Hi. Call the meeting to order. >> Stand for the pledge. >> Mr. Would you like to lead us in the flag? >> I aliance 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. All right, first item on the agenda is a minute for approval for September 24th, November 21st. Um, is there any corrections, deletions,
changes to the minutes? Hearing none. Is there a motion for approval? Move to approve. >> Second. >> Move to approve the minutes the 24th and minutes the 21st. All in favor say I. >> I. Post. There's unanimously. Great. We'll move to uh public comments and we
have two speakers. First speaker is Kim Rosena. I did this by order of signup. So >> you know me I can't come without. >> Thank you. Good morning, chairman, members of the
uh value adjustment board. I've never been here before. This is new for me, so I may be out of order, and I apologize if I am. I am here on behalf of Chris and Sharon Williams petition 2025-000078. Uh this petition involved the denial of
a transfer of homestead assessment difference from a previous homestead in Bvard County to save our homes portability. Uh we had the hearing before the special magistrate on December 11th, 2025 and my client received the recommended decision as special magistrate via email
on December 16th, 2025 which is the first page of document that you received. Uh they also received it by mail. Um this on page two when you look at it says that this is a recommended decision. It's not a final decision. and
highlighted on the bottom says that this will be considered before you all at a meeting, but there's no date set in that. We anticipated a notice of hearing since there was a blank on this document. Uh we were never advised, neither I nor
my client were, of the request for reconsideration process or any link to any information about the reconsideration. Nor would this have been understood since this board was to consider the decision of the magistrate. Even your notice for today, which is posted on the internet, says you're
going to consider the decision. So, nothing about a reconsideration or a rehearing or anything like that. Um, I actually learned of this meeting on an internet search last week. Last year it was in May. I assumed it would be in May. It's early this year in my opinion.
So, um, we found out that way. It took me 4 days to even get the agenda and there's no agenda material available to you at all. Um, as I said, your notice says the board will consider whether to adopt the recommendations of the special
magistrate. The hearing procedures under section 194.034 of the Florida statutes says the recommendations of the special magistrate shall be considered by the board. Um, to me as a lawyer, this is a failure of due process. My client was
not properly noticed. You all have adopted some sort of recommendations uh for reconsideration which I have page four five 6 7 but I can find nothing where you adopted
this by resolution where on the website you have page eight there's a resolution page nine there's a resolution so again I don't I I don't know that the reconsideration follows Florida law I don't know that it was adopted properly
and I believe that this is a violation of due process at least a violation of transparency and it may even be a violation of the Florida taxpayers bill of rights under Florida stat Florida statute 213.015. I request on behalf of my clients that
you provi pro provide a proper notice of consideration of their petition and the results from the special magistrate and allow presentation on the recommendation of the special magistrate. I thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I think we should have our
council respond to this kind. >> So yes, sir. Yeah, I wasn't informed of this before uh Mr. Lanka began speaking. This is obviously the public comment portion, >> right? >> It hasn't been noticed as a hearing uh or anything adversarial.
>> I would note and I don't have a position on the substance of this since I haven't really reviewed it, but uh the agenda does provide that several requests for reconsideration are being considered today. Um four of them in fact. Um so,
you know, that is on the agenda, just not this particular provision. the requests for reconsideration local procedures have been available on the website for years. Um, and obviously the board receives some each year. So I I'm not um negating what Mr. Zanka said, but
they have been available. They were they were adopted at a duly noticed meeting years ago. Um they may have I I think they may have been amended once or twice since then, but in any case, they've been up for a long time. So, um, to the extent this is a request for the board to consider a request for
reconsideration, my recommendation would be not to consider it for all those reasons. It's simply not it's not before the board properly. Uh, and I mean am if we needed a specific reason among the others, uh, the request for
reconsideration procedures require a timely request. Believe it's either 10 or 15 days after the recommended decision is received. In any case, that was months ago. >> Okay. So, your recommendation is that we just don't consider it. >> Take no action.
>> Take no action. >> Okay. >> May respond. >> Sure. >> Again, we're not asking it to be heard today. I'm just asking that you do a proper procedure where petitioners are noticed that there is a hearing and they're noticed of a request of this
process, which to me violates Florida statutes. I'm sorry. It doesn't say anywhere in the Florida statutes about a reconsideration. It says you shall consider. It doesn't say you have a special reconsideration process. So with that, I just it's a transparency issue to me and that's a lack of notice to my
client. Um again, you can't even get the agenda on the website. You can't even get the agenda material and these are official proceedings and these are evidentary hearings. So to me there there's a problem with the process and you know whether we have a reconsideration or a petition. I've
asked for another hearing where I can do a reconsideration where you can hear these this petition. So that's again I didn't expect a result today. I just think there's a violation of due process there. Well, what I was going to say and you
may have been saying something similar, the board actually will have for consideration today something relating to what Miss Rzanka is asking for, which is uh I would say better notice of the reconsideration procedures. And and to be clear, uh they're not provided for by
statute. They're authorized by rule, but each VA, it's up to them to adopt local procedures on requests for reconsideration or not. Some do, some don't. Um so there wouldn't be anything in the statutes about it but uh something on your point is is up for or will be up for consideration today.
>> I wanted to say if I may please sharers. >> Yes absolutely. >> So we have a reconsideration today where we're revamping a lot of the notices. Um in particular to the similar sentiments that you had um if you can stay and come back when that happens regardless of
what happens here. um right now like later on or if I could pick your brain right now if you have to go on the process that you were you felt like we did not notice so that we could add that to whatever we had today if that makes sense. I >> I I I really can't stay but I'm certain
I just think that there needs to be a better process. I mean there is a blank on the sheet that should have been filled in >> so we can start there. So that's one of the items that you say is that the date should be on top of that >> and there should be something on your form that says please look at our website for the local rules.
>> There should be some notice of these local rules. >> Well taken. Yes. Uh Mr. >> Having gone through this process I agree with you 100%. It the public needs to be when it comes to this kind of stuff need to be baby a little bit better.
>> So let me ask you this. Besides putting the local rules on the website, besides putting the date on page two of your document, what other items could help notice? >> The agenda could be published on the
website and published sooner. >> I mean, the actual agenda, we had to call to get the agenda other than just the notice that's published. Okay. >> Publishing minutes would be helpful. Okay. So, as far as the process goes, those would be two points that we could
bring up to improve the process for people who are making the recommendations. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, we take no action here today because this is not an advertised hearing. Is there a provision by which we could allow this to come back to us
in the formal process or >> what I guess what I would say is doing that would be inconsistent with the board's procedures, >> right? >> So create creating a single exception kind of breaks the rule. >> I would say the real answer is no.
>> Understood. I had to ask. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your time. >> Okay. Thank you. Would you mind staying for my comments? Sure. I'm next. >> Okay. Our next speaker, Dana Blink, please. Um,
>> obviously I didn't know Mr. Zen was going to be here either, uh, because she's not on the agenda, but I have my notes from last year when you guys adopted this procedure, and these weren't my notes from last year. This is an administrative nightmare. The new
policy conflicts were 12D9.031, 031 subarin 1 and 12d9.005 subarin 2 which I'm sure is probably aware of. We have been on opposite sides of the table on valuation issues. She's very familiar with the 129.
Um number two, nobody knows this policy exists. Number three, it's not an axi at the time that you file your petition. for there's nothing on the DR website or the forms that would lead somebody that has been through this process an attorney that would look for those types of forms for the DR because that doesn't
exist. It's a local policy. Um number five or six um there's no magistrate or DR training on this procedure on exactly um this is pretty lengthy policy that you guys adopted and then there's a question
of timing. So to that end, and I expressed my displeasure with it with with some other reasons which I'm I'm going to go into here as well. Um, but what I said to you is the the property appraisers threshold of whether or not a valuation is correct or
a classification on property is correct or an exemption should be applied or the standard set by law in the constitution and the oversight agency. We have a long span of time that we try to do an information sharing with the property owner to make sure we have everything that we need even when it's in dispute.
But unfortunately this process uh just again by virtue of what is required to even go through it and we had a commissioner that filed and she has every right to do that um because she disagreed with the value that the property appraiser had set. the process
is difficult and it's very um arduous and and basically the legal standard for even meeting the requirements of a request for reconsideration are are pretty uh stringent. And I'm going to read those to you because I think it's very important because I think some
folks here today may even say that in order for me to qualify to even have my request for reconsideration meet the minimum criteria for which you would accept, you have to prove five things. First one's pretty easy. You can't include or reference evidence not offered at the hearing before the
special magistrate. In other words, can't present new evidence. Um, but B, specifically identify erroneous findings of facts or conclusions of block, including without limitation how the recommended decision failed to comply with sections 194 301, 1943,
1940 51. C. The next thing identify the specific legal authority which such findings or conclusions of law violate. Discuss why such finding or conclusion or violate or failed to comply with such legal authority. E specifically identify
relief requested by the requesting party. But the value adjustment board is not limited to granting the relief itself. responses shall address each of those issues raised in in the corresponding request for reconsideration and the value adjustment board may find that the corresponding
party concedes any issue with the responding party failing to address to comply with the section may result in the exclusion sick of part or all the uh parties briefs because that was so again
and I and and I think this is just a case and I talked about it last of good initiative but bad judgment. Bad judgment because these procedures already exist in law and the threshold is already there is to be met. And you hire an attorney that is supposed to
make sure that any record of decision includes uh findings of facts or conclusions of law that are sufficient. They're legally sufficient. So once the magistrate that you hire hears that case, that registered state or general
appraiser or attorney, once they hear that case and they uh supply the uh value adjustment board, meaning the clerk to the board with their recommended decision that is supposed to be reviewed by your attorney to ensure that it is complete and it meets these
requirements. Now 97% of the cases filed this year were filed by tax reps. They do this in 8, nine, 10 different counties. And so they're familiar with a lot of these statutes and evidence rules and in
exchange of how those work. The 3% are the ones that I think most of you and I can tell you, not that I treat any case any different. It's the same threshold and and I prepare the case in the same way. But I think we all agree that you have much more empathy when you're
looking at laymen that are reading what is required to even meet the criteria. I doubt without legal representation that our commissioner sitting here today on this board could have met this threshold. And that is no disrespect uh to you. It's pretty arduous. And if you
don't understand anything about the 12D9 in Florida statutes and all the green belt laws and all the things that have to apply to make sure that you're meeting this threshold, probably you're going to have very small chance in that 3% to qualify. Now,
you're going to find as we go forward in the agenda that we're going to have requests for reconsideration that are being considered here today that didn't meet these, and you're still going to be ruling on those. And I I'm going to classify that as picking winners and losers. And I don't like it. I don't
like it at all. I'm okay if I have a difference of opinion with another appraiser that that is employed by you and we disagree on the value. Okay. You might pay uh $10,000 more for a house than I would. It doesn't make my value wrong. Doesn't make yours wrong. The
problem with this is it appears that it is insurmountable by our property owners to meet these thresholds. and and now we have this additional process in place uh that is not needed in my opinion. If if the
value adjustment board attorney is doing what he's supposed to do and making sure that all of the records and decisions are compliant with law, then the only thing left is that the property appraiser still disagrees with the property owner or the property owner disagrees with the property appraiser
and they take that to the next step. So I feel this is very unfair. I do not disagree with the attorneys standing before you today that this is not a fair process and I do believe it's inconsistent with law. And I did give you guys another legal opinion from my
attorney last year indicating why he felt this policy was inconsistent with law. Now, it hasn't been challenged legally. Maybe it will be now. Okay. My goal is to always get the most information I can from property owners, from business owners, from folks that
have leases for agricultural classification to value the property correctly, to apply the exemptions correctly and apply classifications correctly. This, I believe, is a violation of taxpayer rights. I'm not an officer of the court. I won't be testing that. But
I I will tell you that it it it makes me feel um horrible for property owners because this is supposed to be where they can come and have an administrative right of appeal without having to hire attorneys. That that's what we're supposed to be
all be doing here. It's not about me winning or losing, but it's about a fair process and one that doesn't require an attorney. Going to the circuit court requires an attorney. We can all agree with that, but it shouldn't be for this process.
Okay. Any questions? Any comments? >> A little bit. >> Sure. So, um, the local procedures on request for reconsideration are intended to be specific to put both parties, both the petitioners and the
property appraiser on notice as to what's required. The process is essentially supplemental to the adversarial evidentiary process that precedes the board's consideration today. At this point, uh the parties
have already had a full evidentiary hearing with an evidence exchange before a a special magistrate. Uh a recommendation is produced and that's true and I do review them for compliance, but that's for basic compliance. So that's not, you know, is
it a perfect decision that all sides are going to agree with? That's that's not what I'm reviewing for. Um, as for unfairness, um, I think I think the point there is is being made is that it's too complex or too too difficult for petitioners to understand without an
attorney. Um, maybe because it sites statutes. I'm not sure. I guess the alternative would to be would be to have it be less specific. uh more ambiguous, but the the purpose
of the of the procedure is to ensure to it's a balance and there's always a tension. On the one hand, do you want to have more requests and a looser standard? Um or do you want to limit it to issues where uh one side or the other
can identify a specific issue based on the facts and the law that they can site that the board wants to take a closer look at. Um, and and that's really what the purpose of a request for reconsideration is. It's not to reeway evidence. It's not to uh have a second
hearing. It's not just to have the board um look at what the magistrate did. Um though the board can always do that um at any point on any case uh and raise issues with if they think there's some problem with the recommendation or with
the hearing or anything. So this process is not intended to uh to apply to the vast majority of the cases. By its nature, it is is really intended only for a it'll ultimately be
a relatively small number. So um I'm always open to improvements for the local procedures if any are being proposed or suggested. And I absolutely agree that we could probably do a better job of letting the public know about the existence and uh
and procedures for the process, but they've been on the website for years. Um, and I would say many other VABs have the same or a very similar process in place. Really, the process as it is, you could tweak it, but there's not a whole lot
you could do to change it. Fundamentally, both sides get a chance to submit written briefs. I look at it offer an opinion and then it comes before the board. That's the process in a nutshell. Um and the particulars could be tweaked, but that that's really the
only way the process could exist. Um and again, it's not something provided for explicitly by statute, but the do has made clear that it believes that requests for reconsideration are properly can be uh adjudicated by the
board. And while I can't recall whether these specific procedures or ones substantially similar have been approved by DO, I know there have been a few attacks on similar procedures over the years and and none have been sustained. So I don't want to be too specific or or speak for DO or anything like that. But
the general parameters of the procedures really can't be changed too much because they just describe an adversarial process that reviews the underlying evidentiary process and and evidentiary hearing. like there could be tweaks but probably not wholesale changes unless
the board wanted to do away with the process altogether. >> May I respond to your >> briefly? Yes. >> Um I was successful on every request for reconsideration except for one
on every one of them. So if any of the property owners went and got attorneys to prepare their request for reconsideration, they ended up with the same exact result. except for one and the one that the
attorney disagreed with me on the uh magistrate approved the act. So the result is the property owner is going to get the act but I prevailed on every one of them.
>> What were the numbers? How many were there total >> total cases that would happen? >> Yeah. One out of how many? >> I'm sorry. How many had requests for reconsideration or how many cases went before you? >> You said you won except for one. How many did you win? How many did you lose?
>> Maybe 10. Maybe 10. The clerk would have to tell you. Maybe 10. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your invite. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it.
Okay. Um, I think we should move on to the agenda. All right. New business. Okay. Public comments. Proof of notice meeting posted. Did you I see that on the agenda. Do we
need to just acknowledge that? Hi. request for reconsideration um on the following petitions. Three minutes per speaker. First petition is 2025 0095. >> Are there
I'm here for something. I just don't know the number. >> One looks like it is watermelon. >> Watermelon. >> Yeah, watermelon. Are they here? >> Anybody present? >> I believe that the
property appraiser you put in for the request for reconsideration on this one. Correct. You You put in for it. Correct. So, I just weren't sure if you wanted them to go first or or me to go first. Um, on this case, I I'm not here to argue the contents of my request for
reconsideration. Um, I went through all of the criteria, established, made citations on the, uh, statutes that I felt were appropriate that were not, um, discussed in the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Um, I'm going to agree to disagree with your attorney on
this, but this is a case, it's been quite interesting, uh, this piece of property. It's been a case of the tail wagging the dog for several years. So, we we've had a piece of property and I know folks in the county are very
familiar with it. We we had governmental agencies that are very upset with the property appraiser because the owner has applied for a and met the criteria to receive a and then we've had which has made the neighbors and code enforcement in the county angry. Um and because
there's been some activities on the property that didn't meet other tests of law and then subsequently um when I uh disapproved a because they don't meet the ownership in use as of January 1, they come to this board and have
received a in the past with no lease. We've received a in the past without allowing me onto the property. So, just understand here we are the third year in a row and uh the county is out there and code enforcement is citing them for
doing stuff. Um and and the stakeholders that want this property to have a and don't want this property to have a um are equal forces out there. So, doesn't matter to me. Again, my threshold and standards are the law, the constitution, and the do when they review the cases.
no lease, no receipts, no schedule Fs, no act. Um, you don't allow me on the property, I can't inspect it. Um, those types of things. So, um, I expect we'll be back here in 2026. Um, because they've yet to file, waiting
to see what you're going to do with this. Um, that's going to be interesting because we there were no cows and and uh no leases and no cattle and and no uh tilafia harvesting on January 1, 2025.
