HomeMy WebLinkAbout 12/09/2015 Budget & Finance Committee minutes MINUTES
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 9, 2015
A meeting of the Budget & Finance Committee of the Council of the
County of Kaua`i, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Arryl Kaneshiro, Chair, at
the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday,
December 9, 2015, at 9:48 a.m., after which the following Members answered the call
of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Excused: Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Minutes of the November 12, 2015 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Chock, seconded by Council Chair
Rapozo, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Hooser was excused),
the Minutes of the November 12, 2015 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting
was approved.
The Committee proceeded on its agenda items, as shown in the following
Committee Reports, which are incorporated herein by reference:
CR-BF 2015-39: on Bill No. 2602 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-796, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY
OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2016, BY REVISING THE
AMOUNTS ESTIMATED IN THE
CRIMINAL ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND
(Kauai Police Department, KPAL Youth
Center/Interim KPD Training Facility —
$300,000.00 (Operating Budget))
(Approved.)
(Note: The Committee was in recess from 10:34 a.m. to 10:50 a.m., during discussion
on Bill No. 2606.)
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 2 DECEMBER 9, 2015
CR-BF 2015-40: on Bill No. 2603 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-797,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
CAPITAL BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF
KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2016, BY REVISING THE
AMOUNTS ESTIMATED IN THE
GENERAL FUND CIP (Kaua`i Police
Department, KPAL Youth Center/Interim
KPD Training Facility — $300,000.00
(CIP Budget)) (Approved.)
CR-BF 2015-41: on Bill No. 2605 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-797, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CAPITAL
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2016, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
FUND CIP (Coco Palms Resort Development
Use Permit Conditions — $110,000.00)
(Approved.)
Bill No. 2606 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5A,
ARTICLE 9, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 5A-9.3, RELATING TO A
HOMESTEAD TAX CAP FOR HOME EXEMPTION AND LONG
TERM AFFORDABLE RENTAL PROPERTIES (This item was
Deferred.)
Council Chair Rapozo moved for approval of Bill No. 2606, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I believe the Administration has a
presentation for us.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
STEVEN A. HUNT, Real Property Tax Manager: I am here today wearing
several other hats, including a member of the budget team, as well as a member of
the long-term financial strategy team, and the vacancy review team — all of which
have budget implications. The reintroduction of the Homeowner Tax Cap is
something that has significant finance impacts or could. Before getting into the cap
itself and some of the language of the cap, I just wanted to go back and give a little
bit of history of taxation and how the Counties had inherited this from the State and
the changes that have been done over time.
(Mr. Hunt provided a PowerPoint presentation which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Attachment#1.)
The transfer of Real Property function from State to County was completed in
1982. It was part of the Constitutional Conventions (ConCon) back from 1977. In
1981 which was the last year the State ran the real property tax functions, the tax
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 3 DECEMBER 9, 2015
rate was fourteen dollars and fifty cents ($14.50) for all property classes and that was
based on sixty percent (60%) of fair market value. To equate that in today's dollars,
it would be a uniformed tax rate across all eight (8) categories at eight dollars and
seventy cents ($8.70). When the real property assessment was transferred to the
Counties, the legislature prohibited the Counties from making ordinance changes for
ten (10) years. I am reading back some of the Committee Meeting minutes and it
reflects that there were concerns about giving the authority to the Counties to change
law and that there may be some special interest groups that would benefit from giving
that authority to the Counties.
In 1991, the Homestead tax class was created. Since that time, Chapter 5A,
which is the Real Property section has had sixty-eight (68) ordinance changes. Listed
here are the years and the ordinance changes that occurred in each of those years.
Tax rates have also changed over time. Again, as I referred to in 1981, we had
a single-unified rate of fourteen dollars and fifty cents ($14.50) for all categories, both
land and building. In 1982, the Hotel & Resort was increased from fourteen dollars
and fifty cents ($14.50) to fifteen dollars and ninety cents ($15.90) for the land and
improvements. There were decreases to the improvements for the rates on
Residential, Commercial, and Agricultural which went from fourteen dollars fifty
cents ($14.50) to thirteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($13.75).
In 1983, rates were changed again. A rate of eight dollars and seventy cents
($8.70) for Land and eight dollars and twenty-five cents ($8.25) for Improvements for
seven (7) of the eight (8) classes. This essentially reflects the conversion because this
was the year that we converted from sixty percent (60%) for market value on the
assessments to a hundred percent (100%). However, the Single-Family Residential
was reduced to seven dollars and seventy cents ($7.70) for Land and seven dollars
and sixty-six cents ($7.66) for Improvements.
In 1984, the Single-Family Residential rate was changed again. It went to six
dollars and forty-five cents ($6.45) for the Land and five dollars and eighty-one cents
($5.81) for the Improvements, and all other tax classes stayed at the eight dollars and
seventy cents ($8.70).
1991 was the year that the Homestead tax class was first created and we set
rates at that point at four dollars and four cents ($4.04) for the Land and three dollars
and eighteen cents ($3.18) for the Improvements.
Primarily there were some changes up and down to the eight (8) classes
between the periods of 1991 and 2013, until we had a major change, which became
the unified rate. We no longer have a Land and Building rates, but a single rate for
Land and Improvements together. Now properties are classified based on use rather
than zoning and the Homestead rate was reduced to three dollars and five cents
($3.05) in 2013.
In 2015, which is the Fiscal Year 2016, we now have ten (10) classification of
property with large rate spreads ranging from three dollars and five cents ($3.05) to
ten dollars and eighty-five cents ($10.85). We created a Commercialized Home Use
class for owner-occupied properties that are not exclusively used as their primary
residences. Just a little background on where we have come.
The Permanent Home Use Tax Cap. Why was the Permanent Tax Cap
removed? Again, this was a collaborative effort with both the Administration and the
Council at that time. The cap was never intended to be a permanent solution, but
rather a temporary measure to allow tax reform proposals to be implemented. As you
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 4 DECEMBER 9, 2015
recall there were two (2) major comprehensive tax proposals. One was implemented
or sent up by the Real Property Tax Task Force, I believed that was in 2004, and then
in 2008. The real property initiative which came from the Administration, which was
also sent to Council. Many elements of those proposals have been adopted over time,
which represents some of those sixty-eight (68) ordinance changes, but the
comprehensive plan was never adopted at the inception when it was submitted.
Another reason was we needed to return to a more simplistic and understandable
property tax system where taxes were once again related to property values. And we
wanted to assure equity and fairness amongst taxpayers of a similar class, while
providing sufficient income-based relief measures for those that have limited means.
How does Hawai`i rank in terms of property tax rates? Based on a study done
by the Tax Foundation, Hawai`i is last. We have an effective tax rate of two dollars
and eighty cents ($2.80) across the State. Kauai, specifically for the Homestead class,
has an effective tax rate of about two dollars and twenty cents ($2.20) and for
Commercial Home Use, which are also owner-occupants with income properties,
about three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) as an effective rate. However, as you are
aware Hawai`i also has the highest values; the median values, and this is based on a
2009 study, was five hundred and seventeen thousand and six hundred ($517,600).
When you combine the highest assessments with the lowest tax rates, Hawai`i ranks
thirty-fourth (34th) overall in terms of the median tax paid by homeowners at thirteen
hundred and twenty-four dollars ($1,324). Hawaii did have the sixth (6th) highest
household income, and property taxes as a percentage of income ranked Hawaii forty-
first (41st) out of fifth (50th) with a median tax being approximately at one point sixty-
two percent (1.62%) of household income.
What are the common economic criteria for evaluating tax systems? Again, we
have not had our workshop yet, but I think these are things that are important to
consider: growth, stability, simplicity, neutrality, and equity. Growth refers to—Does
revenue raised by the tax grow along with the economy or the program
responsibilities it is expected to fund? Stability — Is the revenue raised by the tax
relatively stable over time? Simplicity — Is the tax simply and inexpensive for
taxpayers to pay and for government to collect? Neutrality — Does the tax have little
or no impact on people's decisions about how much to buy, sell, and invest? Equity—
Do taxpayers with similar incomes pay similar amounts and do tax liabilities rise
with income?
Under the cap, I am going to be addressing these individually. Growth, having
capped taxes on nearly one-third (1/3) or about thirty-six point eight percent (36.8%)
of Kaua`i's gross valuation base that is solely affixed to the Consumer Price Index
Urban (CPI-U) of Honolulu could severely limit the ability to meet obligations if or
when expenses outpace this index. If the cost of employee wages, through collective
bargaining, health care premiums, potential County lawsuits, insurance premiums,
road paving, existing and future debt service, solid waste disposal, recycling,
transportation, gasoline, and electricity; if any of these do not parallel the CPI-U of
Honolulu, then the additional costs which will be added to the budget, will be borne
by the non-homeowners tax classes.
Growth continues. Property values generally increase as the economy grows,
but they are not always proportionate to one another. Property values are affected by
supply and demand, interest rates, and outside investment. Therefore, real estate
values may rise and fall faster than other economic indicators.
Similarly, the programs and responsibilities that property taxes are funding
do not always rise and fall with economic indicators. The County cannot simply layoff
civil servant employees when the economy dips, as there are contractual agreements
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 5 DECEMBER 9, 2015
that must be honored. Under this proposed cap model, growth is limited to CPI-U
unless these properties sell and the cap is reset, or we have additional growth in
inventory. Municipalities using capped systems tend to see increased fees and other
taxes, such as the Community Facility Districts or Mello-Roos, and service fees to
offset periods when tax revenues are insufficient.
