Tag: land

March 26, 2007 General Ag News and Notes, Ginger Root, Papaya, Vegtables

HAWAII CROP WEATHER

Here is the PDF file for the *Hawaii Crop Weather* (crop progress and condition) Report for the week ending *March 25, 2007*

current_hi032607.pdf

Please visit http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/ for more information.
USDA NASS Hawaii Field Office
1421 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814-2512

Agricultural Highlights

Banana
Orchards in eastern sections of Hawaii Island were in good to fair condition. Young plants were making good progress. Soil moisture was adequate. Regular spraying was minimizing disease and insect damage. Oahu orchards were in fair to good condition. Fields in windward Oahu made fair to good progress with light to moderate harvesting. Leeward and central Oahu fields remained in fair to good condition. Irrigation levels were at moderate levels during the week. Fruit development and ripening continued to improve during the week with the favorable weather conditions. On Kauai, orchards were in fair to good condition. Harvesting was expected to continue light to moderate for on island market.
Papaya
Light showers and sunny days benefited orchard growth in the lower Puna areas of the Big Island. Routine spraying has minimized disease damage. Field activities such as weeding, leaf trimming, fertilizing, and harvesting were active. Fruit quality and yields were fair. Young plantings made steady progress. Orchards on Kauai made fair to good progress during the week. Pickings remained at light to very light levels from many older fields. Spraying to contain insects and diseases were slowed in areas where the winds were too blustery.
Head Cabbage
The Big Island?s Waimea crop was in good to fair condition. Weeds were a problem in isolated Puukapu and Lalamilo fields. Head quality was generally good. New plantings made steady progress. Maui?s head cabbage crop made good progress. Weather conditions enabled continued growth and uniform development. Insect pressure was present, but has been generally kept under control. Damage has been minimal for most fields. Overall, the head cabbage crop was in fair condition. New fields on Oahu were in good condition with fields in active harvest. Insect infestation remained under control and head quality was good.
Dry Onions
On Maui, some maturing fields were producing larger bulbs compared to previous harvests. Young fields have benefited from the increasing day length and are expected to do well with the changing weather conditions. Overall, the dry onion crop was generally in fair condition.
Sweet Corn
The Big Island crop was in good to fair condition. Soil moisture was adequate and sunny periods benefited crop growth. Harvesting was active. On Oahu, harvesting was active with the continued sunny, dry, and warmer weather allowing the plants to make good progress in central Oahu fields. Windward fields made fair to good progress. The drier weather also allowed more active field preparation and planting to occur.
Cucumbers
New plantings on Oahu made good to fair progress during the week as the winds slowed crop progress and caused some damage to fruits in exposed fields. Flower and fruit set was fair during the week.
Coffee
Light coffee flowering was observed in the Holualoa district of the Big Island. Coffee fields on Kauai continued to make good progress with good flowering from the last rains.
Ginger Root
Field preparation and planting continue to take place in eastern areas of Hawaii Island. Conditions were good for planting activities. Harvesting was light.

March 19, 2007 General Ag News and Notes, Papaya, Vegtables

Hawaii Crop Weather

Here is the PDF file for the *Hawaii Crop Weather* (crop progress and condition) Report for the week ending *March 18, 2007*

current_hi031907.pdf

Please visit http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/ for more information.USDA NASS Hawaii Field Office
1421 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814-2512

Agricultural Highlights

Fruits

Banana
Orchards in eastern sections of Hawaii County made good growth. Showers on Wednesday and Thursday helped to keep soil moisture adequate. Regular spraying minimized disease and insect damage. Banana Bunchy Top incidences remained isolated in the Puna and Kona areas. Oahu orchards were in fair to good condition. Fields in windward Oahu made fair to good progress with light to moderate harvesting. Leeward and central fields remained in fair to good condition. Irrigation levels were at moderate levels during the week. Fruit development and ripening continued to improve during the week with the increasing day length and beneficial sunny skies. Kauai?s orchards were in fair to good condition. Crop progress remained steady and made good recovery from previous wind damage.

Papaya
Warmer temperatures and sunny periods are benefiting orchard progress in the lower Puna areas of the Big Island. Soil moisture was adequate. Regular spraying was necessary to minimize disease damage. Mature trees in the Kapoho and Opihikao area have medium sized fruits and full fruit columns. Good weather conditions were encouraging good flower and fruit set. Growers are replanting in the lower Kapoho area. Orchards on Kauai made fair to good progress during the week. Rains and overcast skies slowed crop progress during the week. Sprayings to contain insect infestation was delayed, but are expected to be stepped-up as soon as the fields dry.

Vegetables

Head Cabbage
Big Island growers were harvesting medium to large heads. Head quality was generally good. Tall weeds were observed in the Puukapu fields. New plantings made steady progress in Lalamilo. Heavy irrigation was required. Selective spraying minimized damage from disease and insects. On Oahu, new fields were in good condition. Insect infestations remained under control and head quality was good. On Maui, weather conditions hampered field activities for most operations. Some plantings were delayed due to wet ground conditions. Producers may be able to get on schedule later in the month depending on future weather conditions. The crop was in fair condition during the past couple of weeks.

Dry Onions
Maui?s crop showed some improvement in growth and development during the past month, but with the recent weather may increase the chances of loss due to rain damage and disease from wet field conditions. The effect of this week?s rains on mature fields is uncertain, and the rains could also affect production from fields in the developing stages. Currently, crop conditions range from marginally fair to fair condition depending on the location of the field.

February 28, 2007 General Ag News and Notes, Vegtables

Hawaii Taro

Hawaii taro production is estimated at 4.5 million pounds in 2006, up 5
percent from 2005?s revised estimate of 4.3 million pounds. Farm prices
increased 6 percent to an average of 57 cents per pound, and value of
sales was estimated at $2.6 million, up 10 percent from 2005.
Weather and pests continue to hamper growers
Taro production was once again hampered by a combination of wet weather
and pests during 2006. The year began drier than normal, but quickly turned
very wet. Heavy rains started to saturate parts of the State by the second
half of January. The northern islands recorded heavy rainfall during
February with record amounts and flooding affecting most the State during
March. The beginning of April finally marked the end of six weeks of heavy
rainfall. The remainder of the year was a mix of drier than normal weather
and occasional periods of heavy rains. Pests also continued to pose a
problem for taro growers. Reports of apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata)
infestations and losses varied from light to heavy. Taro Pocket Rot (TPR), a
disease that forms pockets of rotting tissue in the corm, also continued to
result in some losses.

Click Below for complete pdf report

Hawaii Taro

USDA NASS Hawaii Field Office
http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/
1421 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814-2512
Office: (808) 973-9588 / (800) 804-9514
Fax: (808) 973-2909

February 22, 2007 General Ag News and Notes

Monthly Hawaii Vegtables

Intermittent periods of wet and windy weather interrupted a drier than normal
January. Sporadic periods of southwesterly winds and its associated
precipitation had interfered with the moderate to strong trade winds which
occurred during the first two-thirds of the month. At the end of the month, very
strong southwesterly winds also caused some crop damage. This drier than
normal weather pattern during the winter months resembles patterns
displayed in ?El-Nino like? conditions. Rainfall totals on the island of Kauai for
January were generally below 75 percent of normal. All leeward Oahu sites
and most windward sites recorded rainfall amounts below normal. The
exception occurred around the Punaluu Pump gage, which recorded abovenormal
rainfall due to the heavy rains and flash flooding associated with the
January 8 event. Conditions throughout Maui County were generally dry. The
Big Island of Hawaii experienced mixed conditions as rainfall amounts were
near to above normal levels along the southeasterly quadrant of the island,
while the remainder of the island was drier. This dry weather slowed crop
progress.

Expected vegetable acreage for harvest in February when compared with
acreage harvested in January are expected to increase for Chinese cabbage
(+9%), Head cabbage (+7%), dry onions (+67%), green onions (+60%),
and romaine (+40%), while decreases in harvested acreage are expected for
snap beans (-29%), mustard cabbage (-11%), and cucumbers (-3%). The
expected acreage for harvest for the remaining crops were unchanged.

Click the link below for the full PDF article:

monveg1.pdf

USDA NASS Hawaii Field Office
http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/
1421 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814-2512
Office: (808) 973-9588 / (800) 804-9514
Fax: (808) 973-2909?

?

January 5, 2007 General Ag News and Notes Post a Comment

Maui Land & Pineapple Co.: Look Past the Pineapple — Seeking Alpha

Land and Pineapple Co. (MLP)? HUH? That’s what I said, too, when I stumbled across the company a few months ago. Who would want to own this thing? A pineapple company? I hate pineapples.

Then I dug some more. Not surprisingly, the company’s pineapple business is mediocre at best. The company also operates another subsidiary, Kapalua Land Company, which manages the company’s scenic Kapalua Resort community. As per consolidated results, the company is generally profitable (although erratic in its earnings) and boasts AOL founder Steve Case as a large shareholder. But that’s not why I’m writing this.
pineapples
It turns out the company currently owns around 27,500 acres (or 1.2 billion sq ft.) on the Hawaiian island of Maui. That’s a lot of land. And here’s the best part: all of that land is recorded at cost between – you’ll never believe it – 1911 and 1930! Just to remind you: Hawaii wasn’t even close to being a state around that time.

So what does that mean? How much is the land worth today? Well, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that land values in Hawaii have gone up at least a little bit in the past century. Unfortunately, the vast majority (around 22,500 acres) of the land is either mountainous, preserved, or used for agriculture, so it’s not [necessarily] easily salable or, for that matter, developable (if this use of “developable” is not a word, credit me for coining it).

Nonetheless, I’d quite precisely estimate the value of the land somewhere between a little and a whole lot (how’s that for perfection?), but still far more than its cost. Investors can also take solace in the fact that the company still owns an additional 9 miles of beachfront (read: prime) real estate, several PGA toured golf courses, a happening resort community, and who knows what else.

A very good post on the company and some valuation metrics can be found here if you scroll down, so I’ll save you from the technical discussion. The author, Clyde Milton, does as good a job as any in describing the company, and I highly recommend the reading (and the whole blog, for that matter).

Maui Land & Pineapple Co.: Look Past the Pineapple — Seeking Alpha

February 16, 2006 'Awa (Kava Kava)

Fiji Times–New research in Scotland and Luxembourg has found that kava is a cure for two types of cancers.

RESEARCHERS who discovered that kava is a cure for two types of cancer should convince Europe to lift its ban, says Agriculture Minister Ilaitia Tuisese. He was commenting on the research findings of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland and the Laboratoire de Biologie Moleculaire du Cancer, a medical school in Luxembourgh which found that kava compounds inhibit the activation of a nuclear factor important in the production of cancer cells.

“It’s good news but there’s a ban in the European market and right now we can’t look forward to speeding up on the yaqona (kava) production,” Mr Tuisese said.

“Perhaps they (researchers) can help us convince the European market and assist in lifting the ban. The latest findings confirm what people have been saying all along that kava was not harmful to health.”

Read Complete Article Here

October 18, 2004 Ag Tourism

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

NASS
Hawaii Agricultural Statistics
Fact finding for agriculture

HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1428 S. KING STREET
HONOLULU, HI 96814-2512
(808) 973-9588
FAX: (808) 973-2909
 picture of State
Hawaii Ag-Tourism Released: October 18, 2004

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

The value of Hawaii’s ag-tourism related activities (see definition below) is pegged at $33.9 million for 2003, up 30 percent from the $26.0 million generated in 2000. There were 187 farms Statewide that had ag-tourism related income during 2003, a 48 percent increase from 2000 as more farmers in Hawaii have opened-up their operations to the public; exposing visitors to the farm experience. Interest in ag-tourism appears to be strong as an additional 145 farms either started ag-tourism activities in 2004, or planned to in the future.The distribution of ag-tourism throughout the State has become more concentrated during the past four years as Hawaii county now accounts for 48 percent of the farms with ag-tourism and 37 percent of the total value. Maui county accounted for 23 percent of the farms and 20 percent of the value. Honolulu county had 16 percent of the farms and 25 percent of the value while Kauai county accounted for the remaining 13 percent of the farms and saw a boost in value to 18 percent of the total.?

County Total farms Farms with
ag-tourism activity		 Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)		 Farms intending
to conduct ag-tourism
activities in the future
2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003
Hawaii 3,300 3,300 60 89 8,875 12,562 47 65
Honolulu 900 900 19 31 7,777 8,586 15 23
Kauai 500 500 16 24 2,103 5,949 6 20
Maui 800 800 31 43 7,288 6,772 16 37
State 5,500 5,500 126 187 26,043 33,869 84 145

Ag-tourism is a commercial enterprise on a working farm conducted for the enjoyment, education, and/or active involvement of the visitor, generating supplemental income for the farm. Activities such as producing and selling products directly from the farm, operating a bed and breakfast, conducting educational farm tours, offering horseback riding, festivals, concerts, and many other on-farm activities qualify as ag-tourism.

Hawaii and Kauai counties show big gains
Compared to four years ago, the county of Hawaii increased the value of ag-tourism by 42 percent, the second largest gain among all counties. A 48 percent increase in the number of farms with ag-tourism activity contributed to Hawaii county’s rise in value. Honolulu county saw a 63 percent increase in farms with ag-tourism and an increase in value of 10 percent. Kauai county registered the largest percentage increase by nearly tripling its ag-tourism value to $5.9 million in 2003. Maui county registered the only decline in the State during this 4-year period as receipts from ag-tourism decreased from $7.3 million in 2000 to $6.8 million in 2003, a 7 percent decline.Large operations generate most of ag-tourism’s value
Farms of all sizes conducted ag-tourism activities during 2003. These ag-tourism farms ranged from those with total farm sales of less than $2,500 a year to those well over $1 million per year. Large operations ($250,000 or more in total annual farm sales), however, accounted for most of the dollar value of ag-tourism. The top 20 percent of all farms with ag-tourism generated 91 percent of the total revenue.?

Although only approximately 3 percent of all Hawaii’s farms engaged in ag-tourism during 2003, the 48 percent increase in the number of ag-tourism operations between 2000 and 2003 is evidence that many see this as an opportunity to supplement their income and manage the risks inherent in farming.

Total value of
all farm sales		 Total number
of farms 1/		 Number of farms
with ag-tourism		 Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)		 Average value of
ag-tourism per farm
(Dollars)
Less than $2,500 1,402 49 44 898
$2,500 to $4,999 715 4 14 3,616
$5,000 to $9,999 914 15 108 7,182
$10,000 to $24,999 1,060 21 188 8,934
$25,000 to $49,999 506 22 416 18,891
$50,000 to $249,999 563 38 2,447 64,395
$250,000 to $499,999 105 7 1,298 185,429
$500,000 to $999,999 62 8 3,218 402,250
$1,000,000 or more 71 23 26,137 1,136,376
State Total 5,398 187 33,869 181,115

1/ 2002 Census of Agriculture.

Sale of farm products leading source of ag-tourism income
Revenue from ag-tourism, which includes many various activities, was broken down into several categories. On-farm sales direct to farm visitors was the leading category, with $13.5 million, followed by retail sales (products from other farms or souvenir items), outdoor recreation, accommodations (bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc.), education, entertainment, and others.

?

Item Type of ag-tourism activity Totals 3/
Outdoor recreation Educational tourism On-farm
sales		 Retail
sales 1/		 Accommo-
dations 2/		 Entertain-
ment		 Other
Farms ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 28 30 83 29 27 8 8 126
2003 34 30 103 38 33 8 6 187
Value ($1,000) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 5,875 353 8,444 6,700 2,252 775 1,644 26,043
2003 5,019 1,177 13,479 9,083 2,490 1,061 1,560 33,869

1/ Products from other farms or souvenir items. 2/ Bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc. 3/ Unduplicated total number of farms.

Most ag-tourism operations plan to maintain or expand activities in the future
Seventy-nine percent of all ag-tourism operations in 2003 were planning to maintain or expand their operations in the future. Only 4 percent, or 8 farms, of the total indicated that they will discontinue or reduce their ag-tourism activities in the future. The 2003 Ag-tourism survey also showed that flower and/or nursery operations remained the most popular type of ag-tourism operation. Coffee and fruit farms were tied at a distant second.

?

Year Future ag-tourism plans Total
Expand ag-tourism activities Remain at
current level		 Discontinue or reduce
ag-tourism activities		 Uncertain
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 60 41 7 18 126
2003 61 86 8 32 187
Year Type of farm 1/ Total
Fruit Vegetable Coffee Macadamia
nut		 Flower/ Nursery Livestock Other
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 12 8 25 5 35 30 11 126
2003 30 18 30 14 38 26 31 187

1/ A predominate commodity was designated for farms reporting more than one commodity.

Additional features of Hawaii’s 2003 ag-tourism industry

– Busiest time of the year. . .slightly more than half, 51 percent, of the operations that reported ag- tourism activity in 2003 said that business was the same year round. Of the remaining responses, winter and summer were identified as the most significant peak periods, at 22 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Spring came in at 4 percent and fall at 2 percent.- Where do ag-tourism visitors come from?. . .mainland visitors constituted the highest percentage of ag-tourism visitors, at 53 percent, followed by Hawaii residents at 35 percent, and international visitors at 12 percent.?

– Problems faced by ag-tourism operators. . .farmers were asked to rank problems or obstacles they faced in start-up or operation of ag-tourism activities. Funding was ranked as the number one problem, followed by conflicts/interference with on-going farm activities. Marketing was the third most common problem, and liability issues and insurance was fourth. Other problems ranking in order were zoning restrictions, labor, building permits, signage restrictions and community/cultural oppositions.

– Point of sale…many operations received orders for products related to ag-tourism after the visitors returned home. Out of these, 74 percent of operations reported 0-25 percent of their sales from off-site orders, 21 percent of operations reported 26 to 50 percent, and 5 percent said that over 50 percent of their ag-tourism related sales came from off-site orders.

The Hawaii Agricultural Statistics office conducted a special survey of Hawaii’s farmers to obtain the results used in this report. We appreciate the cooperation of Hawaii’s agricultural producers who completed the survey questionnaire. A special note of thanks goes to the Agricultural Development Division of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the University of Hawaii’s College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for their support on this project.

?

April 4, 2004 Legislative Snippets

Ethanol facility tax credit.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol04_Ch0201-0257/
HRS0235/HRS_0235-0110_0003.htm

?235-110.3 Ethanol facility tax credit. (a) Each year during the credit period, there shall be allowed to each taxpayer subject to the taxes imposed by this chapter, an ethanol facility tax credit that shall be applied to the taxpayer’s net income tax liability, if any, imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which the credit is properly claimed.

For each qualified ethanol production facility, the annual dollar amount of the ethanol facility tax credit during the eight-year period shall be equal to thirty per cent of its nameplate capacity if the nameplate capacity is greater than five hundred thousand but less than fifteen million gallons. A taxpayer may claim this credit for each qualifying ethanol facility; provided that:

(1) The claim for this credit by any taxpayer of a qualifying ethanol production facility shall not exceed one hundred per cent of the total of all investments made by the taxpayer in the qualifying ethanol production facility during the credit period;

(2) The qualifying ethanol production facility operated at a level of production of at least seventy-five per cent of its nameplate capacity on an annualized basis;

(3) The qualifying ethanol production facility is in production on or before January 1, 2012; and

(4) No taxpayer that claims the credit under this section shall claim any other tax credit under this chapter for the same taxable year.

(b) As used in this section:

“Credit period” means a maximum period of eight years beginning from the first taxable year in which the qualifying ethanol production facility begins production even if actual production is not at seventy-five per cent of nameplate capacity.

“Investment” means a nonrefundable capital expenditure related to the development and construction of any qualifying ethanol production facility, including processing equipment, waste treatment systems, pipelines, and liquid storage tanks at the facility or remote locations, including expansions or modifications. Capital expenditures shall be those direct and certain indirect costs determined in accordance with section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to uniform capitalization costs, but shall not include expenses for compensation paid to officers of the taxpayer, pension and other related costs, rent for land, the costs of repairing and maintaining the equipment or facilities, training of operating personnel, utility costs during construction, property taxes, costs relating to negotiation of commercial agreements not related to development or construction, or service costs that can be identified specifically with a service department or function or that directly benefit or are incurred by reason of a service department or function. For the purposes of determining a capital expenditure under this section, the provisions of section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code shall apply as it read on March 1, 2004. For purposes of this section, investment excludes land costs and includes any investment for which the taxpayer is at risk, as that term is used in section 465 of the Internal Revenue Code (with respect to deductions limited to amount at risk).

“Nameplate capacity” means the qualifying ethanol production facility’s production design capacity, in gallons of motor fuel grade ethanol per year.

“Net income tax liability” means net income tax liability reduced by all other credits allowed under this chapter.

“Qualifying ethanol production” means ethanol produced from renewable, organic feedstocks, or waste materials, including municipal solid waste. All qualifying production shall be fermented, distilled, gasified, or produced by physical chemical conversion methods such as reformation and catalytic conversion and dehydrated at the facility.

“Qualifying ethanol production facility” or “facility” means a facility located in Hawaii which produces motor fuel grade ethanol meeting the minimum specifications by the American Society of Testing and Materials standard D-4806, as amended.

(c) In the case of a taxable year in which the cumulative claims for the credit by the taxpayer of a qualifying ethanol production facility exceeds the cumulative investment made in the qualifying ethanol production facility by the taxpayer, only that portion that does not exceed the cumulative investment shall be claimed and allowed.

(d) The department of business, economic development, and tourism shall:

(1) Maintain records of the total amount of investment made by each taxpayer in a facility;

(2) Verify the amount of the qualifying investment;

(3) Total all qualifying and cumulative investments that the department of business, economic development, and tourism certifies; and

(4) Certify the total amount of the tax credit for each taxable year and the cumulative amount of the tax credit during the credit period.

Upon each determination, the department of business, economic development, and tourism shall issue a certificate to the taxpayer verifying the qualifying investment amounts, the credit amount certified for each taxable year, and the cumulative amount of the tax credit during the credit period. The taxpayer shall file the certificate with the taxpayer’s tax return with the department of taxation. Notwithstanding the department of business, economic development, and tourism’s certification authority under this section, the director of taxation may audit and adjust certification to conform to the facts.

If in any year, the annual amount of certified credits reaches $12,000,000 in the aggregate, the department of business, economic development, and tourism shall immediately discontinue certifying credits and notify the department of taxation. In no instance shall the total amount of certified credits exceed $12,000,000 per year. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(e) If the credit under this section exceeds the taxpayer’s income tax liability, the excess of credit over liability shall be refunded to the taxpayer; provided that no refunds or payments on account of the tax credit allowed by this section shall be made for amounts less than $1. All claims for a credit under this section must be properly filed on or before the end of the twelfth month following the close of the taxable year for which the credit may be claimed. Failure to comply with the foregoing provision shall constitute a waiver of the right to claim the credit.

(f) If a qualifying ethanol production facility or an interest therein is acquired by a taxpayer prior to the expiration of the credit period, the credit allowable under subsection (a) for any period after such acquisition shall be equal to the credit that would have been allowable under subsection (a) to the prior taxpayer had the taxpayer not disposed of the interest. If an interest is disposed of during any year for which the credit is allowable under subsection (a), the credit shall be allowable between the parties on the basis of the number of days during the year the interest was held by each taxpayer. In no case shall the credit allowed under subsection (a) be allowed after the expiration of the credit period.

(g) Once the total nameplate capacities of qualifying ethanol production facilities built within the State reaches or exceeds a level of forty million gallons per year, credits under this section shall not be allowed for new ethanol production facilities. If a new facility’s production capacity would cause the statewide ethanol production capacity to exceed forty million gallons per year, only the ethanol production capacity that does not exceed the statewide forty million gallon per year level shall be eligible for the credit.

(h) Prior to construction of any new qualifying ethanol production facility, the taxpayer shall provide written notice of the taxpayer’s intention to begin construction of a qualifying ethanol production facility. The information shall be provided to the department of taxation and the department of business, economic development, and tourism on forms provided by the department of business, economic development, and tourism, and shall include information on the taxpayer, facility location, facility production capacity, anticipated production start date, and the taxpayer’s contact information. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(i) The taxpayer shall provide written notice to the director of taxation and the director of business, economic development, and tourism within thirty days following the start of production. The notice shall include the production start date and expected ethanol fuel production for the next twenty-four months. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(j) If a qualifying ethanol production facility fails to achieve an average annual production of at least seventy-five per cent of its nameplate capacity for two consecutive years, the stated capacity of that facility may be revised by the director of business, economic development, and tourism to reflect actual production for the purposes of determining statewide production capacity under subsection (g) and allowable credits for that facility under subsection (a). Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(k) Each calendar year during the credit period, the taxpayer shall provide information to the director of business, economic development, and tourism on the number of gallons of ethanol produced and sold during the previous calendar year, how much was sold in Hawaii versus overseas, feedstocks used for ethanol production, the number of employees of the facility, and the projected number of gallons of ethanol production for the succeeding year.

(l) In the case of a partnership, S corporation, estate, or trust, the tax credit allowable is for every qualifying ethanol production facility. The cost upon which the tax credit is computed shall be determined at the entity level. Distribution and share of credit shall be determined pursuant to section 235-110.7(a).

(m) Following each year in which a credit under this section has been claimed, the director of business, economic development, and tourism shall submit a written report to the governor and legislature regarding the production and sale of ethanol. The report shall include:

(1) The number, location, and nameplate capacities of qualifying ethanol production facilities in the State;

(2) The total number of gallons of ethanol produced and sold during the previous year; and

(3) The projected number of gallons of ethanol production for the succeeding year.

(n) The director of taxation shall prepare forms that may be necessary to claim a credit under this section. Notwithstanding the department of business, economic development, and tourism’s certification authority under this section, the director may audit and adjust certification to conform to the facts. The director may also require the taxpayer to furnish information to ascertain the validity of the claim for credit made under this section and may adopt rules necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section pursuant to chapter 91. [L 2000, c 289, ?2; am L 2004, c 140, ?2]

Note
The 2004 amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003. L 2004, c 140, ?4.