Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1067.001 1996-1998 TO: The Hawaii County Council, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo hi 96720 RECEIVED FROM: Henry A. Ross, P.O.Box 99, Kapaau, HI 96755, Phone 889-5587 tt -'T~ ' 9r County Council RE: Free gift of aver. $214.000 to PRUDENTIAL TIMBER by the County TAX REVIEW BOARD handdelivered 17 November 1998 1 am attaching 2 local newspaper articles of 1 November 1998, (see Exhibit A) and have to tell you that I did not see the West Hawaii Today article until November 10, when I started inquiring about this strange phenomenon. I found a letter of 17 September 1998 from S. Kalani Schutte to Corporation Counsel (CC) inquiring about ASSESSMENT OF AGRICUL- TURAL LANDS and an answer from CC to Schutte, dated 28 September 1998, both of which are also attached as Exhibits B & C. Meanwhile I had been orally informed by Harry Takahashi, the Finance Director, that Kalani Schutte as Deputy Finance Director (in the Property Tax Division) could m eke binding deci- sions in property tax matters such as assesments and credits without consulting him. The origin of the 2 attached pages to Schutte's letter is unknown and not indicated. And CC's answer is not a binding opinion. In effect CC bases his explanations on case authorities from other states without first laying a foundation that these states have the same tax laws as this County has and can only be seen as an illustration, how other states treat certain matters. Furthermore Corporation Counsel is only an advisor in this matter and cannot be used as decision maker by either the Property Tax Division, the Tax Review Board or the County Council. For a big tax giveaway like this the public wants to know whether there are any kick-backs and to whom. Obviously there is something wrong if this can pass without council scrutiny. It is obvious, as I will point out, that this give away is illegal and there seem to be insufficient controls in matters like this and too much discretion for the people who handle it, who even disregard their own rules of procedure and the laws. The advisory letter from CC. was heavily leaned upon by the Tax Review Board, which made this illegal deci- sion of almost a quarter million dollars give away without proper back-up and and 1 repeat a metaphor, that I have previously used for situations like this: when you drive a car and are approaching a red light and your attorney sitting next to you says you can drive through that red light, the cop down the road stopping you will issue the ticket to YOU and not to your attorney. The decision of the review board is spread out over about 65 TMK's (last year about 135) and as I had to pay $1.00 per page, which I cannot afford I only attach one copy as example (see Exhibit D) of what happened, totally adding up to about $214,000 in tax credits. The county practice as used heretofore was that in a case like this a tree (sapling) has to be in the ground before it amounts to "cultivation" and that is what the original assesment was based on. Then Prudential Timber comes and says: not so, we have to do some work like killing weeds etc. and they show a big map, not relating to tax key numbers, of what they claim they are doing and the Tax Review Board did not even get a copy of to map or any /p67. of Otmom P9k- Ne._ F A_~ NOV 1 7 1998 Ref. Tot Presented; F c- other documentation, while the assessors as I was told co,jld not even find their way to verify what areas were planted and which not. The deal was practically dictated by Prudential Tim- ber during the board hearing and the Property Tax Division informed me that the Tax Board accepted it all as presented without checking on anything at all. The Tax Review hoard does not have a secretary, and has never kejt any minutes of their meetings and hearings and thereby violated the Sunshine Law, Section 92-9 HRS. According to its own rules (attached as Exhibit E) it has only one regular meeting per year, which is announced in the paper. It then later holds hearings that are all special meetings as per the County Charter, section 13-20, that must be specially announced for the public by newspaper or radio. AND THE AGENDAS MUST BE POSTED ON THE COUNTY BUILDING BULLETIN BOARD. NOTHING OF THAT WAS EVER DONE, only the parties that were involved not a written notice of these hearings. The Charter states in 13-20(d) that any business conducted during meetings that do not conform to the above notifications SHALL BE NULL AND VOID. So the Prudential Timber decision by the TAX REVIEW BOARD is null and void. The attached copy of one of the appr.65 decisions (Exh D) was signed by the Board Chair- man on 13 November 1998. and the County has 30 days to appeal it to the State Tax Court. CORPORATION DOES NOT WANT TO APPEAL IT, AND SHOULD BE CALLED IN TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT. THERE IS NOT MUCH TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL TO TAX COURT of this illegal decision. THE FINAL DATE IS 12 DECEMBER and the last Council mee- ting to make a decision is the December 7. 1998 one. There is no commmittee meeting except this one before the full council meeting. If nothing is done there goes $214. 000 of taxpayers' money out the window and it sets a bad precedent for the next 30 years. Exhibits F & G are agendas for the Prudential Timber special meetings, that were sent to the parties only. They were never publicly announced in any way or form. These were thus ille- gal under the Sunshine Law and the County Charter. The decisions made are null and void. The workshop of August S. 1998 re forestry products, that was attended by the mem- bers of the Board of Review, as indicated on page 3 of its 1998 Annual Report. (see your Finance Committee Communication No. 1067 on today's agenda, is a SPECIAL MEETING of the Tax Board under the Sunshine Law and the County Charter and IT WAS NOT ANNOUNCED to the public: another violation of law, that certainly had a bearing on the subiect of this letter. I hereby request that this Council take the necessary steps for an appeal to State Court and that it do so in time lest it also be held responsible for these flagrant violations of law.