Certainly isn't there on January 2026 and we have no application as we sit here today. So, uh this is going to go through as is. Um I guess I'll see you back 2026. I think that's the one I wanted to see.
>> I'm sorry. >> I'm just I'm just a normal person. I don't really know what the procedure is, but it sounds like this is the what I came here to speak for. So, if I may. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. Um, >> can you go sit over there so we can get >> Sure.
>> Thank you. Now, I may not be speaking on the right subject. >> You're not. >> Okay. Well, there is a property in question at on in Malibar
at the border of Malibar. It's Palm Bay. >> This is I don't think this is the >> This is Merit Island. >> No, this is >> this one's Merit Island. I'll wait until we get to the poem name. >> Okay, good. >> That's good.
>> Better early than late. >> Um, okay. Any questions in relation to this denial? >> Not for me. >> Okay. So do we need to take a formal action of agreement with the general or we just
>> So this case the recommendation was actually to grant the agricultural classification. Uh the property appraiser has asked the board to reconsider that grant and is asking for the agricultural classification to be denied. Uh my
recommendation was to deny the request for reconsideration. However, the fact that the petitioner isn't here, they can consider that. Um, there's no specific rule that weighs on that, but >> consider what? >> The lack of a of the presence of the
petitioner today. >> So, the application still here. Property appraisal recommendation denial. The special master recommended approval. >> Recommended. Yes. Approving approving granting the petition for the agriculture. >> Okay. That's a classic case. We have a
decision to make here. I turn it over to the board. So, I would say I'm obviously a bit torn because petitioner is not here, but then I wonder did he miss the process? Did you know and that's what you know we're
going to talk about. So for me it's difficult to say well he's not here so he doesn't care or however I might use that to base my judgment on the >> just just for the board's clear the petitioners or the parties here for the request for reconsideration are
specifically notified of today's hearing >> how do we notify them >> right there's Um, I agree with you. I think, you know, what we're looking at is we have a problem with portions of notifications
on us. We're trying to fix that. Lady comes in and says that she has problems on it. Another person doesn't show up. Not that they did that because of that, because it sounds like there's some >> issues that are going on outside of the scope that are there. >> Um, I agree with you. I don't know where
your direction is going. What do you guys want to do? Well, it's up to us. A motion either for the denial or agreement with the special master would be anywhere to the extent may help clarify just to play out what the board's decision would
lead to. Either way, if the decision if if the board grants the request, that would mean it goes back to the special magistrate uh for essentially either a new hearing or to revise the recommended recommended decision in some way uh
presumably to deny the request in full or in part. If the board votes to uh deny the property appraisers request, then essentially the board would would be approving uh later in the meeting the recommended decision without change.
>> Okay. >> Um well, it sounds like we're a little bit of an impass. Is it proper for us to move on to the next case and come back to this one? >> Sure. >> Maybe they want to read some more of the documentation what have you. >> So, let's move on to the next one. 2025
01 2025 01295 and I'm scrolling down >> 1297 >> 1297 >> is that I'm sorry >> 2025 01297
that's our next case it's on page four and that will The Steven R. Reed revocable trust. Is there anyone here representing Stephen Rid?
Okay. I don't see them. Did you want to give us a briefing? >> Sure. This is This is the petitioner's request. They're um asking for reconsideration regarding the valuation. I believe this was a condo in Cocoa Beach.
I recommended denying the request. Being that the party making the request is not present, I would recommend denying it. >> Okay. Any comments or questions or motion?
>> So, they made the request to come before us and they didn't show. Correct. We have phone numbers for these people. >> Sometimes >> Can somebody tell me what the difference? >> I'm not saying that has a question. Somebody just give
me the bones of this thing. So what what was their original valuation? What did he give to >> Yeah, the original valuation was 1.173 million. >> Mhm. >> Uh and and they were asking for a reduction in value. The magistrate recommended denying the request
>> based on >> the petitioner's primary argument on reconsideration. I think I guess I would say they object to some consideration of post January 1 sales
um which sort of as a general I don't know if rule is the right word maybe guideline it it's it's generally improper to consider sales after the lean date of January 1. But that's not really what happened here. there was a sale of the subject unit I believe maybe June at you
know so about 6 months after the lean date um and that wasn't used as a comparable sale per se it was more used just to track whether there's uh you know the word um a trend
>> Mhm. toward lowering values and that was not the case. But this the decision or the recommendation was still based on essentially the property appraisers comparable sales. I thought it was a wellsupported opinion. The fact that that the sale of the subject unit was
considered in a limited way. I think there was nothing wrong with that. It's not a per se rule that you can't get that it has no evidentiary value. it just shouldn't be, you know, the sole basis certainly for a decision, but it was based to track the trend. Um, which the petitioner was arguing was a
downward trend, but that the sale tail of sale of the unit itself really negated that. >> Well, I was just going to say that in the sold that's what it that's what it's worth, what somebody's going to buy >> 6 months later. So, you know, again, it wouldn't be proper to base the the holding solely or explicitly on that, but to
note the trend is is certainly problem. say I would support this because if if we could now have the hindsight looking at the sale and so we kind of know that this is probably accurate. >> That's that's >> my thought. >> So that would be a basis to deny the request.
>> So I'd like to make a motion to deny the request. >> Motion to deny. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any debate? All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Carries unanimously. All right. The next item is 2025
000791. That is on page 73 of our packet. And petitioner's name is Mark Kranau. And is there anyone here representing the petitioner? This was a petition appealing denial of
a late filed agricultural classification application. He filed late. The special magistrate reviewed the circumstances. The same person or owner had uh essentially done
the same thing last year. Bob late VAB denied that petition in 24 and based on among that but also the fact specific facts in this situation uh the magistrate recommended denying the petition. >> Okay.
>> And so if if the board wanted to prove that and not permit the delayed filed application, it would be a a vote motion to deny the request. question. >> Absolutely. Wish I could see as a question.
>> So petitioner has a history at least before of of paying late >> of filing their application late. Yes. >> At least going back one year >> and it happens the same time every year. >> The deadline is is the same each year? Yes. Then I would make a motion to deny
based on the fact that the petitioner has already gone through this once and should be aware of the dates. That's always the same. >> Okay, there's a motion for denial. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Uh any discussion, debate, questions? All in favor of the motion signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we will go to 20 251334 and that's Kina Bratlin. Um I guess I need to give an overview of
the petition. So um my um late husband and I purchased the property in question in 20 um 2014 and um had homestead exemption on the property. We in
2020 had um marital situation and were separated and I purchased another home and filed for homestead exemption porting my homestead to that other property. Um we were living completely
separate and we were you know um um again marital issues um applied for homestead exemption in 2021 was whenever I purchased that home. In 2023, I sold that home and
moved back into the residence in question that we had owned together. My name came off of the deed. Um, my husband had been diagnosed with stage four cancer. >> Um, I moved back into the home. Um,
working full-time, raising two children, taking care of my husband that was dying. Um, I had no knowledge that I needed to notify the property appraisers office that I had moved back into the home. I changed my driver's license. Um,
filed our property, I mean our, um, income tax together, everything. Um, I just had no knowledge that I needed to notify them. When my husband died in 2024, I went into the property appraisers's office to remove
his veterans exemption and file for my widow's exemption. I did not realize that that was going to trigger my cap to be removed because I did not notify them prior to my husband dying.