I have included a graph of what has happened to the relative percentage of
property taxes to those areas that began capping taxes early on. As you can see in
California in 1977, property taxes used to represent about sixty-six percent (66%) of
the tax base, while today is only forty percent (40%) because of Proposition 13, but
you can see other charges that used to be fifteen percent (15%) in 1977, now
at thirty-five percent (35%) of their revenue.
Next is stability. Property values do change year-over-year, and they
occasionally do so with significant swings based on market sales. Capping taxes
provides homeowners with a certain level of predictability during a rising market;
however, it does not provide revenue stability for the County when values are falling.
As currently written, the Bill only provides homeowners with stability not the County
of Kaua`i— it is a ceiling, not a floor.
Under this proposed Bill, if assessed values decline and the market taxes,
which is the net taxable value times the market tax rate, fall below the capped taxes,
the actual taxes are lowered and a new ceiling is reset. This severely impacts the
County's ability to restore revenue during the recovery period.
Simplicity. While on the surface it may seem straightforward enough, take it
from experience, ten (10) years worth of dealing with the permanent home use cap,
the tax cap is a highly complicated program to understand and implement. Aside
from having to explain to taxpayers, lenders, and other interested parties how the
taxes were calculated, there are other tax adjustments that need to be accounted for
such as, additional construction, renovations, changes in exemptions, changes in tax
classification, and land area changes such as subdivisions, consolidations, and CPRs.
Consider that property values rarely remain the same over time. The percentage of
time that real property assessment (RPA) staff spent solely on the permanent home
use (PHU) cap when it was implemented, relating to issues was about thirty percent
(30%) to thirty-five percent (35%). This significantly reduced the amount of time
available for picking up new construction, enforcing tax code, analyzing
neighborhoods for better market modeling results. Returning to the capped system
would require additional budgetary funding. In our initial conversations with our
software vendor, they are estimating...if this is intended to be a permanent solution
and should be programed; it may be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) in programing. Based on our experience for implementing this the last
time, RPA would request additional staff to help manage issues related to the tax cap
that come up. Administering the tax cap is anything but simple.
In dealing with neutrality. Having a tax cap could alter taxpayer behavior
over time. For example, longtime homeowners that have accumulated sizable
differences between their capped taxes and their market taxes may not be able to
downsize without the portability of their property capped taxes. In turn, this not only
affects the real estate market by possibly preventing certain inventory from being
marketed, but also limits the potential revenue growth, as turnover and the resetting
of the cap are key elements to revenue growth under a capped tax model. Tax caps
may also discourage investment in owner-occupied properties since the new
construction, under this Bill, would be fully taxable.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 6 DECEMBER 9, 2015
I think most important is equity. There are two (2) standards of equity —
vertical equity and horizontal. Vertical equity occurs when wealthier taxpayers pay
a greater amount in taxes than less wealthy taxpayers. Horizontal equity, on the
other hand, occurs when similar taxpayers, those with similar incomes or wealth pay
the same amount in taxes. When two (2) owners of nearly identical properties pay
different amounts of property taxes because one (1) owner bought the property a
decade before the other, then no horizontal equity has been achieved. With vertical
equity, owners of valuable property would pay more in taxes because owners of
valuable property generally are wealthier than owners of less valuable property. The
capped tax system can result in owners of more valuable property, actually paying
less than owners who recently acquire less valuable property, merely because of the
cap. Tax caps do not meet the standards of either vertical or horizontal equity.
Are we doomed to repeat history? Reintroducing the cap may bring back many
of the problems that existed, namely: Unequal taxes between homeowners within the
same tax class and having similar assessed values. The inability to recover revenue
losses when market taxes fall below the prior years capped ceilings. Creates a
disproportionate tax burden on other tax classes should the operating cost of
government exceed the CPI-U of Honolulu. Given that this would be a revenue cap,
it may limit future capital improvement investment in Kauai. And it does not allow
for timely budget forecasts, as I cannot simply predict what the taxes are without
knowing the rates and running what those differences will be.
Finally, it may create future problems. Reintroducing the cap could undermine
many of the existing tax reform measures already enacted to minimize the impact of
the former cap's removal. It may create a backlash with our state legislators, as
County officials have been lobbying for a greater share of the Transient
Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenue based on our testimony, the County of Kaua`i
has insufficient tax revenues. Limiting the tax revenue could possibly have bond
rating implications as the rating agencies look to the ability to generate revenue in
their analysis of our rating.
