HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0813.019 1998-2000
BILL 276 Draft 3,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE
1983 (1995 EDITION), RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES
BY
BLANE YOKOTA
CORPORATE COUNSEL REGEIV®
'nom
FOR
f nty Council
VERIZON HAWAII
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
Good morning Chair Arakaki and Members of the Hawaii County Council.
I am Blane Yokota, Corporate Counsel testifying on behalf of Verizon Hawaii
("Verizon) formerly known as GTE Hawaiian Tel. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify regarding Bill No. 276 (Draft 3), "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 19, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (1995 EDITION),
RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES." Although Verizon Hawaii supports
that portion of Bill 276 (Draft 3) which is designed to memorialize the sharing of
Public Service Company Tax revenues which the State of Hawaii, the County of
Hawaii, and the Public Utilities have agreed to in principle, with all due respect to
the Council, Verizon strongly opposes subparts (a), (b), and (c) of Section 2 of
Bill 276 (Draft 3) which nonetheless continue to propose the adoption of an
entirely new valuation method and urges the Council to either (1) strike those
sections from this bill or, at a minimum (2) to defer the bill until November 1, 2000
in order to allow the finalization and execution of a formal settlement agreement
which would render the new valuation method moot.
As the Council is aware, Verizon began paying a portion of its PSC tax
under protest on August 10, 2000 and filed a complaint against the Department
of Taxation asserting the double taxation dilemma which faced Verizon and
ultimately its customers. Subsequently on August 17, 2000 and again on August
31, 2000 the State, Hawaii County, and Helco, Gasco, and Verizon met in
Comm. No. 813 • D/9
1 _ He No. RPT
Ref. To: DJ s/C614h6f j
Ref. Date SEP 2 0 20M
settlement conference with Judge Gary Chang of the tax appeal court. Through
cooperation and compromise the parties managed by the end of the August 31St
session to reach a settlement in principle, which would share the PSC Tax
revenues between the State and the County. Counsel for all parties are now
working on reducing that settlement in principle into a formal written settlement
agreement that is expected to shortly be circulated for review by the other three
counties.
Accordingly, Verizon respectfully requests that this Council take no further
action to adopt a new real property valuation method when the parties are finally
on the verge of formalizing a settlement agreement which would achieve the
County's stated goal of realizing a sharing of the PSC Tax revenues with the
State. Deferring further action on the new valuation language proposed in Bill
276 (Draft 3) will not impair the County's position but will instead demonstrate the
County's continued commitment to the settlement process.
Verizon will not repeat all of its prior objections to the new real property
valuation method proposed in subparts (a), (b), and (c) of Section 2 of Bill 276
(Draft 3). However, Verizon does reserve its rights to assert any and all
arguments in any future proceedings (administrative or otherwise) against the
new valuation method.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on this matter.