Heat. Hey, Heat. That's Danc girl. Hey, hey, hey. Nice. Hey, hey, hey. Okay. Like to call the meeting to order.
Welcome everyone here. We'll stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, I'll just follow the agenda. I notice we do have a spot for public uh comments. Uh any general members? I don't think we have anyone here. Nobody's filled out a card or anything. So, we'll move right on to uh our new
business. Proof of notice meeting posted by the clerk. Uh new business request for reconsideration on the following petitions. Three minutes per party. Does our attorney want to say anything before we get started? >> Yeah, just just to walk through the process.
>> Okay. >> Uh so the way this works is pretty straightforward. Uh each side gets three minutes to present. The petitioner well in this case it's the petitioner because it's the party who files the request goes first. Then the property appraiser get gets to respond. The board may ask
questions and um that's really the process. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the >> the board? All right. Our first uh petition is number 202500000054.
>> I don't believe he's present. >> Okay. They're not here. Okay. >> So the property Okay. My mistake. So, yeah, if the property appraiser wishes to present, of course, this is the time. >> Yeah. Come on up so we can get you on the mic.
>> George Masselino Property Appraise Office. Do you want me to go through my petition or just if I just stand on what we submitted? How you want to do this? >> This really goes for I would suggest just stating your case. You want may want to give some background for the board. >> Okay. This was a case of a homestead
application. Um, there was a question as to their residency documents. They were all after January 1. Florida law requires that you own, occupy, and use the property as your permanent residence as of January 1 for homestead. The petitioner's information was in March. I
think he converted his driver's license to March. Um, his voters's card was March. And at the time of his application, he was still reg uh his vehicles were still registered in New York. So we felt that because of that residency document didn't change, he
didn't have he wasn't entitled for the homestead as as of January 1. >> Okay. >> Was that one of the numbers that we had on here? >> Yeah, it's on >> Yeah, the very first one >> triple054. >> And if I may,
>> I have questions. I have a couple questions. So, just more procedural kind of stupid questions, but I'm good at asking those stupid. >> Yeah. Okay. I have a question and maybe the attorney, but maybe
don't be shy. >> Now, is this something that went to the special master and they diff they ruled against you or why do you have to be here? If you deny that it's not automatic, why why do you have to be here? >> Yes. The special magistrate ruled in the
petitioner's favor on this one. >> Really? >> Yes. >> That's why we're here. >> Okay. That's what I thought. That's what I thought. Now, is anyone here going to give the other side? >> They were definitely given notice, but they appear not to be here. >> Okay. That's what I thought. Okay.
Thanks. Okay. All right. Let's bring it to the the board. Any uh comments, questions, motions? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> I'll wait until you guys go. >> I That was the only question I had. M Atkinson, >> I was just wanted to clarify
>> everything had to be changed, driver's license, residence, everything by January and it didn't happen till March. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry, George. I guess I'm asking you the question. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. >> You're going to get your steps in today. Just that's a good way of getting that
is what the record reflects, >> right? Yeah. So, so, so this person um January was cut off date to change all their documents and and to be there and it appears well >> that they didn't get it done until March. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Please.
>> The statutes provide a list of documents that the property appraiser may consider when you're filing for homestead. And if you all file for homestead, you re, you know, driver's license, vehicle registration, voters registration, things like that. And all those documents were after January 1, significantly after January 1. I I can't
understand why the master >> So when when we say that they they came in after January 1, >> did we get them in Jan or after January 1? But they were done and completed by the petitioner prior to January 1.
>> No, ma'am. The petitioner filed timely, but they did not transfer those documents from New York to Florida till a till in March. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank But he did have his electric and all of those things were in his name in >> Yes. Because it was a house he had pre he already owned
>> and he did not own a house up in New York is what I was reading. >> I believe that. >> I think so. >> Yeah. So he did not have a residence in New York. Only had a residence here. Didn't have the driver's license and those things here, but then did have the
water, electric, and all that stuff here. That may be where the special magistrate was going is that you know sometimes it takes some time in between. I don't know. That's all. >> Um my recollection of the case is the petitioners owned the house in Florida since 2023. Has been going back and forth from New York to Florida since
2023. And I believe his comment about changing the documents was he didn't know or he was getting get around to it. Okay. >> I think that's in the in the package you have there. >> Okay. >> Just for the board's edification. I my
recommendation is to grant this request. Um whether it's circumstance or not, the record really does show that on the evidence, he doesn't have the January 1 date. So I I and really the findings of the special magistrate I I don't
understand why it wasn't um denied to begin with. Is there um is the special magistrate have a report that they say the reason behind that? >> It's it's pretty short. Yes, but it's but it's short. Um and it's a this is a
very good special magistrate. Um I I'm just going to chalk this up to to an an honest mistake because I really just don't see how the evidence could sustain granting Homestead. It's it's just not there. >> Okay.
So, I guess for me, while I don't always like to be black and white, I like there's gray areas, but in this case, it had to be done by January and it wasn't. And >> well, and I think um if I may, I'm
sorry. >> Yeah. >> For me, what it is is that not only is it need to be done by January, but they were aware of this. Were they aware that the property appraiser was saying no and that they would have to be here >> to argue their point?
>> I don't know if that came up. I mean, they're every taxpayer is presumed to know the law. So, they're required to to know of the requirement whether they're actually aware of it either way. So, >> is not a skew any excuse.
>> Yeah. But to know, right? But to know that I won in special magistrate and to know that the Is there a time where the property appraiser says, "Hey, we're going to go ahead and contest this." Was that ever sent to him? So, would he think when he was inside that meeting
that all of a sudden I've won my case and now he doesn't know that he's supposed to where's that notification go? Do we email him saying his case is coming up? like where >> before it got to the I think this was a late filed application to begin with >> so that there really wasn't anything
before that there wouldn't have been anything either way it was denied by the property appraiser he appealed to the VAB special magistrate recommended granting it >> and he was in that meeting right >> he would have been yeah he was at the hearing yeah the special magistrate hearing
>> now that brings up something um so at that special magistrate's meeting would he have been aware that it was going to go his way or does he get he does he leave that meeting with the MA special magistrate not knowing anything and waiting for the
>> it's the latter special magistrate doesn't announce the recommendation uh at the hearing >> how does that person find out that they this is and the reason I'm asking all of these just so you know >> is because a lot of the recommendations in this space is what I was going to try to talk about today
>> so the thing is is that how does he know so he wins the case or he loses the case. He may or may not have been there, but we don't. >> He He doesn't get a decision. >> He doesn't get a decision. Does he get notified of that decision? >> Yes. >> Then does he get notified that the property appraiser is going to say no
and that they can come to this meeting? >> Yes. >> And they know the date of that. >> Yes. >> And that goes to them. Okay. Then you're right. Like you don't show up to argue your point and you know the property appraiser is coming. It's a difficult thing to do. I agree. I agree. Thank you. I'm sorry to go through all that.
some of that back and forth is um you know what I mean? That's why I was talking about >> and and for me um now I understand the process a lot better. So that's why I asked that that question. >> Thanks >> Mr. Goldman. >> Yes.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Any other questions? Any What is the will of the U of the board? What would be the right way to say to structure the motion? >> If it's a motion to grant the request,
which would deny the petition, in other words, no homestead. It would be a motion to grant the request. >> I'd like to make a motion to grant the request. >> Second. >> Okay. There's a motion second to grant the request of the property appraiser. Any discussion?
>> One question. >> Yes. >> Um I'm sorry. Okay. So, one question. We're >> we're denying the homestead exemption request >> for just one year. Right. >> Right. >> The guy refiles and
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I mean, that's where I think Miss Atkinson and and myself is that like look, if he was willing to try to do it, that's great. But if he wasn't, you know what I mean? Like >> you have some and it may be that he wasn't here when it was happening. I don't I don't want to speculate. I just I think it's a good I think the property
appraiser is correct in this one. >> Okay. Any other debate? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Carries unanimously. Okay, we'll move to the next item is 20250066. >> Hi, my name is James Padet. I'm here
I guess because I received notice that a reconciliate consideration um I applied for first responder exemption um was denied partial denial due to my
employer certificate stating that um I had left my employment under retirement. So, with that being said, I petitioned it, went to a magistrate hearing, um, did a new format of my evidence and everything, particularly on that one
certificate to prove that I did not leave because my workers comp doctor had not allowed me to go back to work as per the fire chief gave me a specific date. Um, with that being said, anyhow, I went
to the magistrate hearing and with evidence only under that. I was not totally aware of how the Florida statues worked towards that because the ladies at the tax office had just told me about it. So, I went and did all my homework, got all the certificates,
turned them in. Anyways, moving forward. Went to the magistrate hearing um because I was contesting the the way the format of the certificate was cuz she had signed agreed saying I
was partially or disabled but she had put in comments that I had retired from there. Anyways, I got a denial on that. I wasn't really sure how the process worked so I sent a recon consideration for it. Um, since that was was basically
during the holidays, a lot of this stuff was going on. It was hard for me to get to my workers's comp doctor. But since then, I had recently went to him, asked him for a certified letter. And when he when I received that certified letter, I had taken it back to
my employer, and she had filled out a new employer certificate on that. Okay. Um, are there any questions? >> Yeah, I was do you um because I to be
completely honest um Mr. Alman, we uh I've always looked to you to kind of give guidance as to through these because you have an experience in here, right? So, I I know that you're the chair and normally everybody else is supposed to go first, but I was looking to see what your thoughts are and then
ask Mr. Thorowitz what his thoughts are and stuff like that. That's because I have mine, but >> I can make a suggestion. Um, certainly the board can recall the petitioner for questions after the property appraiser has an opportunity to present it if the board has questions. So, it may provide
more context to do it that way, but it's it's up to >> this here the other side that I do have a number of questions. >> Okay. Good. Um, I guess I could ask one of them now. As we stand today, are you retired or are you
>> Well, during my employment when this when this incident took place, I was what they call in the I was in the drop. >> Okay. >> And yes, at at today's date, I am retired because that that's an income. And when you're in the drop, if you
leave your employment, your drop don't do nothing for you. It just sits there. So yes, I did start collecting and I did show proof that day with a document the day I left my employment was May 6. That's when the workers cop doctor said I couldn't go
back to work. That's when the fire chief said I'm to turn in my gear by May 7th and that they would proceed with the paperwork. And um May 11th is when I signed to start
receiving my retirement, which it takes a month to do that right >> before you start receiving it. >> But I presented all that evidence and stuff at the magistrate hearing. And then basically what her decision was, she went on to some of the other statues
that I wasn't aware of that I kind of have fulfilled now. Mhm. >> It's just that I got I got that paperwork with me. I just don't know if if it's acceptable by you all with this or what
>> because I do have a doctor's certificate and I do have a new employer certificate. >> Are we able to accept that? >> Yeah, if if I can maybe shed some light on it. So, I think what what the petitioner is saying is he's got some new evidence. uh he's got a
certification that he didn't have at the hearing. >> Yeah. That I think that would basically cover my partial denial that I received back in June. >> Yeah. So the the problem at the hearing and and the reason why the magistrate recommended denying this, it's a very
it's a technical statute. >> Yeah. >> We get one one or two of these every year. Every one of them is unfortunate. Uh statutes have to be strictly construed. In this case, the certification presented at the hearing, it's uh it's a
cardiac issue. Let me read from it because I want to get it right. So, for cardiac events, the statute requires certification from a treating cardiologist linking the event to a line of duty non-rine stress within 24 hours and ruling out pre-existing vascular
disease. Um, in this case, that's he did not have the treating cardiologist certification that met the requirements for a cardiac dis based disability. the statute has problems. Um, but under the statute,
the special magistrate, in my opinion, uh, made the right recommendation. And while perhaps it would be, you know, it would make sense to to hear the new evidence at this point. I'm going to recommend against it. The board should not really cannot consider new evidence
that wasn't presented at the hearing. So, um, >> and just so you know, I understand that because all the documents that were sent to me was saying that no new evidence could be presented, but I was, like I said, I went to that magistrate hearing
for a denial to prove that I did not retire. It didn't specify any of the other statutes, which I wasn't, like I said already, I wasn't aware of until that magistrate hearing. Then I went back and did my research and found out what I had to do on my own.
>> Just a quick question. So what are his options to get this new evidence heard? What what can he do? >> Well, he can certainly uh assuming that uh the final decision from the VAB denies his petition. Uh he can appeal to
the circuit court. Whether the outcome will be any different, I you know, I can't say. with new evidence that that then fulfills what we needed. >> Yeah, but we it it I don't think that would help because that evidence cannot be considered at this point.
>> While I don't enjoy saying it, I think the only option is to reapply next year. >> We're sort of >> I'm not I can't give legal advice. That's just my my impression. >> We're sort of sitting as an appellet court just like when you go to the circuit court, you don't retry the case.
You look at issues of law. Yep. >> And so we can only look at the issues that were presented at the time of the hearing. >> That that's a good that's a good uh >> but you did say that he could redo it next year. Did I just hear that? >> Yeah, he can certainly apply next year. >> But let me ask this. So if we're not
allowed to take any evidence, then why is it that we allow to hear an individual come up and give testimony and take their testimony in as part of evidence? And if so even though we don't have the documentation is there um
because where I again the process where if the man who is a normal citizen receives a document that says this is what I am being denied for then he comes to that and says I am responding to that
but then finds out at the meeting that there's a host of other statutes and doesn't understand 100% that and I know how difficult those statutes are for the average citizen to get >> they're very difficult to read. I agree. >> I think um is there a case inside of the
statutes that says that if a person is being charged for X or saying denied for X, comes back and fulfills that X but then is told otherwise because the formal letter that probably went to him did not have any of the other statutes
that were presented. So is that am I following the right? Well, I guess what I can say is, you know, when they come when petitioners, when the property preparer presents before the board at a a meeting like this, certainly they can recite uh whatever evidence is in the
record. They can present argument. Um but really the purpose of reconsideration uh and and the extent of the board's discretion is if the magistrate did not apply the law correctly and that mean to the facts in the record. So, what
Commissioner Alman said is is very accurate. Um, this is similar to an appellet court where evidence the the time for that was at the hearing. >> But if the citizen didn't know, and and I know you're not the one that you're just giving the information. If the citizen did not know that those were
other areas that may need to be fulfilled, then we lost the opportunity to notify them and for him to actually make an argument back. And so it's kind of a loophole that falls into place. So now he comes before us, has evidence
that we're not supposed to see physical evidence, but we can take his testimony evidence. >> Well, not if not not if it not not if it presents new facts, >> which which he he does. I mean, I'm not saying I see what you're saying. >> Yeah. So, you know, if if it's whether
it's um testimonial or documentary, the board can't consider it. >> Yeah. >> They may present it, but the board can't. I'm sorry to the property appraiser for not giving you the opportunity to come up here yet. I'm sorry. I'm just working through some of the processes, man. >> I told Well, I don't know about that, but I told I'm sorry with that thing.
Um, basically what he's saying is what is kind of like my argument is that I went because I got a letter for denial, a partial denial for I left my employment for retirement. And it, yes, it's my ignorance for not
knowing the statues. I guess you could say that. But his point is pretty much exactly what I'm trying to explain. Yes, I understand you you're not allowed to take new evidence and everything, you know, and my only alternative is to reapply
and that basically I'm here to argue whatever, you know. I I don't I don't I don't get it. And for me, from the scope of he came to a a special magistrate meeting under the the idea that this is what he needed to defend himself. They
presented new evidence at that meeting that said that he did not. Okay. Well, if you met this, then we're going to apply these that he didn't know about. So now there's no opportunity for him because at that meeting is the last meeting to actually present any
documentation. And so if he didn't bring it from his car or anywhere else or have the opportunity to present, I really have an issue with that. You know what I mean? But we haven't heard from the property appraiser and stuff like that. So >> I I go ahead if I have, sir. >> Yeah. >> So my question is this piece of evidence
that you have that we haven't been able to see yet. >> Have Have you seen it? >> Just >> Not that I know of. No, he hasn't seen it because >> So if you gave that to us today, then how do we know that that fulfills the
previous hole? >> Well, it may not. >> Exactly. That's how how would I know if it did or did not >> for better or worse. And just to be perfectly direct, it doesn't matter. The board should not, and I say should, cannot consider new evidence.
>> Right? I'm not saying this is a the right uh moral decision >> or or outcome, but legally it's it's not a difficult one. >> And just out of for process, today is not the final day that
we have to make this decision, right? Or is today the day we make it? Well, for all practical purposes, this is the last um opportunity for anyone to do anything with this case other than >> approve approve the recommendation.
There won't be any other >> um you know uh requests for relief. So this will be it >> practically >> for this year of course. >> Is there an avenue to request the and and again processes right just playing around here. Is there a request for us
to ask the property appraiser to take a look at what's been presented or no? Is there a loop back to them saying, "Hey guys, like he's presented some new stuff. We're trying to head off a man who obviously feels justified in what he did, had a situation inside the
magistrate. Is there a way to have that? Is there a path for that in this?" >> I would recommend against it. Okay. >> Uh the board is required to sit neutally. Mhm. >> Um and while I I know it's not the intention to be um favoring one side or
the other, I get that. But I think that it could be interpreted that way. The board's role role is to consider the evidence and apply the law only. So I perhaps that in isolation wouldn't be wouldn't violate any particular rule, but as a practice, I wouldn't recommend it.
>> And I and I can understand why that's in place, right? the amount of energy that somebody can do after the fact and make arguments and do all that stuff is there. I just feel that under the circum circumstances if your guidance is that we have to make decisions based on the old evidence that's one thing but when
an individual's told by statutory law this is what he has to file um is the statute in the same subsections or is it just an entirely other subsection that they brought you know what I mean >> it's all it's 196102 it's >> it's all self-contained I mean
>> it's all ABCD >> but they only said one okay I'm sorry >> it's okay >> I have one more question So if we deny this today, is there anything that the property appraiser can do to change the decision
that has already been made? So my question is is if we say no, we have to follow the law. >> Can he go back to the property appraiser and say, >> "Hey, look, I know I just got denied everywhere, but this is this is the truth. This is my document." Can the property appraiser change their mind? I
guess is my question. I guess the new >> the honest answer is yes. Whether they would or not I, you know, it's really not my place, >> right? >> So there's a place where the property appraiser can look at all of this and say before the next time we meet that this is >> justified.
>> If I could one thing and this this doesn't solve anything today, but every taxpayer is entitled to an informal meeting with the property appraiser >> for multiple reasons. That's a good idea. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
>> If I could just finish my point, I'm happy to to but >> that's a great place even if you don't get what you're ultimately asking for to figure out what you might need, >> right? >> So, I I'm not suggesting that that helps at all today, >> right?
>> But that is something every taxpayer is entitled to do. And I I don't know exactly how those conferences generally go, but I would imagine that at least in a case like this, it might give the taxpayer an idea of what might be missing. So, you're saying >> before you get to the VAB, >> right? Before they get to the special
magistrate. >> Yeah. Before they even file file a petition. >> Okay. >> Okay. Could I ask you a question on that? Since the informal meeting, I did request one. I What's your definition of an informal meeting? Can I ask you that?
>> I don't really have one. I I think >> is there one? I would think that it would be a meeting face to face to explain what the statue is, what I didn't do, and stuff like that. Help because that's that's another problem I have is
everybody I talked to, I couldn't get no answers and asking questions. I did request an informal meeting. The lady that contacted me, I was on the road, she contacted, left a message. So, I called her thinking we could set up an informal face toface meeting. Uh her
reply was no. She's rechecked everything. There's and that's it. It's still denied. So I didn't even have a chance to go ask what did I need at that point before the magistrate hearing or anything like that. >> Can you can you walk through that series
of events? So you called the special you called the property appraiser. >> Yeah. Or the lady that was representing the property appraiser. >> Yes, sir. I I emailed a request for an informal meeting and in doing so I hadn't heard back. So
finally I got a phone call. I was coming back from an appointment and I was on the road. I return I listened to the message. I returned the phone call and the reply from her was is that um when I asked her about an informal
meeting, which to me I thought it would just be like a sit down face to face go over stuff. um because I was trying to present evidence showing what the denial said about the retirement, not about the other statutes that I have fulfilled.
But anyways, and she says that she went back and she contacted all that stuff and she said it's it's still denied. So that was where it was left at. There was no setup to meet with her or anything like that. >> At was that prior to the um special
magistrate? >> Yes, sir. It was. And at that point did they >> because that was my first step was to request an informal meeting before you petition for a magistrate meeting >> and was at that point did they mention that any of those other statutes would be uh presented to you? >> No.
>> Okay. Only thing it was is that basically we stuck to what the denial letter says that it was a partial denial from the employer stating that I left under retirement and that she's went back and checked her system and all that stuff and it's still
denied. Okay. And I know there ain't going to be no record of it because none of the phone calls are recorded, but that's exactly what took place because that's I just thought that was to me in a way it was unprofessional. >> Did you ask at that point um can I have
a sit down? Can we talk? >> Yes. And she said there was no reason for it. >> Okay. >> I think I understand. >> I wonder should we hear from the property appraisers? >> Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I was I think we've heard enough from >> Yeah, let's go ahead and move here.
>> We have may have more questions after result. >> Yeah, we might have some more. Just let's >> kind of fill in some of those gaps. Now, >> um this property was denied a first responder total and permanent disability because um the employer certificate was
incorrect. And also under chapter 196102 which what he files for it lists several documents you have to have and one of them is a c a certification from a cardiologist saying that the the cardiac event happened within 24 hours of why
you leave that was not presented that's what he has now this goes back again to January one you have to have your documents in place at the time he did not have those documents so we had a denial for the um the employer certificate said he retired, he wasn't
medically discharged from work and also that he um the cardiologist report wasn't there. So that's why the denial and that's why the special magistrate, excuse me, denied it also. Now, as far as informal conference there, as as the
attorney said, there's no definition. We talk to people on the phone for conferences. People come in at conferences. There is no statutory defined. in a conference means someone has to sit across the table from each other. So he was spoken to um told that he was denied and that's all I have for
our side. >> Is there in in the rules or the guidelines for the property appraisers office is there a statement that says maximum number of informal
meetings? No, sir. The statute >> thou shalt not exceed kind of thing. >> No, the statute says um the the taxpayer has ability to have an informal conference with the property appraiser. It doesn't say 27 10 11. It doesn't. >> Okay. >> Do you know just off the top of your
head how many of those informals actually occurred in person last year by >> I'm sorry. We've got five four offices and I know and you know I couldn't tell you how many people. So, anybody that comes through the V um the VAB and says, "Hey, I'd like to have an informal."
>> It goes to each office. >> It could be depending on, you know, um if you filed for me in for an exemption in Melbourne and we denied you in Melbourne, we don't want to make you come to Titusville, >> right? >> So, it could be, >> but you don't have like a centralized person that says, "Hey, reach out." You
know what I mean? It's that that actual branch would reach back out to the individual and say, "Hey, here's what it is." >> No, not one certain person. >> Right. Okay. And then um >> we get 20 some thousand applications for homestead a year. So one person >> totally understand. Um and then in in
the fact that it's geographic like that are those geographical areas the ones that are making those decisions meaning that here's here's my thought. They make an application. The application comes down to the central house. There's somebody internal that's reviewing them and doing it legally and everything else. They then send that back out to
the other geographical area and then they're supposed to reach out and set these informals. Is that kind of the process that you guys have? >> Let's say you come into our Palm Bay office and file. >> Yes, sir. >> The Palm Bay staff does the preliminary review and they make the recommendation. Grant it, don't grant it. When it's not granted, then it's moved up to our
Titusville main office. Okay. Where a higher level person looks at it and then she processes the denial, sends out all the notices and everything else. So, but then she sends that back to the the Palm Bay office, say for instance. >> No, no, no. >> So, the Palm Bay office doesn't know if
those So, if I said these are denied um send them up to the Titusville office, you said Titusville office then sends out all of the notices, right? >> Correct. >> Um at that time, does the Titusville office let that Palm Bay office know these were denied and this is the reason
why? No, the Palm Bay office told the Titusville office to deny them. So, so we have the Titus law office manager, whatever look at it, say, "Yeah, I agree. It should be denied. Let me handle." >> But if the Titusville office does the Titusville office ever look at the ones that they do here and say, "No, no, no." And send >> Oh, yeah. That could happen also.
>> Okay. And then they would send back. >> Mhm. >> But if they say they deny it and then they support it, there's some kind of communication back to the Palm the Palm Bay office that says these were all supported, these were denied or whatever, they know. So, they're not getting some random >> in our processing in the comment section. and the fact that the property does not show a home set up on our
records. Yes. >> Okay. And then that that office is the one that they set up the informal with because that's respectful because of the amount and the geographical area. They know the area better and everything else. >> Well, it's not known area. It's just our we we don't like to make the people drive from Palm Bay to Titusville just
to talk to someone when they can get the same answer. Palm Bay. >> I agree with you. >> But we do have people come from Palm Bay to Titusville to want to talk. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry guys. I'm just going through the process a little bit. So, >> okay, >> that's good.
>> Okay, I think uh do we have any other questions then? >> I do have one other question if I may. So, am I correct in saying that if the petitioner is denied by us today, he can
come back to your office next year and reapply for this with all of the new documentation that he has? >> He can actually do it today for next year. >> Can he Oh, wait. Excuse me. I'm sorry. March 2nd. I'm I'm a couple days ahead. Anytime after March 2nd, he can come in and file because we're still filing for
this current year. But anytime after March 2nd, >> as far as you're concerned, the documents, those two documents are are what got the denial in the first in in the first place. >> The contents of one, the lack of the other is what's the denial.
>> Okay. So, if he has something um that fixes the content of one and has the new one, in your professional opinion, is it likely that this will go in his favor? I would have to look at him. I wouldn't I
would say if his his documents meet the statutory requirements, yes, you would be eligible for the exemption. >> Okay. Thanks. That's my question. >> Can you apply for the exemption and go back a year retroactive? >> No, sir. >> No retroactive.
>> So, can I ask a couple of just process? I'm sorry to keep going through. >> No. No. >> So, the tax um so he receives the form that says that this is your taxes. He goes in and makes the application. Then he received the
date that the special magistrate um he he sent a list of documentation saying to come in. And you said, sir, that in that document that you sent to him, it did state the cardiac piece. >> Chapter 19610 has a whole bunch of requirements just like I said earlier
that there's a statute that says driver's license, vehicle registration, voters registration. 102 says you need certification. You need employer certification showing you're medically discharged. you need a um cardiac report for 24 hours. There's several things under that statute. Yes, sir.
>> So, you referred the statute, but when the the actual denial was based upon half of the first and the not showing up of the second, was any of that in there. Was he notified in any way of those specific line items? >> I don't have it with I can't tell you exactly that it said per statute 102,
you have this, but you don't have X, Y, and Z. I can't say that that >> and I wouldn't ask you to cuz it's you know, it's not your thing. So, thank you. I was just trying to figure out >> because what it does is it um if he if a statute is referenced but there's no
specifics to the statute, right? Then you have this big thing. If they're saying specifically to those parts of the statutes, then this gentleman would say, "Okay, I feel like I'm here." My whole hangup here is is that and it and it may not be that we can do anything, but the whole thing is is that if an individual was sent a letter that said,
"You are being denied for this and this and he comes and says, "I've got them. I did them before January 1st. that did everything and then they come back and say, "Well, you didn't suffice these other pieces." Then I feel like there's a a notice issue that we have in our system. That's all that needs to be a little bit different. So, if I can ask the other gentleman a couple of
questions if that's okay. >> Sure. >> Thank you, sir. Do you have the letter that they sent to you since it seems like you have some paperwork with you? I have the letter of denial and >> and the reference to this to the you have the letter denial from the property
appraiser with the references to the statute. >> No. >> Okay. Well, hang on one second. >> I can shed light on that. I've that that was submitted by the property appraiser. >> Yes, it does have reference to the statue. >> Okay. Can I see that real quick? just
because this is what I was trying to this is the document I was trying >> what I'm arguing right here because the other statutes that he's referring to didn't come into place until after the magistrate hearing. >> So it says and I'll show it to you guys denial of disability. Okay. Employer certification of injury states applicant
left first responder employment due to retirement not disability and then references the Florida statute. So if I'm reading that, I'm reading, okay, I have to go to that section of the Florida statute and respond to that spe section specifically. So he's right. And then what ended up happening is is you
came to the special magistrate meeting and then upon that they applied a series of other statutes that they are used to >> that that they are used to applying. Right? I'm not saying that they're trying to be devious in any way. It's just the circumstance of it. That's if you guys want to see it's right there.
Um, >> uh, June 27th, something like that. >> That's right. >> Yeah, you'll find it on there. >> Yeah, you take a look at it. It's right there in the middle. >> Yeah, cuz they did apply the other statues. Like I said, I wasn't real
familiar with it because this was like totally new to me. >> And again, he's >> And I mean, had I had known that at that time, more than likely, I probably would have had other stuff, you know, if I if I would have read through it. I just felt like I was r not Nobody rushed me. Okay,
for one thing. Um I guess I rushed myself thinking I wanted to make sure I got the the deadline times and dates and all that stuff. >> Sir, I'll be honest with you. The fact that you read the statutes, tried to find out all the stuff, and then came back with an appropriate response is in
my my mind sufficient for what that document says. Um, and the fact that the special magistrate says, "Well, you didn't suffice these other ones." And he was never notified that these other ones were the ones that he would need to protect. I find I find I feel for you. I
do. I don't. >> Um, and what we're trying to do is find a way that this can be fixed >> because I'm I think I heard you sigh when she had mentioned you could go to the um appeal it, but it's going to cost an attorney and everything else
>> and and I try to avoid that. But under that application, as Mr. Thorowitz was saying, any new evidence that may come is not going to be applied applicable. So they would do the same thing to you there that you did here. So the only avenue in grace is what Miss Atkinson,
Commissioner Atkinson, I'm sorry. >> It's fine. >> Um responded to I should have said that with Mr. Alvin. Sorry. Um I know people get mad about their titles sometimes, but um Mr. Mr. Thorowitz, what I'm hearing you say is there is an avenue for him to go to the for property
appraiser as we speak, petition her and say, "Hey, you know what I mean? This is wrong, and she might be able to change it before we come to seal this thing in a month." >> Exactly. >> What's that? >> I mean, is >> I think so. >> There's nothing stopping him from making a request.
>> Mhm. >> That That's really all I can say. >> But she doesn't have to respond to it. There's no statuto. I understand that. But but the fact that he's presented a pretty good one. Let me ask you this. This is my next step. Um is there a way we can table his decision today to see
if she will and then bring it back at a later date to see if we can respond to that after that? Because that might actually ask it's kind of us asking her, hey, um miss m Miss Property Appraiser, listen this guy's got a good pitch. Can you respond to this and then come back
and see? I understand that the representative is inside the audience and he is saying representing her saying this is what it is but I think this man up until now did you try to send this to them afterwards after the first? >> Yeah. >> No, because it's I can only I see the
workers comp doctor >> twice a year. >> Mhm. >> And to get an appointment today you're a month out, two months out, >> which is a whole another issue. >> Yeah. Which doesn't really, you know, it is what it is in today's world. Mhm. >> But my thing is is that I when I found
out what I needed and I had to ask him for a certificate letter stating of my disability and whatever and then I had myself which I thought was unusual according to statutes having to present it to my employer
and that's just the way the statute states it. And so that's what I did. And when I did that, she was there, read it, and she wrote me a new letter because I guess they've updated the new employer certificate is what she said. >> So I think because he has not received
it, the property appraisers not received anything. For us to say that she's making a decision that she may be able to change based upon some evidence or other circumstances or something, I would feel comfortable with asking for that. Um, I just don't know what that
means, Mr. Thorowitz. And can we not have to have a special meeting to have this gentleman come back or can we have it at the last meeting right before we seal it up? >> The board can table it to the to the next meeting. >> Okay. I would um I think it's the only avenue I have right now to try to help
you get where you need to be. >> Um, unfortunately, we're kind of handcuffed as Mr. Thorowitz and he I'll be honest with you, he's a big advocate for the individuals that come in. He's just trying to read the law. No, I I agree with that, you know, because like uh the gentleman was saying, you know,
there imprompt you know, phone calls, you know, and as you all discussed earlier, you know, would be some kind of um advice, information, you know, what steps to take, you know, to get this right would sure, it just seems like it was just so negative and nothing. I
mean, that phone call was short and sweet and >> I think and so here's my my thought process if I can put it together. The individual was told by the statutory piece that we just saw that he was to define himself based upon an argument and then it was referred to a statute
that is vague. So he only had that reference to go back to. He requested and tried to make a phone call through the legal process for an informal conference. That informal conference came as a phone call that he was not able to understand nor from what I understand no new evidence to it to say
that you would also have to have this cardiac thing or anything like that. No, there wasn't because I even told her on the phone when I was talking to her that I have evidence showing that I did not leave my retire or my employment under retirement >> cuz that was the whole subject when I
read it. Even though they state the statue there, you know what her definition of what the deni partial denial was was the that I that the employer certificate said I left under retirement. >> Yeah. you know, that was what I was
focused on. And it would have been different, you know, if I would have had I had dropped some off, which wasn't nothing, but I had more at home to show that I did not retire. And >> did Okay. And >> there was nothing to discuss. Other
words, like, no. >> No, I get it. when somebody you know you would think when you got a government agency like this and you would think you would have a little bit of like tutoring as I should you the word I would use you know with somebody that don't understand and reading some laws some it takes an
attorney to understand some laws a lot of times >> y >> you know and that I don't know >> I got another question >> go ahead >> yes >> just a couple of minutes ago I believe you said you went back to your cardiologist and and they filled out a
new form because they >> because I believe you said >> Oh, they changed the form. So now >> No, no, that was the employer. They changed the employer certificate. >> No, it's okay cuz
>> that was revised October 25. >> If they change the form and they Does that change the process? That doesn't give the taxpayer a chance. >> No, that the form was not changed retroactively.
>> Yeah, >> that that's just not that. >> Yeah, but it could have been so close to the end of the year that with paperwork and people going on vacations and Christmas breaks and things, he didn't >> The form itself hasn't been changed since 2019.
>> Okay. it. Now, what was on the form I think is maybe what >> it's been your form >> how the form was completed because >> I got the old one and I got a new one. >> The um one of the issues was that really the frankly your employer messed up on the form. There was an inconsistency
where it said one thing and then said another thing that was a little different. >> Exactly. >> And that's not your fault. >> Right. >> But the one I think changed based on something like that. >> May I? >> Yeah. That wasn't I will say I don't think that was truly the the primary
issue in this case. It really was the lack of the certification >> if I may. So I feel like we have two choices here. One, we deny now and he goes back to the property appraiser and because he has the evidence he has gets
the decision that he wants for next year. Option two is we table it now. we let him go back to the property appraiser and give their office the opportunity to change their mind. Is that a possibility? Is that something that the property appraiser can do?
>> I I would say they have discretion. >> However, just based on their opposing this through the VAB, >> I I up till today through today, I don't know how likely it is, but >> that's why I asked >> it's a possibility, a theoretical
possibility. That's the reason I asked if he if they have seen any of what he has already presented today and he said no. And I feel like it's not fair for us to say that the property appraiser is going to deny this man without giving her an opportunity to review it. So if
there is discretion that's >> maybe we No, no, no. I would say maybe we should ask the property appraisers's office if that's something that they would even do. >> I don't know. We would never steadfastly deny anybody anything and not take willing to take a look at something. So if you guys want
to table this we I'm not saying we'll grant it but we're definitely willing to look at the property. >> You're awesome. Thank you. >> I would like to make a motion to table. >> Sure. >> Second is >> I don't know if the motion >> I guess the VAB can't direct the property appraisers office to do
anything. However, we could request >> just request. So >> that can't be part of the motion. I think >> the gentleman's here. >> Look over the stuff, make sure he doesn't have anything else that he needs to get together. And >> I think we're saying that we are
tableabling it for the property appraisers review. >> My motion is simply >> I'm going to let you speak. Go ahead. >> Yeah. >> My suggestion is a clean motion to table it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just to >> Okay. Can I ask him one couple of quick
real quick questions and then Sorry, since we're on the piece, can you come up real quick? >> So, you were denied. Can you give me some dates real quick for for this whole process just so I can put it in here because I've got some in-betweens that I was going to look at. You were denied on what day? Do you know? >> I was denied on 627 and 25.
>> Okay. >> That's the letter I received stating that I left my the employer certificate stating I left my employment under retirement. Did you when was this exchange back and forth with the request for the informal? >> Um, >> roughly, it doesn't matter. You can tell me. >> I don't have that email with me, but it
was once >> July, August. >> It had to be some time frame in there. >> Okay. And then um the special magistrate dates, when was that? >> That was October. >> October. I don't need to know this. October 20th or something like that
because it took her 30 days before I received the her reply. >> October 20th >> her decision. >> Okay. Okay. And then you said that and Mr. Thoritz you had mentioned that the his employer had not properly possibly
filled out the paperwork to create the trigger and you had mentioned that the workers comp um is a difficult thing to get a me to get a >> workers comp cardiologist. Yeah. Well, yes. It's just it's hard to get >> I get it >> him to do something like that to actually go to him, present the statute
to him, you know, and then have him write a letter to where I can take that letter and present it to the employer. >> Yeah. Okay. I feel confident with what we're doing. I do. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there a motion in the table? >> It is. I second. All in favor say I. I.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. We will move on to the next case would be uh 20250013. >> Is that you? >> Good morning. >> Sorry you had to go wait all this time sir.
>> My name is Madab Dal. I live in North M island. I have applied for agricultural exemption for our property which we are living as a primary residence.
timely filing and I was denied under uh I was denied by the special magistrate citing the land was not used for bonafide agricultural purpose as outlined in the
Florida statues and I'm here to request for reconsideration based on the Florida statute 193461. uh the land has been continuously used for
agricultural purpose and I'm a new owner started uh November of 2024 and since then I have continued to use it for agricultural purpose. I have uh
submitted the receipts and I have submitted the pictures of the fruit stands uh that we are commercially operated. And the Florida statute 193461 does say
that bonafide commercial agricultural use as of January 1st. The statute does not require profitability schedule filings, tax filings, commercial scale infrastructure or mandatory sale received. But I have
submitted those two. Florida Supreme Court uh confirms the profit profit is not required. However, the recommendation decision relied heavily on the absence of tax filings, lack of document receipts and characterization
as a hobby form. I have two argument based on the denial. The first one is I was told that we are using that as a hobby form and the intent when I bought the property was never to use as a hobby
form. I have set up uh nursery certificate through the Florida Department of Agriculture. I have EIN as a LLC on that business operating under LLC. So
having all those activities, commercial activities under Florida law, I feel that the Florida law uh statute 193461 was not, you know, had a problem when
special magistry applied that. That's what I feel. >> I'll be quiet for a while. I've used up all my time already. I think we should ask property appraisers. >> Let's hear from the property. >> Good. >> Thank you.
>> VAB's attorney's going to have to help me on this one. This one was denied as untimely. So, do I need to say anything at all? >> Well, that's up to you. Um, that's really up to you. Yeah. So, so I I don't know if the this request for reconsideration is valid or not. Do you
have to rule on that first before we talk or >> Well, I don't mind saying yes. It it wasn't it was untimely. >> The board the board's rules require request to be submitted within 10 days of the recommendation. This was submitted about a month and a half later. So, it is untimely. I did go through why I thought it it was
nonetheless substantively correct in my memo. I'm happy to discuss that if the board reaches that. >> Uh but it was significantly untimely. That's a strict rule. I don't recommend um making an exception that if the board makes an exception, it's got to make an
exception across the board. So that basically does away with the deadline. >> What is the Okay. All right. And the purpose behind having that strict deadline of 10 10 days, are they supposed to when they have that?
Sorry. Um, if they have that 10day rule, are they supposed to go back, get all of their arguments, their paperwork, and come back to that or just signify that they are arguing this? >> All that's required, I mean, you know, they could submit more certainly, but
all that's required is to identify uh a legal issue that they believe is incorrect. >> Okay. >> My understanding is that you have 10 days to say, "Hey, I've got a problem with this. I I want it to be looked at." But then you have an additional time frame to produce all of your information
and all of your supporting evidence. >> The evidence would already be in the record at that point. So that the request process happens well let me let me back up a step. So first there's the hearing. At some point after after that within 21 days typically the recommendation is issued
by the special magistrate. Within 10 days of that if either party disagrees with it that's their deadline to submit a request for reconsideration. So at that point, any evidence has been in the record for for quite a while, you know, at least a month or so. >> So you're well into the process as the
petitioner. You're well into >> you're really really the whole process is behind you. >> Yeah. >> And then in this case, the he did not. So you have the hearing, then they had the 21 days to respond, the 10 days to say that um 21 days to respond to say
this is what the decision we're going to make. 10 days on the deadline for them to argue to make the reconsideration. And then what is the process after that? They say we do want to have this reconsidered and then they come here or >> within 10 days of the recommendation being issued. They submit a written
request for reconsideration. After that the other side responds, I believe within 10 days >> and then ultimately it's heard by the bo by the board like today. Just to round it out a little bit, you know, these cases are about whether it's
a bonafide commercial agricultural operation. Um, it's not absolutely required, but typically financial documentation uh is a is a key piece of evidence. In this case, there was none.
I don't mean a little. There was none. Uh there the only documentation submitted by the petitioner was a copy of the statute. Um so you know again that's not in and of itself dispositive. Um but it
without any financial document you know there's no schedule F which an agricultural operation would have to file with the IRS if they're a bonafide you know if they're if they're an actual operating business that would be uh required. It's it's a you know federal
law. Uh there was nothing there wasn't that there wasn't anything else. Um, so candidly this was not a close case. >> I have a question. I'm just curious in reading the report.
It states that the petition's concerns of denial of agriculture classification. This special magistrate recommended denial concluding the petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the property was being used primarily for a bonafide commercial
agricultural purpose as of January 1. Doesn't say anything in that initial statement about filing late. >> I'm not sure what uh >> this is 103, isn't it? 2025 00103.
That's it didn't really say anything about and then it goes into the issues. It's not clear under that report. >> I think that's my summary opinion. >> Okay. >> In the uh >> but it wasn't denied because it did not establish proponent. You're saying it
was denied because of it wasn't timely. >> No, no, no. I'm sorry if I misspoke. >> Okay. >> The request for reconsideration was untimely. Nothing else was untimely that that I know of. The request for reconsider reconsideration that's before the board right now.
>> It was submitted approximately six weeks after the recommended decision. 10 days is the is the deadline. >> Oh, so it was uh right. It was untimely. >> Really, the board can't shouldn't go past that issue. But I'm here to say
>> if the board even if the board did, it was not a particularly close case on the merits. >> But I don't think the board reaches that. Sorry. No, that's okay. I understand. That clarifies it. >> So, you're saying that it that that we
have an issue of untimeliness and that uh >> No, I mean, I don't mind him responding. >> Pardon me. >> If he wanted to I was going to ask him real quick the processes and stuff like that if you can. >> Yeah.
>> If the request was u >> Can you go through the whole Can you go >> attend this? Can we go just real quick run right through it? So, you received it from the um property appraiser that they were going to deny yours. Yeah. >> You then said, "Okay, upon that letter
that this gentleman had, >> it stated some things inside of there that said that you are being denied because of this." And then you brought that to the hearing, correct? >> Uh >> and then from the hearing, they found 21 days later that they were not they were going to deny you and you had 10 days to
come here. Is that correct? >> 10 days to submit the request. >> Okay. I just want to make sure the timing was there. Okay. Now, >> so my so everything is new to me, you know. So one that's one thing but that might not be enough thing >> for me. But what I did was once I was
notified that I was denied, I re-engaged with the VAP office VA office and this was uh November 19, 2025. Upon receiving the denial of denial on November 19,
2025, I immediately contacted the VAB clerk requesting guidance regarding deadlines and rights. This demonstrate the intent to comply. I did not get the answer of hey, we have to apply within 10 days. I did not get
that. There was a communication. All I was provided was a link pro. There was just one link that's all. It didn't say 10 days or 12 days or anything. I didn't know that part. Had I known that I would have immediately met the deadline. That
was my argument on that time. I have my intent was always there because the moment I received email it did not go past one hour for me to respond to that VAB email and I got was the link and the
link even going through the link I could not find the 10 days anywhere and that was brought later in the day later in the case. Why did not I was notified hey you have to do this within 10 days because my question was what are my
rights what I have to do was my question I did not just put vaguely I asked the guidance on that one why didn't I get the guidance why didn't I get hey 10 days this is this I would have responded
in hours not even days you know so that's my argument ment and and obviously going through this step this kind of things first time is a different ballgame you know now if I have to do next time I would know but
the intent is there for me to respond and I have all the emails that I contacted the VA office and the email clearly didn't give me the guidance just gave me the link so that's my argument on that late filing it was never
intended. It happened that way because of the poor guidance >> was was the Yeah, ma'am. >> Chairman. So, yes, we're not allowed to give legal advice. So, we did email him the link for him to review the request for reconsideration procedures on his
own and 1.1.5 gives the timing of the request on the first page. So, that's why we did what we did because we're not allowed to give legal advice, but we did advise him of the link in order to find so he can read it for himself. So, you provided him a link to that.
>> It's on our VAB web page. Um, it's under file a petition and it's under the local procedures. So, it's on there two or three times, but I went ahead and just sent him the link so that he didn't have to go look for it. He can just click on it. >> And you said the deadline is on where is it? >> 1.1.
>> No, no, I know, but where is it notified that where does he when does he receive besides the link something that says you have 10 days to respond? when he called when he called and asked that's when when I knew to send it to him.
>> Okay. But you weren't able to tell him the 10 days. You just said here's some rules and regulations. You have to >> throw it. That's we don't allow like the statutory laws to be sent out and say, "Hey, you have 10 days for this." Or no, cuz then it could be construed a different way.
>> It it Yeah. The the clerk cannot give legal advice even something like that. It's it's a bad practice to even open that door a little bit. Uh, you know, it's a legal question. What is my deadline? That requires legal interpretation. It may be simple in this
case. It's maybe not the best example, but uh the clerk did the right thing here. >> Okay. Okay. So I think maybe we have two decisions to make here. >> Mhm.
>> One, first is do we decide we want to allow this to be heard even though it was untimely. Sounds like we have that option. It's been recommended that it might open a little bit of a Pandora's box, but it sounds like we do have an
option if there's certain circumstances. I'm I think um that would be our first decision. And our second decision is then review the case on the merits of the issue which is also well obviously it's denial because
he wouldn't be appealing at all but so that that's where we stand. >> Mr. Thor with just a question. Um Pandora's box, can you tell us what that is just so we understand? >> What I'll say is if if the board
disregards the deadline in one case, there's going to be an argument in every other case that the same thing thing has to be done or you're not giving uh due process ac equally. >> Could that >> and I could I could also >> um >> I mean that'd be a stretch.
>> Yes, I think it might that there's an argument that it could be. Additionally, I think it's foreseeable that there could be a complaint to the department of revenue. Just, you know, got to advise the board of that. >> We're not. >> These are all reviewed by the do, right? Department.
>> Um, not really. No, not not each and every one. >> Not each one. But, but the >> the you know, if the board is >> the tax role, I guess, is reviewed in the process. It's more of an audit. They may pick out certain things. are made up but not each and every one. Okay, that's
good to know. Okay, so um you're saying that and and again I'm just running through this process. I didn't hear what you said. Can you repeat what you had said? >> You mean Yeah, you stated something. I couldn't hear it because I was coming here. >> Oh, retroactively the Pandora's box
question was what? like he said, if you open up the 10 or if you blow out the 10day >> um requirement >> for one, you have to do it for all. And then I asked him, I said, "And could it even go back retroactively?" So, like
somebody who had uh a request denied in 19 99 because of the 10-day requirement and they could now honestly I don't know how they would hear about it but they could and then
you could open up the dam you know >> unless we put like u parameters and say he responded within a certain amount of time with the intent to do this but was you know blah blah blah blah but Yeah. >> Can't do that thoroughly. >> I I wouldn't recommend changing the rule. Um sort of exposacto.
>> Yeah. >> No. >> Okay. >> What are you thinking, >> Commissioner? >> My thought is I don't like the process. Um I don't like how it doesn't work for people who don't know.
>> But I sure don't think that we should change the rule of a of a 10-day response time. I think that's very dangerous. >> Respectfully, >> um, the process works the way it's supposed to in almost every case. And
the way it's supposed and what I mean by that, a request for reconsideration is not something that should be done in in each case. >> It should be the exception by far because it's really only for when you see that the special magistrate has misapplied the law.
>> That is a rare occurrence in reality. Um and and the rules, you know, these are rules which I I wouldn't say most, but many VABs across the state uh have adopted similar or nearly identical rules and that the Department of Revenue
has >> I'm not going to say they've approved them. That's not quite accurate. But they've been attacked in various ways and they've never been um the department's never uh sustained any of those attacks. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So the rules themselves uh appear to be valid by by all
measures. Um >> the rules sure but the but the resident going through the process >> that's >> that's my problem is is is it is >> it it could be made more user friendly I think but in this particular case we're
talking about filing timely. there was a link that was given um to get there and for me again ignorance is not >> that's why I brought all these forward >> yeah that was not a complete thought and
I apologize >> the the um the link was to the request for reconsideration rules um you know t the rule regarding timing of requests it it's fairly It's as clear as possible
that there's a 10-day deadline. I I don't know what else could be done other than that. And I wouldn't recommend asking the clerk to go further than that because again, that's like disregarding the the 10day deadline.
Uh it's very difficult where to draw the line when we do things like that or when the board, pardon me, does things like that. >> Okay. Can we get a I know she um you showed us a piece of paper that Can you
let us look at that? That'd be helpful. >> I think he's got >> this was included in the email. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. It basically reads it's on the front page is toward the bottom second to um last paragraph timing of request request
request for reconsideration must be received by the value adjustment board clerk not later than 10 count calendar days after each party receives notice that a recommended decision has been filed. Petitioners who have designated
US mail as their preferred contact method must provide their request for reconsideration no later than 10 calendar days after the time stamp on the special match register decision. on the first page
>> it is. It's a lot of words but >> yeah I get it and that's exactly how it comes. >> Yeah, >> if it it does and I think I think all of us are sympathetic to the people who are here today. You know what I mean? I think that that's that's not a question.
I think it's just the process of how and that's why I brought these changes today to talk about a little bit. >> Yeah. And I'm also pulled up the petition the form and I assume this is section 194.011 Florida statute. I would assume this
form was probably developed by rule. It is 12D-16.002 Florida administrative code by probably by department of revenue petition to value adjustment board request for hearing on that form.
It's not real clear. There is a I I haven't even been able to maybe it's here. I just quickly reviewed it. Been able to find where they actually set forth the 10day. >> That's not a It's not a It wouldn't be on that. That's a local procedure.
So, it's not something the Do promulgates. >> Oh, really? Okay. It It does say um Okay. And that's developed by the state or developed by the county?
Uh the the reconsideration rules were adopted by this board, >> right? >> Well, okay. Um it does say final paragraph, other assessment appeals, the petition for petitions on
the denial of a classification or exemption or based on an argument that the property was not substantially complete January 1. all at nonavalorm assessments and the amount of the abalor taxes the taxpayer amount in good faith less okay I I don't think there's
anything on this form and the question is and I don't know if that's an issue this is not directly only related to this request but is there a way that we could better notify the consumer the taxpayers
>> together and pardon me of their rights >> yeah they um I'm not sure if you guys saw the piece of paper that was here that Mr. Thoritz and I were working on. >> This was what I felt like at the last meeting is that I felt like there was a bunch of different areas that we could increase
>> education and opportunity for for the right decision- making. >> That's where this was. It's funny that we have everybody come in on the day this is. It's almost like it's planned. >> Exactly. >> But I hear you. Who who developed the form though? That is the um That's not
the local VAB or those. It's the state. >> Which form? the form that he's looking at currently. That is the form they fill out. >> Yes, >> that's a do form. >> Yeah, that's what I figured. And on the do form, it doesn't have any of the rules and regulations. That should be a secondary form that we tell them the
rules, right? >> For the for reconsideration. Yeah. Yeah. That would be something the board issues. >> Okay. And that's something that would be separate from this petition if we're trying to >> correct make it more use back to this
petition. Um, I remind everyone too that it was untimely, but also it was denied. So, we may not have the option to or it may not be desirable. Our council's recommended that we don't make an
exception, but certainly we could as a body look at these issues of of taxpayer notification just to make it more user friendly. So we understand your point. Unfortunately, we may not. Do you want to show us that form? I know you
>> I wanted to sort this. Really? >> Okay. >> You can give it to the chair. He can disseminate it how he wants. >> Okay. >> That deal forms statewide. We not have our local rules. They're all different. >> Okay. Do you want to explain to us what
you've circled? >> Yeah, the circle means immediately after I received the denial, I asked those three questions and those three questions straightly says, "Let me know if any statues or time deadline runs
out." So, >> and what they did when they when you asked all good questions, they responded by giving you the the link to the statute. >> Okay. And this is the document that we
have here, local procedures for requests. And this is straight from the statute. >> Is this statutory language? I can I don't know >> that those are the local reconsideration procedures that's adopted by by the VA
this VA. >> Okay. We could probably make these a little more understandable. >> That's what I was getting. >> Yeah. That's incumbent upon us. So >> So this seems like >> this is ironic that >> stay right there. We um this is a form
that you sent back to the VAB. And is that this this piece of paper right here is you state right here? >> That's an email. >> When did you send this back? Yeah, it's an email. When did you send this back? Was it within the 10 days? >> December 19th. Oh, sorry. November 19th.
>> Is that within the 10 days? >> It was hours right after I received the denial. >> The denial. And then when you sent this to her, you guys sent back a link and inside that link, it formulated everything that he's supposed to do in
the in the is that Mr. Thoritz you want to say? >> Yeah. >> The magistrate's recommendation was issued October 25th. >> Okay. >> So this that was over about a month later. So that was well over 10 days later. >> So it's outside the 10 days. >> Oh yes. >> Well outside.
>> Can you explain that? He's saying that you received it. You received the um notice that you were denied, Mr. Thurman, >> October 25th. >> On October 25th, and you're stating that you sent the email
November 19th or something. >> The date I have is November 19 for the denial from the VAV. >> So he's saying >> So he's saying November, you're saying October. He says he received his denial
on November 19th. >> Uh the date >> I got from bab at bart clark us. That's where I got from. >> Can you guys verify all these dates? >> I will add either way that request is
still quite on time. >> I'm just trying to figure out again process what those dates that he said. Do you have the time stamp of or do you have the time stamp of when that email came? >> I I have the email. I can print >> what they sent you because there seems to be some kind of a
like you're saying you didn't receive the denial until November. He's saying you got it in October. Where's the difference there? Is that right? >> Uh yeah, our system shows that the uh recommendation was issued October 25th.
>> And that's issued in what way? Sent to him in an email. Is that emailed to the petitioner? >> Again, the process >> once the decision has been rendered, we mail and email everything out. So, it looks like his was actually emailed out
to him on 11:20 or 11:119 and he had 10 days from that date to request a reconsideration. It >> says October 2. So on 1119 he received it and then
responded back with the request of all of that and then in it it said can you tell me of all those dates and you sent I'm not going to be in the middle of this. You sent a link to him. >> Yes, I sent the link to him whenever he emailed or called and asked about what his next steps were. I referred him to
the request for reconsideration because I cannot give legal advice. He had to take that upon himself to read through it to see if he met the statutory requirements for what was going on in those requests for reconsideration procedures. >> And what is the official
request for reconsideration form or way that he does that? How does he let how does he notify? >> There is no form. He just emails us the reason why he feels like he was denied and then we forward that on to the property appraiser and we also give it to Aaron and Aaron makes a decision as
well and he his >> so the email that he said he sent >> within how long? An hour or two afterwards that you >> Yeah, it says 11:20 here in this form from VA though. >> It's okay. You I mean you're clearly within 10 days on your email, but you
you emailed what you just showed me, which is still within our right of evidence, right, to the VAB, correct? Uh-huh. >> And that's that form that you sent that that you just showed me was an email you sent to M Miss Nicole and then she
emailed you the link. Is that the process? >> Yeah. Procedure is what it >> If you read that, it looks like he's trying to say I have um an issue with this. Can I see that again? >> That's not what I need. I need the other
form that you have. >> It's not a form. It's an email. >> Email. I'm sorry. The email. I I didn't print the email. I >> The one you just showed us. >> You just showed me something. >> It had a big circle on it. >> This one? >> Where? Where did Where was this? When did you make this? And where did this go?
>> This was from November 19th. >> And And did you submit this to them in an email? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Those are the three questions. >> So, you received Miss You received this and then you sent him the link. >> Yeah. >> What is it?
>> That's I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. >> I don't have that. I don't have that. >> That was sent way later. December >> December >> after the 10 days. >> Do you have the date on it? December 30th.
>> December 30th. >> December 30th. Yes. >> That's when this came. >> This came Yes. After the fact, the very first I don't know if it was an email or a phone call. I >> think it was a phone call. >> And then we sent him
>> the link to go look at >> the request for reconsideration and the local procedures. Yeah. >> To see what we do. >> And we leave that then up to him to decide >> how he's going to handle it. If he didn't respond within that 10 days, that
doesn't fall on the >> No, I know. I just didn't know. He was stating that this is what he sent. >> No, he did send that, but he did not send that until the December 30th emails that came. >> Yeah, I just was trying to get clarification because in here it states that he's >> So, you didn't send it on the 19th. You
sent it on sometime in December is what she said. Okay, I'm good. Again, >> may I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> Mr. County Attorney, could you possibly articulate the question that is before
us right now >> whether the request for reconsideration was submitted within 10 days of issuance of the recommended decision? And if so, it's timely and it can be considered on the merits. And if not, it
should be denied. I'm good. I've I've got I've sufficed myself. Whenever you guys are ready to roll. Make a motion. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. Let's go. Let's hear a motion. What do we >> Oh, that's right. I'll move to approve the recommendation.
>> Okay. There's a motion to approve the recommendation. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion on the motion to approve the recommendation? Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Cares unanimously. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Uh, we certainly understand your situation and we may make some corrections in the future. >> We appreciate what happened. Unfortunately, we have the laws of the 10 days and our clerk did a good job of
sending you the link which we understand because of laws and everything else, but it's difficult because you were denied and then based upon the time frame was not followed. I think that's where I felt my judgment was. So, I appreciate you. >> The last point I want to make is I was
told this was sent on December. It's not December. It's it's still November 19th. I'm doing live. >> Yeah. No, she sent that to you on the 19th, but they need intent based upon their link that you are going to argue
against it and you want a formal um you know hearing in front of us. >> They're saying they did not receive that within the 10 days and you're they're saying that that form that you showed me was not sent until December, which is after the 10 days. Okay. >> So,
Okay, >> thank you for your time. We will go to the next item which I'm trying to pull up here. >> I've been looking at statutes and >> Okay, what is our next item? I've lost the agenda because I pul Oh, here it is.
I got it. The next item is 2025-01 >> 297. >> I don't >> That was removed, sir. >> Yeah, that was removed. >> That's removed. >> Okay, good. >> How do How do we go about removing them since we've got >> a couple of them? Is there a process that you guys say that they're not they
have not signified that they're coming in? >> Is there another Go ahead. >> I can take that. There was a notice issue on this one. I think if I'm remembering correctly, the property appraiser, there was a typo on the email. Um, it was not the clerk's fault
that it was not the clerk's typo, just to be clear, but it was misunderstood that the property appraiser we thought that they had received the request for reconsideration, but there was a typo in George's email address, so they in fact hadn't. So, we wanted to give the uh
property appraiser their fair opportunity to respond to the request before it came before the board. >> Okay. >> That's why it got >> So, this one will come to the next meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that concludes all of our
appeals >> and u we now move to board reports and uh the board attorney. Um I I'll be happy to comment on uh Mr. Sus. >> You want to give everybody else a time to go through and then we can end on
mine just so that they can >> Yeah. I don't I don't have an independent report though. >> Okay. Is this where we would do this under the reports? >> Yes. >> Okay. Let's let's >> Okay. Sure. So, uh, the board has before it a short
memorandum regarding some ideas for ways to potentially improve, I don't know if I'd say the reconsideration process. I think it's more informing the public about the reconsideration process and maybe
clarifying some things about it. Um, it's not proposing any changes to the rules. Um it's just it's really just trying to make it as clear as possible. Um one uh possibility would be setting the date
of essentially today's meeting well in advance potentially at the organizational meeting which is the first meeting of the tax cycle each year. I understand there may be some logistical practical issues with that just due to reserving this room. I I
don't you know that that's something I don't really know much about. Um but doing that would enable uh the board to notify the parties uh really from day one of the date of
this meeting so that if they do have something that they want to bring before the board, they'll have as much notice as possible of exactly when and where that will be. >> So when I when I called Mr. Thoritz and said, "Hey, let's work through some of these." Right? One of the things that you always like to do is say here's a
series of deadlines. And if we say the deadlines are the 10 days and all that stuff, that's great. But if there was a way that at the beginning of the year when we come in, we establish a series of dates. You can put those dates on there to signify when they are. Now that
because of Mr. Thorowitz was saying, you know, you may have a change based upon something which would throw that whole notice off and cause chaos. Then having those dates in advance somewhere on there would be good. But having a tentative dates where we know
we are meeting way ahead of time. I mean if we look at our calendars and we say yes it's open and this room is open and we know these dates then we could plan for it a year out. That was my original theory. But putting the dates on the website would be dangerous but putting the deadlines on them. So the request
was if we could establish our dates ahead of time then individuals would know like at the board meeting when they come in that hey they have one scheduled for this time you may want to look but your deadline is this. You know what I mean? There's a there's a definite notification that's a lot better than
just saying what we have. That was the reason behind it. I don't know how you guys feel about trying to establish a calendar ahead of time and I don't know what the clerk would recommend also if you're what your feelings are on that
if I could ask you guys because you're the ones that are always putting it together, right? But if we sat down with all of our calendars and >> Okay. So, first off, um, outside there, they don't let us schedule this room a year in advance
because they have to wait until they get all their meeting requests from county employees, the board of county commissioners. So, they have that whole schedule and then before they'll allow us to go ahead and schedule this room. As for the rooms
upstairs, I'm not sure. The Florida room, Space Coast room, I don't know about those rooms if they feel the same way about those rooms. So, that would be the first concern. Second concern would be um Aaron being an attorney, I don't
know if he can do that a year in advance and be like if he gets scheduled for a deposition if or whatever the instance is there or a case. I don't know how that affects him either. >> It's it's it's not an issue really for
me. Okay. >> Honestly, more advanced notice is kind of helpful. But one potential problem I I could foresee >> if the board sets a date certain as opposed to a tenative date and then changes it that will cause confusion.
So, you know, there may and the board already does set tenative dates. Um >> but that's all they are. What would happen if we set a date and then we didn't have quorum? >> Wouldn't have a meeting.
>> But setting a date far enough in advance would be better. >> Yes. >> You would probably possibly more ensure that we >> and um if you did it tentatively then it is the same retrospect as that. Do you
know when the county actually says, "Okay, now you can schedule all." Is it a rolling calendar where they're like, "Next after I believe it's after the board of county commissioner approves their calendar for the following year, then they can mark the board's
>> and that's usually like just did that. Didn't we just do that?" >> I think so. Yeah. >> It wasn't that long ago that we just did that. So that you guys >> the hearings don't start um until October for say the next year.
So we start the hearings in October. So October, November, December, January and we try to end it sometime in February, beginning midFebruary for the hearings. So this year what we did was we took uh
whatever we had up until a certain time if we got received any requests for reconsiderations because we still had hearings going. So those people still haven't there's several people who still haven't gotten their recommended decisions yet and to have their 10 days.
And so that's kind of why we're still back in the process, but we're we were just trying to figure out what this hearing was going to involve. >> And the other thing just to add to the confusion is that it's not necessarily
going to be we two commissioners the next time. So if we try to >> base things on our calendars, >> you could be dealing with other true other commissioners. >> Okay. No, that that that is a very good point because we would establish the dates based on my calendar
>> and then all of a sudden because I think Megan's taken over next year. >> So the argument is is that um it would have to fall on her calendar. Now we would be doing it so far out in advance that you know what I mean there would be they would know the conflict coming in immediately but I can see where that's
an issue you know. >> Yep. >> Okay. One other idea um and this is done by some VABs um but by no means all and and maybe this is done to some extent I
don't know already would be is it and I don't know how practical it is but maybe including the link to the re reconsideration procedures along with the recommendations is that I don't know if that's a feasible thing to do. No, there's no Yeah, there's a lot of these.
>> There's a lot of those that I have in here, but I think as far as the dates well in advance, I think we all kind of found that that's probably not going to be able to go because of the schedule. >> Sounds like a really good idea and smart, but it might not be logistically. >> Sometimes you put them in like the third
Tuesday of this and the fourth Tuesday of that and all that stuff and everybody just knows it's been legally noticed. You you are signing on as a board member, you know, to these are your dates, you know what I mean? And all that stuff. But I I'm not willing to push it if you guys don't feel comfortable with it. I just One of the
things that individuals would really need is I know my dates because if they um we do ours about 30 days out. Is that where we're at? Like for this meeting we all agreed about 30 days out, 45 days out. How long? >> I don't know.
>> Roughly like 30 days. >> 30. >> So it's difficult for their calendars also to land on there too. So if we agree to it, then they would have to contact to try to figure it out. That's why I was trying to figure out the dates ahead of time.
>> So if they know, look, when I come here and I get denied, I've got my 10 days, this is what I'm doing, and everything else, then and those dates they know ahead of time, then they're more likely to be able to defend themselves and be prepared rather than we set our dates 30 days. They have to call in to figure out
when it is. That's all. >> But I I'm not going to push it if you guys don't feel comfortable about it. Mr. Throwitz, you want to go with the other ideas? >> Yeah, the other ones are really just making putting it in front of the public as much and as visibly as possible. Um,
I know it's it is already on the website to be clear. Uh, it could be made more prominent, I suppose, and then, you know, relaying the information to petitioners >> when they receive the recommendation. to me that change if it's feasible
um it's probably about as much as the clerk can do legally right you know um and that's what some other not many but some VABs do is something similar to that >> um you know the information is already out there it's really just a matter of
how prominent it is >> I almost feel I'm sorry >> go ahead >> I almost feel like we have people who are involved in the process who understand it completely Um, and it's just n second nature. But for other people who are coming in, they
have no idea how how it works and and don't even necessarily know where to look for the information. And when we send an email asking for help or guidance, it we can't give it. So, it's almost like we're forcing people, no disrespect, to get a lawyer, you know,
like like we've said, we don't have that many people who who come in here um without representation. >> I don't know. I'm just >> I I think we we just had two cases where the individuals had difficulty in different places of finding the
deadlines, finding the all of those components, right? I think it exposed multiple ones that I actually had in here. And I think that for us to sit there and say, "Okay, on the website, we're going to do this. On this, we're going to do this." What I would really love the opportunity to do is if you
guys feel comfortable, um the goal is to make the meeting notices and deadlines more prominent on our notifications and make sure that in all legal >> paperwork that we send out that it's included and included in bold and
prominent. That way we have no questions as to and and even a process that we might want that in the event that the property appraiser is going to make an argument like what happened with this gentleman um that all of the arguments are inside there or a way for them to find out what's votable.
>> If you guys I know that's a very vague area and we don't have hours to sit here and go through it all. >> If you guys would be okay with it, I can sit with the goal today was for me to say, "Hey guys, we could use some better pieces." If that's okay with you guys, I would like to work with Aaron, make some
of those as a recommendation and bring them back to you guys at the next meeting. >> It's a great idea. >> Yeah. And then that way we can and then you guys can say yes and no >> and go from there. I think that would be good. >> Let's I don't think we need to vote. We just >> I know we approve that. That's good.
>> Is that okay with you, Miss Towitz? >> Of course. >> Okay. >> Thank you. That's it. >> Where's your office? >> Yeah. Spent a little bit of time going through it. There's and just so you guys know everything that I did when we made those recommendations to bring I thought it'd be a little bit more conversation but thank you for giving me that. The
other thing is is that um there are it is in the same in other VABs. So I looked at Miami Dade PK County all of them. So there are instances where there are some more prominent notifications and processes. So thank you. >> No, you're right on it. Thank you for that.
Okay. Um I have no report. >> I have no report. >> No report. Commissioner Ainson. >> Matt, do you have a report? >> No, sir. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. >> Robert, >> no sir. Report and Bob's not here. So, I
think that's our meeting. >> Thank you. >> Well, J, good job. >> Thank you. >> Honor. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government
Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public
during any such period.