Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOR Minutes 4.18.11 COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION APPROVED 7/11/11 Board/Committee: BOARD OF REVIEW Meeting Date April 18, 2011 Location Meeting Room 2, Moikeha Building Start of Session: 1:08 p.m. End of Session: 1:39 p.m. Present Chair Craig De Costa, Vice Chair Cayetano Gerardo, Jose Diogo Staff: Deputy Director of Finance Sally Motta, Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn, Kris Nakamura. Excused Lisa Wilson Boyle, Russell Kyono Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION I. Call To Order Chair De Costa called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. II. Approval of Mr. Gerardo made a motion to approve the Agenda agenda. Mr. Diogo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. III. Public There were no members of the public present. Comment on Agenda Items IV. Review and Chair De Costa asked if there were any areas that the Board members would like to work on. Amendment of Board of Review Mr. Diogo said that one of the things that he would like to bring up was—since this is his first term and he's not too familiar with how Rules everything works at this point— but he thinks when an appellant brings in an appraisal done by a licensed Hawai'i appraiser, it would be great if the Board could have a copy of that a week in advance so that they could review it ahead of time. Chair De Costa said that he had noted previously that also could help the County appraiser in formulating their report and taking into account the appraisal, so that when the Board asks them a question, like why are these comps—you used different comps than their appraiser—why are your comps better than theirs. They actually have notice of what those comps are. So that's one area and if they could ask Kris—by April 91"they file their appeal and pay their required fee. Ms. Nakamura added that if the appeal is postmarked by April 91", it is still timely but will not be received until after April 9 t Mr. De Costa asked where it goes. Ms. Nakamura said that it is received by the Real Property Assessment office and sent to her for processing. The appraisers need to add their information on the appeal form as well. Mr. De Costa asked normally there isn't any evidence attached to the appeal? Ms. Nakamura replied yes, that most do not. Mr. De Costa said that the next step is a hearing date is scheduled, about how far in advance do they receive their notice of hearing date? Ms. Nakamura said that we are required to give at least 15 days notice, but she tries to get the list of cases from the appraisers a month in advance so that ample notice can be given, as many of the appellants do not live on island. Mr. De Costa asked if she compiles the meeting packets a week in advance. Ms. Nakamura replied that she works on the packets as soon as she gets the list of cases and gives it out to the BOR members the meeting prior for their review. Mr. De Costa said that what he is getting at is if a notice goes out to the appellant saying here is your hearing date— that is approximately 15 days or more before the hearing date, he asked what is a reasonable deadline for them to get the Board anything in writing and he asked if the Board wants to require them to submit 5 copies. Ms. Nakamura said that she provides the appellants a brochure with information about the appeal process with their copy of their appeal form, and again with their hearing notice. She also provides another sheet with their hearing notice indicating the number of copies to bring to the hearing, how many days in advance they need to provide their Board of Review Open Session April 18, 2011 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION evidence if they are not attending the hearing, and basic information about the hearing and the process. Mr. De Costa said that they don't want to come up a rule that overburdens their staff because they want to see evidence in advance, but he thinks it's a reasonable thing to look at within the rules to have 7 or 10 days prior the appellants need to get their appraisals, comps, etc. to the Board. Mr. Diogo agreed and noted that Chair De Costa brought up a good point too because depending on the work load of most licensed appraisers, there could be a turnaround time of 2 weeks to a month, so he's not sure if that put a lot of burden on the appellant also, but he feels that in terms of each side proving their point, at least they have the documents ahead of time and they can see what both sides are presenting before the meeting instead of at the meeting and he thinks that would make things a lot smoother and faster. Mr. Gerardo said that it should be relevant to the people who are submitting an appraisal, to have all of those documents because it will also help them, not only the Board. He thinks it should be part of the rules that the appellants submit such documents. Mr. Diogo said that even if it's not an appraisal, if they provide their own comparables that again, ahead of time—any documentation, would be really nice to have ahead of time. Mr. Gerardo said that's why he says it should be part of the rules to submit as much documentation that they have. Chair De Costa asked if there were any other area of the Rules that the Board would like to review and possibly amend and propose amendments to. Mr. Diogo said that he had a question regarding Rule 2b, appraisers deemed qualified by the Board. He said that seems a little vague and he doesn't think that they as a Board are qualified to make that call. He recommends that it should state a Hawai'i licensed appraiser, because that way it seems more legally justified. Chair De Costa that would be consistent with the second part which states Real Estate Broker's license under the laws of the State of Hawai'i. Mr. Diogo said that it seems a lot more credible, being licensed and not licensed. Chair De Costa said that in this same area where people are representing the appellant, he suggested that they follow the practice of the Driver's License Revocation Office—before they communicate with anyone besides the actual driver, they require the driver to sign a form saying they are authorizing the information be released to this person and this person is authorized to represent them in this matter. He said that for the rules he can actually bring in a copy of the form and they can tailor it to the Board's needs. Chair De Costa said that Rule 2.3 says that they are to conform to the standards of ethical conduct required for attorneys in the courts of Hawai'i, and he really doesn't expect an appraiser/real estate broker/family member to really know what the rules of professional conduct for attorneys are. He suggested that they look into changing that into something like the standards of ethical conduct required of that particular individual's profession. Mr. Diogo asked how they would handle it if family members were to come before the Board—he said they could spell out general guidelines. Mr. Gerardo added that they could just mention ethical conduct without referring back to the court, because they expect everyone to conform to ethical standards. Mr. Diogo said that it doesn't have to be in specific detail, but something just general where certain behavior is not allowed, etc. Chair De Costa added that he thinks that it should be added that the Board should be addressed questions and not the appellant and appraiser asking each other questions. Chair De Costa asked if the Filing of Papers Rule covers what they are currently doing. He asked if it's the Finance Director or the Boards and Commissions. Chair De Costa, after receiving advice from Deputy County Attorney Winn determined that everything should go to Finance. Deputy County Attorney Winn had a comment on the Notice of Appeal section. Chair De Costa asked if her comment was regarding Rule 3 or 4. Ms. Winn said that she's on Rule 5. Her comment about Rule 5 is that it doesn't mirror the language in the Ordinance and that causes her a little bit of concern. She said at this point it could be read together so it's fine, but as a lawyer she would prefer it to mirror the language in the Ordinance just so that it's very clear. She said the Ordinance 5A-12.9 says that the notice appeal must be in writing and have identified the assessment involved, state the valuation claimed by the owner and the grounds of objection. She said the Board of Review Open Session April 18, 2011 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION rule currently says 5.1 that the notice of appeal shall identify the assessment and state the grounds of objection and then to get the issue about valuation which is in the Ordinance, you would have to read 5.2 together with the Ordinance to get that result. She thinks that it would be clearer if 5.1 just say exactly what the Ordinance says. Chair De Costa asked which particular section of the County Ordinance Ms. Winn was referring to. Ms. Winn said that it is the second paragraph of 5A-12.9. Chair De Costa had a question on Rule 5.3 which says that failure to comply with provisions of 5.1 and 5.2 of this Rule shall be dismissal of appeal. He asked if Ms. Winn reads that to mean that the dismissal is done automatically or it has to come to the Board for dismissal. Ms. Winn replied that she thinks that the Ordinance itself is silent on it, and again that is 5A-12.9. She said that the Rules are only the Board's Rules so this would obviously apply to the Board. Chair De Costa asked on Rule 6.1, it had been changed that all parties be served at least 5 days before the date set to pursuant to HRS Chapter 91. Ms. Winn said that she assumes that means the contested case hearing, they have language in HRS 91 that talks about what you need to do for a contested case hearing. She is assuming that the Board is to follow the same rules. Chair De Costa noted that not being specific keeps the Board in compliance with HRS 91 because if the Legislature changes it, the Board doesn't have to change their Rules. Chair De Costa said that Rule 8, continuances—any party desiring a continuance shall immediately upon receipt of notice of the hearing or soon thereafter as facts requiring continuance come to knowledge, notify the Chair in writing of his desire stating in detail the reasons for requesting continuance. He thinks the practice has been they have either been communicating with the Board Secretary or the Appraiser. Ms. Nakamura said that anytime an appellant would like to request a continuance, she notifies them that the Board requires the request be in writing. Chair De Costa said that Rule 10—Subpoenas he doesn't know if they need change anything, but for the Board to keep in mind that they have the power to issue subpoenas. He said that he thinks that he wants to look at that one to see if there should be some restriction. Ms. Winn noted that at this point, the Ordinance has a section about subpoenas and it says that the Board has the power to be able do it, and it also says that the Tax Appeal Court may order people to come, so the Ordinance basically gives it to the Board as a power, it doesn't require the Board to do it. Chair De Costa suggested that they follow the language of the Ordinance. Chair De Costa went on to the rule regarding fees, etc. He said that if they do the form that he suggested, all of the information needed is on the form. He said that Rule 13 refers to the appendix which contains only 1 form, which is an old form so that should be updated. He asked if there are any forms in use that should be included. There were no suggestions. Chair De Costa asked if there were any additional rules that were not included that they should be considering. There were no suggestions. Chair De Costa said that he can get the revisions started. Ms. Winn said that she can work with him and come up with something, a final proposal to the Board and they can vote yes or no and then can make changes when they see something in writing. Chair De Costa said that they can put that on a future meeting agenda depending on their schedule. Board of Review Open Session April 18, 2011 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION V. Announcements The next meeting is Monday, May 9, 2011. Packets will be mailed to Board members. The meeting was adjourned at 1:39 p.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Kris Nakamura, Secretary Craig De Costa, Chair (X) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.