• On Councilman Fufaro’s statements On Councilman Fufaro’s statements By John Hoff Remarks by Councilman (Jay) Furfaro in a reported The Garden Island interview of April 1, reflect his purpose to engage in real-property-tax relief and reform. However, his reported
• On Councilman Fufaro’s statements
On Councilman Fufaro’s statements
By John Hoff
Remarks by Councilman (Jay) Furfaro in a reported The Garden Island interview of April 1, reflect his purpose to engage in real-property-tax relief and reform. However, his reported comments display some serious misunderstandings. His opening statement is that if the Hawai‘i Supreme Court rules against the Ohana charter amendment, “Kaua‘i County Councilmembers should immediately begin to evaluate the tax-relief recommendations proposed by a county tax-reform group.” Presumably he is referring to the recommendation of the Real Property Tax Task Force which presented its conclusions in February of last year. Furfaro continues that: “Due to legal action by Ohana Kauai, the county has had to put tax-reform recommendations on hold.” These comments suggest a lack of understanding about the task force recommendations and the present situation. Firstly, the task force proposes tax reform, not tax relief. The task force primarily dealt with tax-assessment procedures, and its proposals should not affect overall county tax revenue. Tax relief provides some or all taxpayers a reduction in their tax bills, and impacts revenue. Secondly, he erroneously says that the council had to defer consideration of the taskforce views because of legal action by Ohana Kauai. The Ohana group presented a citizens petition for a charter amendment for public vote. The amendment passed by a very large majority of votes. It was the county, not Ohana Kauai, that began the legal action. Thirdly, the Ohana charter amendment and the task-force recommendations are not interdependent. They are compatible. The logical motive for Mr. Furfaro’s glossing over these points is that the council has had the task-force recommendations for 14 months, and has taken no action on them. Now he is saying that the council should wait until there is a ruling by the Supreme Court on the Ohana measure before the council does anything. Perhaps he does not realize that such a ruling may not occur for up to five years. Mr. Furfaro describes tax assessments as current, efficient, and up to date, and concludes that property owners “are experiencing an everincreasing need for protection.” The notion that increases in assessments automatically requires an increase in taxes seems to permeate the minds of our county officials. Mr. Fufaro should review the Kauai Tax Code provision on the relationship between rates and assessments. As others have said, it is government spending that generates the need for higher taxes. If more revenue were not needed, higher assessments should be offset by lower tax rates. The muddled county thinking is apparent in the article’s statement that the new, larger budget “stems from a significant increase in property-tax revenues generated by a 48-percent increase in property assessments.” Mercy on us. Mr. Fufaro’s purposes may be worthy, but he needs to reexamine the faulty assumptions he is using.
- John Hoff is a resident of Lawa‘i and a member of Ohana Kauai.
