Laserfiche WebLink
5 Minutes of October 31, 2023 BOARD OF REVIEW <br /> <br />made. It was noted that there is lack of evidence to support grounds of appeal. Mo?on passed by a <br />vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />CASE #47979 – PAULSON,MICHAEL/CINDY <br />TMK 6-2-013-013-0074 <br /> <br />The appellant was not present for the hearing. Present for the County was appraiser, Ma? Radmilovic. <br /> <br />The subject parcel is a residen?al duplex dwelling unit in the Mauna Kea Resort in the Waiulaula <br />complex. Unit 329 has 3 bedrooms, 3 full bathrooms, 1 half bathroom, has 2,517 sf of living area, was <br />built in 2015 and is classed a 7-. <br /> <br />Both the land and building values are under appeal. <br /> <br />The County presented their case and recommended sustaining the land value of $260,500 and building <br />value of $2,665,100 for a total value of $2,925,600. A call for ques?ons was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Eisert mo?oned to sustain the County’s assessment of the land value of $260,500 and building <br />value of $2,665,100 for a total value of $2,925,600. Seconded by Mr. Tokuuke. A call for discussion was <br />made. Mr. Eisert noted that all comparables provided are of the same assessed values. Mr. Tokuuke <br />stated that there is lack of evidence to support grounds of appeal. Mo?on passes by a vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />Recess: 12:29 p.m. <br />Reconvened: 1:05 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />CASE #47952 – VACCARO,ASHLEY/YAKITA,DON (KAMILO 514 LLC) <br />TMK 6-8-022-041-0190 <br /> <br />The appellants, Mr. Yakita and Ms. Vaccaro, were present for the hearing via telephone. Present for the <br />County was appraiser, Ma? Radmilovic. <br /> <br />The subject parcel is a residen?al condominium dwelling in the Maua Lani Resort in the Ka Milo complex <br />with resort view. The condominium has 4 bedrooms, 3 full bathrooms, 1 half bathroom, has 2,489 sf of <br />living area, was built in 2019 and is classed a 7. <br /> <br />Both the land and building values are under appeal. <br /> <br />The appellants presented their case. The County presented their case and recommended sustaining the <br />land value of $222,400 and building value of $2,295,900 for a total value of $2,518,300. Rebu?als were <br />made by both the appellants’ and the County. A call for ques?ons was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Eisert mo?oned to amend the County’s assessment of land value to $222,300 and building value of <br />$2,057,300 for a total value of $2,279,600. Seconded by Mr. Okumoto. A call for discussion was made. <br />Mr. Eisert stated that based on the comparables provided, he finds reason for an error in the <br />applica?on of the assessment methods. Mo?on passes by a vote of 3:0. <br /> <br /> <br />