Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0962.005 2018-2020 .962 From: Steven Shlensky Sent: Tuesday,June 02, 2020 12:14 PM 3 To: Council Testimony Subject: Comments regarding Ordinance 20-39 - Sent on behalf of Debbie and Mark l Attanasio j //�1//�'qq CO d/gig Y CLERK COUNTY OF HAWAIII RECEIVED Time 1J:JqBYJo- Mr. and Mrs. Mark Q'ta1aS10 Date 0 2 020 June 2, 2020 Via email: counciltestimony(@hawaiicouiity.gov Re: Comments Against the Adoption of Ordinance No. 20-39 Dear Honorable Members of the Council of the County of Hawai'is We are writing as long time homeowners of our second home at 72-152 Kurnukehu Street, Unit 65101 Kai lua Kona ISI 96740, Since 2006,we have been delighted to be part of the Hawaii community and proudly identify as contributors to the local community. While our lives require us to be in California due to business necessities, we long for when other obligations will allow us to spend significantly more time at our home there. We acknowledge that your job as elected officials is difficult. The task of creating a balanced budget is a difficult and has been compounded by the effects of the COVED 19 global pandemic and the resulting travel restrictions. The challenges of local government are particularly difficult given the substantial fixed costs contained in the responsibility to deliver the essential services to members of the community. While we believe the task is difficult,we believe that the Council will be able to come up with a better alternative than what is proposed in Ordinance 20-39. Essentially, the proposal places substantially all of the burden of the forecasted revenue shortfall,on the owners of properties valued over$2.0 million_ This approach is flawed for a number of reasons which we detail below. So that you understand how it impacts us,our taxes would increase by 32%,from approximately $46,000 to over$60,000. This $14,000 increase would be capricious. Among the reasons we believe that the proposed ordinance is misguided include: • Lack of proper comment period and the proposal has not been adequately considered. The notice for this substantial change was provided on May 28ffi, 2020. The comments are due June 2, 2020. This gave 5-days' notice, at best,to try to think about this change. Such a short period is unfair and unlikely to actually produce 1 Comm. No. `4�1•�d _ Ref.To: P 1GAIal1Li� Ref.Date—: 21721] an acceptable methodologyfor a sustained plan for County revenues. In short, haste makes waste. We urge you to more fairly apportion this shortfall. • The increased the rate on homes valued over $2 million does not allocate the cost of the services to those that consume them. The bulk of your budget is for the benefit of resident homeowners. Non-resident homeowners likely use substantially less services. The allocation of a budget shortfall to more expensive homes-, therefore, is not a just allocation. Services provided should be home by those individuals who use the services. To us,there seems to be no logic to the allocation methodology of the proposed ordinance other than to substantially tax those who will have the most difficulty in objecting to thei,jordinance., • Destruction of Property Values. Not only is the allocation patently unfair, the creation of a tax rate on higher valued properties that is not progressive will depress property values and potentially destroy the tax base of property in the County. Investments in property are traditionally valued on net cash flow. This proposal is a policy stance to punish capital from being efficiently deployed. This will likely scare investors and others away, causing the values of all property owners to fall and remain depressed until a more rational apportionment standard is achieved, • Legal Challenges. The proposed ordinance will likely be subject to constitutional legal challenges. While we have not had time to research these potential arguments,we fully expect that the taxation without representation argument will categorically apply to this proposal and cause the Ordinance to be invalidated. For the above reasons and others, we respectfully request that the Council reconsider the allocation of the needed tax increase so that it is home by those using the services the County provides. We sincerely appreciate the leadership the Council has provided up to now but this proposal seems to depart from its previously illustrated sense of fairness. We trust that you will table this proposal until you are able to find a proposal which will impact all property owners justly during this time of stress. Sincerely, Debbie and Mark Attanasio Shlensky Advisors LLC Steven A. Shlensky 1615 Tall Tree Lane Deerfield IL 60015 847-340-0035 steven@shienskyadvisors.com This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,you must not use,copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. 2