Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> _ _ , <br /> From: Angel Pilago [kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.usJ <br /> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:43 AM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us ~ Cfl_! ;i - <br /> Subject: FW: Kona Village Improvement District Bill 55 -Residential Property/Housing Concerns <br /> From: Glenn Johansen [mailto:glennj@konacoast.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:57 AM <br /> To: kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Cc: phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; bford@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: Kona Village Improvement District Bill 55 -Residential Property/Housing Concerns <br /> Aloha Councilman Pilago, <br /> With Bill 55 regarding the Kona Village Improvement District pending approval, there are many residential <br /> properties within the District that would be significantly impacted by the ordinance in future years. <br /> Is it possible that the ordinance can be applied only to commercial properties (businesses) within the District? The <br /> extra expense for residences within the District start out relatively low ($100. per year) but the annual cost for <br /> residential property owners, including renters within the District could quite possibly spiral out of control in future <br /> years if there is no cap placed upon residential property levies in future years. Can a cap be placed on residential <br /> property assessments in Bill 55? <br /> It is very important to make sure that the ordinance does not become so costly for residents, directly or indirectly, <br /> that residents may be forced to relocate outside of the District. That would be just the opposite of promoting <br /> affordable housing, would it not? <br /> Why should residential property owners, who already pay their fair share of the annual County property tax bill be <br /> forced to pay more than other residents who may reside across the street or on the other side of a line drawn on a <br /> District map? <br /> If the commercial property owners desire to improve the area, more power to them. But residential property <br /> owners in the area should not be forced into paying more than their fair share of property taxes already paid to the <br /> County for services provided. <br /> If businesses want to improve the Village this Bill 55 is definitely for business property owners. Residents in D1 ~ ~ I <br /> and D2 are only just beginning to learn about the Bill and wondering why residents must be forced to pay for <br /> Business District improvements. What's in it for them? <br /> Sure some business owners would say that residential property valves will increase within the District, but that <br /> may only lead to higher property valuations and higher property taxes. What about residents who are not <br /> interested in having to sell and move away due to higher and higher, less affordable Improvement District levies in <br /> <br /> future years? Will assessments be linked to the cost of living in order to protect non-business owners? They won't d ~ [ <br /> be able to simply increase prices as business can do. Z <br /> 6 <br /> ~ ~ <br /> Perhaps a clause can be placed in Bill 55 to help protect residents within the District from higher rents or E <br /> Improvement District assessments in the future. The easiest thing to be done would be to have the ordinance ~ ,a." i <br /> make all residential properties within the District exempt from the fees which businesses alone should be paying. I <br /> This would definitely help to keep housing affordable in the affected areas. <br /> Mahalo for your consideration of my concerns, which I know to be shared by residents of the areas affected. l <br /> <br />