HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0533.070 2000-2002
05/23/2002 09:58 808-985-7163 ANNA & BOB WALLWORK PAGE 01
May zz, zoo2
The Honorable James Arakaki-Council Chairman ' ' `
t,:. i,~,. i
Hawaii Couatty Couztcil
25 Aupuni Street
I°Iilo, Hawaii 96720 ~
Dear Mr. Araicaki:
After reviewing wt'itten documents distributed at public hearings on May l5 and May
6, 2002, and listening to mayor Harry Kim's testimony on May l6, 2002, I fmd it
impossible for me to trraake ara informed decision. I azaa opp®sed to the property tax
increase, axad offered my oral testimony on May 16, 2002.
The property tax iracreasc, as proposed by our Hawaii County Adrninistratiora, lacl~s short
arad long term planning and places a heavy burden on people over 60 years of age on
fixed income, and young families purchasing their first home. Without long or short terra
planaung, our county will certainly face this operating budget crisis again and again. In
addition, the heaviest burden will be on the homeowners whose rates will be increased by
25%. Using any measure, a 25% increase is unreasonable ixr view of many citizens'
limited resources.
What does dais itaerease mean to this homeowner over 60 years of age and on a fixed
income? With my homeowners' exezxrption, 1 can expect an additional cost of $20b.25
per year. I'rrt sure that maaay of our homeowners on fixed iuxcoxne will be surprised and
shocked at the sudden increase in motsies due by August 20, 2002. In addition, our
young homeowners will also face the same dilemma. And any first-tirne homeowner
with large mortgage payments will be facing a greater tax burden because of tha lwiglavr
value and cost of new home cozrstructioxr. Can we justify any tax increase? Let me offer
sogne thoughts.
Planning, short or long term must be part of the process before tax increases can even be
considered. The administration should offer a clear view of our counties tzeeds and be
willing to communicate in detail on how we are to achieve our goal. We can start with a
five and ten year busixAess plan with incremental tax increases ever a period of time. The
plan should include aervece at,d operatlaag e#'ficiencies, inapt•®v~m~rat ~ s~twlc~ that
can be measured and provisions for adequate reserves ~ tRae event ®ff ~nezpectcd
expenses. I cars accept a tax increase only if I can see that sound planning is part of the
process and all categories are justly taxed. An incremental property taac increase over a
period of years is more palatable than crisis xraaaaageanent as we see today. It is my hope
that with souxxd planning, we can avoid any future unexpected budget shortfall.
If there is to be a tax increase, let us base the tax rate on Hawaii's taxpayers' willingness
and ability to pay. Cozrrparisons to Kauai and Maui counties tax rate seem out of context
for the satn~ reason that county worker pay scales axe tacgotiated statewide without regard
l Cornnti. hTca~ ~ ~
F`il® I~do<.
€te o: _
.
05/23/2002 09:58 808-985-7163 ANNA & BOB WALLWORK PAGE 02
fvr each couatles ahli~ty to pay. Worker pay scales should be based on the environment
iza which they reside.
In conclusion, I large you to vote NO on the property tax proposal. Testimony at eitkaer
hearing does not indicate a clear znaradate for the tax proposal.
Resp~ectfOully submitted:
Robert (lob) Wallworl~, Jz.
P.~.13ox 1117
Volcano, l-TZ 96785
985-8909
2
_