2022-09-27 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Harano called for further discussion. Seeing none he called for the vote to sustain the county building value of $526,700 as the land value is not under appeal. Motion passed by a vote of 3:0. CASE #44645 – HIATT, JERRY M; HIGASHI, TOKISUKE; HIGASHI, TADAICHI TMK 4-6-008-079-0000 The appellant Jerry Hiatt was present at the hearing. Present for the County was appraiser, Jennifer Long. The parcel is a 5.541 acre lot in Ahualoa Homesteads on the Waimea side of Puaono Road. There is no ag use and no improvements. The land value is under appeal. The appellant presented his appeal requesting a land value of $225,000. The county presented their case and reasons for recommending sustaining the land value at $315,500. Board members reviewed the information. Board asked questions of both appellants and the county. Mr. Harano asked if there were any questions from the Board to the appellant or the county. If there is none, can we entertain a motion for discussion. Mr. Okumoto asked for a few minutes to look through the packets. Reminder from Sinclair that whatever Mr. Hiatt intends to do with the property is not considered. Mr. Hiatt to echo that at the time of the assessment the property was covered in forest and agrees that is the relevant time to judge. Ms. Blancett-Maddock moved to sustain the county value as the taxpayer did not show the assessed value of the property exceeds by more than 20% the ratio of assessment to market value, did not show lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods and the taxpayer did not show the assessment methods used were illegal or unconstitutional. Mr. Okumoto seconded the motion. Mr. Harano asked for discussion. Ms. Blancett-Maddock stated the 2020 purchase was less that the assessment value for the last two years and it was not an arms length transaction by county standards. Mr. Okumoto stated the County made an attempt to address Mr. Hiatt’s objections and the two comparables used have no water service. $200k for tree removal, I think you could cut it and the cost would be to haul it away. Appellant stated it was half half. Mr. Harano – thoughts were to assess the land value at $275,000 similar to what was done in 2021 without the non dedicated ag exemption. Based on what Mr. Hiatt mentioned about the cost of the tree removal with the understanding that there will be replanting that will be taking place as part of the requirement of the non dedicated ag exemption, I know it was not applied for and was not available for in 2021. Mr. Hiatt to Mr. Harano I can live with that. Here out of frustration and sense this doesn’t feel right to me. That sense of frustration, if we could come to some compromise and then I feel like I would have a say. Mr. Hiatt asked about the $275,000.