The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-10-11 Complaint Hearing TAX BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MINUTES APPEAL HEARINGS Tuesday October 11, 2022 Former Liquor Control Conference Room | West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy #B2, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson Harano called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present: Board Members Nelson Harano, Diane Blancett-Maddock, Michael Okumoto, Dale Tokuuke, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, Real Property Tax Assistant Administrator Keita Jo, Appraisal Supervisor Dionne Costa, Real Property Tax Administrator filling in for Board Clerk Lisa Miura STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no statements from the public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES nd September 27, 2022 – Mr. Okumoto requested 2 page, last paragraph, second sentence to be updated to state “This was difficult as there were many structures to consider, but the County centered their comparables on properties within the area so it gave a little more credence to their values.” September 28, 2022 Mr. Okumoto moved to accept the minutes from September 27, 2022 as corrected and move to accept the minutes for September 28, 2022. Ms. Blancett-Maddock seconded the motion. Chair called for discussion to the motion. Motion passed 3:0. (Mr. Tokuuke abstained from the vote as he was not present at the September 27 and September 28 hearings.) TAX APPEAL CASE HEARINGS Note: Prior to the start of the case hearings, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas- Ferguson announced the general procedures of the appeal hearing and advised all Appellants and the Department of the procedure the Board would be following for the rendering of their decision and the Appellants’ further right to appeal to the Tax Appeal Court located in Honolulu within 30 days from the date of the decision letter that the appellant will be receiving via certified mail. For each appeal case, the appraiser submitted a packet of information to the Board, unless there had been a prior settlement with the Appellant or withdrawal. If the Appellant was not present, any information sent in by the Appellant was presented to the Board along with the appraisers’ packet. CASE #44699 – L G K Trust/Linda Gail Kubo TMK 7-8-010-052-0113 The subject property is a 1,940 square foot condominium unit in the Keauhou area. The unit is 1 bedroom, 1.5 baths and is located on Alii Drive at the end of Keauhou Gardens Condominiums, which is just below the Keauhou Shopping Center. The building value is under appeal. Appellant Linda Gail Kubo was present at the hearing. Appraiser Ernest Texeira was presented for the County. Appellant stated the 1,940 square feet is not all living area. The unit is 1,300 square feet and there is an unpermitted 640 square foot loft which is accessed an exterior stair case and has no ventilation. Appellant stated not all the 640 square foot area is livable as the loft is shaped like a teepee. She clarified when she purchased the unit, it was gutted. Appellant is requesting the building value be lowered to $360,000. County appraiser stated the 1,940 square feet does include the loft square footage. The County’s assessed building value of $493,600 reflects a lower price than any of the other sales in the complex. Appellant purchased the property for $502,500 in September 2021, the total assessment for 2022 is $501,600. Rebuttals by both the appellant and appraiser were presented. Board reviewed documentation. Board asked questions to the appellant and county. Mr. Harano asked if there were no further questions, can we entertain a motion at this time for discussion purposes. Ms. Blancett-Maddock moved to sustain the County’s values, the building value at $493,900 as the appellant did not show there was a lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods. Mr. Tokuuke seconded the motion. Mr. Harano called for discussion. Mr. Tokuuke stated he is concerned about the area upstairs the county added. How much of the 640 square feet is useful. Appraiser stated he was not able to access the area as an appeal inspection was not granted so he cannot confirm. Mr. Tokuuke is unsure what the real value of that area would be. Mr. Harano stated it is the burden on the taxpayer to provide information. Attorney clarified the testimony of Ms. Kubo is evidence. Mr. Harano stated this is a detached unit, you have favorable maintenance fees versus land value whereas most others are sharing a common wall in their units. You say you don’t have a parking garage, but you do have 4 stalls and given the nature of this complex, the 4 parking spaces is your garage it’s just not covered. Mr. Tokuuke to the County. The maintenance monthly fee and the property costs is all that part of your assessment value as far as what the property is worth. Appraiser stated no Mr. Okumoto stated to the appellant that by not making the unit available for inspection, her stating this area is not living space may have hurt her cause. As far as the increase from prior year, it is what the market bears. Mr. Harano called for further discussion. Mr. Harano restated the motion to sustain the building value at $493,900 as the land value is not under appeal. Motion passed by a vote of 4:0. PRESENT VIA TELEPHONE Mr. Jimmy Again and Ms. Lisa McNamara both filed separate complaints and requested to be called. Both were called at 9:51am and placed on speaker. COMPLAINT HEARINGS Board members asked if either individual on the phone wanted to state their complaints. Both responded no, they submitted what they wanted the Board to review and were there if the Board has any questions. Complaints received: a. TMK 1-2-009-009-0000, Etc. | Malama, David Kapalauhulu b. TMK 1-2-009-006-0000, Etc. | McNamarra, Markham Robert c. TMK 1-2-009-031-0000 | Again, James d. TMK 8-9-002-007-0000 | Lee, Jackie Ms. Blancett-Maddock asked Mr. Again if he filed an appeal. He stated no because he was surprised by the low percentage of people that won their appeals as well as speaking with a local realtor who indicated she was not aware of anyone winning their appeals. He stated he did not want to lose the $50 but knowing what he does now, he wished he had appealed. Mr. Harano to Mr. Again - part of the appeal process in any type of appeal whether it’s Real Property Tax or other appeals you make, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer. That should be understood and that is the standard. You have the burden of proof like anyone else appealing. It’s not the county wins 95% of the time but it’s more the burden of proof has not been met. In response, Mr. Again stated the surprise of it all is he is 70 and trying to live off $700 per month. No way to budget for this surprise, putting off medical concerns in order to pay the County. I hear what you are saying but it was such a shock. Mr. Harano stated due to the pandemic, Hawaii has become a very desirable place to live and you can ask residents that live here on a full time basis, they are just as much astonished at the increase in the assessed values. Yes, it is a function of market price, but I don’t know what else to say unless there is a different methodology used. Until that time comes, we are at this point where the County is using what they need to do in order to determine what the assessed value is. Mr. Again stated Bill 156 that Sue Lee Loy is proposing will be too late for myself and the other people. Limit in the assessment on raising it should have been put in earlier, but it wasn’t. Mr. Harano stated he cannot speak to the proposed bill at this time. Mr. Again said it’s a great idea but is a little too late and understood what the Boards limitations are. Mr. Harano asked Ms. Mcnamarra if she had any questions or comments at this time. She stated she did not, but she filed an appeal however it was filed late. Stated her son didn’t realize it would jump up so much after paying minimum tax for years. The jump was enormous compared to what it’s been over the last 5 years. Being a landlocked piece of property, having it increase so much is what I am questioning. We have always been a landlocked piece since the 1920’s and never had a road to the property. Trying to do kuelana now. Keita Jo confirmed the appeal was hand delivered on April 20, but the deadline was April 11. Ms. McNamarra said she understands that. Mr. Harano asked if there were any further questions. Seeing none, Mr. Harano asked if the Board could make a motion at this time to accept the complaints as so presented. Mr. Okumoto moved to accept the complaints for the record. Ms. Blancett-Maddock seconded the motion. Mr. Harano asked for discussion. Seeing none, he called for the vote. Motion passed, Vote 4:0. Attorney clarified the purpose of the complaint hearing. Chairman Harano called for a recess at 10:09 a.m. Chairman Harano restarted the meeting at 10:24 a.m. ANNUAL REPORT The Board members reviewed the 2021 annual report and worked on a draft of the 2022 annual report. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements ADJOURNEMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lisa Miura Real Property Tax Administrator (filling in as Tax Board Clerk)