So, when I got my notice, my tax bill, of course, my um assessed value had gone up because my cap had been removed. Um my homestead was still on there, and I went back to the property appraisers office. They helped me with porting my
homestead exemption back, but that did not reestablish the cap on the home. So my argument to that, I've gone through the hearing process. The magistrate ruled in favor of the property appraisers office. I'm not questioning
the fact that honorable um you know followed the procedures and I think there's a spot in the rule though that does not cover when someone died and I have no way to now go back
and correct the fact that I didn't notify them if my husband was still alive. Obviously I could do that. We could go in together and have made that application again. my cap would have stayed in place. My property taxes would
still be what they were last year. But the fact that my husband died and I can't I can't change that obviously um seems like a very big flaw in the system and I know it applies to probably
a very small number of people that fall into this situation, but nonetheless it has happened to me. Um, I'm in jeopardy of losing my home now because I can't afford my mortgage that went up $900 because of my property tax has been increased on time again that's been in
my name since 2014. Um, so I'm I guess looking for the board's discretion to reconsider that and realize that I've provided ample proof that I moved back
into home. I had sold the other home. It's not like I was benefiting from two homestead exemptions. I wasn't playing the system or taking advantage of anything. I just did not know that I needed to notify them that I moved back
into the home. The home had homestead exemption on it. Still did. Never in a million years would I have thought it would have triggered any change. I've worked for the tax collector's office for 35 years and you know, I didn't know this. So there is no way the general
public would have knowledge of that either. >> Absolutely. >> Can you tell me um financially what it looks like, what you were paying and what you are paying now? >> So my um mortgage before was $2,400 um a month and it's gone to $3,400 a
month. Of course, part of that is my um homeowners insurance went up some, but my property taxes went from $4,600 a year to $10,000. >> That was my question. >> And then now with my portability applied back, it's at like $8,600 a year. So it
went up $4,000 a year. And then of course my value going up, my increase can go up even more now every year because my 3% cap is based on a higher value than it was previously. >> And I very much understand what you're
talking about. And so my issue again is not that the process that the property appraiser is following was done incorrectly, but that how things are getting unusual things. um I have a
problem with how the the the property appraiser is told to value our properties. Number one, um in your situation, I agree with you. People don't know that they have to do that. So, Miss Bley, can you tell us how many
cases like this come before you a year? Is this a like a diamond in the rough, a needle in the hay stack or is this something that comes where because they petition after and they don't know and everything else? Is this >> I I can't quantify with Kelly's
situation and um please know this has been a horrible uh situation for both her and the property appraisers office. >> It's just a case where you know I can't violate the constitution in order to rent a homestead.
Kelly's is very rare because her husband passed. So, typically what happens with Mary but falling separate is uh there's not a a reunification um and and if there is many times uh
properties are sold, but I have to say and I realize that going through your husband's death is other than a child is maybe the most horrific thing you did. But when you come to the property appraisers office and you are married and you file married but separate you,
it's the most invasive process that there is that we have to administer. So we make you aware at that time. We make you prove that you have no intermingling of of finances that you're
not beneficiaries on insurance. I mean it's it's a terrible we have to ask you and you have to prove to us your marriage is not intact. Okay. I I love to get away from the marriage separate. So but once you do that you sever your
cap and your rights to your cap cuz once you file homestead on a new property now you're establishing a cap. So you can't have homestead or a cap on more than one property. So, the best that we could do when
Kelly's husband died, he lost his cap, she didn't have a cap on that property. She had a cap on the property that she had purchased and subsequently sold. And we were able to port because she met the
time requirement to port. Um, you can go without homestead for two tax years. you have to, you know, place to to uh file an own and occupy for um January one of the following year. We were able to port
her portability to that property um to reduce her assessed value legally at that point, but there was no way for me to keep her husband's cap in place. You can't legally do that. So, um you
know, we do our best all that own property, you know, that we have a section on there. So, if you have life event changes, you know, you get married, make any changes to your title or what have you. You know, we do our best to be as proactive as we can and we
certainly are very thorough on the married but filing separately. That's when we let folks know, now that means you have no rights, you have no cap, you have no benefit to this property for homestead purposes, even though your
name's on the title because you've established it on this property. So, Dana, I have a question for you. So, if we vote in favor of um Mrs. Grantland, will you be suing the board? >> No, I would have to sue her.
>> I got a question. Um, yes. I have go ahead. You uh I notice in the recommendation from our general council um you recommend the board deny the request for reconsideration. Is that at this point in time we don't
vote on the petition or not? We vote whether we're going to reconsider it. Is that correct? >> The before the board is whether to essentially grant the petition or not >> right now. >> Essentially. Yes. Okay. >> Essentially, I mean,
>> I just want to be sure cuz the way that's worded, it sound like we're voting on the reconsideration or not, >> it's framed as a request for reconsideration, but if the board were to grant it, then practically speaking, that would be granting the petition. >> Would we need to come go back at the end
of the meeting and meet again? >> There would have to be an additional board meeting following >> uh revision at least of the recommended decision by the right. So, this would not be final. we if we voted to accept her request, this would not be a final,
>> we'd have to have another meeting. Okay. I just wanted to clarif >> absolutely. Um, so speaking to what um, Miss Lley was saying, a couple of other situations that could have happened and and like she said, it's a very invasive
process that I had to go through to get the homestead. But whenever I sold the home, of course, you're not going through that process again when those things are relevant to inform you of what that really means. now and I again did not
need did not know that I needed to notify them that I have moved back into the home. If I had done that, this would be a moot point. My the cap would have remained if I had just gone in and notified them. So, the fact that I've proven that I did live back in the fall
before my husband died also seems like it should be able to be considered. The other thing, had my husband and I divorced whenever we separated and remarried, I would have been eligible for his cap to have gone back in place.
If we had divorced and my husband remarried someone else, they also would have been eligible for his cap to have assumed it as their his new spouse. So, it does not seem in any way right or the intent that the law would be for me to
be penalized for the fact that we did not divorce and were able to rectify, you know, our marital differences and moved back in together just by the fact that I didn't know that I needed to office. I mean, there's all these other
situations that would have been eligible to have assumed that cap, but I can't, you know. Um, >> can I ask a couple questions? I'm sorry. You have to >> If I may, I have a question specific to what she just mentioned >> because I was going to bring up that
very point because reading our attorney's review of the case. It points out when the petition returned to the subject property in 2023, she did not notify PAO office or take steps to reestablish homestead prior husband's
death and section 192.01 parentheses 10 statutes requires property owner to notify the property appraiser. So the statute does provide for a process that
you notify the property appraiser. Um and and the record supports inclusion that this requirement was not satisfied. So this is a the statute provides for you to receive uh your homestead to get it back when you move back. The intent
was to provide you to to to get that. Um what this really boils down to was just a a lack of not knowing that statute and notifying the property appraiser. I I don't I I don't know what the statuto
maybe that was an informative thing to me that's a to me that's a very small technicality that the intent to follow the law was there it was a technicality that I think the statute really didn't proceed
and I don't know I that's just my general feeling on this matter >> chair while I'm very interested in your attorney's response to that. Um I would >> I really wasn't looking for a response in particular. I just was sharing my feeling that the way the statute
structured just providing for a process for her to do the very thing that she did just it was a technicality she missed. >> But but the board cannot grant an exemption in absence of an application. Nor can I in this case I had no
application for exemption. So there I would be violating the law sir and so would this board and so would have the magistrate if they would have approved an exemption in the absence of an application. So while the circumstances are horrific and I am
sorry that we are here today for more than just the legal aspects of this case. It's just a case where the law is very clear on what my limitations are and what the board's limitations are. And I hate to muddy
this even further. This has nothing to do with the merits of this case, but I would be remiss if I did not say this case should not be before you today as a as a recommendation for reconsideration.
And the reason it shouldn't is because it didn't meet any of the criteria that you require in order to be considered for a recommendation reconsideration. You have very strict requirements on what is required. In this case, the
petitioner simply wrote an email asking for you to reconsider the circumstances. And while I wish her for circumstances were different if you vote on this today, you are allowing someone to have a request for reconsideration that
didn't meet any of your own requirements. So I am concerned about the precedent being set moving forward when you opine that someone didn't meet your legal requirements yet this was
simply please reconsider my case. So one thing to that I will circle back to as you spoke on on the previous case um before you all it's impossible to meet the requirements that are um set
forth. So for reconsideration um you know that was said earlier by Miss Blakeley herself. It's pretty impossible to meet those requirements. >> So do you understand that if we vote in favor of you the property appraiser will be suing you? I did not realize that until she said
that on my >> that was my my question was so let me just just and I'm sorry to make you go through all this time. >> So when you moved back in and sold your property and moved back in what was that date again? You said 2024. >> 2023.
>> 2023. >> 2023. >> And then >> and my husband died in 2024. >> And the sale and everything else and the transfer had gone through. Then you moved back in. that whole transition had happened. Correct. >> And there was a time period when you entered that bed and then he passed that
you were together with him and taking care of him. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just wanted to that was my goal. >> Yes. And I provided proof that I had moved back. >> You did and I just you know there's a lot of documentation. So, let me ask you this, and that was what I was going to
get to was if this moves forward and she she's in a bad spot because she has to as the property appraiser as the property appraiser has to do this that process, that would mean that you would then defend yourself against um the property appraiser, which I know is a
real bad situation. Um uh but we in no way are part of that process that goes before the secondary cause judicial comes back to us. If if the board if ultimately the property appraiser appealed the board's decision in the circuit court, it would not come back to
the VA. >> That would essentially be the end of that process, but it might be appealed further, but not back to the VA. >> Okay. >> And the only other thing I'll mention too is as far as you know the the um argument that there was no application
for exemption, there was. I just filed it after my husband died and he was not there to unfortunately be able to sign for it to be adding, you know, whatever that um application type is called to
add me back to his exemption. So, I did file an application or I would think that's what I was doing whenever I went in to remove his veteran status and claim the widow exemption because that was granted. So, if there was an
application process needed, I would think the property traers office would have presented that to me at that time um to educate me on what to do. I And whenever I got my bill, the exemption was there. So, I'm assuming I apply I filed that application at that time.
