HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0813.017 1998-2000 E -_D :NC'__C Eii ERtNe . _ .__c =
Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.
R E `'
P.O. Box 1027, Hilo, HI 96721 -1027 '00 SEP_2.0__j e t a 8 57
COUNTY CLEH IK
• Iv Y - Oh HAWAII
a Date: r 9/20/00 •
No. of pages incl. ;o • .beet: 3
To: From:
•
Council Chairman James Arakaki Mark Gushiken (for ; rren Lee)
Phone:
Fax: (808) 961 -8912 Phone: (608) ^c:c -0261
CC: - Fax: (803;
•
REMARKS: ® Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP [ _j noose comment
Re: Testimony on Bill 276 (Draft 3)
Chair Arakaki,
Attached is HELCO's written testimony on Bill 276 (Draft 3) which is on i nuncil's agenda
this morning. Kindly accept this testimony for the record and provide ;o the Council
Members.
Warren apologizes for not being able to personally present testimony.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
•
•
Comm. No. 8 1.3 0/7
File No. rlce%¢il:
Ref. Tot p CGT.y17Gj
Ref. Date $FP 2 0 20 00
EC :HEL_C _ _F INC • ._ ____
TESTIMONY OF HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPMN c, u.
BILL 276 Draft 3
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
Chair Arakaki and Members of the Hawaii County Council. nk you for
the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding Bill No. 276 Dr 3, "An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code 1'3E > : 395 •
Edition), Relating to Real Property Taxes." While HELCO support: -, U'nse
portions of Bill 276 (Draft 3) which incorporate the agreement in principle
between the State of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii, and the Public
regarding the sharing of Public Service Company tax revenues beiv ;'en the
State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii, HELCO respectfully oppor > those
portions of Bill 276 (Draft 3), specifically subparts (a), (b) and (c) S fiction 2,
which propose the adoption of a new valuation method notwithsi H f; this
agreement in principle. HELCO has previously submitted testimor:• :• this matter
opposing this proposed method of assessment. We urge the C:otn : i to either
strike those subparts from the bill or defer the bill until November ' , 2000 in order
to allow the parties to execute a settlement agreement, which woi !~ Cispose of
the need for a new valuation method..
As of August 10, 2000, HELCO began paying its PSC tax in er protest.
HELCO also filed a complaint against the Department of Taxation sling the
double taxation problem facing HELCO and ultimately its custonv.:ns. On August
17, 2000 and August 31, 2000 the State, County of Hawaii, HELCC, Casco, and
Verizon Hawaii met in settlement conference with Judge Gary Chang st the tax
appeal court. At the settlement conference on August 31, the pa=in.a reached an
agreement in principle, which was put on record with the court. r .. '=uant to that
agreement in principle, the State and the County would share in 'mounts
now collected by the State through the Public Service Company .i '\U parties
are diligently working to document that agreement in principle nn' ,Present a
formal written settlement agreement to be executed by all parties, i- the
other three counties.
1
Accordingly, HELCO respectfully requests that this Council ; ='' :: no further
action to adopt a new real property valuation method. Instead, w' @pest the
Council work with the other parties involved to finalize the settlerli?- agreement,
which would result in the County achieving its objective of sharinc; Public
Service Company Tax revenues with the State.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you with ou - nr %mments on
Bill No. 276, Draft 3. •
•