Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_0606_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 7/11/14 Board /Committee: BOARD OF REVIEW Meeting Date June 6, 2014 Location Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2 A/B Start of Meeting: 1:02 p.m. End of Meeting: 2:06 p.m. Present Chair Jose Diogo; Vice -Chair Dottie Bekeart; Members: Craig De Costa; Cayetano Gerardo; and Russell Kyono Also: Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami; Deputy Director of Finance Sally Motta; Tax Manager Kim Hester; COK Appraiser: John Herring Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Diogo called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. with 5 members present. Approval of Open Session Minutes of May 9, 2014 Ms. Bekeart moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Appeals 1. 14- 0000185 J. Herring K61oa Creekside Estates, LP 2 -8- 009 - 001 -0014 There was no one in attendance on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Herring was in attendance for the County and presented his report to the Board. Mr. De Costa moved to approve the County's assessment of $330,800. Mr. K ono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 2. 14- 0000104 J. Herring Jeffrey Lindner - Continuance 4 -9- 005- 020 -0000 3. 14- 0000103 J. Herring Moloa'a Farms, LLC - Continuance 4 -9- 009 - 007 -0000 4. 14- 0000105 J. Herring Moloa'a Farms, LLC - Continuance 4 -9- 009 - 009 -0015 6. 14- 0000076 J. Herring Moloa'a Farms, LLC - Continuance 4 -9- 010- 001 -0000 7. 14- 0000077 J. Herring Moloa'a Farms, LLC - Continuance 4 -9- 010 - 006 -0000 9. 14- 0000111 J. Herring Jeffrey Lindner - Continuance 5 -1- 004 - 007 -0000 10. 14- 0000078 J. Herring Jeffrey Lindner - Continuance 5 -1- 004 - 046 -0000 Chair Diogo granted the re nest or a continuance but nospecific date was discussed. 5. 14- 0000075 J. Herring John /Daphne McClure 4 -9- 009 - 009 -0018 Mr. De Costa moved to accept the County's Stipulation of $614,500. Ms. Bekeart seconded the motion. Motion carried 5.-0 Board of Review Open Session June 6, 2014 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 8. 14- 0000037 J. Herring Mojo Manor Farms etal 4 -9- 011- 013 -0010 There was no one in attendance on behalf of the appellant however written testimony was provided. Mr. Herring was in attendance for the County and presented his report to the Board. Ms. Bekeart moved to approve the County's Assessment of $420,900. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 11. 14- 0000142 M. Hubbard Douglas Tamura 5 -5- 010 - 056 -0000 There was no one in attendance on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Hester was in attendance on behalf of Mr. Hubbard for the County and presented the report to the Board. Mr. De Costa moved to approve the County's Assessment of $1,602,400. Mr. K ono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Stipulation / 12. 14- 0000052 J. Herring Carol A Kondo 3 -3- 001 - 013 -0000 Withdrawal Ms. Bekeart moved to accept the County's Stipulation of $59,800. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 13. 14- 0000088 J. Herring Naresh Chand 4 -2- 016 - 064 -0000 Mr. K ono moved to accept the County's Stipulation of $652,000. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 14. 14- 0000144 J. Herring Chandra Radiance & Hafiz Heartsun 4 -6- 009 - 002 -0000 Ms. Bekeart moved to accept the County's Stipulation of $109,100. Mr. K ono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 15. 14- 0000122 M. Hubbard Gusher LLC 5 -9- 002 - 034 -0000 Mr. De Costa moved to accept the County's Stipulation of $7,418,700. Mr. K ono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Rules DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DECISION - MAKING ON ADDING A SECTION TO AMEND THE BOARD'S RULES AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AS NECESSARY WHICH WOULD GIVE THE CHAIR THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT TESTIMONY TIME Ms. Bekeart moved to approve the proposed new rule. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Board of Review Open Session June 6, 2014 Page 3 SUBJECT I DISCUSSION I ACTION From the County's standpoint, Ms. Hester said they do not have a problem with limiting the testimony per side as long as the County is offered a second chance to rebut after the appellant has testified, especially when the appellant is giving possibly erroneous testimony. Ms. Bekeart asked if the proposed rule is adopted would it prevent rebuttal from the County, or would the Chair have the option of offering additional rebuttal. Deputy Attorney Hall advised they could add to the proposed amendment, or it could be at the Chair's option. Ms. Bekeart felt the rebuttal could go on infinitum and should not be codified as to who is allowed to rebut. Mr. De Costa said the rebuttal is not in their Rules, but that is a misnomer. It was a motion the currently composed Board has had for two years as to how they wanted to conduct their meetings for the year; it is not an on -going rule. The misnomer is the County's portion is rebutting as to what the appellant presented; the appellant gets the last word because they have not heard or seen the County's presentation. The appellant is supposed to rebut what the County said. It is within the Chair's discretion if the appellant brings up new material the County did not discuss to cut them off. The County also has to trust that the Board members can all read so the Appraisers do not have to regurgitate their entire report, and that the Board can and does in their deliberations conclude there was something not factual presented and do not consider it. If the appellant did not have any proof, and was only stating their opinion there is no need for the County to rebut. Mr. De Costa further thought the County was having issues with regard to adjusting to how the meetings are conducted only because it was conducted a certain way for years that is not consistent with an adjudicatory type of contested hearing. He did not feel it has hurt the County; they need to understand and trust that the Board is doing the right thing when it adjudicates. Ms. Bekeart added that the Chair still has the discretion to allow the County to rebut. Ms. Hester stated that Mr. De Costa had clarified what was a misnomer to the County in that the appellant brings information after the County has presented and to which they were not privy to prior to that. Mr. De Costa said the Chair has the option in that case to cut off the appellant for bringing up something new they did not bring up in their presentation, or allowing them to bring it up but allowing the County to rebut. Ms. Hester said through history the appraisers have learned to read their report, but did agree that the Board members all know how to read. Ms. Hester suggested perhaps the Board should have 2 or 3 minutes to read the report; thereafter the appraisers could point out specific features such as the worksheet. Chair Diogo said the Board gets their packets ahead of time, and he does read through the cases so he is prepared unless something is presented at the meeting that was not in the report. The Board clarified for Ms. Hester that what is received ahead of time is usually what the appellant has provided, and not the appraiser's report. Ms. Bekeart said the meat of an appeal is usually handed out at the meeting, and the Board does not get time to read through it so they need to allow enough time for both sides. Mr. De Costa suggested rather than having the time limit in the Rules that the rule read the Chair may impose a time limit in accordance with Board of Review Open Session June 6, 2014 Page 4 SUBJECT I DISCUSSION I ACTION § 14.2 limited to a reasonable amount of time based on the complexity of the appeal. Ms. Bekeart said § 14.2 is taking what has been policy decided year by year and codifying it into a rule, whereby § 14.1 allows the Chair the right to determine the comments are relevant and may impose a time limit; is § 14.2 needed. Deputy Attorney Hall said they discussed before that the Chair does have the ability to limit time, but it makes it more difficult if it is not in the Rules. He suggested adding in "a reasonable amount of time based on the complexity of the appeal" to § 14. 1, which would eliminate the need for § 14.2. Chair Diogo said the summarization of the facts is great rather than a detailed report. Ms. Hester was asked to make sure the appraisers know the Board does receive what is submitted by the appellant and the basis for the appeal. Mr. De Costa withdrew his second. Ms. Bekeart withdrew her motion. Ms. Bekeart suggested that when the Chair explains the format for presenting the appeal and deliberation in Executive Session the time limit be included in that explanation with the policy set year -by -year. Mr. De Costa moved to amend the Rules to not follow parliamentary procedure and to allow for open discussion at the Chair's discretion. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Chair Diogo asked if the motion was to allow the Chair to open discussion without having a motion on the floor. Mr. De Costa said basically they can put forward a motion, but they are not always required to follow Robert's Rules. Ms. Bekeart commented that they do have the ability to suspend the rules if they want to talk about something. Mr. De Costa said they could make a motion to suspend the rules to have open discussion on a certain agenda item, but they would still have to follow Sunshine Laws. Deputy Attorney Hall said he would look into this so as to not give bad advice. Chair Diogo said rather than imposing a specific time limit, they could leave it up to the Chair's discretion to limit either the appellant or the County representative. Deputy Attorney Hall said the County Council has a set time limit, but the Chair has the discretion to grant additional time. Staff suggested if there are time limits to be imposed some type of notification needs to be given to the appellant because they only receive a sheet notifying them of the date and time they can appeal. Ms. Bekeart thought it was a good idea to not only notify the appellant of the hearing date, but also the policy on how the hearing is conducted so they are appropriately prepared. Chair Diogo said if they do impose a time limit then they should add verbiage that at the Chair's discretion the time limit may be extended depending on the complexity of the appeal. Ms. Bekeart said they could add that to their policy including that Board of Review Open Session June 6, 2014 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION deliberation is done in Executive Session with the appellant going first for a specified time limit, which may be extended at the discretion of the Chair. Chair Diogo said that was a good idea, and everything is out in the open so everyone is aware of it. Ms. Bekeart then suggested they not amend the Rules. Deputy Attorney Hall said it has always been his understanding that the Chair has the ability to run the meeting as they see fit; that includes time limits. Staff noted that people do not necessarily read the entire agenda, but there is a section on every agenda that goes out of Boards and Commissions that states the policy for public testimony, and that verbal testimony may be limited at the Chair's discretion; because that is part of the posting at the County Council it should give standing to the rule. Ms. Morikami also pointed out that a Board member can cite a point of order, and advise the chair that the testimony has been going on too long. Mr. Gerardo said any member can make a motion to limit debate, which will take care of the problem. Mr. Kyono withdrew his second; Mr. De Costa withdrew his motion. Staff received clarification that the proposed amendment to the Rules to set time limits for testimony has been removed from the agenda with the decision to be left to the discretion of the Chair. Announcements Next Meeting: Friday, June 13, 2014, 1:00 p.m. Executive Mr. De Costa read the Hawai `i Revised Statutes Session as outlined on the agenda and moved to go into Executive Session at 2: 00 p.m. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Return to Open The meeting resumed in Open Session at 2:05 p.m. Session Ratify Board of Review actions taken in Executive Session for appeals shown on the attached listing and make those decisions public Mr. De Costa moved to ratify the Board's actions and make those decisions public. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Adjournment Ms. Bekeart moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:06p.m. Mr. De Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Board of Review Open Session June 6, 2014 01M Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Staff Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of _ Reviewed and Approved by: meeting. Jose R. Diogo, Chair