COM 0942.002 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i 1)h To: the members of the Hawaii County Council Hilo Re: PROPOSED UNWARRANTED GIFT OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO OCEANSIDE 1250. BY RESOLUTION 30~-98, DRAFT 2. IN the SUM OF $4463 FOR TMK 7-9-12:003 10 September 1998 Some veks ago your Finance Committee considered the first draft of this resolution and I tes- tified a ainst the ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF $41,105 TO BE GIVEN TO OCEANSIDE as per your Comm. No. 942, on the attached recommendation of Deputy Finance Director S.K. Schutte who based this on some scribbled figures in a letter from Mike McCall (also attached), which looks to me as a falsified government document, while all of that seemed originated by an also enclosed letter from Oceanside 1250 of 3 June 1998, mentioning the TMK above but no specified amount. If I remember correctly former council chair Spencer K. Schulte (ending1994) was given a job as Deputy Finance Director 1 or 2 years ago by our Mayor Yamashiro, whom he had devotedly sup- ported for many years on the Council. This will boost his council pension. He got an office in the property tax division and was touted as an expert in tax matters. He is a Kamuela rancher. Draft 2 with the reduced amount was on your recent Finance Committee agenda and after I test- ified again against any give-away, you voted (per your committee report FC269, containing some contorted language stating that per the county code no more than $2766 could ever qualify for refund) to recommend adopting Draft 2 of the Resolution for $4463. 1 note that Chung and Tyler voted NO! The YES voters are in accord with the Resolution's "INTENT"to what some people call STEALING TAXPAYERS MONEY, while others use a milder term of "playing Santa Clause" with public money, maybe hoping for campaign contributions, now that the elections are upon us. IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU CANNOT CHANGE ORDINANCES (the County Code) WITH A RESOLUTION. But you would also be violating YOUR OATH OF OFFICE and possibly state law, AND in my opinion Charter provisions 3-8, 3-10(c), 3-14, 3-16, 5-3.3(0, 10-1, 10-11. Just this last April, all of you except Tyler approved, RESOLUTION 244-98, that was followed by the Mayor and Oceanside 1250 signing a-Development Agreement, and its fourth WHEREAS reads inter alia (and reflects language in the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, that is a contract): OCEANSIDE 1250 IS THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE AND LESSEE OF CERTAIN LANDS SITUATED IN HAWAII COUNTY TMK (3) 7-9-12- 03 (all accents added). The County Code 19-84&85 provides that public lands used and/or occupied on a lease or otherwise shall be taxed on the fee simple value thereof and private persons shall pay the taxes thereon at the highest and best value and shall be deemed the owners thereof for tax purposes. (It is thus not impossible that Oceanside 1250 owes the State lease rent). All the above shows that no tax credits are allowable to Oceanside 1250 at all and signing of the Resolution by any Council member could result in IMPEACHMENT for malfeasance and maladministration under Charter section 12-2.1, and also other court actions in which case they would be held responsible in person and for abuse of power in their capacity as Council member. It is interesting to cite Supreme Court case First Trust Co. v. Reinhardt, 3 Haw. App. 589, 655 P.2d 891 (1982), where the buyer of land bears the risk and was solely responsable for his own mistakes in speculating and determining the value and possible or impossible uses of the land. 7 td. Too PjB'°wf96 Co ~N ~JL CFA I R AM