COM 0104.000 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Section 1 of Exlubit A (the "Propose Clause"). However, for the purposes of avoiding the costs and burdens of litigation and as part of the compromise of the disputed claims and potential claims, the non-STATE Parties agree not to oppose in any manner the inclusion of the second sentence of the Purpose Clause as part of the enabling legislation proposed by the STATE The agreement herein to provide testimony in support of the legislation does not require any of the non-STATE parties to support the second sentence of the Propose Clause and, if asked by the Legislature or others to provide testimony or comment conccming the second sentence of the Purpose Clause, the non-STATE parties may and should decline to corrirrient on the second sentence of the Purpose Clause Nothing m the preceding two sentences shall restrict any county councihnember from testifying or commenting in any manner upon the second sentence of the Purpose Clause nor upon the inclusion of the second sentence of the Purpose Clause. Regardless of whether or not the enabling legislation is enacted, a county's and/or a public utility party's (1) negotiating, signing or entenng into the settlement, (2) failure to comment upon or testify rn opposition to the inclusion of the second sentence of the Purpose Clause, or (3) other act or omission, shall not be deemed to be an admission or evidence that the language in the second sentence of the Purpose Clause is valid, a correct statement of law or fact, or binding in any way upon any party hereto, and shall not be used by any party to this agreement against any other party to this agreement in any dispute. The STATE will be responsible for inittating the enabling legislation. The STATE expressly reserves the discretion and right to veto any legislation not substantially in the form of Exhibit A, including legislation that deletes or substantially modifies the Purpose Clause. 8 August 20.2000 HAWAII COUNTY Real Propertv Tax Installment. VERIZON, HELCO, and GASCO have paid under protest on or before August 20, 2000 the real property tax payments that were due at that time to HAWAII COUNTY based on the HAWAII COUNTY real property tax assessments that were issued in March 2000. If the enabling legislation is not successfully enacted, VERIZON, HELCO, and GASCO and HAWAII COUNTY may continue their protest and/or litigation over those payments. If the enabling legislation is successfully enacted, HAWAII COUNTY may keep those August payments. 9. Febniary 20.2001 HAWAII COUNTY Real P%perty Tax Installment. If this Agreement has been signed and in February 2001 the parties are still working on getting the enabling legislation passed, the HAWAII COUNTY real property tax installment due on February 20, 2001 based on the March 2000 assessments need not be paid by VERiZON, HELCO, and GASCO, and no interest or penalties will be assessed for such nonpayment and the continued nonpayment as allowed under this section. If the enabling legislation rs successfully enacted, the Febniary 20, 2001 installment never needs to be paid. If successful enactment of the enabling legislation does not occur, and the Tax Appeal Court determines that the efforts to enact such legislation have failed and those efforts should be abandoned, VERIZON, HELCO, and GASCO and HAWAII COUNTY may then continue their litigation over the installment that was originally due on February 20, 2001, but for the postponement allowed by the first sentence of this paragraph. In the event the Tax Appeal Court determines that the efforts to successfully enact the enabling legislation have failed, VERIZON, HELCO, and GASCO shall have AGREEMENT PAGE 4 IMANHONO 339857 I