[Music] [Music] hey hey hey [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Do [Music] Come on Come on
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] forum I'd like to call the uh value adjustment board for Boulevard County to order Uh first we'll have a pledge of allegiance led by County Commissioner Atinson Pledge 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 Um so um like to verify we have a quorum
Yes sir Do we need call roll We don't need to Okay we do have a quorum And um we have as first action item approval for the minutes of August 2nd 2024 I guess we have the authority to do that
Is there a motion Motion made Motion by second Sorry Uh we have a motion and second Any discussion All those in favor signify by Oh say do we call a roll or do can we voice vote Voice votes are fine
Okay All in favor say yay Opposed Nay Carries unanimously Okay Um our first item on the uh agenda is the value adjustment board attorney And I I think this was been a great respit We had a meeting
that we uh we cancelled to come here It gave it gave me and some of the other boards and that was the main reason time to kind of look at the system and evaluate the way it works And um to I went online and reviewed all the cases
read special masters reports and I um have to say I I was very impressed It's a new way of doing things Uh I was uh I was here before when we heard the cases one by one individual by individual Uh but let I'd like to first have kind of a
little orientation as a as a adjustment board so we can kind of answer any questions that you may have So I'd like to um introduce our value adjustment board attorney Erin Good morning everyone Okay Are you going to give us a
presentation Do we need to approve our legal council one-year extension of the contra contract I I don't have any report Uh so the next agenda item would be the contract Okay Uh any dis discussion on the contract No discussion Is there a motion for approval
Motion and second approval All in favor say yay Yay Oppose Nay It uh uh it passes unanimously Thank you So what I'd like to do um of our newly renewed uh attorney is have him give us
a briefing kind of a little orientation about who we are what we do and why and what uh what we can do what we can't do a little bit about the process We had a brief discussion earlier and I think you'll find it very interesting Sure So
the VAB is a quasi judicial body sort of like a judge Okay Is my mic Do I need to Yep It is testing Okay Thank you As I was saying sort of like a a court um but uh
informal The VAB is a body that takes appeals on property tax issues So if a taxpayer disagrees with the valuation determined by the property appraiser or any sort of exemption classification uh or other property tax issue they can file an appeal with the VAB It's always
optional No one has to file a petition with the VAB Uh and any taxpayer can go straight to the circuit court if they prefer to and they can also go to the circuit court after uh the VAB process if they disagree with the VAB's decisions Uh before the board today uh
are the recommended decisions prepared by the board's special magistrates Uh the board appointed those special magistrates at the organizational meeting and before the uh today's meeting um each of the recommendations before the board uh went through the
full process There was uh obviously a petition filed followed by an evidence exchange process and an evidentiary hearing before the magistrates who then produced the recommended decisions Um the board's role um in counties like
ours that use special magistrates is limited compared to the boards that hear petitions directly Uh in those cases the board uh makes all of the decisions and and prepares the uh final decisions directly But when those are prepared by
special magistrates the board's role is limited to determining whether the uh recommended decisions comply with law So if there is something that does not comply with law this is the board's opportunity to point that out and direct myself with the board's majority
approval to um uh basically speak with the special magistrate and prepare a recommended decision that does comply with the law Um today is is not a a hearing on any particular petition It's not an opportunity to take evidence uh or hear argument on any particular
petition that's that opportunity has has come and gone with the hearing process Um but if the board uh or any of the any of the board members have any issues with specific petitions uh the board can address that today I'm happy to take any any questions
Explain address that So the the uh sort of how the board would go about making a recommendation Yeah just for curiosity Okay Okay So yeah if say say the board a board member uh had an issue with a um uh with a a just value decision a case
where somebody appealed the property appraisers value determination on their property uh maybe the they felt the evidence uh was not properly identified or or maybe it wasn't admitted when it should have been or the other way around Um or maybe just disagreed with the conclusion what the what the
magistrate's recommending that the board do uh the board member just tells me what they what they want and if the board approve if a majority of the board approves that then I will uh make sure that the decision becomes compliant The next step in the process would be to
have another board meeting at which the board will have a chance to approve that revised recommendation and then only at that point can the board certify the tax role because we do need to have 100% of the recommended decisions approved before we can do that which is really
the final step in the in the cycle If if um if the board the value adjustment board disagrees with the magist recommendation we have the ability to override that Yes And if that's litigated are you the one
who represents the VAB in court to litigate that So if a if a petitioner or the property appraiser appeals the VAB's decision it'll go to the circuit court but the VAB won't be a party to that case That'll be um more or less between the property appraiser and the taxpayer
There are other sort of nominal parties but the VAB is not a party to that So I'm not involved So you don't you're not involved I'm not supposed to be anyway It does Yeah happen occasionally but your involvement is strictly um representing the VAB in this process That's right Okay Interesting
May I ask a question Yes So in that process if there's one that gets pulled out say for instance and it starts running they can't separate that from the entire tax rules The tax rules have to be held up until that comes back from the circuit court No no that that would
be a different situ because at that point the VAB would have already certified the tax role Okay So we don't hold up the tax role if we have a a disagreement with the recommendation of the special master That could that actually would because we've got to have
all of our recommendations adopted and made into final decisions before we can certify Up until that point it's not final So there could be changes We talked about a case that is still unresolved Obviously we passed the tax rule So if a case is being litigated
that wouldn't hold up the tax rule No If if a let's say a petitioner appeals the VAB's final decision there's no pro that won't delay anything on our end The tax rule can can be certified because that case would have already had a final decision from the VAB
So they're appealing that final decision right So we make all our final decisions If we have a difference with the special master that would not hold up the tax rule That would so sort of twoused points in the process So first and what
what is before the board today is whether to adopt the recommended decisions which then become final decisions Once all of those are done and all the recommended recommended decisions become final decisions then we can certify the tax role If after that
point one of the petitioners on one of those final decisions or or the property appraiser disagrees they can appeal to the circuit court That won't affect the tax role the board's workload would already have been done at that point If they win it could go back and affect
it retroactively Let me ask slow things down today Maybe I'm not asking the question properly So our role is to review these 300 plus cases If we have a disagreement with the special master and we we vote to not
agree with that recommendation you're saying if it's just one case that would hold up the entire tax rule Yes So let's say we do that What's the impact of holding up the tax rule Well um the most obvious one is
we'll have to come back for another meeting after the recommendation's revised and then if the board approves it at that point then the board can certify the tax role Um approved by whom By the board Okay Okay I understand So we finalize that disagreement We have a
disagreement We come back we ratify that and then it's certified for the tax Yes I understand Mr Chairman Yes Um what is the normal time period that we actually are supposed to approve the tax rule When does it become inhibitive of like
when does it become an issue I I would say we need to have it done before June In any event that's the usual deadline date that we would have to come back approve it Um so say there's a issue where we send it back to the um special
magistrate to review special magistrate then brings it back to us That would all have to be before June 1st is what you're saying Yes That that would be my hope Okay And these are all legally noticed meetings that usually take seven days ahead of time on it or the board
meetings Yeah Yes Okay I don't there's no rule that says it has to be seven reasonable notice but I understand Yeah Okay And then the idea would be that um we ask we say that there's something wrong with a one of these tax roles and we say we send it back to the special
magistrate special magistrate based upon what we say We would have to give guidance and the reason behind it We couldn't just pull it up and say well I think that this one's bad and send it back Right It has and that that legal guidance has to be based on process and law Is that what you said I heard you
say that it's got to be compliant with with the law So what what the what the board um ideally should be identifying is something that does not comply with the law about a recommendation and then we can fix that Okay Got it Makes sense Thank you
Mr Chair Thank you Okay Good All right Any any other questions Um there is a portal that the board can um in you can review any of these hearings and read the special master's
report It's very thorough and actually even listen to the um the hearing if you if you wanted I've gone through a few of them It it's very thorough very complete very well done and actually very
interesting Some of these cases are kind of interesting I think it's um gets into some real interesting issues Yeah And especially the exemption side of stuff and and so we do have that
option to look there Now there's expartite communication Maybe talk a little bit about our restrictions to ability to talk to people and how we hear hear evidence Sure uh board members special magistrates the clerk myself none of us can have exparte communication with either side So we
can't speak one-on-one about any particular case with either the property appraisers office or the petitioner or their their representatives on it Uh if that happens if one side communicates to the VAB or or a board member for example directly without the other party present
that communication needs to be provided to the VAB clerk and then u the clerk with myself will will deal with it Uh basically it has to be disclosed to the other side They have to have a chance to comment on it uh before anything is is done by the VAB
Okay All right Um now our next items Yeah So prior to the meeting that we had today um one of the petitioners came up and was speaking Didn't get into the specifics of the case at all Um I was told that not to do that but I wanted to
let you know that that happened Um if there's anything I need to do to make sure I didn't know that that was a rule If it was uh if you learned anything about a specific case um the best thing to do would be to just disclose that to the clerk Yeah And then but if it if it
was nonparticular if it was just maybe about a general VAB issue or a property tax issue Yeah That I don't consider that exparte because it's not about a particular case Okay Yeah Yeah Somebody gave me a warning and I said "Okay well I'll stop." That was good Nothing really
got into it Good Thank you for that Okay Any other questions Nope Okay Now I have uh in the agenda um board reports I assume none of us have any reports since this is our first meeting I don't think we have we've received any Okay I am
trying to get online to look at the cases and I it's not allowing me to do that I might ask you to help I have internet access but for some time it has to do with between the county and the clerk
but I just got online in the building over next I was able to pull up the cases and looks For some reason that's not working right now Maybe I'm clicking the wrong button Okay I get
all these usually about five minutes I'm on this No I think with that and it's interesting because I've been on this board now and when I spoke to Tina before she said tried to do this before and I don't have
like there's not a single case I'm worried about somebody I don't know the password to get on here this is the one I use and sometimes you don't you don't get to make that okay so if there's if you don't like say like the way a special magistrate's
doing business then the next year you appoint somebody differently that's the way to do it And I'll be honest with you I think just like our staff does to us they're not doing it But if there is an opportunity that like say commissioners that or you or somebody wants to review this tighter we should move this this
meeting of certifications and all that stuff back up and have them meet a little bit ahead of time so that we can have that window because one of the things that stinks like is that um we have that window of like uh all of a sudden we got to make a decision We're
like "Okay If you don't decide today you know what I mean You know how you get that and I understand Well I was going to show the board how you could look at these cases but unfortunately this system's not working
Um so we'll move on to um new business Oh I we we do have uh citizen member Rob Adams here And that was going to be my next question So every applicant
um is notified of this meeting and they have the opportunity to address this address this They're not individually noted Unless they call and ask us it's on our website when this meeting is So but unless they
call us because when they get their recommended decision this meeting is not always set up at that point in time And we're we don't go out there and contact say the 400 people and say you know the
board you know the VAB final meeting is on this date If they call and ask we give them the date It's in the newspaper and it's on our web page So when they go in to look at their own case because they all have access to the same thing
that you have access to but their own case so they can all go in there and log into Axia and see what's going on So when they get to our web page they know when the board meeting is happening
We do have one um public comment speaker today Okay So for item F under public comments we have Jeff Smith All right How long are public comments Historically it's been three minutes but
it's in the board's discretion Three minute public but the time is of board discretion So and you're the only one So well uh board members thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today I'm here on behalf of property owner and
taxpayer Alex Burkovich Um and it concerns a property uh that on uh South Tropical Trail that he purchased in 2020 It's a house uh on a 6acre site
Subsequent to his purchase uh he is now as a result of of FEMA uh re uh mapping flood planes he's in a flood plane and it's affected the value of his property And that was the central issue that went to the special magistrate I'm going to
hand you a copy of the special magistrate's decision that I've highlighted some key Thank you Thank you um if if you'll direct your attention So what what we're here to do is to to
raise with the board what we believe was the erroneous conclusion of law by the the special magistrate and and it's a unique issue because the magistrate actually made the correct uh conclusion of law but then at the end made a
conflicting conclusion that doesn't make any sense and you'll see in just a moment But uh the issue was that the the uh property appraisers office came forward with with comparable uh sales and had
uh determined that the age of the building if you'll take a look at at paragraph 10 it's highlighted and it says the first material issue in dispute is the age of the building Property Appraisers's Office claimed in testimony and in evidentiary documents that the dwelling was built in 2023 whereas
petitioner claimed the dwelling was built in 1985 Photographic evidence shows that the dwelling was not built in 2023 This error demonstrates a potential a a potential misunderstanding of accepted appraisal methodology by the
property appraiser Given this error the property appraiser did not and could not properly consider the factors of Florida statute 193011 and employ appropriate methodology in developing the assessment
Accordingly the assessment is not entitled to a presumption of correctness Spot on He's absolutely right about that Um and and so what that did is now the property appraiser has
not put forward a valid property appraisal methodology and so it opened the door for the taxpayer to present a a methodology of
Go ahead Proceed And and I I I'll try to shorten up No you don't have to I mean you're the only person you've taken the time to come here All right Appreciate you doing that I mean if we had 100 people sitting in the room that we might and and so what was presented uh
to the special magistrate because there were there aren't comparable sales that you can can put your hands on of properties that are sold in a flood plane So the comparable sales approach was not the approach taken by the the uh
taxpayer in putting on evidence They used a costbased approach that looked at the sales price of the house which that was all in that the these figures are not in dispute The sales price of the house was
1,145 145,000 The improvements to the structure after the the sale uh were 634 370 That comes right off of the the property record uh report and there was no dispute o over
that figure Um the improvements to outside the house Uh the there was an adjustment made of that but it was 136,636 which means the total value would be 1,916 And then there was an undisputed
amount of what it would cost to fill the property to to bring it to to above flood plane which results in a 1.388 uh million value Um and and and the the special
magistrate observed that in in paragraph 12 but didn't give it any he he he didn't credit that and said "No you have to give a comparable." Well there aren't any comparables of of of sales in the flood plane of this type of property And
that was the issue And so what we're here to say is the only evidence that was presented was the the only evidence that was not deemed to be an improper methodology which I read to you that the the special magistrate was clear that
the property appraisers office used an improper methodology to arrive at their figure Um and then I think where the the magistrate uh went wrong is at the end after having already said that the the
appraisal of the property appraiser wasn't entitled to a presumption of correctness that at the end of his his uh report says "Well based on the cumulative evidence the property appraisers assessment is entitled to a
presumption of correctness," which is just a conflicting um you you can't reconcile the two findings and and the first one is the the the appropriate conclusion They did not prove not did not put forward which was their burden
to come forward with a a proper methodology Once they did not it's the burden of the the the taxpayer to put forward an alternative appraisal which they did And that's what we would ask you to do is to adopt the what's in the
record the 1 uh one,388,256 as the value And that is in the record Thank you Any questions In the written report that you've submitted to us does it
have what you just asked us to do And what paragraph would that be Um in paragraph 12 he he uh the the he he he that's a reduction of the uh 1.9 million by the 527,000
right And there's that number 1,388-256 And the the the only thing he does to reject it is say it was not corroborated by any value evidence Meaning I I think what he's saying is that there wasn't a comparable sale to to to corroborate it But what I'm saying
is that's that's another alternative methodology proper appraisal methodology when you don't have comparable sales is the methodology that was used which is a costbased approach methodology Okay I have a couple questions and I don't know what my restrictions are I
know you can ask essentially anything you'd like I would just uh sort of remind the board uh respectfully that this is not a a hearing So the board cannot take into account this what's being presented uh in terms of making
any potential changes to the recommended decision But the record is what it is The public record and and I just want to be clear Erin I'm sorry that council uh that uh we're not departing from the record The number I gave you on that
sheet those are all in the record and that it's as I pointed out in paragraph 12 the the the the special magistrate has those numbers in the record and in his decision So we're not asking you to go outside the record to find something new That answers my question Thanks So a
question I have then um sales price 1.45 45 million improvement to the structure 600,000 total assessment 1.9 million What you felt should have been considered as a part of this public record is the request to reduce that
amount by 527,000 That is what it would cost to correct the the flooding problem or the low line flood plane issues Am I hearing that correct Yes that's that's correct And I don't I don't think there was a a uh dispute in the record as to that
amount I I I think the dispute was over okay we we the magistrate sees the the value that we're putting forth and then says but don't you have where's the comparable sale And our the the point of the taxpayer was you can't find
comparable sales of properties like this located in a flood plane that somebody has has recently purchased And and so that that was really the bottom line issue and I what what I'm saying is a conclusion is that this is an
alternative proper appraisal methodology using a costbased approach rather than the comparable sales approach So my question is then you mentioned earlier about uh and it's reflected in the record the
improper dating of when the house was built Correct It was built in 1985 It was not built in 2023 That's in paragraph 10 Um how does that affect does that relate to this
disparency in value or is that just an assertion that Well well what what what it does is that the comparables that they were relying on included comparables of houses that were brand new houses And so it it it didn't make
sense and the the the special magistrate acknowledged that it didn't make sense and said "No matter you know while repairs remodeling renovation might produce an effective age that's lower than a building's chronological age no amount of repairs remodeling and
renovation can transform a 39year-old building into a one-year-old building." Interesting So he's saying you can't use that comparable You didn't you property appraisers office did not use a proper methodology It's not entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness If
if they had followed a proper methodology they would be entitled to do that They would be entitled to a presumption of correctness And he's making that finding Very interesting Any questions Yeah if I can ask a couple questions Yes Just process-wise So this
gentleman comes up gives a all of this evidence Um is Miss Blinkley allowed to come up and answer questions too or does that get into that hearing phase that you were talking about That would be entirely up to the property Um but yeah again this this isn't noticed as a
hearing Yeah No I just just for proper process but she could if she'd like That's that's her option Yes Okay And then the next question is is um um is the comparable sales and the costbased approach both used in property
appraising Yes but in general the cost approach and I would argue that this is not really a cost approach Um the cost approach is not typically used for existing structures It's really more applicable to well to new construction
um unique circumstances And I understand that they're arguing that this may be unique but in my I'm obviously not an appraiser but the cost approach is not simply taking the other side's value and deducting some amount from it It's what
does it cost to rebuild the structure from the ground up So I I don't see this as being a valid cost approach But also I think more more to the point paragraph
13 addresses the issues being raised by the petitioner Um the special magistrate found that after correcting for the age adjustment so that resolves the age discrepancy and deducting the
527,750 for the cost of filling The property appraisers three improved sales don't demonstrate that the assessment was excessive So I'm not advocating for either side but I I do believe that the petitioner's
issues were addressed I have a question Yes My question is a process question So if you just told us that our job today is not to make any decisions on specific cases what exactly are we supposed to be doing right now in
regard to this The the best answer I can give you is is based on the presentation nothing That's that's the the most direct answer I can give give the the board If the board regardless of the
present of the petitioner's presentation finds that there's something uncompliant about this recommendation the board can always direct direct that to be corrected Okay Thank you I think that's a very good question Do you have a response to that Yeah I I I do think the
the value adjustment board this is kind of just a basic administrative law question Um happily I I practice administrative law So u the the question you as a a quasi judicial body have the authority
to disagree with the special magistrate's conclusion as long as you're basing your decision on record evidence In other words you we're not bringing in new experts or new testimony or saying let's have a new trial We're saying trial was
had The judge reached the special magistrate reached an erroneous conclusion and it's within your purview to correct that conclusion and say you're going to find that just as the
the magistrate said that that's the the values that were used were not entitled to a presumption of correctness and the value that the the uh taxpayer put forward uh is is an appropriate value to
base their their final appraisal on and it's not going outside the record to do so It's staying within what was presented at the hearing which is what I'm confined to and which is what you're confined to I got a question Yes Was the taxpayer
who owns the property now was he aware It was in a flood plane when he bought it It it it No I I mean he he wasn't in a flood plane when he bought it FEMA re remapped it and put it in a flood plane Oh After the after the fact So and then
he went on his own dime and filled it He hasn't filled it yet Gotcha That's why they're asking for the reduction Sure Sure Okay I'm good Is the finish floor elevation of the structure in the flood plane
Now you're asking me something outside the record that I don't know the answer to I believe it if if he's allowed taxpayers here That's in the board's discretion Okay Thank you board uh for taking the time My name is Alex Burker I'm the homeowner
to address the issue When I bought the house with my wife in 2020 there was no issue with the FEMA and I was able to get insurance In 2021 4 months after we purchased the house and began remodeling it FEMA went overboard in my opinion and
made my whole property a flood plane Even the house now is below the the required flood plane So now I can't even get insurance Mhm So I I'm fortunate enough that I was able to pay off the mortgage because they figured out that I couldn't get insurance They gave me 30 days to pay
off the mortgage But putting that aside I've been arguing this uh point with the property appraiser for four years And I kept losing and losing and losing And I got tired of losing and arguing with appraiser which in my opinion I was making the wrong wrong mistake making a mistake on this on this uh property And
the last hearing we had made it very clear that the magistrate was working with me and was actually was he was grilling the appraiser for making all these mistakes Not only did he make a mistake about the year of the house he compared a property next door to me at
$3.4 million as a piece of land Then he then we showed and proved that that $3.4 million sale was not a property alone It was a brand new 7,000 foot house which is next to me that is 14 ft above flood plane So the property
appraiser was grilled by not doing his homework And if you ever get a chance to listen to the uh recording of this particular case hopefully we don't have to go that far but if we go further with the appeals process the property
appraiser was apologizing like well we made a mistake Well if you're making a mistake and you're trying to take a taxpayer like myself and charge me double for the taxes that that's that's that's that was an erroneous decision So all I'm trying to do is pay fair taxes
I've agreed to the value of the construction of the house the the repairs We never argued We agreed to the value of the boat dock and some of the other um items that were added to the house I never argue that The only thing I'm arguing is that the the value that they place on a piece of land that
cannot be comped When I bought it it was comped but now because it's underwater literally and half the time when it rains I can't use my dock I can't use my front yard Uh I mean there other issues that we argued but bottom line is it's a it's a I'm in the middle The house is a
little bit higher than obviously the rest of the property but when it floods when it rains my house floods I had two floods in the last two hurricanes I flooded and I had no insurance which I had to pay myself for So all I'm asking is for this board and this board has the
rights to make a decision Otherwise if you guys just approve everything that the magistrate says to me it's a rubber stamp Then what's the point of having this board and having myself and paying my attorneys to be here if you can't make a decision against the magistrate
or at least look at my position with the evidence that was pointed and in record I'm not asking you to look at the new evidence All I'm asking you is to be fair to a taxpayer Thank you for your time I have a question I do have a question and thank you for being here
Okay Doing your job Yes So FEMA um if you fill the land you're not changing the No I'm still I'm still on the You're still to be to be frank for me to do this correctly I have to tear down the house
right bring in a million dollars in dirt because that 527 that was the bid from 220 2021 So obviously since co so right now to fill this to to do the same fill around the house is a million four not
counting the house So for me not to flood and to be able to get insurance I have to tear down the house go up four feet just on the house put a brand new house which is about $4 million to replace what I have So I'm out $6 million
And if you ever decide to sell this property no no one's going to buy it You would have to disclose all that Why Absolutely Well anybody who's going to do due diligence is going to see that I'm under literally underwater And we showed those documents to the magistrate We show photos We show timestamps That
was all given in as evidence So I'm baffled when he ruled against us against me Okay Thank you Thank you board members Thank you very much for your time this morning and I would just urge you to uh take this and and uh make the
the the decision to make the adjustment that's in the record and and properly appraise the So I want to ask you a question if you could specifically give us the the recommendation that you are seeking that this board take uh that the
board vote to uh adjust the uh appraised value for the taxpayers's property to the amount of 1,388,536 if I 256 correct 256 okay that um and and
that's what our recommendation would be to the board Okay All right I don't think we can do that Special magistrate Correct Correct Okay But we his question can we do that We can
only send it back to the magistrate Magistrate would have to judge based on it Sorry I'm sorry I have to have this closer to me Is follow the process for us please He makes the recommendation that he said that we would make the
recommendation to adjust it down to $1.38 million Right You under your guide said that we would have to send it down to the magistrate Magistrate would have to look over the process find out if there was anything that was different or law process or anything like that and then bring it back Is that the proper
process or would under his recommendation us be able to just say you know what we're going to readjust it to 1.3 million I suppose the board has discretion to do either Um just a a sort of a a directive to change the value to to
a number without uh specifying how how that number was reached would be uh you wouldn't get a very good recommendation out of that So you know I I think more is needed C could c could could I just address that and say that you know I I I I would amend my prior statement to say
that you would adopt the finding from parag paragraph 12 in the magistrate's report and adopt that as the value that using the methodology that was presented in the record and just I think then you
have a record support you're not going beyond the record to get there Thank you I have Thank you Um I have a question about again about the process If we as a board were to recommend this going back to the magistrate what would
be the process Uh the board a motion was made a motion to change the recommendation in a certain way approved by a majority Yep I would then take that directive to the special magistrate and we'd prepare uh a decision consistent with the board's directive Would it go
to the same magistrate or a different same same magistrate and then it would come back before the board again at a at another meeting Okay And we would have to have a special meeting again to do this prior And is that special magistrate review um one that would include them coming in and
making arguments and the property appraiser It would just be go back redo it bring it back as a tax rule and do it It's really just me and the special magistrate Okay And and if if I'm not mistaken you if if if the the recommendation is is and that that the vote of the board is
to to to adopt that value then the it could be done that way that you just adopt that value Um and and that is the final decision of the board Thank you Is that correct What he said is correct That is that
would be the consequence Yes I have a question It's interesting and thank you for being somewhat of a guinea pig and of course our prop appraiser anytime you want to say anything we'll give you an open mic So um because we are a new adjustment board
and you are somewhat of a guinea pig and that we're learning and wanting to do this process in the most complete and fair way and legal way possible and more of a question of law So let's say we agree with this and we recommend that
that uh the the numbers that was established through the public record under paragraph 12 something that we agree with send it back to the special master What does that give you in terms of the land owner as far as a benefit It still has to go
back for the special master It still could be litigated What What's the gain for you doing that Well well I don't I don't The gain ultimately is the the reduction in the appraised value and the reduction in the tax burden on on on his property So that's the gain Um but still
it could be litigated They may not get that The property appraiser could still contest that and it could still be litigated The the the property appraiser could appeal the board's decision They have that right just as the taxpayer has the right to appeal and and go go to
circuit court It's a denovo hearing in circuit court But but uh the this board has the quasi judicial authority to enter its order This is what we're recommending it Your council can meet with the special magistrate but the
board's decision is the board's decision So my guess then and when the circuit court hears the case and they weigh the value of the evidence our decision would probably be part of that weighing of the value is that it it would not be I'm seeing head shaking There's two
possibilities I'm just saying what is the gain Well the the the the possibility would be if the b the board uh enters a final order that says this is our decision votes this is our decision We're going to adjust the value
to this The property appraiser could appeal that if they wanted to the the the the circuit court They could choose We don't want to appeal it You know uh we've been through the process That's why we have a VAB right They made their
decision We've been through the process Um and and we're not going to appeal U the taxpayer um if you didn't adopt it the taxpayer could go and file a a a separate action It's not technically an appeal of this
action It's a it's a a a a denovo hearing saying we want to we want a circuit court hearing on the the valuation and I guess as you look at administrative law you've practiced the administrative lawsuit no you have to
exhaust all your administrative remedies this is it and this is it and obviously whatever decision make would have some weight I would think would have to have some Right Yeah Okay I did want to make one point uh and and
I may have already made it but I'm not sure that if the board were to revise the recommendation today whether that would comply with due process This was not noticed as a specific hearing on any particular case today So the property appraiser has not
received any notice that this was going to to be presented today That is a concern But this meeting was publicly noticed and and we did hear that but there was nothing could look on the agenda and they had a
right to be here So what would we need to do Schedule another hearing and call it an administrative hearing or if what would we need to do to reconcile that For example one and maybe the most appropriate uh means of doing this would
be to file a request for reconsideration uh that would have had to happen a reasonable time before the the meeting so that the property appraiser had a chance to respond to it uh before the meeting So you're saying we're just here doing nothing We can't do anything I
mean we have a school board member two county commissioners and a citizen Why are we here and we're here on the direction of the Florida law and statute We have to have some purpose I I'm not saying that that that you don't but taking up specific cases after
they've already gone through the process when there hasn't been notice uh of any particular case is a concern We're about to take up over 300 cases and give them a stamp of approval So we have to just I I'm perplexed I'm
very perplexed Well the board's role is to determine whether those decisions or recommendations comply with law So if the board finds that this doesn't I'm not saying the board can't but public comment is not the same as a as a properly noticed hearing Okay I
understand what you're saying If you'd like you got it I was I was just going to ask uh another question Is is there a possibility that if this went back to the special magistrate that they may look at it with different eyes have a different thought Um
I I suppose it's possible I mean I would say it's unlikely but you know it's possible If if there's any more question for me I I do believe that the the the um the the the board has the authority to enter a decision here Um and then the property
appraiser may appeal that decision if the property appraiser chooses to I the due process notice uh I I think your point's well taken Mr chairman is that the the notice was the same as the 300 and some taxpayers got and I think the
property appraisers office had notice and opportunity to to be heard I I I really don't see a due process claim there Um bottom line is it's it's your call That's why that's why you exist That's why there's a a board to make the to to to make these types of decisions Thank
you Thank you One more minute I apologize I I unfortunately I I agree with my attorney and I disagree with the board's attorney The board's attorney is trying to put this board in a position where you can't make decisions And like the chairman said then why are you here
Why are you wasting taxpayers money sitting here having you guys sit here and make no decisions If this is a rubber stamp board then just make it plain Mr Attorney Say this is a rubber stamp board 300 files You can't look at them all because you can't get into them
for some reason And now just go ahead and approve the magistrate Then what's the point I must just go to court I want to hear from council Yeah I'm sorry Can I ask you Thank you Um bottom line I just wanted I I know we've taken a great deal of your time
this morning on one case and you've got 300 others that you need to attend to So I I just wanted to to go ahead and wrap up If there's any other questions happy to answer them We good I see our property appraiser step forward Okay Thank you
Good morning board Um first I I have to say that I'm going to object to any additional evidence being submitted for this case because that part of the process has come and gone I would also like a copy of that I would also uh it is my opinion that we are uh embarking
on basically a second hearing So to publicly notice a meeting of the value adjustment board is not the same as a request for reconsideration where the property appraiser has an opportunity to review any additional information that is being submitted by a petitioner So I
will defer to your attorney on your advice there I would also object to this recommended decision being remanded back to the magistrate unless you are doing that because the decision was deficient somehow legally And if it was I would
like to know what that is Okay So but you're not you're not disagreeing with anything in the special master's report that um there was a material issue in the dispute of the age of the building that it was was a material
issue was presented that the building was built in 2023 but it actually is a 39y old building Chairman I don't have that case I I I don't have all the particulars of that case so I don't know you know what the circumstances were on this particular case It sounds to me
like there were some there was an exchange of information Uh there was evidence presented by the petitioner There was evidence presented by my appraisers to uh support our value and a recommended decision was made by the magistrate Um now what your attorney did
say is that you certainly have the right to take a look at that recommended decision and find if it is legally sufficient If it is not legally sufficient and you decide to remand that back that that is the proper process Can you explain or it might be council's
explanation this new process because it's different than what she she was speaking to a new process and and this is just for me to understand What is that to notice a meeting if it was a second hearing What is that Would that be you Would that be her I I'm happy to take it The So I think the request for
reconsideration uh is that what I guess I don't I don't know if we'd even go down that road but it's interesting to find out So either either party after the recommended decision is issued can always uh submit a request for reconsideration and that's exactly what it sounds like They can point out
something that they disagree with about the findings or the conclusions Got to be uh reasonably specific about it It's submitted in writing before today's meeting Other side gets a chance to respond in writing so that they can again have due process and then
typically it would go to me just to make a recommendation and ultimately goes to the board That has happened a few times since I've been here It's not a common thing but in other counties it is more common And just out of curiosity so there's not a noticed time period It's just a formal
that they would have to before this meeting bring something like this in say it's a a proper process object to what's happening and then you would it would kick it back to you for review more or less Okay And that's what you were speaking to Miss Blinkley both the request for reconsideration in the
process and the opportunity for this board to make a determination on legal deficiency of a recommended decision Okay I had one other question In the event that we go to make a vote because this is considered a small board Robert's rules of order gives the chairperson in
a tie the ability for a second vote Is that pertinent to this board The VIP rules don't specifically specifically reference Robert's rules So I to be honest I'm not sure I I don't want to give you a bad piece of
advice So in the event of a tie the VAB does not give us a there's there's not a tiebreaker provision I think it would go for another vote And if it's a tie it's probably a rejection a negative vote Okay My guess of course in small boards if it's not reference
then it's to make a change here If you vote not to if it's still a tie then you don't That's a good question Well that's what I was I was just There have to be some sort of tie breaker provision What does it reference for our governing body This is I mean this is for me from a from a perspective of this it's just
fascinating all these little rabbit holes we're going down right now Um but it doesn't reference Robert's rules of order to host this meeting It does not Does it reference any other kind of governmental um I don't think so Okay
Robert's rules is usually used at least informally And what would it take to make Robert's rules of order our governing system Would that be the minimum to do It's possible a local procedure could be enacted by the board I I'd want to give
that a little bit of research but that is possible Sort of If if that's not it would at least have to be a a department of revenue regulation Yeah It's just interesting It is Okay Okay Well [Music]
um I'm not really comfortable making a decision with the fact that we have just been given information that our property appraiser doesn't have So I'm going to make a motion that we send this back to our special magistrate
Okay Is there a second I'll second Second Sure I believe that Bob Springer motion Mr Atinson Flood plane property is is of a lower value than non floodplane property If he if he spends the half million to
fill the place up doesn't his property go up by half a million Can you walk through the process of that motion and what it would do Her recommendation is to that way we can all understand what she just made If I understand sort of what's behind the
motion board member wants the special magistrate to basically give it another review a closer review Y that's exactly what would happen if they that's within the the rules of this There's there's nothing preventing it So let me ask this special magistrate goes back and says
you know what I already valued on this I'm I'm keeping it the same way Comes back to us again with the same exact findings Yeah we're getting in a d loop Would it be so if we agree to do this that sends that path is there any guidance that we can give him to say hey
look at these num this this process yes because I think what Miss Blinkley's saying is is that she's asking for some kind of a legal something I would just ask um if this board is finding that there's legal deficiency in the recommended decision is that what
the board has decided I don't think we've made any decisions or has the board decided just to send the recommended decision back to the magistrate because you're not happy with the value conclusion Is it legal for us to do either of those Correct I think that's correct I think
what you said is correct I I think it's her motion though It's her motion So she has to explain it But what Miss Blinkley just And am I saying this correctly by saying Miss Blinkley or would it say Blickley Blickley Sorry Miss Blickley would you be would I reference you in any other way Um property appraiser Dana
works Okay Dana That's what I figured Miss Dana So Miss Dana just made a point Is Is Miss is Commissioner Atkinson's request valid enough to go back Is that legal I think it is legal I don't know
that it's likely to change anything candidly Um and so I I think it's kind of outside of the scope of of the property appraisers's concern if that's the right word for it that it's not that the board is not making a determination that something about the recommendation is
legally insufficient I don't take the the motion to be that sort of a thing If the board is making any sort of direction about what must be changed uh or corrected for example then there would need to be some finding of legal
insufficiency But if it's just essentially take a harder look that's all my motivation That's that's I think that's different frankly And if that was sent back to the sent back then they would make that recommendation based upon our findings
like "Hey we felt like this needs a second look They look at it then they bring that back." Normally how long would that normally take in order to do that How fast could that happen I would say a week would be sufficient more than enough typically but I don't know what what the special magistrate's doing
right now So if the motion does pass I would ask if we could check our calendars to make sure that we could come back in seven days so that we're on pace with not holding up the tax roles would be the first thing Second thing um is that uh once it comes back if we don't like
the way that it is there can we make another recommendation to send it back Just just just saying I don't see again I I think we'd be in the same position So yes you could send it back yet again Okay But we can't direct the magistrate You can if you find something legally
insufficient about the recommendation But but what m what they're saying is is that he's making an argument on one side that this is legally a sufficient argument for this number 12 And I apologize you haven't been given this Do you guys have another copy for this for
her From Miss Dana Sorry Um I think it'd be fair for you to have it The other thing is is so could we say that 12 is sufficient of a legal argument to take a look at that Would that give the direction I think points
of emphasis probably don't cross the line but it would depend on the exact wording of the motion frankly Okay You did you have a friendly amendment to I was I was going to get there maybe I don't know I'm just legitimately going down these rabbit holes because I find it fascinating
right now So I just want to make sure I understand Are are you asking for basically a reconsideration with the new evidence that is being submitted today and the testimony that has been submitted today to the magistrate I think or are you sending back the same
information that was heard for the magistrate to make a change of opinion of value perhaps That's a good question I think if there was a friendly amendment or anything like that it would be not to submit new evidence but actually submit the same
evidence that is brought up here Meaning that if they wanted to look at a specific portion of what was inside of the findings that they could but we're not submitting any new infidence We're not telling them that they have anything new That would be what I would think if
I was going to do a friendly but I don't Was the information today considered evidence Let me ask you a question by this document you gave us Is that just the copy of the special master magistrate's report That is exactly what this is And I just want to be clear with
being reported There has been no nonrecord evidence submitted to this board Everything that you've got is in the record that was before the magistrate And we are asking that you make a decision that the there is an
irreconcilable conflict in the MA magistrate's order saying that the they he did not follow that the PAO did not follow the required methodology It's not entitled to a presumption of correctness
You can't reconcile that with the decision And and I think this board has the power and I'll just end here This is nothing new This was presented in public This is nothing more than the magistrate's order Okay Um the the the bottom line here the buck stops with
this board Either this board is just a prefuncter body or it's not And I tell you it's not You have the ability to say we've looked at everything Here's our conclusion We think there's a legal error in the analysis
Irreconcilable conflict We think that the this should be the decision It's all there in the record Okay Great So I would just like to say two things and and they are general statements They are not related to this particular case because I'm not in a legal position
today to rehear a case or rehear evidence on one particular case There are thousands of petitioners that go through this process that have to follow all the procedures and submit their evidence timely so we can review those But let me make this general
statement The property appraisers budget is not based on the amount of value or taxable value in a county There's no incentive for me as the property appraiser to have a value higher than it should be or lower than it should be We also don't appraise property on anybody's ability to pay That that's not
the way that that works here So just so you understand there's no incentive also um chair I think the the big difference in the process from years ago is that for counties this size for the amount of time it takes and the expertise needed
in this county of this size you hire uh certified appraisers um to review these cases to review the information because they are the experts in those fields and you hire attorneys to hear evidence based on uh the petitioners and the the
property appraisers determinations of law and applying exemptions or agricultural classifications So that's the reason that there's a separation if you will for the experts in those fields to make those recommendations to this board that presumably don't have that
expertise So while I understand it can appear prefuncter um I believe and I don't want to speak for your attorney what your attorney said is yes you have the authority if you find legal insufficiency for any recommended decision or any part in the
process you have uh the ability to go back and review that What you don't have the ability to do today is rehear a case to accept any evidence or any testimony that was not given at the time that the appraiser that you hired to hear the
case heard Okay Thank you for your time Thank you So reading from the department of revenue site The purpose of the value adjustment board the VAB is to hear appeals regarding property value
assessments denied exemptions or classification abnorm tax deferrals portability decisions and change of ownership or control taxpayers or their representatives file petitions with the VAB in the county where the property is
located So we we have a job to hear these appeals and if we feel that some anomaly is in place we need to come to the finding In my opinion there's evidence that's been presented at the value
adjustment board We're not hearing any new evidence whatsoever We're only evaluating the report from the special masters and there appeals to be some inconsistency and I think this particular property owner is is uh is due the benefit of having the VA be to
acknowledge that under as as we're allowed under the law So if we Mr Sure Question Yes So if we allow the special magistrate to have a relook at this
thing it will still come back to us to make a final decision As you've just said that's our job I mean our job is to hear bills that I guess that was a question to our council If so I apologize I didn't
really direct it at you So if it goes back to the special magistrate um that gives them an opportunity to have a relook um then it comes back to us Yes And we will be doing this again Yes Okay Okay I think
um what I'm hearing you say is that if this is to be sent back to the special magistrate that we need to give it some sort of direction rather than just an opaque just kind of is that what I heard you say If if the the board's desire is
for the magistrate to change something then we need to identify that the board pardon needs to identify the legal insufficiencies If the board wants the special magistrate again to sort of focus on it give it more time I I wouldn't say that that requires
legal insufficiency That's really just asking him to take another look That's what Dana is saying We have to Yeah but we don't What's that We don't have to have we don't have to point out legal insufficiency We can just ask the special magistrate to have another look But if we zero him in on a
specific portion then that gives them the opportunity to look there Let me ask you something Does this conversation will you and your guidance with the special magistrate explained that the issue that we were dealing with was inside of you know what I mean the
evidence that was brought forward or would it just be a send it back look at it Do they have input at that at that The parties do not have input Okay and I will direct the magistrate however the board asks me to So if if the board
wants me to give particular instruction focus on this or that that's what I'll do And Dana's uh assumption that we need to give um legal insufficiency in order for that to be legally heard by the special magistrate Is that true Or what
Miss Atkinson is saying we can just have it take a relook I I think the property appraiser is correct If the board is going to for for example if the board wanted to uh direct the value to be changed that requires a legal insufficiency
supporting that change Mhm If the directive from the board is again we just don't we're not comfortable with this this recommended decision I want you to to look at it again That does not require legal insufficiency That's really outside of the rules there I can't say there's a rule that that's on
point for that It's just part of the process of getting the the best decision we can I suppose Chairman do you want to make a friendly amendment to this or do you are you okay with the recommended piece going forward
Well I I think we should offer this landowner some relief I mean we we have a a statutory duty for that very purpose Um how we word that I'm not sure Um our primary responsibility is is to
resol re resolve disputes between the taxpayer and the property appraiser reli related to a property assessment We do have had a special master In my mind I think there is a reasonable evidence that's been presented in the public
hearing after reviewing the u the recommend recommendation of the special master that this letter deserves some sort of relief whether it be through a second a second u look or if we have the statuto authority to
agree with the prop the len or request which was given in public in a public hearing but denied Um at the end the special magistrate writes "The petitioner has failed to carry the burden of proof Accordingly
the property appraisers assessment is upheld." We just I disagree with that Right Okay Yeah And and we could have let one option is have take another look at that Would that be that'd be an evidentiary
hearing then wouldn't it No No Uh it it would be as simple as me communicating that the board uh is asking the special magistrate to review the recommendation again and make sure that everything really is as correct as possible based
on the evidence at the hearing It would not be based on anything presented today So our role though is to review the special magistrate's recommendation and make a final decision which then can be distributed to all the parties Yes sir
So would we be able to make a final decision and say that the flood plane issue wasn't adequately addressed under this report Yes If the if the board finds that's a
legal insufficiency Oh So we can make it make the argument that either the evaluation occurred illegal um not sufficiently or that the flood plane was not adequately addressed We can make the decision today and it wouldn't go back to the special magistrate It would it it any changes
have to go back to the special magistrate The board can't make them directly Okay Okay Okay That's Thank you by the way for going down all these Yeah answers and stuff like that I really appreciate it No it's my pleasure It's my job
Okay So do we have a motion She has one Do we want to specifically define it more or do we want to send what we have here Because what is the idea is is that I'm hearing a couple of different things I didn't want the special magistrate to get it and then be like hey what what what do you want me to look over if
we're not going to give them direction But if you're saying that he we as a board can say please watch the video from the the meeting and review it then that's one thing Is that new evidence that has to be brought in It's not new evidence Okay then that's sufficient Then that's okay then that's fine Okay
call question Um if if we were to want have specific specifics and I'm only looking at the the evidence that been presented in the in the hearing that is that the petitioner challenge the assessment based on the
subject matter property being located in a flood zone and that floods even in normal rainfall And the petitioner also challenged a uniformity of assessments by nearby property um and even submitted over half million
dollars cost to fill the property Um if we wanted to be specific that seems to be the issues that are really at stake here This isn't a flood plane and it's it's a great expense to resolve that flood plane
problem I uh but I don't know It's up to the make of the You can make a friendly amendment to what she has or we can send it back what it is and if it doesn't come back the way you want we can send it again next meeting Yeah we'll do that then you know Okay so there's a motion on the floor
Motion Okay I'll second it Are you second It was already seconded Second Okay there we go Um okay Any debate Any discussion Ben had one question Ben had question Question
Um if I remember the council said that the property appraisers method was comparable sales and you said there are no comparable
sales in the area Right Correct So but is that is that evidence that is not a part of the public record Can we even consider that His assertion cannot be considered by the by the special magistr consider what is in this report Well and the evidence that's already in the
record from the hearing Okay Gotcha Go ahead So under the idea of helping the magistrate do something different because we don't want to go around in circles Direct the PA to
clarify the method that they used If it wasn't comparable sales if that's not good they got to use some other method right And you know if I may those are really good points If we send this
back to special magistrate ask them to reconsider We can go to the public record We can go to the website We can listen to the entire right the entire hearing We can hear everything Some of this information may have been brought up It just was not in this So and that's what I will do We'll do that Yep That's
what I'm doing So it may answer some of your questions I may be wrong I mean some of this data may have been presented but we can go back and listen to that Does that make sense Yeah Yep Okay All right Call the question Call the
question Uh all those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay Nay Uh shows the motion passes unanimous That one item And I do we need to approve the rest of the items Is that something we could do here You can and I
would recommend that you do Yeah Okay Because it'll open up pain doors more Absolutely One out of 318 Not bad Not at all So uh is there a motion on the table Move to approve Move to approve the balance of
the the rest of the recommendations Recommendations from the special master Is there a second Second by Commissioner Atinson Any debate discussion Seeing none all in favor of the motion signify by saying yay Okay Passes unanimous Any negatives No
negatives That show the motion passes unanimously Okay And that was item G1 Adopt the final recommendation of special match with the exception of one Okay Number two approve Exactly We're not going to be able to do that Okay All right So are
we done Uh we still have G3 discuss and grant permission to advertise and second compensation rate for special mattresses Okay So moved Is there a second Second Second Motion
to second Uh on item G3 grant permission advertisement set compensation rates for special magistrates All those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay Yay Those against Nay Seeing no nays uh
passes unanimously Can I before we close Okay Just wanted one item Yes If you could go find out the process about bringing back some sort of structural order in case we do have a tie because I think that that's for this board would be important and I don't and as part of that if you can
bring a recommend what it would take to bring Robert's rules as part of the recommendation since there are none or any other governing you know what I mean body for it I think that would avoid any potential in the future I will do that Thank you
Okay great No I think we're done And uh um I think that check our calendars Check our calendars in case we have to come back I'm clear next Friday I just checked mine If you guys wanted you said it would take seven one week I think that
should be fine unless the magistrate's unavailable for some reason I can't imagine but Okay That's the only variable Okay Okay we can I checked that already I mean that's not good for
me or the next Monday It may not be until Monday which only gives so many days So I just want to make sure that I don't think that's a problem given the scope of the meeting It's literally just one recommendation I'm game So I think
under the circumstances it's okay That would work for me Cinco deio Monday I'm the same way I have four here Yeah Just later in the afternoon doesn't work for you on that day Okay How about May 5th
Cinco de Mayo available in the morning in the morning if are you available the morning of the 5th Are you available Oh me Yeah I am at your service You're awesome Thank you Yeah
So it looks like we're all open on the morning of the 5th Um 8:30 Is that 9:00 9:00 No sorry I had I had 8:30 on my mind Just tell me 9 8:30 and tell everybody else 9:00 Yeah
Okay So nine o'clock uh on May 5th uh we'll set a a hearing date if we need and um good Thank you so much And I'm sure our our council will be available for any questions that may we may ask Thank you for your time Thank you for the
staff And thank you appreciate it very for the board and their diligence Gavl us out Robert we are adjourned 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 [Music] [Music] [Music] 3 daddy
[Music] [Music]