Laserfiche WebLink
I think the background report is fairly clear and comprehensive. It provides you with a <br />chronology as to what has happened regarding this particular property. Mr. Malasek had <br />filed his claim on June 4, 2004 in the amount of $27,494 for loss of income. There was <br />some confusion as to whether this was a loss of income between 1994 and 2003. <br />However, when Mr. John Wood of Wood and Tate, the claims adjuster, investigated he <br />found that Mr. Malasek was basically asking for claim for future loss of income from this <br />property. <br />As the background report reflects, the property was sold to the County under the <br />Geothermal Relocation Program on October 7, 2003. Mr. Malasek no longer owns this <br />property. The County has since sold that property to another party. So both the County <br />and Mr. Malasek no longer owns this property. <br />The Claims Adjuster, John Wood, again, recommends compensation of $19,000 to <br />$26,000basedonfuturelossofincomefromtheorchardandnurserythatwasonthe <br />property. The Planning Director, however, is recommending denial of the compensation <br />request by Mr. Malasek. The Director does not concur with the Claims Adjusters <br />assessment that the claimant should be compensated for future loss even if he no longer <br />owns the property. And, basically, the reasons are the Planning Commissions <br />Geothermal Asset Fund Rule does not state anticipated future loss of income from <br />property already sold as an eligible claim. And its highly unusual for the claimant to file <br />a claim on property he no longer owns. There also is no evidence submitted that the Puna <br />Geothermal Venture activity contributed to the anticipated future loss of income, and I <br />emphasize future. The claimant voluntarily sold the property to the County under the <br />Geothermal Relocation Program back in 2003. Because he sold the property he no longer <br />has income from his orchard nursery. If claimant wanted to continue earning income <br />from the fruit trees, etc., he should not have sold the property to the County. The <br />claimant also filed numerous claims over the years when he owned the property. If he <br />wanted to be compensated for the loss of income at that time, he should have done it prior <br />to the selling of the property. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence or documentation to <br />support the claim and that the Planning Director feels that this is not a compensable claim <br />under the Planning Commissions Geothermal Asset fund claim. <br />Are there any questions? <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA:Yes. In the background report, previous claims filed by claimant <br />No. 4, theres a typo there, massage, looks like $60,000 and we know it cant be that. It <br />has to be 60, so theres a comma where it should be decimal point. I just wanted to <br />clarify that. <br />HAYASHI:Oh, yes, Im sorry about that. I typed it myself so -. <br />SIRACUSA:No. 6, claim of $500 for white powder analysis. As I remember <br />there was a question as to whether there was caustic soda, if that was it. And it had to be <br />2EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />