Laserfiche WebLink
Maddock. Ms. Blancett-Maddock encouraged appellant to work with the County to file for <br />agricultural use for next year. Motion passed by a vote of 3:0. (Mr. Okumoto was <br />recused.) <br /> <br /> <br />CASE 44828 – ISHIDA,LINCOLN J TRUST <br />TMK 8-1-012-008-0000 <br /> <br />The appellant Mr. Lincoln Ishida is present with Glennon Gingo, Real Estate Consultant and <br />Real Estate Broker. Present for the County was commercial appraiser, Shannon Arquitola. <br /> <br />The parcel is a 9,000 square foot parcel in Kealakekua Village with a mixed office/retail building <br />consisting of 2,844 square feet. <br /> <br />The building value is under appeal. <br /> <br />The appellant presented his case. The County presented their case and recommended to <br />sustain the building value of $278,900. A call for questions was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Okumoto moved to sustain the County’s value for building value at $278,900. The <br />County used the market approach and Mr. Ishida’s main objection is the large percentage <br />increase however the property was under assessed previously and the market supports <br />the increase. Seconded by Ms Blancett-Maddock. A call for discussion was made. Motion <br />passed by a vote of 4:0. <br /> <br /> <br />CASE #44982 – 2020 MMPKRL TR <br />TMK 7-2-013-007-0000 <br /> <br />The appellant was not present. Present for the County was appraiser, Matthew Radmilovic. <br /> <br />The parcel is a 17,279 square foot property located in Hualalai Resort. The building is 3,439 <br />square feet, 5 bedroom, 5.5 bath home and was built in 1999. <br /> <br />The land and building value are under appeal. <br /> <br />The County presented their case and recommended to sustain the land value of $1,406,600 and <br />building value of $1,920,900. A call for questions was made. <br /> <br />Ms Blancett-Maddock motioned to sustain the county value as the appellant did not show <br />the assessed value of the property exceeds by more than 20% of the ratio of assessment <br />to market value nor did the appellant prove there is a lack of uniformity or inequality <br />resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the <br />methods. Mr. Tokuuke seconded the motion. A call for discussion was made. Motion <br />passed by a vote of 4:0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />