Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0666.000 2008-2010 William P. Kenoi J~ZV OF Ni~ Nancy E. Crawford Mayor Finance Director Deanna S. Sako Deputy Director era oF•M~.P County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL PROPERTY TAX Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street Suite 4 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4679 • Fax (808) 961-8415 Appraisers (808) 961-8354 Clerical (808) 961-8201 • Collections (808) 961-8282 75-5706 Kuakini Highway • Suite 112 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Fax (808) 327-3538 Appraisers (808) 327-3542 • Clerical (808) 327-3540 Website: www.hawaiipropertytax.com December 22, 2009 The Honorable William P. Kenoi, Mayor County of Hawaii1 25 Aupuni Street CZ1 Hilo, Hawaii 96720] c rti„ti The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman - and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 c Dear Mayor Kenoi, Chairman Yoshimoto and Members of the County Council: Pursuant to Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code, enclosed please find the 2009 Annual Report of the Real Property Tax Board of Review. Thank you for your time. Respectfully submitted, ~lJ'ZGvY~~~~ Ernest Matsumura, Chairman Tax Board of Review /enclosure cc: Nancy Crawford, Director of Finance Comm. Plo. G t0G Ref. To: -Fr [def. Date DFC" _22 2229 Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer William P. Kenoi J~SYAo: Nancy E. Crawford Mayor Finance Director ~yL~s Deanna S. Sako - Deputy Director os M?.,N County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL PROPERTY TAX Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street Suite 4 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4679 • Fax (808) 961-8415 Appraisers (808) 961-8354 Clerical (808) 961-8201 • Collections (808) 961-8282 75-5706 Kuakini Highway • Suite 112 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Fax (808) 327-3538 Appraisers (808) 327-3542 • Clerical (808) 327-3540 Website: www.hawaiipropertytax.com REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW 2009 ANNUAL REPORT December 15, 2009 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19, Article 12, Section 19-97(e), Hawaii County Code as amended, the members of the Real Property Tax Board of Review submit the following O report of activities and recommendations for the 2009-2010 tax year. The recommendations relate to, both legislative and administrative matters. The following is a list of the officers and members of the Board: Ernest Matsumura, Chairman Wesley Takai, Vice-Chairman Harold Murata Reiko Ford Wally Engstrom Potential appointees should be apprised of the demands of their time that service on this Board entails before their names are submitted to the County Council for confirmation hearings. This is not a ceremonial commission. All members are expected to attend all meetings. Meetings in Hilo or Kona may be a weekly occurrence from July through November with two nights away from home or the office. Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer i i 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 2 Board Membership The following is a list of the Board members and when their term ends: Board Member Term Ends - December 31, Ernest Matsumura 2009 Harold Murata 2010 Reiko Ford 2011 Wesley Takai 2012 Wally Engstrom 2013 Member Wally Engstrom submitted a letter of resignation effective December 31, 2009. Activities Organizational Meeting The annual organizational meeting of the Board was held on March 2, 2009, at the Real Property Tax Conference Room in Hilo for the purpose of electing officers and establishing a tentative appeal hearing schedule for hearings to be held in both Hilo and Kona. A tentative O workshop date and place were also set and there was a general legal discussion of Chapter 19, as well as a discussion of any bills relating to assessments. The Real Property Tax Administrator, Mr. Stanley Sitko, informed the Members of the Board of Review Statewide Conference to be held in Honolulu on May 15th. Minutes from meetings held on October 14, 15 and 21, November 5, 12 and 13, and December 2 and 3, 2008, were approved. 2009 Board of Review Statewide Conference The Board of Review Statewide Conference was held on May 15, 2009, at the Best Western Plaza Hotel. There were approximately 100 guests in attendance including Board Members, Deputies Corporation Counsel and Real Property Tax Office Administrators and staff from four island counties: Oahu, Maui, Big Island and Kauai. Speakers included Paul Brewbaker, PhD. of TZ Economics, who did a presentation on the Aspects of the Financial Crisis, and Lowell Kalapa, of Tax Foundation of Hawaii, who spoke on the inequities of real property and income tax systems. Interactive sessions were also held between the Attorneys, Board Members and County Appraisers. Workshop A workshop was held on June 17, 2009, at the Hilo Yacht Club with Board Members, including newly appointed Member Wally Engstrom, and Real Property Tax Office administration, appraisers and support staff in attendance. Also present were Nancy Crawford, Finance Director, and Deputies Corporation Counsel Craig Masuda and Molly Lugo. 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 3 i O New Board Member, Wally Engstrom, was c,n,nrn in a+ +hi° orkshop by Mrs. rawford ~ Vvwj 111 GL U IV Yvv I% 11 Cl avviv v and formally introduced to those in attendance. The workshop proved to be a very informative session as well as educational for Board Members and staff. Upon completion of the opening remarks from Mrs. Crawford and Mr. Masuda, Administrator Stan Sitko presented information on "The 3% Solution". Also doing presentations were Assistant Administrator'Mike McCall on Kuleana Land Exemptions, Affordable Rental Program, Ag Use Program and Appeal Hearings process and procedures, and Valuation Analyst Lloyd Tanaka on the Sales Ratio Analysis. Appeal Hearings One thousand four hundred forty-nine (1,449) appeals, which included 353 from East Hawaii and 1,096 from West Hawaii, plus appeals from amended assessment notices (P38s), were scheduled for hearing this tax year. This is a decrease from 1,516 cases in the previous tax year. There were eight (8) sessions held in East Hawaii (July 14, 15; August 4, 5; September 22, 23; and October 6, 7) and 18 sessions held in West Hawaii (July 7, 8, 21, 22; August 11, 12, 18, 19, 25, 26; September 1, 2, 8, 9; and October 13, 14, 27, 28). Complaint Hearing As required by Chapter 19-97(e), a notice was published on September 16, 2009, specifying a period of at least ten days in September (September 17 - 30, 2009) within which complaints may be filed by a taxpayer. Six (6) com.plaints were filed. The reasons for the complaints included: excessive property assessments, unethical treatment for claim for home exemption, improper methods in assessing real property, no property inspection and suggestions for appeal hearing procedures. The Board heard the complaints on November 3, 2009, and is attaching a copy of these complaints hereto as Exhibit A. Comments and Recommendations Board's Comments 1. The procedure of rendering an immediate decision in open session upon the completion of the presentation of each appeal case continues to be accepted by all parties and is still an efficient process. 2. The half-day workshop which included the Real Property Tax staff and Board members prior to the start of hearings was very informative. Future workshops is encouraged to O continue but should be limited to the current Board Members as well as those Members who are in the process of being approved, Finance Director, Tax Office Administrator, Assistant 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 4 O Administrator, Appraisal Supervisor, Clerical Supervisor, Board Secretary and Corporation Counsel. u,~ di-se n ions nr d at the k Information d a un „d suggestions pesenLeu Ql aIc vvorRShop s~N could be provided to the appraisers at a separate meeting or workshop. A few of the suggestions that were made at the 2009 workshop by the Board Members were not acted upon. 3. The presence of Corporation Counsel at each meeting/hearing is very helpful and is encouraged to continue. 4. The Board of Review Statewide Conference with participants from other Counties provided Board Members with the opportunity to review issues and laws from each County that affects Real Property Tax Board of Review policies and functions. Providing the Members with a chance to gain more knowledge in different issues as well as being able to interact with other Members from the various Boards, Real Property Tax staff, and Corporation Counsel benefits all those involved. Board Members would like to recommend to the organizers for the 2010 conference to continue having the interactive sessions between Attorneys, Board Members and staff and to look into possibly having break-out sessions for all Board Members, Attorneys, Board Secretaries as well as clerical support personnel, and appraisal staff to allow attendees to discuss issues and as well as be provided with the opportunity to exchange information and ideas. Attendance at this conference is encouraged to continue. 5. The preparation of the Appeal Data Worksheet by the County for each presentation was O very helpful as it provided the issue clearly along with the sales data and other pertinent information. The condensing of the data into the spreadsheet/worksheet format helps greatly in clarifying information and saves a lot of time in hearing all cases. `7n general, the County appraisal presentations were helpful to my deliberation process. The ones that helped me the most were the succinctly stated information on the Appeal Data Worksheet. The issues were clear; sales data, other pertinent information, and the recommendations were concise. The use of Google type topographical maps with pertinent labeling, such as names of roads, and annotations of the subject and comparable properties are very helpful to me. The use of the County's parcel maps have the needed information plus more which may be useful to the technocrat who does detailed analysis. The condensing of sales data information into spreadsheet format with appropriate boldface characters helps me in clarifying value issues. Perusal of detailed record form does not necessarily help mein a timely accurate deliberation." ....Harold Murata, Board Member 6. Although the County prepares the Appeal Data Worksheets for the Board's use in their presentations, County should be working towards standardizing their forms so all appraisers follow the same forms and its instructions. I 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 5 O 7. County should also be practicing for their presentations. uAppraisers should be Psponsihie for answering all gueC i as fharn leinnn niinrnl instances vvi ~i c where +he u iy were not able to respond. 8. While most of the County's presentations were well prepared, there were still more than a handful of cases that the County was not prepared for and failed to provide the necessary documents/data for the Board to review. These resulted in delays in scheduled cases and inconveniencing those involved. 9. Prior to the start of the tax appeal season, the Board would like to receive more training in procedures and basic valuation analysis. Training sessions should run over a period of several half-days. Corporation Counsel should be conducting and/or included in these training sessions. 10. The Board appreciates the budget that was approved for their operating expenses and considers it adequate for its purposes. Board's Recommendations 1. The practice of actively seeking and training new Board members is encouraged. 2. The vacancies to be left by Ernest Matsumura and Wally Engstrom at the end of this O year, should be filled prior to the organizational meeting to be scheduled in March 2010. Training sessions should occur shortly thereafter. . 3. The Board continues to recommend that the feasibility of a more aggressive outreach program to inform and educate citizens of this County on real property issues be considered. The Board has heard many cases where a better informed and educated citizenry could have prevented the filing of appeals. The number of appeals filed this year was in part due to the large increase in building values of properties not eligible to be in the homeowner's 3% growth cap. 4. The Council might want to be proactive to enhance the viability of small businesses by considering discounts and/or exemptions. Value added local agricultural commodity processing plants (i.e. dairy products, meat processing, macadamia nut processing, coffee processing) should be given a discount on the commercial property values to preserve and encourage local food production. Education should be given to assist small businesses (ie enterprise zones and urban revitalization not dependent on zone). 5. The Board recommends that the County review the costs associated with the filing and processing of appeals and consider increasing the amount of the filing fee to $50.00 with refund options. 6. The Board continues to recommend that the Real Property Tax Division update their O website to be educational and informative to the taxpayers. 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 6 E O 7. Section 19-53(e)(2)(A) should be amended to include in the homeowner's class an owner/occupied property used for care giving and/or care home. I Jnder the Current Code, an owner/occupied property that is partially used for a home-occupation and/or a rental qualifies to be in the homeowner's class but a property partially used as a care home does not qualify for this class, per the County's Planning Department. 8. Sales data be shared and used among the real property appraisal staff for their annual re-evaluations to avoid large differences in value between relatively comparable neighborhoods within close proximity to each other. The uniformity and equality provision of the county code requires ,a quality control program. 9. Many of the appeals this year involved large increases in building values some of which increased by more than 60%. While a "pricing ladder" printout was part of a few of the county's building appeal data, this printout was not part of the data given to each board member in most of the building appeals. It is again recommended that in the future this printout be included as a standard document in each Board member's packet. 10. Many appellants mentioned that they tried to compare prior years' assessments with their neighbors' but these were not available on the website. It is again recommended that prior years' market and assessed values be posted on the website, possibly back to 2004 which is the base year for the 3% growth cap. O 11. The Board again recommends that market modeling be implemented in the next year or two. Market modeling is the term commonly used by the real property tax division for the mass appraisal of improved properties (primarily single family residential type properties) by the sales comparison approach (versus the cost approach). 12. The Board recommends that there be better communication between the Real Property Tax Division and the Planning Department regarding home occupation, mainly having more definitive written determination to whether or not the Planning Department considers a business conducted on a property as home occupation. 13. Board members expressed interest in receiving training in the following areas: procedures and basic valuation analysis. Close Chairman's Comments The County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Division should look into the methodology for assessing real property to ensure that their values are consistent. They should also reevaluate the rules and qualifications for the agricultural exemption program. It seems that many homeowners are abusing these exemptions and the County needs to counter its intended purpose. Finally, support needs to be given or considered in terms of providing exemptions or discounts for the local small businesses. Small businesses are the economic O engine of the County and the County's future depends on a healthy and vibrant local business economy. 2009 Tax Board of Review Annual Report 7 O Submitted by members of the Tax Board of Review: ~Enne`st=lVlatsumura Wesley Takai Chairman Vice-Chairman i arold Murata Reiko Ford Member Member A/M (`lL i ally Engst m Member O O i O O O EXHIBIT A i RP Form 19-97(e) (Rev 03/2007) Dept. of Finance COUNTY OFHAWAI`I REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW 101 Pauahi St., Ste. 4, Hilo, HI 96720 75-5706 Kuakini Hwy., Ste. 112, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TAXPAYER'S NOTICE OF COMPLAINT " USE OF THIS FORM WILL NOT RESULT IN ASSESSED VALUE CHANGES USE RP FORN4 19-91 (APPEAL APPLICATION) FOR ASSESSMENT APPEALS NOTICE is hereby given that Andrea Poschman (Name of Taxpayer) hereby files this complaint to the County ofHawai`i Real Property Tax Board of Review. The real property identified as Tax Map Key No. 1-4-028-067-0000 for tax year 20 0 9 -2010 , has been improperly valued for real property tax assessment purposes. County's Valuation: Land: 124,500 Building: N/A I (We) believe that the proper assessment value of the property is as follows: O- Taxpayer's Valuation: Land: 8 6, 0 0 0 Building: N/A The grounds of objection to the County's valuation are: The current county assessed property values are based on undeniably over inflated property values induced by the nationally known predatory lending practices throughout 2001-late 2007. Since late 2007 property sales have substantially decreased and in some areas stopped while in late 2008 appropriate sales values began to emerge within the county record, but have been ignored by the county assessor's office as is reflected in the uncorrected assessment values released for-the 2009-2010 assessment values. According to county records, the last comparable 2008 sale within the Waa Waa development of Pahoa was on December 24th, 2008 Parcel ID# 1-4-028-150-0000 and the sale record indicates a sale of $81,500. I purchased my property in the Waa Waa development on February 19th, 2009 for the sum of $86,000. There's no doubt that the properties within the Waa Waa development are not worth the fanciful assessment values claimed by the county assessor. It's also extremely clear that the county assessor has chosen to ignore this issue and has chosen to unconstitutionally assess the values of properties on a few over inflated values within the counl%r, and continues to apply over inflated as essments at this time. Dated: ,t if 20 0 Signed: I',w,'l/i ffi (Taxpayer) Day Phone: Mailing Address: 13 212 128th Ave NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Receipt Acknowledged: t°Dated: L -7 20 c Hawai 'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer RP Form 19-97(e) (Rev 03/2007) O Dept. of Finance !Yl1T Tl~ T~1 !1T'1 T A Zi7 A TLT i,OUNI i vii i`IANVAi-1 REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW 101 Pauahi St., Ste. 4, Hilo, HI 96720 75-5706 Kuakini Hwy., Ste. 112, Kailua-Kona, H" 96740 TAXPAYER'S NOTICE OF COMPLAINT ' C`i:. 1-111 i FORN4 W Is I_, 'N'01- iz ;FSI L I' ASS ES l_) i.. A€.f, C _ f,"zNOf"„`+ a_ S€; RP r'OC T 19-91 , 11 aFAL, A MILICA IO v) FOR 1'°,SE'`7 , a'i'l- , NOTICE is hereby given that 4CA-V ~J -T• OWMA%& (Name of Taxpayer) hereby files this complaint to the County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Board of Review. The real property identified as Tax Map Key No. for tax year 20 0'9 - 20 10 , has been improperly valued for real property tax assessment purposes. County's Valuation: Land: Building: 0 ® c> O I (We) believe that the proper assessment value of the property is as fe''ows: Taxpayer's Valuation: Land: 0 1~5 ®C> Building: The grounds of objection to the County's valuation are: rl --A Dated: L6 Chi 2007 S(Taxpayer) ' 7 Day Phon®~>~~~ Mailing Address~ O Receipt Acknowledged: Dated: 20 Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page: (1) O Aug. 10;2009 To: County of Hawai'i Department of Finance, Real Property Tax Division Board of Review Cc: The County of Hawai'i Mayor's Office Fm: Keith T. Nakamura-Fee owner Carmen T. Navarro-Nakamura-Fee owner Carmen L. Nieves-Fee owner TMK: 3-2-5-15-(63) Subj: Letter of Complaint of Unethical treatment of Home Exemption 2009 To Who it may concern, O We have recently reviewed information stating the our property tax for the 2009 year is $2,265.93 way up from the previous amount of $307.80. As we wanted to know why such an increase was generated, we contacted the Hilo office. As we contacted the Hilo office, we spoke to Leila. She informed us the increase was due to NOT filing a Home Exemption. Confused, I asked her: "What is the Home Exemption"? She stated-(not her exact words) for letting the County know that the Residence is our primary home and the property tax would reflect it. I then asked her:" Okay, I can I get it"? She stated I couldn't. I then asked her why? Leila's response was that we missed the deadline to file. I then got really confused. I stated," How can we missed a deadline for something we never knew we had to file"? She stated ,"Oh, because I left the application on your door". "What?" I said. "Why is wasn't mailed to us?" She replied:"Oh, well, you know, you can file one for next year". I also believe she stated she was the one who put the application on my door. Is this standard operating procedure when the Home Exemptions goes out? If so, I would like a copy of that S.O.P. This is unacceptable. Let me see if I understand this. I have to pay for something that I never had a chance to respond to because the Real Property tax office didn't mail it. Instead, they had someone put the "Application" on O my door without no verification of the homeowner receiving such important information. ~I i ' O Page: (2) I hereby respectfully request that my Home Exemption be honored for the 2009 year And that any and all property tax reinbursements and or adjustments be set on the next owed property tax payment. To make things clear, this letter is to state that I never received a fair, ethical and unbiased opportunity to file the 2009 Home Exemption Application. Sincerely, O Keith T. Nakamura Cc: County of Hawaii Mayor's Office O September 30, 2009 Re: Section 1 9-97(e), Article 12, Chapter 19, Hawaii County Code f t TMK 3-7-3-024-106 i:;..rmb-er 12326 To Whom It May Concern: Please find attached three (3) letters from respected appraisers doing business on the Big Island. The Director of Finance did not use proper methods in assessing real property for purposes of taxation. Specifically the almost exclusive use of listings data is not appropriate. Listing data can be of use particularly in a sellers market when prices are increasing but in a market such as that unprecedented 2nd half of 2008 when prices plummeted, listing data is of no use. The sellers are still in denial even now 1 year later. At the appeal the Board thumbed thru my presentation. They did not even bother to read the letters. It is beyond comprehension that the Board of Appeals does not recognize that property values have gone down significantly in 2008. 1 believe the Director of Finance needs to do a better job in assessing properties and not take the lazy way out. Respectfully submitted, Marty Kimball on Behalf of Joyce Kimball OTICE S l)Z FILING REAL P-ROPERr.' \ 'SF,SSiIEN'" (:AriVi1 LAIN3'S COUNTY OF HA KV1, 1 i~ n 19-971 e) , Art ide, 12, CI lop t er 19, 11iwnii h l'udnt~~j~ I: notice Ys ereby ccn that any tavpa%u nraa,Hle' com1 ii unsL thr as~e sa d ~otuc pl.uerl upon pr~ilir rtc rn~t'n Cor v.Iii-fnr the putpo c s of real prop rtc tnrttion 1 h, f S are fi>r the pnt po r nt r t ting tlht l,ix F n u rl o , Hey iew m d,rtill l, additional notr Co the ii-iepoi t to thi (Lrpor and the County ('onncil umcr rnng in t mu s, which, in tn[ o pimcn of tha Buhr d, *hr l7uecior of Ftn uue did not iisa pr opr 111 hod- 11 t gnat; real propw rte for Eanrpn es of t uatior. Srr" e tar , e .,ion of lleruulls notfDr tppantin, a r amrnt<but nuts fol ru ivil )111pl:mIt , f1w Po lld lOnnot ch 1J1ge mt tssr~ nunt dui iu~ th pr x<~s ~ '1 hE 1 c rind for coaripl unt,should n if le umfus ai i.~ ifi film ;nl a e55 mint appaal The A1,1-11 9th irlwe u~ d ~e~lltr .i,!t.11t thl~ Lis", , rnr nt~ h«, r xpirr d ('oiut s m,it be ft)crl'nnly durn,;{ rho pFriui hunt ' l pt i1 cr 17, uo sepiemb.r 30.'_'0(-) 9 ;aithtl r t)ircct t of , in;r~r e it th,^ ~untt cif F[ a~ .aai,l c.rl Proprrt.% T,ts U1fi e 1upr r a n1 jatrehr ,5tr r't, 5uit ~ -G, 1[db. tLZ~~ ur. ui , t th;;tNr t ~ ~dw~i.r f, tl Yrope.tn ttti tiftin 7.5-57,06 hual~iiai t1i Stufe?:1'_ Prnr,t 1iat.umurt_ - ~ - (hurarr.,on 1isSn_ - } nd ofHrcr,-w ~ i1 (a. i - i;a, ii odltpteii . i 16, ~_'009;) The use of Listings in estimating value O A question has been brought up several times about the use of listings to determine market value. I know from my teaching, writing and everyday practice that this procedure can lead to very inaccurate work results and conclusions. The act of putting a certain asking price on a property does not mean that you're likely to actually get that price, no matter how long you wait. The old belief "if you wait long enough, someone will meet your asking price" is pure myth. The longer a property is on the market, the less desirable it is perceived as being by most buyers, because what buyers really think is "It's been on the market for sixty days and everybody else passed on it. What could be wrong with it?" The longer a property is on the market, the more you are likely to have to reduce the price in order to actually sell, The numeric relationship between asking price and sales price is quite complex, and governed by numerous variables. The ones that seem most profound include the economic target market, the ease of qualifying for a loan, interest rates on loans (Comment-The mortgage market controls the real estate market), sales prices of similar properties under prevailing conditions, and most importantly, general economic supply and demand. In other words, the numbers of people wanting to buy versus how many people want or need to sell. If the first number is higher than the second, expect prices to rise. If the second number is higher, expect them to fall, at least in terms of affordability if not absolute numbers. One should consider how fast real estate market conditions change when a relative ly,small number of people drop off one side of the equation at the same time that a few more jump onto the other side. In the FNMA Guidelines it States the following regarding using listings in the valuation process: • Insure that active listings and pending sales are market tested and have reasonable market O exposure to avoid the use of overpriced properties as comparables. Reasonable market exposure is reflected by typical marketing times for the neighborhood. The comparable listings should be truly comparable and the appraiser should bracket the listings using both dwelling size and sales price whenever possible. • Adjust active listings to reflect list to sale price ratios for the market. This is the simplified