Again, my husband just had already died and couldn't add me back as on his exemption. I guess >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> So the statute, if I understand what you just said, the statute
does give instructions to notify the property appraiser, right? Does it give a time limit like within 5 days, 10 days, 6 months? >> I don't know off the top of my head. I'm trying to think that through. Um,
>> and my question for you is >> each year. >> My understanding was is that her cap went up like the property was reappraised, reassessed, right answer, whatever the right term
is. But normally, you don't reassess the property unless it changes hands. It's sold or bought tax. >> Am I off base? >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. But not intentionally. Um the
the property is reassessed every year. They based on uh Florida law. Every property is reassessed every single year. But what we're talking about here is the cap. the cap that caps the increases in the assessed value, not the appraised value, not the market value,
and the assessed value based on an amendment to our constitution. However, >> it's you you assessed it and said, well, the market went up X and her cap goes up as well. market became assessed because
the the there was no when Kelly moved back in with her spouse when he was still alive. This is the most horrible case I've ever sent to talk about. And if that happened in 2023, then that
would have been the year that she would have had to file and let the property appraiser know, okay, I' I I've sold this house. I am moving back in here. So because she has to sever having benefits at one home to receive it at another and
that didn't happen. I can't take a homestead application in 2025 and retroactive activate the cap to apply for 2023 particularly when the person with the
benefits is deceased. You know I I just have no statuto authority to do that. The best I can do, the best I can do is let folks know and understand. And I and
I frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I do this all the time when people run for office and they live here and they tell everybody they live here. And I have to say because you have now said you live here and you are married, you no longer
have a cap. You no longer have homestead benefits. It's for your spouse only. And even though it's not going to change, the assess value is not going to change, the exemption amount's going to change, you have to notify us when you move back because if you do not and something
happens to your spouse, you have no cap, you have no exemption. So, you know, in in all of those cases, in the 40 years I've been either working in this office or been the property appraiser, the spouse hasn't passed
away. So that wasn't an issue. Just moved back in, refiled like they have to do because you sever your rights to a cap once you establish a a a separate doicile
um for homestead purposes. >> Question. Is this will this this be for one year or will retroactive back or is this moving forward the established value is going to be that value? >> Her assessed value is now capped based
on the affordability from the house that she sold in 2023. In 2025, we were at least able to bring her affordability from the property that she sold to the property that she moved back into. That
cap will stay in place now moving forward at the 3% or CPI, whichever is less, as in in perpetuity until she sells or makes changes or in construction that that cap will be there. But that's not why she's here
today. while she's here today. Is the cap that her husband was receiving on his home ceased to exist once he passed? >> I have a question on what you said prior to that about not being able to
reestablish the dome, but under the statute, she could have reestablished the dome saw had she made an application or submitted the paperwork to you? >> Yes, sir. I didn't say she didn't have the ability. What I said is you have to
reestablish that that is the doicile in which you are claiming as your permanent residency because remember you file an application and you probabilize all this information that says I am not intact with this person. I'm still married. You're not going to find a final judgment or or
in this case prior to the person is still living. You're not going to find either. So I'm going to provide you all this evidence to support the fact that it is not we are two separate people. We are only legally but we separate income taxes separate the separate everything.
So you sever your rights to that cap. The cap stays with the property. So there was no cap to moved. She had to establish her own homestead with a new cap which she did. She she did that. We
reported that to the home once she came in in 2025 and refiled. >> But she could have reestablished that. >> She could have >> she could have restored it just as it what what happened. It was a simple >> piece of paper wasn't filed or request
or that was that was something that she just did not know that she had to do. >> Yes, sir. But respectfully, the piece of paper you're talking about is the only thing that gives me the constitutional right and the statutory right to give a homestead. She she failed to file a new
application once she was not living in property A and to move back into property B. And I failed to do it before my husband died. >> I failed to do it before my husband died because again, if he was alive and I still had not notified them today,
>> the taxes would be the same on the home. No, no change would have happened. >> Can you speak specifically to the I'm sorry? >> No, go ahead. >> You speak specifically. You made a point that this is difficult because you and you who had worked there for as long as you have did not know that this was a requirement,
>> even though it's statutory law, right? Right. >> Um, >> can you tell me that little process? Like meaning when you were going back, you filed everything that you knew was available. >> There are no notices that come to you. There's no nothing that says it unless you read the statutory law.
>> Right. Unless I had gone back and read statutory law. being a way for me to know that whenever I sold the home there's you know and I understand I guess to that degree but there's nothing to notify me you've sold this homesteaded property of where are you
now kind of thing and I understand that that's you know probably difficult that that's not the property appraisers responsibility but again I went back to the home that was in my name and had homestead on it if I had moved back to a home that
didn't have homestead, it would have triggered something like I need to go and file to get homestead on this property again, but the h the home had homestead on it. And again, I sold the other property and I just mentioned that because as for I work for the tax
collector's office and just meaning that somebody in kind of this world, I don't work in the property tax department, but you know, I'm in more motor vehicle title and registration, but again, just somebody I can't imagine somebody who's never worked in this type of industry
would have any idea that if I the experience that I have did not know So, >> um, sir, can I respond to your question hasn't been answered about the time limit? >> Yes. The statute clear. It says anytime
there's a change in homestead, a new application must be filed. That's 196011 10. Also in 196011 says failure to file by March 1 constitutes a waiver of that privilege for that year. So, it's you
got to read the statutes together. So, if you change your homestead, you got to tell us. And if you don't tell us by May March 1, you lost your privilege for that year. So, when she moved back in 2023, according to 10, section 10, she should have filed a new application. And if you
didn't, you lost your privilege for that year. So, you have to read those two statutes together. So, there is a time limit on on filing that. >> If you're familiar with all the statutes, then because you can't just follow one.
Thank you. >> Mr. Mats, I I thought I I'd asked him a question. I wanted to make sure the board heard it. Could you explain that? >> Sure. >> Yeah. So, if if the board were to grant this request and uh enter a final decision granting
uh the petitioner's request, granting the homestead, uh presumably the property appraiser would appeal and in my view that appeal would would be granted that that would have merit. In other words, the uh the VAB's decision would then be reversed and the
petitioner would end up in the same place. there would be a potentially an order or a final judgment out there saying that the VAB got it got it wrong. Uh which would not be a good thing for for a number of reasons. On top of that, I I do want to mention and the property appraiser did mention this. This request
for reconsideration. It it did not meet the the requirements of the local procedure, but I don't mean on a technicality. It it was one line without any substance whatsoever. Um basically just saying that I want to I want this reconsidered more or less. It's my understanding that the clerk did
respond to that and essentially say we need some something more than that. We need more substance than that. But none was received. So on multiple levels both in terms of the adequacy of the request and how clear the law is in this case
and you it is a sympathetic case. I noted that in my opinion, but that can't um that can't impact the board's decision. And ultimately, I don't think it would benefit the petitioner in any way, assuming that
that the property appraiser did go forward with the search board appeal. It would just be a lengthy uh probably unpleasant process that ended in the same way. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. Um what if the property appraiser didn't appeal their decision?
>> Then that the board's decision would stand though I would caution it would still be in my opinion contrary to law and there can be consequences to that with do. >> Okay. But then that would be up to the DR to determine whether they would
review this, I assume, or would they or would they just simply >> whether they would unilaterally, you know, come to know of it. I'm not sure if it was brought to their attention. I think it presumably the do would say this was a clear one uh and the board
>> or maybe they would see that there's a spot in the law that needs to be addressed and corrected because a situation like this really should be covered as an exemption to that that there should be some kind of process if there is a death to be able to provide
documented proof that I was residing back in the home. I mean, how many other things do we deal with on a day-to-day basis with government where there's an inemption to a process and that all the situations sometimes aren't covered? And I do feel like this is one I know
they're covered by the law because of how it's written and applied, but I do think there's room for an exception to be written in this rule that when a death occurs, I mean, they stated their yourself in 40 years, they haven't seen
a situation where a death is also involved. I think it's just one of those situations that's not covered in the statute or the law to cover this as an exemption either. So maybe if they see that don't see that
>> I would say that's doubtful. The department of revenue doesn't write this didn't write this law and can't change it. Um the do is created by law follows the law and they fairly not fairly they they apply it uniformly and consistently
um and they want the VABs to do that as well. So again, this isn't um for lack of sympathy. Um it's just that the law is quickly the um I know the law can be great
and I know in the world of criminal law we have prosecutors they have 100% they can determine whether the prosecutor find they have complete discretion on that decision and And I just wonder I just wonder if
there's any room for discretion and compassion in this process. And if she's made every attempt to appeal and plead her case, it does seem to feel that she got caught in rough situation. And so I would I would
kind of take that, you know, that approach and um the D if the DOR has nothing more to do but to pursue cases like this, we probably Mhm. >> Probably are funding DR way more than we should, but there's a lot bigger fish to
fry. And I just think there's I' I'm I've read um 196.001 10. It's pretty complex and and I just just
wondering how much room we have for compassion. I guess the analog in your example to the prosecutor closest there is would be the property appraiser. >> So yes, I I would say there's discretion conceptually. However, just like
everyone else, the property appraiser has to follow the law. >> Um say that it's not quite an applesto apples analogy, but uh the disc to the extent there's discretion and again that word's not >> quite it's not with the board. I use
another analogy. Uh law enforcement law enforcement exercises discretion all and their laws they just choose not to enforce. It's a and they have that discretion. Um and um and I just was curious how
that would play out if we were to leave here. But unfortunately it is that unless there is something like this that becomes such an issue that rises to the level that it needs to be fixed legislatively normally it never gets fixed. Meaning that in the event that
there's a an event that happens that draws enough attention to the subject that we're dealing with that it will never get fixed. Even if we petition the state legislature to say hey we ran across this problem can you guys help fix it? It won't really rise to the level of a do you know property
imprisonment anybody else and just in actionable >> no because I'm one person so yeah it'll fall through the cracks and it'll continue to fall through the cracks and other people be affected by it you know sprinkling here and there but there won't be enough of an impact for
anything to be done. I have a question for you on the case just and it's and I'm sure it's spelled out here, but um you got a second homestead exemption separate from your husband. Um
what and your husband died. What when was that homestead exemption done away with? >> In 2023 whenever I sold that home. >> And you sold the home. So there was no homestead exemption. Okay. And then your husband died and you
moved back into his home. >> I moved in before he died. I moved back in >> before he died. >> Correct. >> So you assume because you moved in before he died that you were you were wed and you were protected. >> Correct.
>> Um was your name on the deed >> during this time? >> Never changed. >> Never changed. So you had common property and your name was on the deed. Right. >> So, you assumed and under Florida common law you were on the deed. You had legal
rights to the home, >> right? >> Um, do you still live there? >> Yes, >> you still live there. >> And you had to take no legal action to change a deed whatsoever. It remained in your >> correct >> and you were living in the home
when you died. Okay. That's interesting to me. I >> and had sold the other property again. It's not like I was benefiting get back in the home and benefiting from a homestead. It's obviously that >> that's why I asked that question basically to remind everyone that it
wasn't that he passed and then she moved in. She moved back in to establish that residency. >> Right. >> Yes. And I've provided documentation to prove that. >> And when you moved in, you were as legal. >> Yes. Correct.
>> So y'all never got divorced? No. No. Okay. >> And again, I pointed that out earlier, too, because had we have got have gotten divorced and remarried, I would have been eligible for his cap
and his exemption on the previous value as his new spouse. If he had married someone else and they had moved into the house after he died, they would have also been able to assume that exemption and his cap. But because
it's still me and that I had established that other homestead, that's the part that's catching, you know, where they're saying I can't. And I understand it's the law that's stating that, but again, it's a very
small percentage of people that are going to fall into this situation. And I do feel that statute is like you said, it's very cumbersome. It's it's quite involved. Um I knew how to my situation and had trouble reading it to find where
they were coming to this conclusion. So, you know, again, an average person is not going to be able to read that and understand that. Um, but it also seems like there's room in that where something does need to be added as a catchall for a situation where there's a
death. But to your point, I'm one person and that's probably not going to be enough to get a rule change. >> So, the home that you sold, you did try. >> Okay. You did establish a second homestead exemption in the home that you sold. >> Okay. Yeah, >> it's interesting so it's interesting to
me there almost seems to be a conflict of law here in the fact that >> yes >> under Florida law common law husband and wife are deemed as one individual they share property together but yet the process by which a property appraiser can
sever that homestead seems to even preempt that that common law or common property law husband wife. it just >> you could see how a reasonable person would assume that >> I agree with you that there are some other angles to this that I think we're
not may not be seen but >> um if I can ask a procedural question if we denied the if we accepted the petition to deny the agricultural exemption that would go back just this is going back to our first yeah just following process >> that would go back to the special
magistrate and then we would have to have another meeting prior to Right. So, if we decided we would already have another meeting, um would it be proper to postpone making a decision on this one so we can kind of think about those other angles to formulate a better
argument and then come back if that is the case? >> Maybe we have a second meeting or do we have to make that decision? >> The board could do that. Uh assuming we can get another meeting scheduled in time. I mean, >> when is the in time to be >> May 1st ideally? Um
>> I'm just trying to figure out. So we would have to have another it would have to go back to the special magistrate for the agricultural exemption and then we would have to schedule another meeting prior to May 1st in order to successfully be good. >> I just wanted to try to figure out that
whole process cuz cuz there's a lot of areas that I think you're speaking to that I think >> I'd like to take a look at but that's >> May I ask Erin a question? >> Absolutely. >> So Erin, I have a question. So if if we today decided in favor of the
petitioner, my understanding is that it makes us look bad. >> Yes, I would agree. >> What else does it do? >> There's a there's an immediate problem with how do we write that decision? >> Okay, >> I don't know how to write a decision that doesn't that clearly doesn't comply
with the law. So the board can direct me to direct the magistrate to do that and I can help the magistrate. That's the normal process. That's the correct process. But the only thing I could say that could be done is essentially saying that the board notwithstanding the law has
directed this. And that's not good. That's that's a really that's a terrible way to write a decision. Um but I can guarantee the magistrate is not going to sign something that says uh well something contrary to the law. And I'll be candid
neither can I. I would have to have that pro viso essentially in the decision. So then people who are coming before us that have cases that are unusual, it almost feels like we can't help them at all. So why are they here?
>> Well, I would say some some requests for reconsideration lack merit legally. >> Mhm. >> I'm not going to say that they shouldn't be here, but some requests lack merit and should be denied on the law. Uh unusual, sympathetic,
yes. But the law doesn't look at that. The law does not look at hardship at all with respect to anything that comes before this board. And I don't mean that in a harsh way, but it is crystal clear. Those terms are in the law. Our is not
relevant to any of the substantive consideration. >> I don't see anything in the law that addresses her situation. I'd like to I'd like to see in statute what she violated. There's there's an effort to link other
statues and other situation. But in her specific situation where she moved back in she did away with the homestead. She sold the house that went away. She moved back in her husband with her husband lived in the
home. They were they were a couple. I I'd like to see and I can't find that. Maybe you can. I'd like to see a specific sighting in statute that shows that she violated something and didn't do something proper.
>> I I can prepare a more thorough opinion. Um but it's not going to be substantively different. I don't expect. >> I mean, I'd like to see in statute basically what what what it is that she violated. And does the statute even even
address this horrible situation? And secondly, are is there common is there case law? Has this been litigated? That'd be interesting to see as well. >> Um really the issue is is not complex at its legal core. It's that the property
appraiser cannot uh grant an exemption without an application. >> That's that that is really what this comes down to. An exemption to what? >> Without an application for that exemption. >> Exemption for what? >> For homestead.
>> But what do you mean exemption? She had homestead. She was living with her husband. The property was homesteaded >> and he had the exemption. I should be able to get that >> previously. >> Yeah. It's your It's your spouse, though. If your spouse has an exemption, you're living there. That's your homestead, too. >> Well, there's there may be confusion
because there's two different homestead. Um there's a there's a homestead exemption and a homestead protection under the constitution. They're two separate things. The protection is automatic. You don't apply for it. It gives you certain asset protection benefits. We're talking about an
exemption to to she's it appears to me that she qualified for the exemption, but that's not enough. You have to apply. If you don't apply, you can't have >> So, can I bring up one more thing? And I don't have it in front of me, but whenever I first um submitted my
petition, I had tried to find case law as well to see if I could find where this has ever happened before. I could not find any, but I did find case law where there was a different situation, but the application for homestead had
not been filed. And in that case law, they did go back and give the exemption to prior years based on the fact that they were able to established that the exemption applied. They just had not filed for the exemption. There is case
law documented in there to that >> um where that has been overturned in a situation and an exemption applied later. Again, I know it's not my exact situation because you're not probably going to find that exact situation
because it's so rare, but um there is case law in there cited where an exemption was applied from prior years. >> That case was a Spain case and what happened was gentleman had homestead and he married a woman and then she got his
homestead. The difference between that case and her case is that woman never had homestead anywhere else. Mrs. Scrantland has homestead somewhere else. >> Did not, but I told >> but she does have homestead. >> She had no homestead at time. >> Not at the time. I did.
