Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_0109_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 3/6/15 Board /Committee: BOARD OF REVIEW Meeting Date January 9, 2015 Location Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2 A/B Start of Meeting: 1:05 p.m. End of Meeting: 1:55 p.m. Present Chair Jose Diogo; Vice -Chair Dottie Bekeart (1:11 p.m.); Members: Russell Kyono; Julie Caspillo; Donald Kolenda Deputy County Attorneys Adam Roversi and Stephen Hall; Boards & Commissions Staff. Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami; Deputy Director of Finance Sally Motta; Tax Manager Steve Hunt Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Prior to the start of the meeting, Council Administrative Assistant Eddie Topenio gave the Oath of Office to new Board members Julie Caspillo and Donald Kolenda Call To Order Chair Diogo called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. with 4 members present and by welcoming the new Board members. Election of Mr. Kyono moved to nominate Dottie Bekeart as Chair and Vice Chair and Mr. Jose Diogo as Vice Chair, Ms. Chair for 2015 Caspillo seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Approval of a. Open Session Minutes of October 10, 2014 Minutes deferred to later in the meeting due to Minutes lack of a quorum of 2014 Board members Establish b. Overview of assessment polices and update from the Real Propert y Assessment Office on changes to the laws. Format for Hearing of Appeals Mr. Hunt distributed copies of his presentation (on file) and discussed ➢ Grounds for Appeal ➢ Assessment Methods ➢ Appeal Applications ➢ Recent Ordinance Changes Board of Review Open Session January 9, 2015 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Bekeart brought up a question regarding vacant land to which Mr. Hunt said there was a change under the prior revision in which vacant land that was zoned multi - family be reclassed as hotel and resort; that has since been removed, and those properties will be moved to residential because there is no longer an apartment or multi - family class. Deputy Attorney Roversi asked if there is a specific place where the income approach is expressly precluded in the statute to which Mr. Hunt said it does not specifically say you cannot use, but it does say you shall use so it is by inference. The problem with the income approach for mass appraising is we do not have everyone's income for income generating properties, which would normally be bench - marked to a sale, but there are also many factors that influence a sale. Vice Chair Diogo questioned how can the County verify and monitor home office use. Mr. Hunt responded that is why there is a commercialized home use now so anyone who is doing any type of use that generates income will be in the commercialized home use. If there is an owner - occupant who does not generate revenue, but uses a portion of their home as a business office, and claims it on both their exemption application and maybe for IRS purposes those are more difficult because they could be eligible for Homestead. There are no Administrative Rules on Use until we can see what types of scenarios come up. When asked about a tenant that may be doing business out of their home Mr. Hunt said it would normally be Residential, but if that tenant is doing something like a B &B it could be flagged for a higher use like vacation rental. There was further discussion on long -term affordable rentals for the Homestead Classification and Commercialized Home Use, number of homes on the property, and the criteria that must be met for each of the dwellings on the property. c. Orientation from the County Attorney on the duties and responsibilities of quasi-judicial boards and the format for Board of Review Open Session January 9, 2015 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION presentation of appeals Deputy Attorney Adam Roversi focused on executive session and open meeting requirements noting there is an exception in the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) for quasi-judicial boards of which the Board of Review is one in the exercise of their adjudicatory function. The adjudicatory function refers to the act of final deliberation and decision making, and not the entire hearing on the appeal. In line with the Board's dual requirement to both be open, but with the allowance for executive or closed sessions for the deliberations, the past practice of the Board has been the appellant taxpayer, who bears the burden to disprove the prima facie correct assessment, begins by presenting their appeal to the Board in Open Session and in which the Board can ask questions of the appellant. Following that the Tax Assessor's Office presents the justification of the assessment in which the Board can then ask questions of the assessor. The appellant has the final option to have a rebuttal of the issues brought up by the assessor. In Open Session the Board would then vote to go into Executive Session to deliberate on the information that was presented. An appeal may not necessarily be by itself in the case of multiple condos in the same complex who have all appealed. The past practice has been that the Board would hear the cases of all condos, go into Executive Session to deliberate all of them at once, rather than go into Executive Session after each and every taxpayer presents their similar related appeal. Ms. Bekeart said it is broader than that; the Board hears all of the appeals and then goes into Executive Session. Deputy Attorney Roversi said once the Board has made its decision in Executive Session the decision of the Board has to be presented in Open Session. A decision form is sent to the taxpayer, which is then a public record as well as all of the papers presented by the taxpayer and the assessor. Executive Session is an option, but it has not always been a past practice of the Board so it is up to this Board whether to continue that practice or not. The Attorney reminded the members to take adequate notes Board of Review Open Session January 9, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION during each hearing to allow for informed decisions during the Executive Session portion. Often times the Board is faced with emotionally charged taxpayers and the Chair is encouraged to maintain firm but respectful control over the proceedings. It is also within the Board's authority to establish time limits for presentations if there have been problems in the past with repetitive or off -point presentations. Mr. Diogo noted there have been some problems in the past but hopes that has been corrected. As Chair, Mr. Diogo tried to give each side as much time as required to present their case, but there are times when someone goes off on a tangent and that is when the Chair needs to step in. Ms. Caspillo asked if at that point they could set a time limit for the person to finish up if one had not previously been established. Deputy Attorney Roversi said if the Board chooses to set time limits on presentations as a matter of due process the time limit has to be the same for both parties. Also, the Chair is empowered to direct a presentation within reasonable limits. Board members said they did not really run into problems with the presentation of information — it was more of someone going off on a tangent, which will not be tolerated again. Ms. Bekeart moved that the Board continue to make deliberations and decisions in Executive Session. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Following a discussion of what might be an adequate timeframe in which to present either side of an appeal, the Board did not favor setting timelines. Mr. Diogo noted it was his hope that the Board could get the County's case and the appellant's appraisal in the packet mailed out to the Board members to allow adequate time to review the data before the day of the meeting. Mr. Hunt said this is still potentially a challenge. They do not want to bring anything before the Board that should not be heard by the Board as they do make every effort to stipulate or convince the appellant of the value. The reports get created for each appeal when it is not possible to reach an agreement beforehand; they are more of a last minute preparation. Mr. Kolenda moved to set a time limit of 10 minutes. Motion failed for lack of a second. Board of Review Open Session January 9, 2015 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Caspillo moved to have a time limit of 10 minutes on the appeals with the Chair having the discretion to extend the time limit in 5 minute intervals giving equal parties the same amount of Mr. Diogo thought that would be difficult for the Chair to keep track of the time. Mr. Kolenda seconded the motion. 5 minute intervals. He suggested the Chair monitor the case and if they feel it is getting lengthy the Chair cuts it off. Ms. Caspillo asked if that would leave them open to legal issues if someone felt they were not allowed to complete their appeal. Ms. Bekeart thought it could create the impression that someone is expected to talk for 10 minutes; if the need evolves to create a time limit this can be done at that point. Ms. Caspillo withdrew the motion. Mr. Kolenda withdrew the second. Scheduled Effective February 6, meeting dates are the first and second Friday of each Meeting Dates month, with exception of County holidays, until all appeals have been for 2015 / reviewed. File Note: Subsequently the February 6 meeting Announcements Next meeting: Friday, February 6, 2015, 1:00 p.m. has been cancelled due to unavailability of apprais al staff Minutes Open Session Minutes of October 10, 2014 Ms. Bekeart moved to approve the Open Session minutes as circulated. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0 Executive Session Minutes of October 10, 2014 Without need for an Executive Session Ms. Bekeart moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Kyono seconded the motion. Motion carried 3:0 Adjournment Ms. Caspillo moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:55 p.m. Mr. Kolenda seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Board of Review Open Session January 9, 2015 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, Vice Chair