Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Testimony and council discussion on Bill 128 to create a tier‑3 property tax for high‑value non‑owner‑occupied parcels

Hawaii County Council · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Bill 128 would add a third residential property‑tax tier for certain non‑owner‑occupied parcels valued above $4 million; a Zoom testifier urged passage, councilmembers said the measure gives tax‑rate flexibility and does not itself create a new housing fund.

The Hawaii County Council heard public testimony and debated Bill 128, which proposes a new ‘tier‑3’ real‑property tax classification for certain non‑owner‑occupied properties with net taxable values above $4,000,000.

Tanya Yamanaka Anzazi testified via Zoom in strong support, saying Hawaii Island fits the profile of global luxury real‑estate markets and that a $4 million threshold “meaningfully distinguishes ultra luxury investment properties.” She cited county finance‑committee figures the council previously reviewed showing 842 non‑owner‑occupied properties that would fall into the proposed tier and argued that tiering can generate long‑term revenue while protecting working families.

Councilmember Jen Kogewata (co‑introducer) and Councilmember Ron Eustace described the measure as a step‑approach to allow more nuanced rate setting; Eustace said a third tier “helps balance that scale” rather than simply raising the 2nd‑tier rate. Kogewata clarified a previously reported $9 million for housing and homelessness services is not new money created by the bill but existing funding that could be drawn from either the second or the third tier for flexibility.

The bill was approved on 1st reading as introduced (voice vote recorded as seven ayes, two excused). Councilmembers noted that actual tax rates would be set later in the budget cycle.

The council did not adopt final tax rates during the hearing; proponents and finance staff indicated rate‑setting will occur in a separate budgetary process.