>> President died and >> she had the benefit of the homestead from her previous one. And that's the difference that what's distinguishes this the Spain case from this grand case. >> And my my argument inside what I'm thinking is is that we have a under
what's brought before us no way box to get out of, right? like this is our attorney is saying we have to do this this and this where I agree with you Mr. is is that there may be something else out there that we're missing that kind of gets before this process and before
all of what we're doing right now to re establish her in that role whether that's prior case law whether that's something out there and I think for me to flush that out um it'd be worth it. The only problem I have is I I would meet tomorrow if you guys ask me to. I
don't know what your schedules are to have another meeting. And I don't know if we have enough time to go down that road prior to the May 1st. That's all. >> Well, there's no limitation on my schedule. So, it's up to the board. >> Um, just in general, you guys, whether
it's this, whether it's the other a piece, we would have to have another meeting coming back. >> Sure. Are you guys open to trying not saying we vote one way or the other on any of these, but is it would make my decisions a lot easier if I knew you guys would not be willing to come back
before me first. >> I would be >> I would be before the 25th. I'm out of country after the 25th. But >> are you good? >> I'm good. I'll support you. >> Okay. Yeah. Just just from a schedule's perspective. >> Yeah. else one >> can we get the mag the special magistrate can he we have to if we the
agricultural one I'm sorry this is a kind of a procedural one if we agree with the property appraiser to reverse that it has to go back to special magistrate and it has to come back to us right >> yes >> is there time to do that between now and >> that that part of it probably doesn't take too long you know me and the
magistrate probably revise a decision in a matter of days or less that usually assuming they're available >> okay I just from a procedural piece I just That's all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I would say that.
>> Do you want to do it? >> Want me to do it? >> Sure. >> I'll motion to postpone this until a date that we can rectify it prior to May 1st. Security goes. >> I'll second that. Can I ask you maybe to include something in the motion to pass
that we get more information copied pertinent case law specific statuto violations >> see if there's something I >> right >> I'm happy to prepare that I would suggest that if if you know maybe ask
the parties to do likewise >> it's up to the board of course >> okay right appreciate that >> include all of that in action >> all the affected parties >> yes you want to Can I just ask a question before you vote on a motion? >> We have a motion already. I think we got
a second, don't we? Yes. >> But we can still discuss it. >> Yeah. >> I just want to make sure I'm understanding that what you're voting on today is that you are accepting that this petition met the requirements to be considered for a
reconsideration and you are taking a vote based on that. >> Can I can I speak to that? My motion? No. What we're doing is postponing it to a later date so that we can gather more information to see if there is something else that we may have missed as a point. That's it. >> So that motion would come at the next
meeting where we would have that conversation in that decision. >> Right. But the procedure available to you now is >> is the same procedure we would have in a couple of weeks when we have another meeting. >> Yes sir. If I may finish the procedure that you have now is a request for
reconsideration. So even if you table it, >> it's still a request for reconsideration >> at the time when we bring it back. Yes, ma'am. >> Correct. Whether it's now, whether it's two weeks from now, whenever you bring it back. >> So what I'm asking, >> or whether it's 5 minutes from now, if we deliberated or we took a recess and
we asked the council to do some quick research. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I am concerned about the precedent that you are setting. If you have a request for reconsideration where none of your criteria to meet the standards of a request for reconsideration were met
because you denied others that did not meet the requirements of your request for reconsideration. >> And what I would say to that is is that un due to the usual circumstances and some of the facts behind it, we may not have seen some of the things that we would be able to uncover whether that's
case law or something else. So we're not making a decision formally on this right now and we can postpone it. Not postponing other ones and making a decision later is not any different than actually voting on it then. >> So there's no we are postponing it,
tableabling it. So I would disagree with that statement. >> Okay. So you're postponing whether or not you're going to consider reviewing this case. >> Do I understand that to be what you're doing? >> We're postponing the judgment. We're just extending and getting more
information. >> We're taking more time. >> Taking more time. >> Okay. Um is there any debate, discussion? Um all in favor of the motion signify by saying yay. >> Yay. >> Oppos unanimous. Okay. We will move to the
next item which is 2025 01334 which is >> that's the one that was before. Oh, >> the first one. >> Go back to 95. >> Oh, we go back to 95. Okay. Scrolling through the agenda. So, that
would be at the beginning. Okay. >> Holdings. >> Yeah. >> Watermill holding. Back to back to the first one. 095. That's right. Cuz we didn't have a >> Is this the one you're here for? Did we
cover? >> I don't know which one I'm here for. >> She's not. I don't know if we had your >> Malibar. I don't see it on here. >> That's what threw me. >> Yeah, I there's another
So when I came home, she is not the person that's but she told me that the meeting is here. I I've not a VA case. >> It's not. I didn't send a letter. I don't know who did. Somebody from the city of Palm Bay used my name and the
VA's phone number because there was a meeting here today that something about land clearing and a burn ban, but it was not authorized or sent by Nicole Summers. >> Yeah, cuz it says it says Titusville, the Atlantic Room in Titusville. So I don't know what >> and that's because the VAB meeting was
actually here but there is the tax account number that is in question that will come before the board if they adopt the recommended decision today. >> Okay. >> Um I forgot what the tax account number was 3032 >> like which one of these
>> it's not on there because it's not for this. No ma'am I don't know who sent the letter out but we did receive at least 10 phone calls about it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is there a way for you to track down who did that? That's >> I have a copy of it in my email, but I don't have a way of tracking down
because it's not on letterhead. They didn't use my last name, but they did use the BB phone >> and and the envelope that they sent it from, it was from Orlando. And when I looked up the address, it was the UPS store. So, I mean, I don't know who sent it, but I do know that. Um,
>> when was it sent? There's a problem. >> When was it sent? >> I received it on Saturday. And so do you know what the name of the UPS store was that it was attracted to? >> I would like you to. >> Yeah. Madam, would you mind showing the letter?
>> Cuz that pisses me off that somebody send people to a disrup. >> So what happens is So what happens and I deal with this in insurance. >> Yeah. >> These people are used car salesmen. >> Yeah. And so what it is is that each UPS has um PO boxes, right?
>> So they have companies that will establish their residents at there. So this company CRC realy is probably who did that >> probably and they um Commissioner I think they was talking about that last night.
>> Yeah, I didn't see it. >> Well, I'd say we need to >> Well, it's definitely an issue. I'd like to >> if it's not today, I'd like to go on the list. >> So I don't So you are not I don't know. >> I guess I'm not supposed to be here.
>> No, it's okay. Your specific case, but what we're dealing with is we deal with this on school board. We have people out there that put our name and our logo on stuff and then send it out and that's illegal. We've established that that needs to be addressed because if you allow somebody to do that, then they
will. So, I I'd like to have a discussion about it again. I'm sorry to name him. I don't know. Maybe he can help you. Our attorney is much smarter than me. >> What I see here, if I had to make a guess, it looks like something AI created. It It does have a section that
says value adjustment board meeting, April 8th. It refers to 400 South Street, Titusville, Atlantic Room. >> But nothing else here seems to relate to the VAB. At least as far as I can tell. talking about reinulture.
>> Yeah, >> basically the activities that are going on there I would like to see stops or managed or something. >> This is nothing. >> We're going to take a five minute recess. >> Yes, mate.
>> I mean, I'd like to keep the copy of the letter, but you're welcome to have your copy. Okay. >> All of our logos recently. >> We did. Okay. Are you the one? Okay, thank you. You're
the one who put me. Okay, thank you. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. That is okay. That's okay. I see that. >> So, you tracked it down. You actually found the person that did >> I honestly
>> maybe should I wait? >> I can't even tell you. I don't even know. >> I'm not sure. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm the uh there too. All right. >> May I take pictures of this document
that you just show? >> If not to do that, that would be great. But if I could move, >> I just need to do if I could just take a second. This is who he is. He sits on the board.
He sits on my big >> I saw it this morning. What was the purpose? What was the purpose behind it? I had my office. He said it's because >> Holy
>> So he causing chaos. >> Yeah. I think he's trying to push us into selling our property which we've been a farm for I've owned it for 26 years. Our family. It's been a farm for over 100 years. It's actually the original pet's farm and found it now. to
go through all this. Did you feel? >> No. And I I wanted to ask I I was copied on it. >> Well, Rachel Rick, she was a neighbor and I brought a letter from her. I was I was organiz
an egg exemption through everything. So >> this a single letter to the other one. This is a good pleasure. >> He said we were in compiance, but >> he said we were being sued by you guys.
>> Who is this guy? >> What's his name? What's his name? >> It's right here. >> That's a lot of >> I'll make sure none of your stuff. I think it's
where the blanket chicken all of them. You got own portions of this. >> My family down here says chaos. That's what he did.
No, but I mean like who sent letters to >> So he hasn't developed something in here. >> But it's inactive. So I think he wanted What >> what is his uh do you have a phone number somewhere
back. I remember for them guys not to Sorry. And so I need to keep you >> like they took your name. some somebody who cares.
CD >> that's basically our health district. So the part I told him right phone call. >> Yes. What this is owns,
>> right? So what soactly You have to come together. >> All these people try to create There's no question as good as in What I'd like to do is attorneys.
We had to stop meeting and figure out what the hell's going on. >> I think that ladies might know this guy. He's a very strong developer attorney. So that's
hang >> we'll go back. Uh we'll convene we'll go back to the first item 2025-000095. >> This is the agriculture. >> Yes. >> Okay. Sorry, I was trying to charge my documents. >> So thank you so much for bringing this forward. Can you explain to me some of
the your you came to an assumption that this is no longer an agricultural property based on those assumptions and I read through them. You had said that they had applied for tilapia, they had applied for these things, but then there was never any proof of them. Can you
walk through that a little bit more? >> I'm going to let George handle that because it's a bit more nuanced than that. What the the agricultural operations that you are describing were the agricultural operations that were applied for and granted by the previous
value >> from Malia Farm. >> So, I'm going to let just give you an overview. um of this case >> individual >> the 2024 VAB granted the agriculture prop on this property
for cattle grazing because they had cows and there's a large pond on the property. The owner said they were growing tilapia to sell to local restaurants. The top tilapia had not reached the right size yet and they were working on getting contracts for local
restaurants. In the meantime, they were doing Ve fishing, which like strawberry picking and blueberry picking. You can go to their property, catch a fish, >> and weigh it somehow, and then Santa. >> So, in November of 24, Romeilia Farms
closed. >> It was well known. It was in the newspaper. >> Um, we had notice from the gentleman who supplied the cattle to the property that he removed the last of the cows in December of 24. Um the tilapia operation never happened.
They never started selling the restaurants but the fee fishing happened. Fee fishing if you look under I can't remember I think it's chapter 570 of the four statutes fee fishing is an agurism activity not an agricultural activity. So if you do fee fishing that
doesn't qualify you for the agricultural classification. So as of January 1, 2025, the cows were gone because they removed in December of 24 and we believe the fee fishing did not constitute an agricultural activity.
That's why we denied the exemption for the classification as of January 1, 2025 cuz those activities did not exist. Now, we did have an appointment to meet the new owners to physically inspect the property because the gates were locked
because we're going through and doing our inspections toward the end of the year. Um because whether or not there's an ownership change, and that's part of this as well, change in the mansion partners in the corporation, whether or not that exists or it doesn't, that doesn't avail us from having to prove
each January one use ownership and use. You know, yes, you've had a before. Yes, you should continue to receive that agriculture exemption for the current year because that operation has continued. So when you go by the property and the gates are locked and
there's nobody there and the the articles in paper say you know the farm's closed and and we were all sad great petting so and they were doing wonderful things out there that weren't didn't qualify them for act per se but petting zoo part was great they saving animals and things like that um but it
was closed so when we finally said hey you know we're going to deny this there's doesn't seem to be a use uh there. We made an appointment with them to inspect the property so they could show us their cows and their tilapia and um we made the appointment with the new
owner and then she contacted us back and said that under the advice of her attorney that we were not going to inspect the property. So hence case went to the value adjustment board >> and then they didn't bring forward any receipts I think I saw inside there that showed that they had been selling
anything from the actual property >> in in the VA case this year they provided a bunch of evidence that they're converting the property to a nursery but they did not provide any evidence for the previous use of cows and
>> correct >> so had the new owners whenever. Current owners whenever. Um applied for said, "Yep, you're right. We're closed. We don't have any cows. Obviously, there's none here." Um obviously, we're not even letting people come in and pick because
the the gates are locked. Had they have at that time said, "But we are making a friend of steps. This property's in transition and as of January 1, we're going to qualify for nurseries." That's something this office couldn't consider. But we can't guess if you're open or
not. We can't guess when we don't find cows that that has continued. We can't guess that somebody's jumping over the fence and be fishing. Um, you know, we can't do any of that. So, um, you know, this is >> Did I miss the nursery application?
Because in order to get to a nursery, you have to apply to the state and get a nursery application. >> They are preparing the property in 25 for a nursery. So, there was not a nursery in active an active nursery as of January 2025. So they didn't there's no application for a nursery. There's no proof that there's anything on there that
>> you sit here today even in 2026 there's no application for ad or nursery. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Can I ask the same I don't know if you guys heard that. Uh can you say >> no I didn't >> I asked him I asked that was what what
was the justification behind allowing them to continue to have an agriculture. Yeah, the the recommendation was primarily about the continuation of of ownership, >> right? >> Uh and and the finding was that it was the same same ownership.
>> Not based upon the justification of locking gates, not on actually sitting there and not letting people on, not any of that stuff, but with no nursery application, none of that. And they're not even here to defend themselves. Yeah, I read that that they allege that
the property appraiser only emphasize ownership and they were able to dispel the ownership, but we've heard of testimony that they were looking at a lot more than just the ownership. is actual land use and I had some very strong evidence that that had
ceased prior to so I'm if we deny >> I'm inclined to project if the board wants to grant the request thereby denying the agricultural classification excuse me um then really what I would
need is is some findings and so or some really holdings more like to tell the special magistrate how to change the recommendation and I you know I I can flesh that out a bit. I don't need word for word but some direction from the board would be needed.
>> Can I ask you um you are making the argument that he never brought forward any proof to actually have that agricultural exemption. Right. >> Um he never offered any proof. The pro the proof we had was just the opposite. We had the the cattle provider say I I
took the cows away before December before January 1. >> So that is the argument that we want our special magistrate to re-review which he did not review in the previous one because all they did was say that this is the previous owner is what I'm hearing. Does that make sense to you? >> I think that would be your decision. But
yeah, that's our contention that and the to fishing is not an aggro cultural activity. It's agurism activity >> and that there's no application for a nursery. They've not been allowed to be on the camp site. Everything else >> to be honest with you, the nursery is a next year issue. Nursery was never part
of our denial for 25. >> They're trying to put up as many things as they can in order to try to say, "Oh, well," and I just get a little upset that they would try to take what Ramalia Farms built there and try to tail end on it to try to save some money. That's not fair. That's where I'm up. All right.
>> One one perhaps simpler way to handle it. If the board wanted to grant the request, the board could adopt the um the findings put forward by the property appraiser and property appraisers request. So you don't have to list them out for me on the record. You can essentially adopt their position. That
would be an easier way >> by then kind of in in that format our you know in our objection in our request for consideration. Um, you know, George E outlines each findings of facts, conclusions of law that we disagree with with citations and references and
references to the evidence supported otherwise. I'm paraphrasing here, but but this whole case seemed to be with the magistrate based on the ownership. The ownership did change or didn't change. The first thing is if you change managing partners more than 50% you're
supposed to notice with APR >> 435 or so >> 435 it says hey while the uh entity is still the same managing partners within the 50% exchange and that lets us know that's what you file with us. they they didn't do that. But when we met with
their attorney that represented them, an officer of the court, and he says, "Yes, the ownership changed." That meant to us we have to hone in on um you know, the ownership is change of ownership
requires a new application, period. Right? But that didn't exist. That was just the officer of the court's records. Now, we have no reason to to think that the attorney is not being truthful with us. I think the bar would say you need to do that as well. But we didn't just rely on
that. Again, even if the ownership doesn't change um which appears that they made some changes in Sunbiz, you know, after January 1, you still have to use the property for agricultural purposes for you know those uh agricultural operations for which we
have an application and you've said are going on on the property. So, it seemed as though, which is why we filed, that the magistrate stopped with, nope, there wasn't a new owner. Whether there is or there isn't, you still have to continue to have that
classification. So, that's I think, and I'm paraphrasing, in a nutshell, why we uh hey, you can't just stop at airship. We can't stop at ownership. You know, just get angry with somebody trying to lie about what they're doing. And that's
what I feel is happening there. Um, okay. