2022-09-27 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

For each appeal case, the appraiser submitted a packet of information to the Board, unless there had been a prior settlement with the Appellant or withdrawal. If the Appellant was not present, any information sent in by the Appellant was presented to the Board along with the appraisers’ packet. AGENDA AMENDMENT Appraiser supervisor, Dionne Costa requested an amendment to today’s agenda as the appellant is in Nashville and is available by telephone today. Chairman Harano motioned to move Case #44328 scheduled for Wednesday September 28, 2022 to this morning’s session at 9:00am, Tuesday September 27, 2022. Ms. Blancett- Maddock seconded the motion. Call of discussion. Motion passed Vote 3:0 CASE # 44594 – DOE, THOMAS H/ KAY K TMK 4-4-0-021-0002 The parcel is on the Hamakua coast just past mile marker 40, approximately 1.3 miles mauka. It is a 2.51acre CPR’d lot participating in the non dedicated agricultural use program and is claiming a homeowners exemption. It has a 876 square foot, grade 3- dwelling that was built in 1999 with other buildings and yard improvements. The building value is under appeal. Appellants Mr. and Mrs. Doe were present for the hearing. Appellants requested building value be lowered to $203,900. Appealing the main dwelling value and the red steel barn building as the County assessed building at 300 square feet, actual size of this structure is 600 square feet. Comparative market analysis was presented by the appellants. County recommended lowering the building value of the improvements to $219,900. Board members reviewed the information. Board asked questions of both appellants and the county. Mr. Harano asked if there were no further questions, can we entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Okumoto moved to sustain the County’s building value at $219,900 as the assessment methods used were not illegal or unconstitutional and there was no lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods. Ms. Blancett-Maddock seconded the motion. Mr. Harano called for discussion. Mr. Okumoto stated both presented good arguments. This was difficult as there were many structures to consider but the County centered their comparables on properties within the area so it gave a little more credence to their values. I didn’t think the parcel class affected the building value. I think the main thing was the search was too wide. You (to appellants) started out really wide with sale dates and started narrowing it down. I think you did a pretty thorough job. County’s method was more focused.