That is my completion of the presentation. I do have some comments on the
Bill itself on a technical nature, but I will handle those after you have questions on
the presentation.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will take the questions solely on the
presentation first, and then we will let Steve mention his comments about the
actually Bill itself, and then we can ask questions about his comments also. If there
any questions specific to this presentation, let us ask those right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one question on page 9, and I think it
is important because I hear this a lot that we pay the lowest property taxes in the
Country, but Steve is it not fair to say that all the states are different and that some
states are required to fund school districts — I mean counties. Counties are required
to fund different things. Was there ever a comparison made that compared apples to
apples? Basically, in a municipality like Kaua`i that we fund government and not
school districts and everything else; where would we rank?
Mr. Hunt: It would be difficult to say because we would
have to look at...and this is a comparison of just homeowner taxes, principle taxes,
not the total population. It would be difficult because we would have to look at all
other taxes. Some states do not have general excise tax and some tax higher on fuel,
some have sales taxes, so you would have to look at the totality of statewide taxes
and then somehow distribute between state and county and try to determine how
much of that is borne specifically by the homeowners. Therefore, you are right in that
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 7 DECEMBER 9, 2015
this is only related to property taxes, but property taxes do not necessary fund all the
functions of government that other property taxes may fund.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right and if we did a comparison like that
with municipalities like Kauai that did not fund our...what is funded by the state
here is very hard to say that we would be ranked at the last.
Mr. Hunt: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think it is a great slide if you are looking at
everything just for discussion, but I think the intent of the slide was to show that we
are paying the lowest tax in the state.
Mr. Hunt: We are paying the lowest effective tax rate
and we are forty-first (41st) in terms of relative to income and thirty-fourth (34th)
relative in total based on value and the rate combined.
Council Chair Rapozo: As I was looking at Taxpolicycenter.org and it
basically said...and this was nationally school districts get thirty percent (30%) of the
general revenue from property taxes in the jurisdiction that they reside. That is
substantial, or it could be.
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Therefore, I am just suggesting that when you
look at the numbers...we may not be ranked last...
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: ...as far as the effective tax rates.
Mr. Hunt: State's like New Jersey, I think their property
taxes which were ranked the highest, I believe they are paying somewhere close to
sixty-four hundred dollars ($6,400) as a homeowner annually. Obviously, those are
probably funding a lot of the state functions or that jurisdiction.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: On page 7, you just have the words, "The
Permanent Home Use Tax Cap," and then on page 8, you go on to describing it and
why it was removed.
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The "tax cap was never intended to be a
permanent solution, but rather a temporary measure to allow tax reform proposals."
In the name itself, "permanent home use tax cap," they sadly used the word,
"permanent," which is just to make it confusing, I think, because what they are
talking about is a primary home or homestead and owner-occupied. Is that correct?
Mr. Hunt: You are correct. I think I have that
somewhere in my notes. It was Ordinance No. 571, I believe, is where it originally
came from and this was actually a true dedication program. They called it permanent
home use, and Councilmember Yukimura remembers this one, it was a ten (10) year
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 8 DECEMBER 9, 2015
dedication that you pledge that you were not going to sell your house and you received
beneficial treatment and there would be a rollback on taxes if you breached that.
That framework was used and the original framework which was a dedication
program was used to implement the one that we just cancelled, what we called the
permanent home use, although it was a temporary, it used the same framework.
Therefore, the nomenclature was still saying permanent, but it really was not meant
to and all the legislative intent says that it was meant to be a stop gap to implement
many of the other ordinances to reform.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And then in that bullet, you have "RPTTF &
RPI."
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: What does that mean?
Mr. Hunt: The "RPTTF" stands for Real Property Tax
Task Force. That was a committee that was assembled and I think both Council and
the Administration has appointed members on that. I chaired that many years ago
when I was not with government.
Councilmember Kuali`i: That went from when to when?
Mr. Hunt: I believe 2004 was when we made the
recommendations and the ordinance changes and submitted that to Council.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just from 2003 and 2004?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: What does "RPI" mean?
Mr. Hunt: "RPI" stands for Real Property Initiative. I
was not a participant in that one. That one came from a combination of finance and
real property assessment. It was an internal one that they worked on for about
eighteen (18) months and then submitted...
Councilmember Kuali`i: About how long ago was that?
Mr. Hunt: It was submitted in 2008. I believe it was
deferred, therefore it is technically still with you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am not sure where you said this, but you
said something to the effect of, "We have not gotten there yet or something is coming;
a group." Is there going to be a new task force?
Mr. Hunt: I mentioned that there was some request,
actually by Council, to participate in a workshop.
Councilmember Kuali`i: A workshop.
Mr. Hunt: Again, I think it is a little bit cart before the
horse because...
Councilmember Kuali`i: Are you preparing for that workshop?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 9 DECEMBER 9, 2015
Mr. Hunt: I would be participating. I am not chairing it
nor leading it, but would be a resource person for that.
Councilmember Kuali`i: When do we anticipate that to happen?
Mr. Hunt: That is in your hands.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So you are ready to go tomorrow if we
schedule it tomorrow?
