Finance committee postpones bill to extend short-term agricultural tax dedication from 3 to 5 years

The Hawaii County Council Finance Committee on Feb. 4 voted to postpone consideration of Bill 23, which would change the term for short-term commercial agriculture use dedication from three years to five, to the committee meeting on Feb. 18.

The measure, introduced by Councilmember Eustace, would amend Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code to increase the required term length for the short-term commercial agriculture use dedication property-tax assessment program. Eustace said the change was intended to give agricultural producers more time to commit to crops and operations and to give the Real Property Tax (RPT) division more time to investigate and process applications.

Why it matters: The change would alter eligibility and commitment periods for landowners seeking the short-term commercial agriculture use dedication, a tax-assessment program that affects property tax treatment for agricultural land and can influence farmers nd lessees' decisions about production and land use.

During the committee discussion, Councilmember Kimball said he supported more public outreach before altering the statutorily referenced term and noted the Real Property Tax Working Group had originally recommended a three-year cycle. "I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on this yet, but I can say . . . there's a need for greater public outreach before we get into this," Kimball said.

Real property tax administrator Lisa Miura told the committee that the RPT division had received many applications after prior changes and that the agency would like more time to consult with the bill's sponsor on lease-term language. "It is concerning anytime a real property tax bill is before council, and there's zero people here to testify," Miura said, adding she wanted to discuss whether the five-year change should apply differently to leases and renewal periods.

Councilmember Gillema, who identified herself as an agricultural landowner, said the three-year term provides useful flexibility for some operators and that some community members had opposed strict limits on renewals. "The flexibility of only having a three-year period is valuable to some people in the community," she said.

Councilmember Eustace moved to postpone the bill to the Feb. 18 committee meeting; Councilmember Nishi seconded. The motion carried with nine members in favor, the clerk recorded.

Discussion vs. decision: Committee members debated policy trade-offs, including outreach, rollback taxes and lease-term treatment. No substantive amendments were adopted at the Feb. 4 meeting; the committee gave direction to revisit lease-term language and to allow additional consultation before the Feb. 18 hearing.

The committee will take up Bill 23 again on Feb. 18; no further action was taken on the ordinance at the Feb. 4 meeting.