal to extend short-term agricultural dedication from three to five years
Summary
A measure that would have increased the minimum term for short-term commercial agricultural use dedication from three to five years failed on a tied roll call after council members and Real Property Tax staff debated administrative impacts and farmer flexibility.
The Hawaii County Council rejected Bill 23 (Draft 2), which would have increased the minimum term for the short-term commercial agricultural use dedication property-tax assessment from three years to five years. The measure failed on a roll-call vote at the March 7 meeting after extended council discussion about administrative capacity, farmer flexibility and compliance risks.
Council member Eustace, the bill’s introducer, said the change responds to community feedback gathered by Real Property Tax and would give farmers and agriculturalists more time to rotate crops and to Real Property Tax staff more time to review applications. Assistant Administrator Katie Joe of Real Property Tax told the council that a longer term "would definitely assist us in managing the applications," while also flagging compliance concerns and the need for reapplication processes.
Opponents argued in committee and on the floor that a three-year term provides flexibility for small operators and that the administrative burden of longer terms should not override producers’ needs. Council member Kimball, who helped shape the original program, said he had spoken with local cattlemen and farm organizations and that many producers favored the three-year flexibility because uncertain operations may not be able to commit to five years. Council member Galimba reiterated support for the shorter interval, noting rollback-tax exposure for property owners who later leave agriculture.
On the roll call to pass Bill 23 at first reading the minutes show four votes in favor (Council members Eustace, Kurkowitz, Onishi and the chair), four opposed and one absent; the motion lost. Council members asked Real Property Tax to continue outreach and to ensure application materials and guidance (farm-plan template and FAQ) were accessible to applicants.
Speakers in the record include Council member Eustace (sponsor), Council member Kimball (opponent), Council member Galimba (opponent), and Katie Joe, Assistant Administrator for Real Property Tax.
