Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Tokuuke mo?oned to sustain the County’s recommended values for both the land and building. <br />Seconded by Mr. Eisert. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Tokuuke noted there is a lack of evidence <br />for grounds of appeal, the assessed value of the property exceeds by more than 20 percent the ra?o of <br />assessment to market value. The mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />CASE #47634 – STONE,RANDIE LOU RAPOZA (RAPOZA,DUANE) <br />TMK 2-4-007-010-0000 <br /> <br />The appellant, Mr. Duane Rapoza, was present for the hearing. Present for the County was Appraisal <br />Supervisor, Dionne Costa. <br /> <br />The subject property is a vacant 63.57 acre parcel located at the top of Ainaola Drive. <br /> <br />The land value is under appeal. <br /> <br />The appellant, Mr. Rapoza, presented the case. The County presented their case and recommended <br />sustaining the land value of $911,800. Rebu?als were made by both the appellant and the County. A call <br />for ques?ons was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Tokuuke mo?oned to sustain the County’s recommended values for both the land and building. <br />Seconded by Mr. Eisert. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Tokuuke noted there is a lack of evidence <br />for grounds of appeal, the assessed value of the property exceeds by more than 20 percent the ra?o of <br />assessment to market value, nor lack of uniformity or inequality of the assessment methods. The <br />mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />CASE #47587 – VICENTE,DWIGHT J <br />TMK 2-4-050-018-0000 <br /> <br />The appellant, Mr. Dwight Vicente, was present for the hearing. Present for the County was Appraisal <br />Supervisor, Dionne Costa. <br /> <br />The subject property is located in Waiakea Uka with a land area of 7,500 sq? and consists of a 1,056 sq? <br />dwelling built in 1992. <br /> <br />The land value is under appeal. <br /> <br />The appellant, Mr. Vicente, presented the case. The County presented their case and recommended <br />sustaining the land value of $30,400. Rebu?al was made by the appellant. A call for ques?ons was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Okumoto mo?oned to sustain the County’s recommended land value of $30,400. Seconded by Mr. <br />Eisert. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Okumoto noted there is lack of evidence to support the <br />three grounds of appeals; lack of uniformity or inequality of the assessment methods, denial of an <br />exemp?on to which the taxpayer is en?tled, and the assessment methods used were illegal or <br />uncons?tu?onal. The mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />BOARD OF REVIEW <br />Minutes of October 27, 2023 <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />