Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP FC 078 09/10/1985 1984-1988 4 REPORT OF THE 111 a COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Date: September 10 , 1985 Place: Councilroom Time: 9 :00 a . m. Chairman and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Communication 288, a report of the HSAC Real Property Tax Committee meeting of August 19 , 1985 , reports as follows: The purpose of Communication 288 is to inform the Finance Committee of recent action taken by the Hawaii State Association of Counties ' Real Property Tax Committee and to solicit comments regarding legislation now before that committee . Bill 83-HSAC-3 relating to grounds of appeal , proposes to amend the real property tax law to allow taxpayers to appeal their assessment if it exceeds the market value assessment by more than 10 percent, rather than the current 20 percent deviation allowed . Bill 85-HSAC-2 provides for the creation of an additional Tax Review Board. This request came from the City and County of Honolulu due to the substantial number of appeals awaiting hearing. This measure proposes to segregate the responsibilities of the boards . One board would review residential appeals, the other commercial and agriculture. Although uniformity amongst the counties is not required for this proposal , the HSAC Real Property Tax Committee suggested that each county enact enabling legislation . During committee discussion regarding proposed Bill 83-HSAC-3 (grounds of appeal ) , the Finance Director cautioned that a substantial increased staff would be needed if appraisals are to be more rigidly scrutinized. The concerns of the committee were that the public deserves to have the closest appraisal to the actual value and a 10 percent deviation would better achieve this goal . FC REPORT No , 78 (AMENDED) ADOPTED: SEP 18 1985 ( 411 • FC-78 Page 2 September 10 , 1985 (Amended) In response to the proposed additional Tax Review Board (Bill 85-HSAC-2) , the committee felt the Boards ' responsibilities would lead to less continuity amongst the settlements in appeals . The Finance Director commented that the present board is adequate in servicing the number of appeals although, due to absences of board members , finding a quorum has become a problem. The Finance Director suggested alternates being appointed to fill the board's gaps in these situations. The committee questioned the commitment these alternates would have and that perhaps a larger board should be appointed. It was brought to their attention by the Finance Director that by increasing the membership on the board, they would also be increasing the quorum votes needed to act on the appeals . In light of the foregoing discussion, your Committee on Finance recommends that Hawaii County continue to maintain one Tax Review Board at this time but concurs with the adoption of enabling legislation to allow for a second board in the event one is needed . In addition, Bill 83-HSAC-3, relating to grounds of appeal, should be strongly considered by the full Council to allow taxpayers to appeal their real property tax assessment if it exceeds the market value assessment by more than 10 percent . FRANK DE LUZ III, CHAIRMAN (l- ORR INE R I AKU, VICE CHR. _ AAL L. K. DAHLBERG, MEMBEA6 ga-------010114A? i/ TAKASHI DOMINGO, ME BER R SSELL S. KOKUB , MEMBER 7t-s01444,V& MERL K. LAI, MEM: ``ENCER K. SCHUTTE, MEMBER LA/MS/CRB SKY REPORT OF THE S COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Date: September 10 , 1985 Place: Councilroom Time: 9: 00 a . m. Chairman and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Communication 288 , a report of the HSAC Real Property Tax Committee meeting of August 19 , 1985 , reports as follows: The purpose of Communication 288 is to inform the Finance Committee of recent action taken by the Hawaii State Association of Counties ' Real Property Tax Committee and to solicit comments regarding legislation now before that committee . Bill 83-HSAC-3 relating to grounds of appeal , proposes to amend the real property tax law to allow taxpayers to appeal their assessment if it exceeds the market value assessment by more than 10 percent, rather than the current 20 percent deviation allowed . Bill 85-HSAC-2 provides for the creation of an additional Tax Review Board. This request came from the City and County of Honolulu due to the substantial number of appeals awaiting hearing. This measure proposes to segregate the responsibilities of the boards . One board would review residential appeals, the other commercial and agriculture . Although uniformity amongst the counties is not required for this proposal , the HSAC Real Property Tax Committee suggested that each county enact enabling legislation . During committee discussion regarding proposed Bill 83-HSAC-3 (grounds of appeal ) , the Finance Director cautioned that a substantial increased staff would be needed if appraisals are to be more rigidly scrutinized. The concerns of the committee were that the public deserves to have the closest appraisal to the actual value and a 10 percent deviation would better achieve this goal . FC REPORT No. 78 ADOPTED: l 1 1 t + • 0i a FC-78 Page 2 September 10 , 1985 In response to the proposed additional Tax Review Board (Bill 85-HSAC-2) , the committee felt the Boards ' responsibilities would lead to less continuity amongst the settlements in appeals . The Finance Director commented that the present board is adequate in servicing the number of appeals although, due to absences of board members , finding a quorum has become a problem. The Finance Director suggested alternates being appointed to fill the board's gaps in these situations. The committee questioned the commitment these alternates would have and that perhaps a larger board should be appointed. It was brought to their attention by the Finance Director that by increasing the membership on the board, they would also be increasing the quorum votes needed to act on the appeals . In light of the foregoing discussion, your Committee on Finance recommends that Hawaii County continue to maintain one Tax Review Board in response to Bill 85-HSAC-2 and that the appeal by the taxpayer on a margin of 10 percent or greater , as described in Bill 83-HSAC-3, be strongly considered by the full Council . iika 1141.11J FRANK DE LUZ III, CHAIRMAN 1\\\. ISNAN. lh!OW% OR'AINE R i ✓ HAKU, VICE CHR. JA L. K. DAHLBERG, MEMB' (--- / / / (0______-, ‹*-C;11-4 ..-es-v.TAKASHI DOMINGO, MEMBER ,'U-SELL S. KOKUB7N, MEMBER AO 4/ 0 /., 7 //', ,,.. MERLE K. LAI, MEM ` SPENCER K. SCHUTTE, MEMBER LA/MS