Mr. Hunt: I would not say tomorrow...I would like to get
through the appeal period first and finish up certification role, but somewhere in...
Councilmember Kuali`i: Mid-January to mid-February, before budget?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I have some personal travel in mid to
late-January, but other than that, I am available.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Coming soon.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, coming soon. I will make myself available
as much as possible.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: Steve, you stated on page 22 that we may
create a backlash with our State Legislatures as county officials have been lobbying
for a greater share of TAT taxes. I did this little sketch here using my friend Google.
On a joint family of two based on a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), the total
federal government taxes, one would pay maybe in the area of twenty-three thousand
dollars ($23,000). The State government based on an income tax rate of ten percent
(10%) you are looking at ten thousand plus, I am saying maybe twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000) in purchases over a course of a year, would be one thousand dollars
($1,000). Eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) to the State, twenty-three thousand
dollars ($23,000) to the Federal government, and if the County government, I am just
looking at property taxes and not utilities, we are looking at a value of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000), you pay fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), and vehicle tax
maybe three hundred dollars ($300) each car. What I am saying is that I do not know
what we are trying to worry about or the backlash when the differences between the
County, the State, and the Federal government is so minute. Have you folks looked
from that perspective when worrying about what the State and the Federal
government thinks?
Mr. Hunt: We cannot worry about the Federal
government because it does not matter what State you live in, you are going to pay
the same Federal government taxes.
Councilmember Kagawa: But do we look at the...
Mr. Hunt: And we do not get an opportunity to take
those unfortunately.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we look at the middle-class family as a
whole when we consider what we are going to do with property taxes and when we
say, "This is fair," do we look at all of the obligations that a family might have?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 10 DECEMBER 9, 2015
Mr. Hunt: My job is to set values. That is really all my
job is. The policy calls in terms of rate setting and the distribution, in fact, I think it
is in Section 5A-6.3 that actually talks about the Council, "Shall set the rates and
they shall look at the assign percentage of each class." Really, that should be at this
level where those decisions are made. I obviously get involved with policy because I
have some resource and background, but in terms of rate setting or what the
appropriate rate should be, or if we end up giving a break to one side if you have a
Homestead on one, but they have a second property, they may save on one side and
then pay on the other. There are a lot of different considerations to not just what an
owner-occupant pays, but what everyone should be paying.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think that is why the proposal was
introduced. We are trying to prevent the huge fluctuations in market that seem
unpreventable and I think...
Mr. Hunt: I think in a pure system the rate setting
should do that. If you see values on the rise and they are rising faster than you
believe the cost of government is rising, then you lower the rates the offset. You can
determine how much taxes you want to gain from that particular tax category.
Councilmember Kagawa: Would that be unfair if only certain areas
went up a lot?
Mr. Hunt: It can be because that is how the market
reacts.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think that is the problem with just relying
on tax rate because assessments go up in some areas then some.
Mr. Hunt: You could have an overall trend of values
going up five percent (5%), but you could have some going up twenty percent (20%)
and some dropping ten percent (10%). I mean there are conditions in neighborhoods
that may actually still result in lower values.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Hunt: You are welcome.
Councilmember Kagawa: Good job.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just following up of what Councilmember
Kagawa has focused on about this backlash with our State Legislatures. It is pretty
clear to me and I get their feedback that if we lower our property tax rates for
homeowners when they are already relatively low, they are going to say, "Well, that
means you do not need revenues. Why are you asking us for TAT moneys?" Even
Mayor Arakawa, himself, said, "I apologize because my County has lowered tax rates
and I cannot go and ask for the TAT now because they are going to throw it back in
our face."
Mr. Hunt: I have heard those same comments and again,
one other hat I do wear, I am the representative for Kaua`i on the TAT working group
committee. Although this is not the forum for presenting it, I know the proposal that
is going forward is very favorable to the Counties. Now whether the Legislature is
going to pass that or not is another story.
Councilmember Yukimura: But that is a good first step for us.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 11 DECEMBER 9, 2015
Mr. Hunt: It makes it difficult if we are lowering rates
here with the anticipation that we are going to get here...when the State is also crying
out that they need the tax revenue; it just makes it challenging.
Councilmember Yukimura: Tell us how you feel the existing programs are
really addressing the main problem with ever interesting...well actually...excuse me
for jumping all around in my mind, but this differential of property tax growth values
that we were talking about different parts of the island that will increase in valuation
faster than other parts. That is somewhat addressed by the offsets of our program
where we are protecting those who are poor or on fixed incomes, right?
Mr. Hunt: There are very targeted approaches. I cannot
say that it works for everyone, but we have a number of people that are participating
in those now. The very low income, which you pay in lieu of tax three percent (3%) of
your gross income. There is preservation which has a higher threshold for your
income, you are up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in gross income now
to participate in that with the criteria that you have lived there for ten (10) years and
you are owner-occupant and you in the Homestead class that has worked for some
people in some very high valued areas. Then, we have just the basic low-income
exemption itself. There are three (3) tiers, two (2) are more credit programs, and one
(1) is the exemption. They can always be tweaked and improved on, but I think by in
large it is addressing the issue of run up values where they do not have the means to
pay. Obviously, there are some run up values where they have the means to pay and
they are still very vocal and they are not happy about it, but it is a tax on property
value.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members on
the presentation?
Councilmember Chock Thank you for the presentation. It is real
obvious why we should not be considering a cap and yet we are where we are because
people are hurting. Outside of what you have been able to present here in this, are
there further solutions that we should be looking at in terms of exemptions or other
means of insuring that we can help people that we have not discussed? That is where
I would like this discussion to go.
Mr. Hunt: I am not prepared to present anything today,
but I think that is certainly something as we work through our workshops should
consider is there another way. One that is in the front of my mind is rather than a
tax cap maybe there is an assessment cap so that you still control rates if for some
reason the growth of cost of government exceeds a CIP you can still raise the rate,
but you cap the amount that the assessment can change year to year. For instance,
you still valuing it market and that the market value goes from five hundred
thousand ($500,000) to seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) in one year, but
you have a five percent (5%) cap, you are limiting in five hundred twenty-five
thousand as the maximum assessment. But I think if we are looking at that we might
also want to consider a floor that when we have free falls where the values have
tanked too, which puts pressure on raising tax rates. Therefore, maybe there are both
a ceiling and a floor by which we should be looking at on capping an assessed value.
Councilmember Chock: I know we have said temporary before and it
has not been, but I think the intent here is that this is a placeholder until we can
have these discussions that I think are important that you are bringing up some
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 12 DECEMBER 9, 2015
solutions towards. That being said, would the passing of this Bill have any
implications to what it is that you are...
Mr. Hunt: Major operational implications. First is
programing. We currently do not have the PHU program, it was on our legacy, the
server version, and now we are on a web version so we would have to have a complete
set of new programs come in to write code for the internet version. Again, we just got
an estimate of what the permanent solution would be which could be an excess of a
hundred thousand in programing. If we are having to explain again the cap taxes and
all of that it may also involve additional personnel.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are going to take our lunch break and we
will be back at 1:30. We have the presentation by the ICMA person that is scheduled
for 1:30 because he has a flight to take, and then we will come back to our questions.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:29 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 6:38 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We left off with what Mr. Hunt presented to
us, we were asking questions on that, and we did not get any further than that. I
would entertain a motion to defer.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kuali`i, seconded by
Councilmember Chock, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Hooser
was excused), Bill No. 2606 was deferred.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
llw""`
Darrellyne M. Caldeira
Council Services Assistant II
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on January 21, 2016:
$n44 014 a S.L.G.
ARRY j A NE HIRO
Chair, :F Committee
rD
r
rmt
r
z
•
U
O
H
2
N
Q1
X
H
•
•
•
w
0
O
C.0
_.
CD
CD p
3
O 3
3
CD
CD 0
o
0
x
n
iv 0
CD
0 co
cD cn
CD
O
O
0 0
n�
^ O CD
i
CD O
n -a
CD
CD
c� cn
.
C,n cn
cn
C: 3
o CD
o
cn
CD M
CD
CD
cD
ii
e--h
x O CD C � Co
V
CD
CD
cr n_
cn o n
CD. n i<
CD
O �.
CD
o f-.,. CD
X cn
ooh,
-�, CD CD
3
CD
CD
'rt ' o
< CD
� o _
c o
CD
a
/ rt �
CD
o Ml
C� O
O —
:3 rD
r
V) O
n �o
o CD
3 e
r+
�D n
Cl.
� o
N3
am
Q
W
CL
C�
U
O
4�
U
4�
V
t'LS
• i
` I
E9
0
° o
N
Co
f
` T A
_ 1
�M
C M
�M
00
0
0
O
A
0 0
C M
v
�2
° o
N
V
V
R
Oo
cc
° o
N
V
V
I
_ 1
Co
00
° o
N
� M
_ 1
0
a\
01
L
0
0 0
V
V
w 1
M
0
O
_ l
_ 1
o�
0
0
0
l
O
O
N
C�
00
60"
^ 0 �
c
O
N
Lr
0
rl
0
0
00
00
O
O
Lrl
0
I
O
O
d-
m
ti � ti N
X 00 X 00 0 00
ft
ss
00 � � � ',�,• 00 � v? � � C p .
�.
