2013-12-05 Windward Transcript - Jordan

Home

FUKE: Sure. I think that the concerns are very valid. Specifically, you know, just going from the back, the last one in terms of the notices to surrounding property owners. I mean like right now legally the requirement is only 300 feet; and, you know, whether it’s extended or not that becomes a policy decision. I know there’s an existing provision to enable the public further notice, you know, through not only the newspaper but -. Sherry and I were just talking about like how often does people, you know, do people really look at the public hearing notices in the paper. But the other way, of course, is like the signs are posted on the property as well. But, again, it’s a policy decision. And I think both the administration and the Council would have to decide on whether the band or the ring should be extended further. I know like within the agricultural district, you know, it’s like 500, and I think in certain instances it goes up to 1,000 feet. But, you know, again, it’s a policy decision that the administration and the Council would have to wrestle with. In terms of the speeding along Laukapu Street, the applicant totally agrees. And, you know, I think that we agree with the need possibly for traffic calming devices such as like the speed humps. You know, you have speed humps here in Hilo like on Haili Street. In Kona they’re like Royal Poinciana Drive, Halekii Street. But I think a lot of it is driven by homeowners who live on that street. They have to petition the County Council or their respective, you know, Council Members to initiate such an action. And if the residents along that area wished to have speed humps, then my recommendation is to contact Councilman Onishi who represents that area and formally petition, you know, to have speed humps be investigated and hopefully implemented. And if such a petition is initiated Ms. Jordan would be one of those who would be signing the petition because she too have, she and her husband also have children who live in that area, and young children that also play in the streets too. So -. Finally, in terms of the taxes, you know, it’s true. I think that, I did talk to Mr. Tanabe about it. You know, in years past, like as I understood the real property tax code, if you had a property that was zoned residential and, I guess, kind of in a commercial area, then you had an opportunity to freeze your tax rate at the residential rate for like a 10-year period. In talking to Councilman Onishi recently about this whole issue he mentioned that he, he brought me up to speed about some of the tax implications. And he mentioned that that provision was deleted for something else, which was to provide a cap every three years in terms of how a property could be increased, you know, the valuation of a property. So it’s like every three years would be the maximum. On an evaluation there would be like a cap. So like every year you would not have an increase annually but, you know, there will be a reevaluation at the third year. That’s my understanding. My preference, however, is really to go back to the old system that if you live in a residential area and you commit yourself to living in a residential area then, you know, like the agricultural tax provision you have a tax, you have a 10-year freeze provision; and then if you choose to sell to another person who has different interest, then, of course, you would be responsible for the difference in the tax. And that’s how the agricultural tax program works. But, you know, what Mr. Tanaka is saying is true. You know, aside from the tax rate, we know that the rate is fixed, the valuation of your property will vary, and then at the end of the day what comes out is, 7 EXHIBIT A