Meeting Time: November 16, 2023 at 1:30pm HST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

BFED-35 Bill 91 (2023) REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES IMPACTED BY NATURAL DISASTERS OR WILDFIRES (BFED-35)

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    My wife and I are owners of a home in the fire zone that did not burn. We supported Bill 95 in its original form but oppose the amended version that only provides tax relief to owner occupied homes. While our home remains standing, it is surrounded by toxic devastation (burned homes and cars only feet away) that will not be cleaned up for months. The home has extensive smoke/ soot/ ash damage both inside and out that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to remediate. The home does not have potable water or functional sewer. The home is not inhabitable, and we are being told that it may be years before clean water is available and the home is usable. It is simply not fair to provide tax relief to owners whose homes burned and owners with intact homes who occupied their homes more full-time while requiring other home owners to still pay taxes; we too have lost the ability to use our beloved home. Please extend the property tax exemption to all home owners who were directly impacted by this tragedy.
    Aloha,
    Christopher Fender
    87 Pualei Dr

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    I recently learned that amended BFED-35 would provide an exemption from property taxes only for owner-occupied properties. I ask you to remove this proposed limitation excluding properties that are not owner-occupied in the burn zone. It is not logical for owners to pay property taxes on properties that are not usable and probably not usable for years. Water and sewer are not are not available and will likely be unavailable for a long time. This is true for both owner-occupied properties and those that are not owner occupied. I do not support the current bill with the proposed limitation. Please provide fair property tax relief to all owners of unusable homes in the Lahaina fire zones. Thank you for your consideration.

    Timothy Rogers
    150-4 Pualei Dr.
    Lahaina, HI 96761

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    Aloha,

    I am an owner in Puamana that was not destroyed by the wildfire.

    While I previously supported Bill 95, I do not support it in it's current state. It has been revised to exclude owners of surviving homes that are non owner occupied.

    It is not reasonable for owners of property that is uninhabitable and is expected to be unusable for years to have to pay property taxes. The public services (water and sewer) are not being provided and it could be two to three years before they are.

    In addition, all owners of property in the fire zones face similar financial burden including clean up of toxic material and replacement of personal property.

    In fairness to all affected properties, I urge you to extend the property tax exemption to all residential property in Lahaina.

    Respectfully,

    Sanford Pearl
    226-4 Pualei Drive
    Lahaina, Hi

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    Aloha Mayor and Council,

    I am an owner of a home in Lahaina that was NOT destroyed in the August wildfire. I previously wrote in support of Bill 95's exemption from property taxes for property owners in Lahaina tax zone 4, sections 5 and 6. I was extremely disappointed today to see revisions to Bill 95 being proposed that would nullify tax exemptions for owners of surviving homes such as mine that are classified as non owner-occupied. The effect of this revision is extremely unfair.

    I cannot occupy my home, because- more than three months after the fire- I still don't have water or sewer service. No timeline for restoration of those services has been provided, but estimates are that it will be many more months or could be a year or longer. I cannot qualify for the tax exemption by renting my home to a displaced person because it is UNINHABITABLE. How is it fair or reasonable that I should pay property taxes, when my property is just as unusable as the tax-exempt properties that burned?

    Please understand that the financial impact on those of us whose homes survived is substantial. I just received a quote to clean my unit (it's full of toxic ash) that exceeded $30,000. That's before any replacement of ruined furnishings, appliances, electronics, belongings, or remediation work to the interior and exterior finishings and surfaces. My losses massively exceed my insurance limits. And even when services are eventually restored and my home is made liveable again, it will in effect be an "island" surrounded by devastation and a multi-year project of cleaning up a massive toxic area and reconstruction.

    My property taxes are substantial, in particular because my home is zoned for vacation rental. Vacation rental of my home will not be reasonably viable for years, given its condition and location. As a result, the property value of my home has been devastated.

    I respectfully urge you to extend the property tax exemption in Bill 95 to all residential properties in the fire-affected zones in Lahaina. That is the only fair approach.

    Thank you,

    Sean George
    176-1 Pualei Dr.
    Lahaina, HI
    96761

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    I was surprised to find that amendment BFED-35 would provide an exemption from property taxes only for owner-occupied properties. I consider that limitation to be seriously mistaken.

    It is certainly not reasonable for owners of property that is unusable and is expected to be unusable for years to have to pay property taxes. The public services (e.g. water and sewer) are not being provided and it will be two to three years before they are. This makes the properties essentially worthless. This applies equally well to properties that were not owner-occupied and those that were.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    While I supported Bill 95 in its original form, I do not support the current bill. Tax relief should be extended to all owners of unusable homes in the Lahaina fire zones, as this is the only fair result. It seems arbitrary to tax some property owners but not others.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    While I supported Bill 95 in its original form, I oppose it's new language. All homeowners in the fire zone with unusable homes should be given tax relief. This is the only fair solution. Anything else would have a disparate impact that would produce an unfair result. My husband and I met while living and working on Maui in 1995. When we moved to the mainland for me to go back to school, we rented our townhouse as a long-term rental for more than 20 years. I took and passed the bar exam in Hawaii in 2004 and activated my law license this year. Now that my husband has retired, and we are looking at spending more time there, we have switched to TVR status so that we can use our home more. Eventually, we hope to move back there. While our home is standing, it is in the fire zone, and the home right next to it completely burned. We have not been able to use or rent our home since the 8/8/2023 Lahaina fires, and it appears that it will be more than a year until we will be able to use it. We need tax relief while we are unable to use it, just as you are providing to units that were burned completely by the fires and are proposing to provide to the standing units occupied by owners. This is the only fair result.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User 12 months ago

    Aloha Tamara,

    I was supporting Bill 95 as I thought it was inclusive of all owners in the Lahaina Fire Zone.

    I now understand it was crafted to only apply to owner occupants.

    All owners values were totally decimated, all owners don’t have county services, all properties are toxic and just as devastated as the owner occupants.

    Our state and county leadership let us all down in not making sure the electric company spent the money with their exorbitant rates to provide quality equipment, in not making sure our water systems and hydrants were able to fight fires, in not making sure fire breaks were in place during our dry season, in not making sure the warning systems were in place to prevent loss of life.

    For the county leadership to still charge any owners taxes for fire toxic, none service homes is unconscionable.

    Mark & Vicki Marchello
    Owner Occupant