The layers of categories and exemptions in Hawaii County’s tax policies lead to confusion among property owners and potential inequity in taxation, an independent audit has concluded. The layers of categories and exemptions in Hawaii County’s tax policies lead to
The layers of categories and exemptions in Hawaii County’s tax policies lead to confusion among property owners and potential inequity in taxation, an independent audit has concluded.
The 121-page report, conducted by the International Association of Assessing Officers, lists 15 areas of “major concern,” and, in general, describes the policies as being overly complex and lacking sufficient review processes.
The County Council will discuss its findings at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Council Chambers at the Hawaii County Building, 25 Aupuni St., Hilo.
County Council Chairman Dominic Yagong, who received the report last Tuesday, said it will not sit on the shelf.
He said the council will review each of its 40 recommendations, which include forming an independent board to review appraisal techniques, improving the appeal process for landowners, review unusual value differences between properties, and develop a plan to verify the accuracy of each property record every six years.
“I truly believe this audit coming forth to the council is one we will obviously take very seriously,” Yagong said.
“We will go over the recommendations and determine our plan of action.”
The county-funded report, which cost $40,000, was spearheaded by Kohala Councilman Pete Hoffmann, who said last May that landowners see the county’s property tax system as unfair and inequitable.
Hoffmann was off-island Friday and didn’t return a request for comment.
Mayor Billy Kenoi said he hadn’t reviewed the report yet but will meet with his finance staff next week to discuss its findings.
Kenoi said he would implement “any suggestions and recommendations that can help us improve the system and make it more fair and equitable.”
Some of the report’s areas of major concern include: limited review of exemptions, including those that apply to agricultural land; complex multitiered tax rates; lack of a formal complaint and reporting system; limited training opportunities for staff; vague property class definitions; and limited use of digital maps and photographs.
Property taxes make up about 54 percent of the county’s revenue.
Of the recommendations, 21 would require council action.
The rest could be implemented by staff.
