Laserfiche WebLink
GRAHAM:So just clarification from the Planning Director, I think what I’m hearing <br />is that the applicant is saying certain amounts were paid to cover what was due because of a <br />certain number of units; and so now he wants those units to be considered paid for not subject to <br />the current. But what you’re saying is whatever was paid as a monetary value or whatever does <br />apply but it doesn’t cover that number of units as it originally was intended for. Those units still <br />have to meet the current conditions. Is that correct? <br />YUEN:Right, for both of these, both for the parks and for the affordable housing. <br />Actually what I take it is the affordable housing was not actually paid, right? <br />LIM:It was paid. <br />YUEN:It was paid? <br />LIM:Yes. <br />YUEN:When was that? <br />LIM:As of June 6, 1994 the Office of Housing and Community Development <br />wrote a letter to the Planning Department saying that “Hualalai Properties has delivered an in- <br />lieu payment to the County of Hawaii in the amount of $37,600 to the Office of Housing and <br />Community Development by way of the County Planning Department. This payment represents <br />a second 50 percent installment and fulfillment of its affordable housing requirement stated in <br />the change of zone ordinance.” <br />YUEN:Okay, well, you’re correct in stating that is the point of disagreement. I <br />would like to see the records of what happened with the County Resolution on the payment of <br />the housing before I make a final decision on that, on what I’d recommend on that. <br />GRAHAM:But if we were to go along with what you’re recommending, I would <br />presume that payments that were made 10 or 15 years ago should have some appreciation value <br />due to the use of the money for 10 or 15 years by whatever is the appropriate calculation, rather <br />than just saying that money then is the same amount of money now. Is that correct, should there <br />be an interest accrued to them so that in fact the $50,000 payment back then is representing <br />$80,000 now or $100,000 now, whatever it is? Does that come into play? <br />WATANABE:Good point. <br />YUEN:Well, it sounds fair. I just don’t know as a matter of consistent application <br />whether that has been done, you know, partial payment at one point in time being then given an <br />interest added to that to cover the payment later. <br />GRAHAM:Okay. <br />WATANABE:Mr. Iwashita? <br />EXHIBIT B <br />8 <br /> <br />