HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.040 2006-2008 Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
_ _ ,
From: Angel Pilago [kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.usJ
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:43 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us ~ Cfl_! ;i -
Subject: FW: Kona Village Improvement District Bill 55 -Residential Property/Housing Concerns
From: Glenn Johansen [mailto:glennj@konacoast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:57 AM
To: kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; bford@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Kona Village Improvement District Bill 55 -Residential Property/Housing Concerns
Aloha Councilman Pilago,
With Bill 55 regarding the Kona Village Improvement District pending approval, there are many residential
properties within the District that would be significantly impacted by the ordinance in future years.
Is it possible that the ordinance can be applied only to commercial properties (businesses) within the District? The
extra expense for residences within the District start out relatively low ($100. per year) but the annual cost for
residential property owners, including renters within the District could quite possibly spiral out of control in future
years if there is no cap placed upon residential property levies in future years. Can a cap be placed on residential
property assessments in Bill 55?
It is very important to make sure that the ordinance does not become so costly for residents, directly or indirectly,
that residents may be forced to relocate outside of the District. That would be just the opposite of promoting
affordable housing, would it not?
Why should residential property owners, who already pay their fair share of the annual County property tax bill be
forced to pay more than other residents who may reside across the street or on the other side of a line drawn on a
District map?
If the commercial property owners desire to improve the area, more power to them. But residential property
owners in the area should not be forced into paying more than their fair share of property taxes already paid to the
County for services provided.
If businesses want to improve the Village this Bill 55 is definitely for business property owners. Residents in D1 ~ ~ I
and D2 are only just beginning to learn about the Bill and wondering why residents must be forced to pay for
Business District improvements. What's in it for them?
Sure some business owners would say that residential property valves will increase within the District, but that
may only lead to higher property valuations and higher property taxes. What about residents who are not
interested in having to sell and move away due to higher and higher, less affordable Improvement District levies in
future years? Will assessments be linked to the cost of living in order to protect non-business owners? They won't d ~ [
be able to simply increase prices as business can do. Z
6
~ ~
Perhaps a clause can be placed in Bill 55 to help protect residents within the District from higher rents or E
Improvement District assessments in the future. The easiest thing to be done would be to have the ordinance ~ ,a." i
make all residential properties within the District exempt from the fees which businesses alone should be paying. I
This would definitely help to keep housing affordable in the affected areas.
Mahalo for your consideration of my concerns, which I know to be shared by residents of the areas affected. l