V z m O co
O
l�
�o
v
7
r
Q
C
N
CD
O
C -
0
, r ,
�, QJ
v QJ
� � O
cry �
ti
0
tw °o
0
Cu
Cu
01
O � �
�•4.j O
. io� 00
0 0
N N
CD
CD
3
CD
x
0
3
C
Ln
fD
X
n
liq
x
13
d
0
E
d
R
3
�i
s
X ^ ^�
-1--i CL
0 06
(U LL
C6 O ~
cn
CU o
o �, E
0 CU
°
-0 Q�
E
a E ._
C: 4.5 .�
.� CU O
0 -
c6 cn
c L °
O Q
O
cu E
U °
'♦"i L
X O
CU 0
CU 1
c °
E a)
x L cn °
+� a) . E
•— —
a) C a)
x cu
CU cu cu V �
U .6--1
E
a) CD c
cn L E .—
'— o
X cu
L � o cn o L
°>,� a) 0-
E c: a)
cu CU — Q) `` �
O O — �
L cn
-�:3 cu w
O � a) c' x CU V
-0 C a) � L-
a) cn 0 �
C: u) E U) ° Co
k
a c
�a>sa
(k; /I
) \ 222
ee {ae
r— cr
$ -
`
;m
@
j11Ei
. (D
- I ;±#
= »n
�)§�J
}a}
2I�3m
ID 0
,
\a(;
k
) \ {/
\ {{E
�JG}
@%[-
&a =@
/� \\
} \ }}
( (M Z
i
{
r . �
m �m
> \
� \
m\
� \
ƒM�
\ m
§ �
$.
hi �j §m§mm�
3:
k
�
�
S
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�.
�
O
�
�
�
�
.�
�
/
�
§
§
�
#
�
a
a �
I ke
C�
0
v
L
v
O w v
N v �
° ° M ;_4 O
•� O
° F.0
W O 4-J OV O
v�
rd o
Mc
o �v �v�,c�
cu v
42� 7� 4)
CO co
00 4-J
Q) to
CL to.
i' oar °����° Mao
CL .,..4 4-J � 4 - J 64 4 r - 0 j N
Q) .� O �� V � �� GJ
v E
ro
C) 4C. a 4 te + '� ,
• • • • e
rD fm+
o IZ n `C 0 O
W cu ,. -j * o
r c
I an � ` �
lu pi r ' 0 r ' I O I
I M r+ O C)
o X d (D `� r�
CD rD
r+ ° rD
rD (D re a
v r+ r+ c rD
ru r+ "- r
rD
rD
cn
rD � • o � �
rD Cu
rD
rD O �
cn
ro
r-r ►� rD
W x
rD o
CD Pu. cu
O r*
o O
rD
o rD
rn
tQ
AD
k
Cl)
N
�r
CD
N
n
0
rn
n
0
0
n
r
s■
0
ml
CD
CU
..� aU 4 'u cu
� 4-�
�U��v
00 4 � ft
M O v �
�. 0 W ;:I
O
via
vm CU
v
O
CA � v
cu o
04 p
O _
a ��D
CA
M �a O
U •4••+
..
aJ O '*--o' m
go 4 •
cu
aj
O
cu
� C
ft a
• O _O 4-J
r�
� >., .;
cu � u v
CU v•�
Q • �—+ O
C)
v'� v
• �, v cu
a) 4J
� 5
aj 4-J CU
cn CU
ft
��� ��
.V U `� • 3
o��
� u'� o
4- J x •� •�+ u
� a)
4-J via
cu U �
a a) u
O0 U b
CU
cu 0
O
4 v� r 4-J v
o � C
Q o
�• -,P-4 ao aJ
+J
CU o
� �� ft IZ
•
•
�.... �* P ,
� o�
°o.
r* n
(D rD
CU
rtcn r*
• rD rD
rD
o CA '�
°, o M
rD
rt
rD
cn �
n
rD
:� C' r rL
r+
gu do
cn
r .
r c�
D
Cu CD
rD � rn
o r-L
w
• •
C � n CC
�r
rL °0
rDrD °��
olrt U�
F d 0" �
rD r ` O rt
o p r+ r +
rD
rD rD "0 p
rL r) M
�� ��W
� M� �;•�,
o��
rD o �'
Cu p
r+ rn
rD
O �= rD�cn
M �� r'a
rD
rD
r+
(-D �d C)
r r " }D r . + . r
� v,rDn'tJ
o'
n rD
110 r)
�rt
[ rrt
cropu
C7- rD ' M
O ra cn
r
rD
•
� :r - of
�
M
�l
r +
r +
rD
O
(D
�� o
U4
rD
n •
o'
o
rD
rD
�` •
�'
�
('D
r+�'`PJ
o
W
rDn
0 rt
"
p
�o
pi
rD �•�rD
rD
r+ rD
sv
O
r+
rD
n
pi.
rD
rD
�cn
� ~d 0
0
rD
(Ddq
c
�
O �
CL
O
�r��
r+
4.
rD
rD
rrt
rD
rD
D
C
0
liq
a�
U
0)
0
4mP
L
�-1
rA
; W
�4
+ is
N
SFr
C r
tit
a
n rD ►ti'C ¢� �:3 PU Q rD Q
rD rD
rD Pi ,.r .
rD
O rt t l
rD
a ° nrD
� rD >< 0 craq rL
V)
rD
a CD rD
rD m
rD rD
W Z rD rD rD
CU �
rD
rD rD H, w
rD rD
as rD p�
M rD
rD n O ► s rD r*
r-L rD
�• rD O O rD
uqq r+ rD
Clq rD r+ rD O rD
rD rD �--'
rrt CL qq
cr
� .
rf
SO
w
9
►-� '� cu Qj
CU u .,..,
..
v
� X �, 4 u ^�.-: �;-
v u 7 �
(1)
4-J � U O'J 4-J
cn � t:l rd O � ' O
CU o � � � u
• bA �'' �n V cn
ro
o �
cu
cu
E t. 0 0
• •
rD
rD gu
r+ cu - a` �
Q., p r+
rt
. rt ►7dd x ' O
O a m
rlt rD A) O rD
pu � n pu rD
C
90 m
(D cn
�- n CD
C c
' r ...t. o
(D CL 0
In, PU ~•
r .. r r . + N
CL
�• ( � rD o.�
n �, �•��
�d
rD f rD
rD gu rD
�(D CD Pu rL
UD rr++ m r) a. O O �=
r +
s
Uri � �� �
p �,� �
O O rD �, r+
Q ' cp
O
r) r+ P
r-+ pu
rD rt
(7' r+
�x rgu
n M rt r•+
`O pu
r
O
rD M
rr+ �• o
n gu
O � � o
CL
�PU �(D
rD P cn
cn O-A - O
aq ~
r
rD r+ ~d
E
Pi
f'7
e=1
a
C�
4=J
•
O
cu
E
CU
4-j
Qj
w
O
cu
cu
�
1:�
cu
4-j
rd
O
' k
cu
' (t
cu
0
W
� o
v
x
(U
v
�o4v
rn
�'�•a)
u
�
+-
W
4
4-J
u
v
�u
4-J
v
v
d
cu
v
cu
nz�
cu
O
0
o
�
'v
rz
>"
+,
U
M
a
c
P -4
+�
v,
ro
aj
cu
; .. 4
�w'n
O
•
•
a�
I �
4 -4�
cu
lz a
O • r-1
O
v V
C
> O
•0 u
W
u
o •
� v
O '+
Ln
tv
tv
�o
u
� u
H o
•
00
O
E
Qj
w
O
cu
cu
�
1:�
cu
4-j
rd
O
' k
cu
cu
0
� o
x
v
�o4v
rn
u
•
W
v
v
�u
o
v
v
p
•�44
4
rz
-J
+�
v,
ro
•
a�
I �
4 -4�
cu
lz a
O • r-1
O
v V
C
> O
•0 u
W
u
o •
� v
O '+
Ln
tv
tv
�o
u
� u
H o
•
00
00
o
r-r
r+
p zr
rD rD
`C rD
a' r,
M rD
rD
� cu
n
rD
� o
CL rD
rD
O
O
rD
R
O
O
rD
PU
rD
rD
cu
M
rD
O
rD
rD
5
ME
rD
O
rD
cu
pi
0
rD
rt
0..1.
rD
rD
O
rt
cu
cn
r+
>o
� N
M O
rr+
PU
I
CD
:. O
r
rrt
_ O
rD
o CU
rD
cn 0
C) r)
rD
cu
rD "
�c
rD
Pi r+
r+ I.d .
" W
P
rD
r
� n
r*
X
W
�:r rD
ch p
r+
rD
cu
pu
rt
pu
rD
rD
`� cn
cn �
a
0
cu
cu
r+
cu
rD
rD
r*
0
rr+
cu
cu
CA
4
I,
5
rD
PU
O
O ..A .
O
PU
m
i •
^ d ^ ;-4
ill
�I
O
U Q)
cu
v
cu � 4
4-J ^ � v
rt
v o
0.4 a
0� >
cr tx
W • • •
On
cu
+�
r
N
O
4
O
N
L•
In
C
ho .
o
o
r
O �,z
`FwA.I•
�o
c �
M
F-�
rD
rt
rD "
O
�o
��
O
rr)
pu �z
3
f-f
rD
v �
9u
P�
rD � •
CD
PU
PU
Un
o
O
M
F-�
I
N
0
L
f6
41
L
U
so
�+
o
Oj
cu
cz
Ua.,► �= U
•� u
CU
•
o
U
C v '�
4�
� u
o � �
Q , • � o
•
w
�+
c