The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-08-12 Meeting Minutes TAX BOARD OF REVIEW Minutes of August 12, 2026 1 TAX BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MINUTES APPEAL HEARING Wednesday, August 12, 2026 Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Pauahi Street. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jason Eisert called the meetfng to order at 9:03 am Present: Board Members: Jason Eisert, Mark Davis and Kimberly Lin; Deputy Corporatfon Counsel Sylvia Wan; Real Property Tax Asst. Administrator Keita Jo, RPT Valuatfon Analyst Ernest Texeira, RPT Appeals Board Clerk Tyoany Tavares. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members or statements from the public. TAX APPEAL CASE HEARINGS Note: Prior to the start of the case hearings, Deputy Corporatfon Counsel Sylvia Wan, 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 certffied mail. For each appeal case, the appraiser submitted a packet of informatfon to the Board, unless there had been a prior settlement with the Appellant or withdrawal. If the Appellant was not present, any informatfon sent in by the Appellant was presented to the Board along with the appraisers’ packet. The County presented to the Board the following case(s) that have been removed from the record due to the appellants’ request to withdraw or signed settlement agreement: TAX MAP KEY CASE NO. APPELLANT 110371420000 57386 HENEHAN,JERUSHA A CASE #57248 – ANGEL,ROSLYNN J TMK 1-6-106-011-0000 The appellant, Roslynn Angel, was present for the appeal hearing. Present for the County was appraiser Brian Iwamoto. TAX BOARD OF REVIEW Minutes of August 12, 2026 2 The subject property is located at 16-1930 Sandalwood Court in the Tiki Garden Subdivision, approximately 20 miles southeast of Hilo. It is zoned 5A and in the Residentfal tax class with a land area of 8,100 sf and a partfally built 1,064 sf dwelling which consists of 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Both the land and building values are under appeal. The appellant presented their case. The County presented their case and recommended sustaining both the land value of $25,900 and the building value of $97,900 as the building has been assessed at 35% completfon since 2024. Rebuttals were made by both the appellant and the County. A call for questfons was made. Mr. Davis motion to sustain the County’s land value of $25,900 and the building value of %97,900. Seconded by Ms. Lin. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Davis noted that there is lack of evidence showing the lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods. Mr. Davis added that although the property may have been purchased at $7,400 the County has shown sufficient evidence that the current assessment values are accurate and that there is no evidence showing that the building permit cannot be complete for the building, and the structures appears to be more than 35% completed as of site inspection. Mr. Eisert noted his concerns on the Marshall and Swift system used for assessments on smaller residential homes. Mr. Eisert added that he agrees with the land value being sustained but not the dwelling. Ms. Lin added that she also agrees with sustaining the land value but not the dwelling. Note: DCC Ms. Wan asked RPT Assistant Administrator Mr. Jo, to confirm if what the Board is stating about the County used system, Marshall and Swift, is accurate and correct. At this time Mr. Jo reiterated his previous explanation on the County assessment methods and guidelines. The motion failed with a vote of 2:1 (Eisert) No new motions on the floor. Ms. Wan noted that Per HCC 13-4(i) relating to Board provisions, because the County’s assessment is prima facie correct, by default the County’s initial assessment stands on all matters appealed. CASE #57249 – ANGEL,ROSLYNN J TMK 1-6-106-012-0000 The appellant, Roslynn Angel, was present for the appeal hearing. Present for the County was appraiser Brian Iwamoto. The subject property is located at 16-1928 Sandalwood Court in the Tiki Garden Subdivision, approximately 20 miles southeast of Hilo. It is zoned 5A and in the Residentfal tax class with a land area of 15,074 sf and a partfally built 512 sf building which consists of 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. Both the land and building values are under appeal. The appellant presented their case. The County presented their case and recommended sustain the land value of $32,900 and the building value of $81,500 as the building has been assessed at 62% completfon since 2023. Rebuttals were made by both the appellant and the County. A call for questfons was made. TAX BOARD OF REVIEW Minutes of August 12, 2026 3 Ms. Lin motioned to sustain the County’s land value of $32,900 and building value of $81,500. Seconded by Mr. Davis. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Davis noted that there is lack of evidence showing the lack of uniformity or inequality resulting from the use of illegal assessment methods or an error in the application of the methods. Motion passed with a vote of 3:0. CASE #57308 – RUDO,REBECCA MARIE/ALAN TMK 1-5-044-006-0000 The appellants, Rebecca and Alan, were both present for the appeal hearing. Present for the County was appraiser Charles Tatsuhara. The subject property is located at 15-1420 15th Avenue in Hawaiian Paradise Park. It is zoned 5A and in the Homeowner tax class with a land area of 1 acre and 1,920 sf two-story dwelling which consists of 4 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, and 1 half bathroom. The building value is under appeal. The appellant presented their case. The County presented their case and recommended reducing the building value to $256,100 but adjustfng the land value to $67,900 due to the property’s partfcipatfon in the homeowner’s program. Resultfng in the total assessment remaining unchanged, although the subject property is stfll below the market value. Rebuttals were made by both the appellant and the County. The appellant noted that they agree with the reductfon on the dwelling value to $256,100 but are not in agreement with the adjusted land value of 67,900 and wish to keep it at $25,700. A call for questfons was made. Mr. Davis motioned to sustain the County recommended assessment as the values do not exceed by more than 20 percent the ratio of assessment to market value. No second, the motion fails. Ms. Lin motioned to sustain the County’s land value of $25,700 in addition to the County’s recommendation in reduction to building value of $256,100. Seconded by Mr. Eisert. A call for discussion was made. Ms. Lin noted that Chapter 19 doesn’t specifically state the 3% Cap needs to be at 3% and not less than. Mr. Davis asked DCC Ms. Wan to read the section of Chapter 19 in regard to the 3% Cap. HCC 19-53 subsection ‘a’ and ‘g’ have been read and clarified into record. Motion fails with a vote of 2:1 (Davis). Ms. Wan noted that Per HCC 13-4(i) relating to Board provisions, because the County’s assessment is prima facie correct, by default the County’s initial assessment stands on all matters appealed. Mr. Eisert motioned to reduce the building’s value to $256,100 and sustain the land value of $25,700. Seconded by Ms. Lin. A call for discussion was made. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Eisert for clarification on his total assessed values. Mr. Eisert elected to withdraw his motion at this time to further ask questions to the appellant and County. No new motions on the floor. TAX BOARD OF REVIEW Minutes of August 12, 2026 4 Ms. Wan noted that Per HCC 13-4(i) relating to Board provisions, because the County’s assessment is prima facie correct, by default the County’s initial assessment stands on all matters appealed. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meetfng of the County of Hawaii Board of Review will be held on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the Aupuni Center Conference Room located at 101 Pauahi Street in Hilo Hawaii 96720. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Davis motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lin. A call for discussion. Seeing none, the motion passed by a vote of 3:0. The meetfng was adjourned at 11:11 a.m. Respectiully Submitted, Tyoany Tavares RPT Appeals Board Clerk