Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOR Minutes 6.13.11 COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION APPROVED 7/18/11 Board/Committee: BOARD OF REVIEW Meeting Date June 13, 2011 Location Meeting Room 2, Moikeha Building Start of Session: 1:02 p.m. End of Session: 4:1Op.m. Present Chair Craig De Costa, Vice Chair Cayetano Gerardo, Lisa Wilson Boyle, Russell Kyono Staff: Deputy Director of Finance Sally Motta, Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn, Kris Nakamura. Excused Jose Diogo Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION I. Call To Order Chair De Costa called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. II. Approval of Mr. Gerardo made a motion to approve the agenda. Agenda Mr. K ono seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. III.Approval of a. March 21, 2011 Mr. Gerardo made a motion to approve the March 21, Minutes 2011 minutes. Ms. Wilson Boyle seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. IV. Public There were no public comments. Comment on Agenda Items V. Dispute re: Glen Hale was in attendance to represent Cornerstone Hawai'i Holdings, LLC. Ian Jung, Deputy County Attorney and Kim Hester, First Amended Supervising Appraiser were in attendance to represent the Real Property Assessment Division. Taxpayer's Notices of Real Chair De Costa noted that Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn will advise the Board of Review if needed on this matter. He said that the Property Tax Board went into Executive Session at their May 91" meeting after hearing some argument from Mr. Hale and Ms. Hester. He said that after Appeal the Executive Session they did request to review what was stated on the original appeal. He asked if the Board has any questions of the appellant or the County at this time. Mr. Hale asked if he can add a brief comment. He wanted to make sure that the Board had been aware based on the letter that they had sent on June 9—that the Ordinance that results in the requirement for a statement of valuation being placed on their notice appeal application is based on a 1988 statute, Section 232-15 which was amended in 1989. He said that in that 1989 amendment, that requirement was specifically removed from the statute—there was a reason for that—the Legislature wanted to make sure that every effort had been made to prevent situations under which the taxpayer would be ruled out on account of technical niceties in connection with the wording of its notice of appeal. He said if they review a 1999 Supreme Court opinion, County of Maui and the cites in the letter that they provided, and that opinion emphasizes that finding by the Legislature, but moreover, states that regardless of what those requirements are because Section 232-15 allows an appeal at any time before the Board makes its decision, the remedy is for them to present an amendment to the notices of appeal which they timely did on April 15. He wants to make sure that the Board members are aware of that. Mr. Jung said that the case that Mr. Hale referenced, that case goes to the point of what valuation is. And in this particular case, it's clear that there was no valuation stated and the rules make very clear that a notice of appeal does require a statement of valuation and that's Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Rule number 5.2. He continued that Mr. Hale referenced Exhibit B which states a reference to the CPR in whole versus as in within the whole lot, but doesn't specifically state a valuation. He said that the case that Mr. Hale referred to, the County of Maui case, the court essentially held that you can go below the valuation but still the fact remains that there is no valuation stated on the notice of appeal, so literally it did not comply with the rules. Chair De Costa asked if the change of Statute affect their Rules and their Ordinances, this State Statute. Mr. Jung thinks that's a good question, he doesn't think it does because we have State General Laws and we have our Rules as well as our Ordinances that allow for implementation of those laws. So technically, if a notice does not conform to those Rules, it can be struck or rejected for non-compliance. He said there is a case that he'll refer to as the Huikakou case, and it's a September 21, 2006 decision, he'll pass it over to Mr. Hale. He said it refers to a 2006 DLNR decision where they denied an appeal because the specific petition did not conform to the rules. He said in that case the court made very clear that you need to have your notice of appeal or your petition strictly identified pursuant to the Rules or else you could potentially waive your rights to exhaust those administrative remedies. He said in that case they looked at prescribed administrative machinery where they did not conform to those rules, so they didn't allow that appeal to go through that administrative machinery, which is the Board in this particular case. Mr. Hale said that HRS Section 246 deals with the County's implementation of financial assessment rules, but Section 232 is the Section that deals with appeals, and that Statute is clear that in 1989 it removed the requirement, so to say that they haven't complied with it is not accurate because they have complied with the Statute as it exists today and more so the statutory provisions from the Legislature would overrule any conflict with the County laws based on HRS Section 50-15 which says notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter, there is expressly reserved to the State Legislature the power to enact all laws of general application throughout the State on matters of concern and interest to laws relating to the fiscal powers of the Counties and neither a Charter nor Ordinance adopted under a Charter shall be in conflict therewith. He said the bottom line is that they have complied with the Statute as it existed today, the problem is that notice of appeal has not been changed as it should have been back in 1989 and so the provisions that are set out in there are based on the old law that was written in 1988. Mr. Jung said that when you look at the intent of purpose of why you put a valuation, it's the starting point as to where you can start looking at what is the true valuation, if you leave it blank, it's a clear consequence of neglect that you failed to meet the requirements of the rule and with a blank identification of valuation there's no starting point for their side, the County's side to come back and challenge the valuation. Chair De Costa said that Mr. Hale used the term technical niceties, he asked if Mr. Jung would agree with him that it's more than a technical nicety because the County needs to set aside by Statute or by Ordinance, a certain amount of the dispute before it submits its budget and that has a strict deadline, and so by leaving it blank, that's where you get into this problem where there needs to be a value there for the County to really do its job. Mr. Jung said that is correct. Mr. Hale said that however, if they look at the County of Maui case that argument is squarely addressed by the Supreme Court. It's in a different kind of a format but it's talking about identification of assessed values the County needs to in order to hold a certain amount within its funds. He said the Supreme Court said no, you don't need to put it down there because it's not required by the Statute. Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair De Costa asked if any members of the Board had any questions. Ms. Wilson Boyle asked Ms. Hester how often this problem happens, if this is a normal problem that people have that don't state valuations—or is it rare. Ms. Hester replied that it is very rare, they do have instances where people put a zero value, but that at least allows them to calculate the difference between the disputed value, which they are required to provide at certification every year. Chair De Costa said that he thinks in the past the County itself had just automatically dismissed the petitions and it's only this year that they decided after consulting with the County Attorneys, etc., to actually put it on the agenda so that the Board could appropriate action. Ms. Hester said that she actually researched the appeal form that they use and the explanation or the rules of filing instruction stated clearly on the appeal form all the way back to the time that they took over from the State, these have been in place and have not amended. Chair De Costa said that in case it is his understanding that this particular appellant and Mr. Hale did actually put a value on other appeals. Ms. Hester that he was correct, Mr. Hale did submit 94 appeals initially around April 6 and they did have values on them. Mr. Gerardo asked if there were amounts indicated in the assessment, what the appeal is. Mr. Hale said that the appeal that actually highlights some of the added difficulties that this particular group, the second group presented. He said the appeal is related to a section in 514-b that deals with condominium law and the real argument that actually applies to all of the appeals is that these assessments should be done on a per lot basis rather than on a per CPR unit basis and that's because of some recent amendments to the condominium law. He said the amounts in the second group of appeals are quite low and the amount is not necessarily the focus of the appeal, the focus of the appeal is that those, each one of those units should not be separately assessed, and that's why, actually he wants that the Board understood that on the form where it said the amount, they didn't leave it blank—they said please look at the attachment, and the attachment explains that argument that it should be assessed as one lot rather than as a separate CPR unit. He said they were trying to figure out a way to make that argument, it wasn't necessarily based on valuation - it was based on the fact that 514b-4 has not been implemented in these assessments. Chair De Costa asked does the appellant have an idea or did the appellant have an idea on April 11, 2011 of what the total value of that lot would be. Mr. Hale answered yes. Chair De Costa said his second question is what Mr. Hale is saying then is the gist of his appeal is actually appeal grounds number 4, which is that the County by assessing it by individual units rather than one lot in total, that their assessment is contrary to the law which would be illegal. Mr. Hale said that's right. Chair De Costa said it's an issue that this Board would not actually be able to issue a ruling on because they only deal with the first three grounds so it's really an issue that needs to be decided by a Tax Appeal Court anyway. Mr. Hale said he's not prepared to address the exact section, but his reading of the rules that the Board is allowed to address all of those issues. He said more importantly here, what they are talking about is two things—number one, the statute doesn't require them to put a number there—the statute as it exists today doesn't require it. He said the second important thing is that they are allowed to amend, and that's clearly stated in the statute as well and that they've done. Chair De Costa asked Ms. Winn if this Board can rule on the fourth ground, the illegality. Ms. Winn cited 5A-12.7—the Board shall have the power and authority to decide all questions of fact, all questions of law, excepting questions involving the Constitution or laws of the United States necessary to the determination of the objections raised by the owner or the county in the notice of appeal. Chair De Costa said but if it's a State Statute, they could. Ms. Winn said yes. Mr. Jung said that just to give Member Gerardo a background of what the issue here is, back in 2000, the General Plan required the County to address the open density bonus, and that's what it referred to, so on open zoned lands there was a larger amount of density that could be garnered by a developer so just recently in the last 2 years, the County implemented an Ordinance and passed an Ordinance that if you Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION have a registered CPR, you won't be subject to any type of density cap on the open district, so from now on if you have an open portion within State Land Use District Ag, then you get to the issue of whether or not you can have more than 5 per unit. He said in this case, the appellant sought to density bank those units through the CPR, so that's why the CPR is here now before you as terms of valuation of each of those units because the County is allowed to separately assess each of those individual units because it is now a declared and registered CPR. Chair De Costa said that they are not here to debate the merits of the appeal but just decide whether the appeal was timely made and therefore the amendment actually is effective. He said just to be clear, the amendment was filed after the deadline, but the first attempt to appeal which the County did not accept was filed before the deadline. Mr. Hale asked Chair De Costa to state that again. Chair De Costa said that the amendment was filed after the appeal deadline but the initial attempt to appeal was filed prior to the appeal deadline. Mr. Hale said that he was correct. Mr. Jung also agreed. Mr. Hale said just to reiterate, by statutory law they are allowed to amend, it's a clear right in the statutory provisions. He said it doesn't mean that they wrong in the initial appeals either because that requirement that's at issue here was not required by State law. Ms. Wilson Boyle asked if they can amend something that wasn't accepted in the first place, she said logically it doesn't make sense. Mr. Jung said that was exactly what he was going to point out to the members is that there was an appeal filed, but it was an invalid appeal, it didn't conform to the rules and if you try to amend an appeal that technically wasn't a valid appeal, then it's not logical. He said if Mr. Hale has a contestable point with regard to the State Statute being overridden by their Rules, and he believes this Board is still bound by the Rules and if a court of higher jurisdiction wants to take that issue up, they certainly could. Mr. Hale said practically, this second group of appeals is all related to the exact same issue that will be decided on the first 94. He said if the Board decides that the second group was not timely filed, practically it doesn't make sense to fall on that side, because the exact same issue the Board is going to be required to decide. He thinks that's a practical argument in favor of accepting them, but more importantly, it's the statutory right. Chair De Costa asked Ms. Hester when the other 94 appeals are scheduled for hearing. Ms. Hester replied that's for later discussion, she had a plan on that, but this deferral has messed that up for her. Chair De Costa asked if any member of the Board have any questions or is anyone ready to make a motion. Ms. Wilson Boyle asked Mr. Hale if they intentionally left these blank just so, and he said to refer to the attachments in Exhibit B, so this was intentional, it wasn't that they forgot to put a valuation. Mr. Hale said obviously in the first group they knew that a number was needed there, but because they knew that the main issue on the second group wasn't necessarily the valuation, if they look at a lot of the values, they are a very, very small amount. He said what they wanted to try to focus the Board on is the legal issue that needed to be handled and as Ms. Winn pointed out, the Board is capable and entrusted with deciding those legal issues as well. He thought that the form would've been based on what the current law was, after they had this issue arise, he went back to the Statute and found out that it's not even a requirement. He said it was a requirement in 1988, what he thinks happened was that it just didn't get translated into the current form and the case law is clear that that Statute overrules this County Ordinances. Ms. Hester posed a question regarding the initial 94 appeals, she said they were random CPR units, not always in numeric order as there were a total of 5 new CPR projects created by the developer based on this open density law, so there's Cornerstone 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Moloa'a Bay 1, all 5 projects had some of their units appealed in the bunch of 94 and they have values. She said she hasn't been able to determine if there's a pattern in why those specific units were appealed and not the entire projects in the initial group. She said that she was Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION a little confused as to getting the first 94 with values stated and then the second group not having a value and again, not all units have been appealed. Chair De Costa said that he doesn't know if that was so much of a question as it was just to inform them, but they are not going to get into the merits of the first 94, he thinks it's already been emphasized that this appellant was able to appeal according to what the County Ordinance currently says in a way that the County accepted them in 94 cases. He said this appellant chose not to initially appeal more than that 94 cases until right before the deadline, it chose to appeal 113 further units and chose to leave it blank although it did not leave the initial 94 referring to Exhibits A& B as opposed to how the initial 94 were filled out. He said then after the deadline had passed, attempted to amend and relate back the date of its amendment to then state a value of zero. Ms. Hester said the question was in there, it was why. Chair De Costa said he doesn't think it's for them to answer the question why, he thinks it's for them to answer the question is does this Board feel that the County Ordinance and the required form at the time of appeal was properly filled out so that they can hear the merits of the 113 cases in addition to the 94 that were properly filled out. Mr. Jung said that it wasn't a valuation of zero, it was a blank valuation. Chair De Costa asked if any members of the Board had any questions or motions. Ms. Wilson Boyle asked even in the see attachment in Exhibit B where it is blank, there still in the attachments, there still is no value, it just states that it shouldn't be taxed. Mr. Hale said that is correct and he doesn't think that even the Ordinance, there's different ways to state values and the argument is that shouldn't be separately assessed, which would mean that the valuation of each CPR unit would be zero. He doesn't think that necessarily has to be a numeral that qualifies to meet the County Ordinance and he thinks that it is abundantly clear in the attachments what the position is related with each CPR unit. Chair De Costa asked if Mr. Hale's argument is that individual units should not be assessed individually, he said that something still needs to be assessed and something still has a value. Mr. Hale said right, the entire parcel—but they don't give them an assessment for that entire parcel anymore—they only give assessments for each of the units. Ms. Wilson Boyle said that each TMK gets an assessment, that's how the County system is set up. Mr. Hale said that she was right, so the TMK for the underlying lot, there wasn't an assessment on that because of the CPR, that that's actually the crux of the whole matter. Chair De Costa said that it's seeming more and more to him that this is something that Tax Appeal Court is going to have to resolve. Ms. Wilson Boyle agrees with Chair De Costa, she doesn't feel knowledgeable enough on the law to even begin to listen to an appeal like that, as she is not an attorney, even though she has a Real Estate background. Mr. Hale said to keep in mind that with the first 94 they do have an argument on valuation, so each of those they are going to come in and talk to them about valuation on that, but at the same time they've got an argument on the separate assessments. He said again this is the practical argument that the same decision that the Board is going to be reaching for the first 94 and as they pointed out, it may be an issue that end up right at the Tax Appeal Court. Chair De Costa said that at this point because they are not getting on the merits, just to remind the Board—they are basically looking at either a motion to accept the appeals or to dismiss the appeals because it wasn't done correctly in the time set by Ordinance and Rule. Mr. Hale said not done on time—he thinks they agreed that it was done in time. Chair De Costa said something was filed in time, it wasn't accepted because it was allegedly defective. Mr. Gerardo made a motion to deny the appeals. Ms. Wilson Boyle seconded the motion. Mr. Gerardo said that he made the motion to deny because like Ms. Wilson Boyle has already said, he doesn't think they are knowledgeable enough about the law so they will send it forward to the Tax Appeal Court. Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Motion carried 4:0. a. Petition for Issuance of Subpoena for Production of Evidence Mr. Jung said that if it is a valid petition, the only issue their office would have is it does lend to a question of whether or not they can address issues such as the interpretation of the Hawai'i Revised Statute, so he would qualify or at least caveat the subpoena itself to any materials that are protected under the Attorney-Client privilege. He apologized and said that he doesn't have the petition in front of him right now. Chair De Costa asked what Mr. Hale is asking for production and does that particular request for production refer to the other 94 appeals. Mr. Hale said that there is an attachment to the production, he doesn't mind the limitation that Counsel has suggested with respect to items that are Attorney-Client privilege but there's issued related to valuation, documents, records related to valuation, documents and records related to the implementation of 514b, documents that are related to an adjacent assessment on TMK no. 7-4 parcel 1 because they want to compare how that parcel was assessed as compared to theirs. He said it's listed on documents requested to be produced. Chair De Costa apologized as the item was mis-calendared on the agenda, it actually does refer to the other 94 appeals. He said if there was a motion from a Board member to grant the petition for issuance of subpoena for production of evidence as amended by the County Attorney to not include any Attorney-Client privileged information. Mr. Gerardo made the motion. Ms. Wilson Boyle seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Chair De Costa said with regard to who is going to issue it, he asked Deputy County Attorney Winn —and she said that she would work on it and it would need his signature. Chair De Costa asked if there was a certain date in the subpoena. Mr. Hale replied that he did put a date in the subpoena, but that date has passed, so he thinks he can work with Ms. Winn to arrive a date in the subpoena that will work, certainly be willing to work with Ms. Hester as well to make a date work for her. VI. Letter dated Chair De Costa said that this letter is contained in their packet and basically is a letter as opposed to filling out of the appeal form stating that April 28, 2011 the land owner wanted the County to review the appraisal and adjust their property assessment accordingly, he will note for the record that it re: TMK 1-2-008- appears that the appraisal versus the County amounts do not amount to a 20% differential, it would fall within the 20%, and therefore not be 018-0000 one where the grounds could be that the market value differs by 20%. Ms. Wilson Boyle made a motion to dismiss this imperfect attempt to appeal as it is not within the 20%. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. VII. Request for Chair De Costa said that this is a letter dated May10th that follows the former item in their packets and apparently this is an appeal received the Dismissal of by the County on May 161", 2011 which is over a month after the deadline. He said that in the letter it is stated that the assessment was allegedly received in April 81"due to a change in address and alleges they sent in the appeal on April 181", although it seems to be dated the 19'" and imperfect appeal nothing is date stamped until the 161"of May. attempt of TMK 5-8-011-059- Ms. Wilson Boyle made a motion to dismiss this imperfect attempt to appeal. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. 0001 & 5-8-011- 059-0002 Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION VIII. Appeals Kealia Properties. LLC dba Kealanani —225 appeals—Appeal Case No. 11-0860 to 1084—TMK 4-7-008-001-0001 to 4-7-009-023-0000 Scheduled Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung with Supervising Appraiser Kim Hester were present for the County. Tina Coleman was present representing the taxpayer. Chair De Costa informed Ms. Coleman that the Board received her letter dated June 3 asking for a continuance. He asked if there was anything that she would like to add. Ms. Coleman said that as the letter reflects, they've just been retained as counsel, they have not even received the entire file yet. They are still conducting a review—they're just not prepared to go forward at this time. She said that in the alternative what they have asked is that the Board just consider transferring the matter to Tax Court because appeals for the same properties with the same issues are pending for previous tax years, so the issues will be the same, so for judicial economy purposes they think it would be more appropriate that they all be heard together. Chair De Costa asked Mr. Jung if they can just transfer something directly to the Tax Appeal Court. Mr. Jung responded that he thinks they are evaluating that issue right now and whether or not that is a viable option. He said for the record, they don't object necessarily to the continuance as long as it's in a reasonable time, they were thinking one month or so just for them to get up to speed on the case. Chair De Costa said to Ms. Coleman that he understands she requested at least 180 days but they pretty much stop doing appeals as of October 31s1 because the assessors are busy doing the following year's assessments—also Ms. Hester's next scheduled appeal date and her last one for the year is August 81h. Ms. Hester said that actually July 181h she switched with John Herring, she apologizes, that July 181h is her last docket. Chair De Costa asked if they are going to have Mr. Hale's 94 appeals scheduled. Ms. Hester said yes, she would like to do that all at once. Ms. Coleman pointed out that one of the things that they need to do is to obtain the necessary appraisals and given the volume of properties at issue here, she doesn't know that is going to be possible to accomplish by the middle of July. Chair De Costa asked when the appellant appealed. Ms. Coleman said it was in April —her office was just retained in the last 2 weeks, so for some reason she doesn't know, she can't speak to why nothing was done, but nothing was done and they need to be prepared to move forward. She said that they are in the process of engaging the appraiser, but given the fact that there are 225 parcels at issue here, she thinks that expecting an appraisal to be done on that amount of volume is just not realistic. Chair De Costa said that seems inconsistent with them wanting it in Tax Court as soon as possible. Ms. Coleman said that Tax Court they are not going to schedule her trial and they are going to give her a discovery period, trial won't be until next year at the earliest, as she was just there, they are scheduling hearings—they gave her June last time she was in Tax Court. She said it will give her the adequate time to obtain the necessary appraisal. Mr. Jung said that he had a suggestion and asked if Ms. Coleman would oblige. He said that they could look at doing the 1 month continuance to the July 181h date and they could evaluate their situation here on whether or not the issue can be taken straight up to Tax Court and any particular avenues they could address to create a vehicle for that—as of right now he can't foresee any, but he can certainly look at the issue, so in the meantime he can discuss with Ms. Coleman the issue and maybe just give them that 1 month continuance—and limit it to 1 month and if they need to come back for more time, they can request more time. Ms. Coleman said that she doesn't necessarily have a problem with that, except to the extent that if the Board doesn't grant another continuance then she can tell them sitting here right now today, they will not be prepared to go forward in July because they will not have their appraisals yet. She said that she can't tell them why previous counsel didn't do it—maybe that's why they are new counsel. Chair De Costa said that's really not the County's problem but he thinks a request for continuance is reasonable, the question is the length and asked if any of the Board members have any questions along those lines. Ms. Coleman said that clearly the prejudice to the taxpayer is extreme, while she doesn't know that the prejudice to the County is anywhere near the prejudice to the taxpayer. She said her understanding is that the taxpayer is going to make the payment based on the assessments and then fight, so there really is no prejudice to the County here. Chair De Costa said that he thinks for the Board it becomes an issue of whether an appellant can control the Board's schedule or not and he thinks that is what it comes down to. Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Coleman said that she is not trying to control the Board's schedule, she is just trying to make sure that her clients are treated fairly and given every opportunity to present their arguments to this Board. She thinks the Board would agree that hearing a matter fully on the merits is much more preferable then hearing only part of it. Chair De Costa asked Ms. Hester how soon she can get Ms. Coleman what she needs to take the next step. Ms. Hester replied that she is not sure what she needs, but Ms. Coleman represents a new owner, that new owner was supposed have been given all of the CPR documents and maps at the time of the sale, and they only have historic records that they get from the Bureau of Conveyances at the time of recordation, they get them about 3 months later—so they may not even have all of the information that she needs. She explained to Ms. Coleman on Friday that her best avenue would be to go to the Bureau of Conveyances and get all of the documents that were pertinent to this project. She said that this project became legal in 2007 and it is the appellant that has filed the appeal and in their opinion they should be ready to defend what their reason for appeal is. She said they have a very strict assessment calendar that they need to follow and they have some changes this year, they are moving the assessment date up, so her goal to get the appeals done is actually more important this year than in previous years. Chair De Costa asked if Ms. Hester was not available on August 8, is that why she switched or is John Herring not available on July 18I". Ms. Hester replied that they made the switch because she in charge of running the rest of the staff forward on their 2012 assessments which she needs to be available for a lot of extra work on the computer in August, that's why they made the switch. Chair De Costa said that he thought that at their last meeting, they had moved to continue an appeal —Three Stooges, which is hers. Ms. Hester said that she wasn't part of that move to continue, she didn't make a suggestion there. Chair De Costa said that the Board had approved—he believes the exact motion was to grant the continuance to the meeting date in August that Ms. Hester was assigned to. Ms. Hester said that she didn't know about that. Ms. Wilson Boyle said that she remembers that as well. Chair De Costa said that Ms. Hester will be here on August 8I"whether she wanted to or not, so he would entertain a motion to continue the matter to August 8I", which gives the appellant almost 2 months. Ms. Wilson Boyle made a motion to continue the 225 Kealia Properties, LLC dba Kealanani appeals to August 8I". Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0079—Jay Sussman—TMK 2-3-013-012-0000 Jay Sussman was in attendance to provide evidence for his appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0079, he recommended that the Board sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0743—Jav & Marie Manzano—TMK 2-3-011-058-0000 Marie Manzano was in attendance to provide evidence for their appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Ms. Wilson Boyle made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0743, she recommended that the Board reduce the building value to $660,000. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Appeal Case No. 11-0744—Walter Stocker—TMK 1-3-004-019-0000 Walter Stocker was in attendance to provide evidence for his appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0744, he recommended that the Board sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Ms. Wilson Boyle left the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Appeal Case No. 11-0313—Hiroko Nishimura—TMK 2-4-001-003-0000 Steven Nishimura was in attendance to provide evidence for the appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and provided his report to the Board. Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0313, he recommended that the Board reduce the land value to $570,000. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0746—Jenny Valente—TMK 1-3-004-057-0000 Jenny Valente was in attendance to provide evidence for her appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and provided his report to the Board. Mr. Gerardo made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0746, he recommended that the Board grant the homeowner exemption and sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0003—Graham T. Chelius—TMK 1-2-013-031-0000 Graham Chelius was in attendance to provide evidence for his appeal. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and provided his report to the Board. Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0003, he recommended that the Board reduce the building value to $630,900. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0078—Jeffrey Schwartz &Cynthia Barry—TMK 1-3-005-044-0001 The appellant or their representative was not in attendance, however documents provided with the appeal were reviewed. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0078, he recommended that the Board sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0005—Randy Wolfshagen—TMK 1-3-005-045-0001 Mr. Kyono made a motion to grant a continuance in the matter of tax appeal 11-0005. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. The appellant requested a continuance and this case will be scheduled at a later date. Appeal Case No. 11-0314—Kaneko Loving Trust—TM 1-6-006-044-0000 The appellant and the County have agreed to a stipulated amount and the hard copy of the stipulation will follow. Appeal Case No. 11-0006—Andy &Cheryl Tillman—TMK 1-8-009-038-0000 The appellant or their representative was not in attendance, however documents provided with the appeal were reviewed. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Mr. Kyono made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0006, he recommended that the Board sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Gerardo seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0741 — Michael L. Vonderhaar—TMK 2-3-020-103-0000 The appellant or their representative was not in attendance. Nelson Salvador was in attendance and presented his report to the Board. Mr. Gerardo made a motion in the matter of tax appeal 11-0741, he recommended that the Board sustain the County's assessment. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0. Appeal Case No. 11-0007—Sui Yen Rita—TMK 2-4-013-016-0000 Taxpayer withdrew appeal. County's assessment sustained. Appeal Case No. 11-0037—Jeff rev E. Krueger—TM K 2-8-028-088-0000 Taxpayer withdrew appeal. County's assessment sustained. Appeal Case No. 11-0047—Frost Famil Trust—TM K 5-5-010-028-0000 Board of Review Open Session June 13, 2011 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Taxpayer withdrew appeal. County's assessment sustained. Appeal Case No. 11-0044—Gary Fischer—TM K 5-8-009-048-0000 Taxpayer withdrew appeal. County's assessment sustained. Stipulations Appeal Case No. 11-0004—Lori Evenstad—TMK 1-3-003-027-0002 Appeal Case No. 11-1287—Jeffrey E. Krueger—TM K 2-8-028-088-0000 Appeal Case No. 11-1179—Regency at Puakea LLC—TMK 3-3-003-045-0000 Appeal Case No. 11-0043—Rund ren Trust—TMK 5-1-005-017-0001 IX. Announcements The next L eeting is Monday, June 20, 2011. The mT eeting was adjourned at 4:10 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.