2023-11-01 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 , 2023 November 1 Minutes of BOARD OF REVIEW The subject parcel is located in Wainani Estates and is 19,435 sf, has a 1,662 sf dwelling that consists of 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. The land value and tax classiﬁca?on are under appeal. At this ?me the appellant stated that they would be waiving their dispute of the tax classiﬁca?on. The appellant, Ms. Weinberger, presented their case regarding the dispute of the land values only. The County presented their case and recommended sustaining the land value at $371,000. Rebu?als were made by both the appellant and the County. A call for ques?ons was made. Mr. Tokuuke mo?oned to sustain the County’s recommended land value of $371,000 due to lack of evidence for grounds of appeal. Seconded by Mr. Eisert. A call for discussion was made. Mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0. At this ?me the Board asked the appellant, Ms. Weinberger, if they were certain they did not want to state into record the dispute of the tax classiﬁca?on, which was conﬁrmed. The County, Mr. Fondy, presented their case on the tax classiﬁca?on and recommended sustaining the County’s tax classiﬁca?on of ‘Residen?al’ and noted that the classiﬁca?on status will reﬂect as ‘Homeowner’ when the homeowner exemp?on goes into eﬀect as of January 1, 2024 (2023 second half year) based on the applica?on ﬁling date. A call for ques?ons was made. Mr. Eisert mo?oned to sustain the County’s tax classiﬁca?on as Residen?al. Seconded by Mr. Tokuuke. A call for discussion was made. Mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0. CASE #47719 – GREENBERG,DEBORAH/JEFFREY TMK 6-9-010-001-0178 The appellant, Mr. and Mrs. Greenberg, were present for the hearing. Present for the County was appraiser Ma? Radmilovic. The subject parcel is a condominium in Waikoloa Beach Resort in the Halii Kai condominium complex, unit 23B, and has a garden view. The condominium has 2 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, has 1,082 sf of living area, was built in 2006, and is classed a 6. Both the land and building values are under appeal. The appellants presented their case. The County presented their case and recommended sustaining the land value of $178,300 and the building value of $715,000 for a total value of $893,300. Rebu?als were made by both the appellant and the County. A call for ques?ons was made. Mr. Eisert mo?oned to sustain the County’s recommended values for both the land and building. Seconded by Mr. Tokuuke. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Eisert noted that the County took two diﬀerent approaches with the comparable parcels, one with the same ﬂoor plan and two others within the same building as the subject parcel; and due to lack of evidence for grounds of appeal. Mo?on passed by a vote of 3:0.