process. However, it is more important to analyze each listing to see if it is anywhere near a realistic value level or any form of statistical analysis could easily add to distorted conclusion. Tax assessment is all about equality. Listings do offer an upper limit to value most of the time but individually can be miss-used and contrary to the fairness of the assessment. It is far more preferable to seek actual sales even if it means going further back in time or outside the immediate market area. Applied to residential sites in this instance, there are an abundant number of listings in the West Hawaii market area and few buyers so prices are very soft and values most likely declining. Provided by Robert Lawrence, CGA 194, HI Summer 2009 11 gp_pp bobb(@live.co, - - - rage i of 1 Marty Kimball C~ From: Charles Urquhart [qualityappraisal@hawaii.rr.com] t: Sunday, August 09, 2009 8:14 AM Q i Ivlarty Kimball Subject: Letter addressing appraisal technique Quality Appraisal Services HCR 2 Box 6922, Keaau, HI 96749 Phone: (808) 982-6955, Fax: (808) 982-6966 E-mail: qualityappraisal@hawaii.rr.com August 9, 2009 Mr. Kimball, This letter is in response to your request for an explanation of acceptable appraisal practice with regards to appraising a property when there are no recent sales in the immediate area. When appraising a property in a neighborhood with no recent sales it is imperative to establish historical relationships with respect to value that have existed between the neighborhood in question and other competing areas. Assuming .here are some recent sales in these competing areas, the historical relationships that have existed can be applied to the current data to establish an estimate of value. This estimate of value can be weighed against current listings to verify Is -°asonableness, but under no circumstances is it appropriate to estimate value based on listings alone. hope this letter adequately addresses this issue. Please call if there are any other concerns or questions. Sincerely, -harles R. Urquhart -RA-271, expiration date: 12/31/09 duality Appraisal Services O '10/2009 d I O E"lI vLitr i~ . As d-1 1ttiU til as Cis il;itl t i+Oi.il i1E) i'iil: Ft it ;il i1O: wzal ;5 -r i _!'t iC.\ 11 ClfiSC.ir '',ale's '.N ` C dIs%u;,>rcd I;l the ill ct sci!7'i;i . Within the appraisal process, when no closed sales or very few sales are discovered, it is more re aiistic and a better value indicator to go outside of the immediate Market area for the most similar sales of properties than to i ely on just listing data. Listings generally are not a good reflection of tale market value. In a seller's market the sales price to list price percentage is usually high and is lower when supply and demand shifts to the ether end of the spectrum?. In the north Kona area there were 27/10 sales in 2004/2005. In 2007/2008 there were 11/5. In 2003 there were z saps of vacant land between 1.00 acre and 5.00 acres in the 3-7-3 area. These two sales were high ores. They had aweso n-ie views. Or ne had been graded and had two building sites on it. It sold for $49,999 under the list price. The second sale sold for :$114,000 under the listing price. 11 i -iiEre vVE-?re Mo s le 111 Mlakalei ;-state` in 2003. V14hy ddor 't you take 1 00 k at `the sales history there fronn 2005 anru 2008? You should be able to establish 'the ,rend. ir;r. 1 g;. ofj ~Oi-jjp ~~r a re.S ill 1fl tt c l i Ie t oiCa f f r 1J is 011 , i!z "ZOW~ . !ii iU riris .#iliiies to % a pot a{d a u p eri vi-w, `i..9u 4o t'as a q _I .d ig a llli ies W" i 1i~elJ ~ t Ii oug }t¢ O i§ i i -f t is have i' ,~i'(," ' i ..a a7 ("lot i'' iII t~..3 a `Ji ;w http://webmail.havvall rr.com/do/mail/message/preview?msgld=INBONDELIM17167&1=en-US&v=sta... 8/12/2009 con-i lete appraisal, I cannot tell you the value. Look around fer other areas with vacant 'arid sales of O between 2 to '10 acres and see what sort of historical l-elatic iiship they may have w th the subject property. Marty, also tal<ee a look at the vacant land sales ira all of I of-th bona to see what the trend was in 2008. I this -ik it is in excess of a 30% decline. Colleen McDonald Collccn dl--Dollald t_" -A 411114 ) 08-3 -?314 :r11i;CIIOrCCio21?lih C1, "IIIC1O.>0!11 O . Copyright ® 2009 Road Runner Holding Co. LLC Advertise with Us Web Privacy Policy Privacy Policy Sign Up for Road Runner 0 http://web mail.hawaii.rr.com/do/mail/message/preview?msgId=I11BO EIE\417167&l=en-US&v=sta... 8/12/2009 i RP Form I9-97(e) (Rev 0312009) Dept. of Finance COUNTY OF HAWAII " REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW 101 caual i al., .9ae. 4, n1lo, M 96 /Au 75-5706 Kuakini Hwy., Ste. 112, Kailua-Dona, III 96740 TAXPAYER'S NOTICE OF COMPLAINT USE OF THIS FORM WILL NOT RESULT IN ASSESSED VALUE C; _1ANGES USE RP FORiVI 19-91 (APPEAL APPLICATION) FOR ASSESSMEA7 APPEALS NOTICE is hereby given that C)~ , f Gi ' I( r (Name of Taxpayer) hereby files this complaint to the County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Board of Review. The real property identified as Tax Map Key No. .1, -7-60' of l - 0OD y for tax year 20~ 20 IU , has been improperly valued for real property tax assessment purposes. County's Valuation: Land: )0 l7U~) Building: I (We) believe that the proper assessment value of the property is as follows: O Taxpayer's Valuation: Land: Building: The grounds of objection to the County's valuation are: / . 4p r Gt t-se r Aaa n r-" ,n (0, 1 S-tom Ct/,ci 0 tz3Y~2~-S arQ A-A-1!J lard GL. per l! 1 gKIA oW w-g b[CX-JC-t ? & 6y- (,e ~OC~CQ Cr rJ~ Sl,~ Y (}~-t " ~i bv'Cp ~C ?lf~ L'Jr i-r`~r~ '(r' l s't,u c 1 n~ l~ f j. 1. c r 1 ~G~ "S L ~ c Signed: ~~~e-~ Dated: ~ J2~ IE) (T payer) Day Phone: Mailing Address: ' q~ FOR TAX OFFICE USE ONLY Receipt Acknowledged: Dated: 20 O Hawai `i County is can Equal Opporninity Provider and Employer William P. Kenoi -4 OF Nancy E. Crawford Mayor oJ~t~ Finance Director I ~,lel„ Deanna S. Sako O Deputy Director ~E Of'H?~_• County of Hawai` i DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL PROFERTY TAX Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street Suite 4 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-4679 . Fax (808) 961-8415 Appraisers (808) 961-8354 Clerical (808) 961-8201 • Collections (808) 961-8282 75-5706 Kuakini Highway • Suite 112 • Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 . Fax(808)327-3538 Appraisers (808) 327-3542 • Clerical (808) 327-3540 Website: www.hawaiipropertytax.com September 11, 2009 Bruce Corker P. O. Box 417 Holualoa, HI 96725 Re: TMK (3) 7-5-016-015-0000 Dear Mr. Corker: thank you for your letter dated August 19, 2009. The Members of the Tax Board of the Review were presented with your letter at their August 25th meeting held in Kailua-Kona. It was decided by the Members to defer your letter until the Board's November 3rd meeting. At this meeting the Board will hear and discuss complaints filed by the taxpayer's for the purpose of assisting the Board in making additional notes for their report to the Mayor and the County Council. You will be notified of the complaint hearing by the Real Property Tax Office via certified mail prior to the hearing date. Sincerely, Ernest Matsumura Chairman, Tax Board of Review O Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer i O 8/19/09 To: Members of the Hawaii County Tax Board of Review Cc: Brenda Ford, Hawaii County Council From: Bruce Corker "~y~ 0..., Re: Procedural Suggestions Based on the July 21, 2009 hearing before the Board on my real property tax appeal (TMK3-7-5-16-15), I offer the following procedural suggestions: 1-Pre-Hearing File Review: More than 4 weeks prior to the hearing on July 21, I mailed an appeal statement with supporting documents, along with a request that the statement be provided to Board members. It had been my assumption that Board members review appeal files prior to hearings. At the hearing it appeared that Board members had not reviewed the file or the appeal statement, and were not familiar with the issue raised or the facts. If the workload of the Board (or other factors) precludes pre-hearing review of files, appellants should be advised in advance that will be the case. If I had known Board members would be unfamiliar with the file, I would have prepared a very different presentation for the hearing. 2-Single Presenter for the County In these appeal hearings there are two parties-the appellant and the County. However, at the hearing there were 3 people presenting the County's case: the appraiser, the Assessor's Office representative, and Deputy Corporation Counsel. Appellants are triple-teamed. Basic fairness requires equal representation-one presenter for the appellant and one for the County. 3-Ap12earance of Fairness: If the Tax Board of Review is to be viewed as a fair and independent adjudicator of appeals, it should not take advice and direction on procedural and legal matters from the Deputy Corporation Counsel--as was given at the hearing. The Deputy Corporation Counsel is a County employee and owes an ethical duty of loyalty to the County-not to the independent Tax Board. If the Board needs advice and direction, the appearance of fairness requires that it come from an independent source (an executive director or independent counsel)-not from the County's lawyer. 4-Oahu Tax Court: Requiring an appeal of an adverse Tax Board decision to be heard by the Tax Court in Oahu unfairly burdens Hawaii County residents. Oahu appellants receive a Tax Court hearing in their county of residence. Hawaii County residents should receive the same. nnuc,) bllN T RP Form 19-97(e) (Rev 03/2009) Dept. of Iinmice COUNTY OF HAWAII REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW 101 Pauahi St., Ste. 4, Hilo, HI 96720 75-7706 Kuakini Hwy., Ste. 112, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TAXPAYER'S NOTICE OF COMPLAINT 01 ;i7(._ N-t)7 Rf I;L! IN Sl r i :4l.tl% (I!:I.v: if ,S ? f?!'1 (.?'~5 rri 41 (--l! )k' IL. 4PP//<4/7(/'A)/OR. 'JS~L~;t:L",'O 1P,'-r 1L,.ti.. NOTICE is hereby given that I r9 L~ f 4l Rd /0~ (Name of Taxpayer) hereby, f files this complaint to the County, of Hawaii Real Property Tax Board of Review. The real property identified as Tax Map Key No. g- 0-0 6,0 for tax vear 20 v 4 - 20 c.~ has been improperly valued for real property tax assessment purposes. County's Valuation: Land: go* Building: 4 r? Ff W'4 , ( 1 believe that the proper assessment value of the property is as follows: Taxpayer's Valuation: Land: JVo ' t-U -0- Building: x/9;5, oars'q- 3 ~C- The grounds of objection to the County's valuation are: l_ Lj~ ` 11: a cam - c i1r (1E3 i ~ ~ ~-`~-c~ ~ ~ ~.~~'e~ ~ . r~%,~ c~-.zz.~l.,(j~?Lr~t-ems LZ6-Ot-6:~ a 616-'1 Signed: Dated: (Taxpayer) ``fit{.. W t.: Day Phone:J~ ~ g, Mg Add-ess: FOR TAX OFFICE USE ONLY t I Receipt Acknowledged: Dated: 20 O Hawaii County is an Equal Oppot-amity Provider and Employer _ rage i or z Page 1 of 1 i' i 'ack dalb~ L---- PP 0 From: <keffer@a aloha.net> To: <dalbeyj001@hawaii.rr.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2000 9;29 AM Subject: Valuation of Lh property Bear Jack, I hope all's well with you as financial armageddon reeps ever closer. The Dona real estate market has remained very quicet. Since we met the only activity in the LH market has been a couple of withdrawals. At this point it is not relevant to study sales to determine current value. As I mentioned the LH sales that have closed this year were for the most part initiated last year. There has been significant deterioration since and continued deterioration is in store. The only chance at a sale is to price aggressively in comparison to the nearest comparable properties. The best comparable to your property was a 5 acre LH located on Middle Keei Rd. with a 1100sf home, nice farm, good view and lease running till 2025. This property recently withdrawn but was on the market for a number of monts awas $299000. I feel that to get any inter st in your property that it would need to liF-' 4. at around $269,000 with a target price of $240 to 250k. Beca se it . such good condition and because it does have a nice second dwelling C -oeit unpermitted, there is an outside chance to find a buyer in the $2'70 , to $280k range with a list price of $299,000. It would be unlikely mind but possible that someone may be interested at $325,000 but this is a long shot price. As you know I have been and remain pessimistic about the market and these price points reflect that. You can prbably find a rosier outlook among my peers- Best wishes Keith No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1672 - Release Date: 9/15/2008 9:21 AM 0 I ~ ~ arY4t~ 2 5 8 9~ - TAX MAP KEYIPARCEL ID RP Form 19-91 (Rev 0512004) a t E Z S PLAT PARCEL CPR Dept. of Finance 3 Q 41 C9i q Ch0o~ TAX BOARD OF REVIEW FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI/I PROPERTY CLASS A G u el 2 ag„ 'r A%MAVGOr a/ c nenT t%E OF e;PPEA,e LAND AREAA: t_ ,;+1. _ Ilnmr M I 6m IVVe1M OF ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT This appeal is filed against: "The costs to be deposited by the taxpayer on appeal to the [ Building Value board of review shall be $1x00 for each property tax appeal' [ Land Value Chapter 19, Article 12 Section 19100 [ Exemption ( ] Property Class Notice is hereby given that the listed [ ] Other explain below in tax payer has filed a appeal against -j remarks the January 1, 20 assessment PRINT: TAXPAYER'S/APPELLANT'S NAME for the property listed-on this notice. MAILING ADDRESSg r l Gam,/,. lJ~/T , /7~r i Go 7 K REQUIRED INFORMATION TAXPAYER'S OPINION O --5 - Building Value CT 9, L-ec) .2 7v Land Value 3 v i 17 dC) _6 . Exemption 1 S+ d Q 8 _ _ Property Class x'.21 C v,c T-,,0 AG O Grounds of appeal to the assessment (Section 19-93) are as follows: The assessed value of the property exceeds by more than 20 percent the ratio of assessment to market value. [}~'J There is lack of niforrnity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error O In the application ethods. [ ] Denial of an exemption to which you are entitled and for which all requirements are met. [ ] The assessment methods used were illegal or unconstitutional. REMARKS: 21 Z7- TARP YER/APPELLANT SIGNATURE DATE DAY TELEPHONE NO. WJ DALBEY-- : 337, For RP TAX A CAPTAIN COOK, HAWAII $saoa INPUT: Yc rlr I-Ap HG KEALHKEKUA BRANCH - - 8t S62G 2JiAMAW (OA HwY,-~' KEALAfC~KUA, HAJVty'1. 50 tom..-, County of Hawaii ~i~.,•' 2009 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT NOTICE f FISCAL YEAR: JULY 1, 2009 TO JUNE 30, 2010- i a DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION 0 101 PAUAHI STREET STE 4 OR 75-5706 KUAKINI HWY., STE. 112 HILO, Hi 96720-4224 KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740 PHONE: HILO - (808) 961-8201 / 961-8354 KONA- (808) 327-3540 / 327-3542 1742MS 03102109 09.00 0030231 20090306 9COSA100 9PTAXAS 1 OZ OOM 9COSAIO*00- IS7012 AS IIaIouIIIIIIII1111111llnli1111111111I1I111111aIIIIIIIIIIII11 8-4-015-019-0000 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE DALBY,RALPH J ° CHANGE OF ADDRESS DALBY,NANCY J PO BOX 826 ° DEADLINES HONAUNAU HI 96726-0826 4 ^ APPEALS 7.,N13 45 4.f A E1L-f li~~illi~lll~l~~Illgl~~~ii~l~~l~li(illllllllflll~llll~ll~II~I~~ 8.4-015-019-0000 P1 ®PERTY Olff ER IMFdR-PJAr1WV - P 0 f®: 8-4-015-019-0000 SITE ADDRESS- LAND AREA 4.220 ACRE(S) FEE OWNER(S) LESSEE(S) /ASSIGNEE(S) B P BISHOP ESTATE DALBY,RALPH J/NANCY J EXEMPTION AMOUNT EXEMPTION TYPE 154,000 HOME EXEMPTION LAND CLASSIFICATION AGRICULTURAL - LAST YEAR'S LAST YEAR'S LAST YEAR'S LAST YEAR'S THIS YEAR'S THIS YEAR'S THIS YEARS THIS YEAR'S MARKET ASSESSED EXEMPTION NET TAXABLE MARKET ASSESSED EXEMPTION NET TAXABLE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE BUILDING 167,500 167,500 137,200 30,300 250,800 250,800 154,000 96,800 LAND 217 200 18,400 18,400 2P,40,0 19,300 19,300 TOTAL 3 ,7 9 185,900 137,200 48,700 474,200 ~ 270,100 154,000 116,100 4V Appeals mast be postmarked by April 9, 2009. --2 ~ 7o This is your notice of sessmerat as of January 1, ~ '1V%4'i6ez 2009. Market value is the price a willing buyer will pay 0 f E: AMOUNTS IN BLUE SHADED AREA ARE HISTORICAL for fee simple ownership. A separate notice of INFORMATION FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. assessment will be gent for each class of property. PLEASE REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.