2022-09-14 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

than 20% the ratio of the market value and the appellant did not prove an there was a lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment metods or an error in the application of the methods and the appellant did not prove the assessment methods were illegal or unconstitutional. Mr. Tokuuke seconded the motion. Motion passed by a vote of 4:0. CASE #44479 – GRATZ,ADAM & MITCHELL, FAYE TMK 6-2-009-019-0002 The appellant, Adam Gratz was present. Present for the County was appraiser, Hoku Manning. The parcel is a 2.415 acre property with a 3,052 square feet, 3 bedroom, 2 bath improvement with a grade 6-. The property is located in the Kanehoa subdivision. The building value and land value are under appeal. The appellant presented his case to lower the value of the land to $200,000 and the building to $200,000 stating concern of the county water tank. The County presented their case and recommended to sustain the land value of $317,700 and building value of $954,300. The property was purchased in 2021 by the appellant for $1,300,000. A call for questions was made. Mr. Okumoto moved to sustain the county value at $317,700 for the land and $954,300 for the building with a net taxable value of $1,152,000 for tax year 2022. The county followed uniform and equitable practices and there was no illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods. Ms. Blancett-Maddock seconded the motion. Mr. Harano confirmed the homeowner exemption of $120,000. Motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Harano called for a recess at 11:28am. Mr. Harano called the Board out of recess at 11:35am CASE #45035 – WESTIN,STEFAN/LORELEI TMK 7-5-001-021-0000 The appellant, Lorelei Westin, was present. Present for the County was appraiser, Eric Dennis. The parcel is a 5 acre vacant parcel north of the Keopu Mauka and Kalamona Road intersection. The land value is under appeal. The appellant presented her case. Appellant requested to have land value of $12,400 which is similar to prior owners as they are doing more to get the coffee back to production than the prior owners. County presented their case and recommended to lower the land value to $299,200 due to prohibited use due to the easement. Unable to grant the entire property for ag use as the appellant filled out the application for what was granted. A call for questions was made. Mr. Tokuuke made a motion to sustain the County’s recommendation of $299,200 for year 2022 because the appellant did not prove they were denied an exemption which they were entitled to as all requirements were not met by the applicant. Ms. Blancett-Maddock seconded the motion. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Tokuuke stated the exemption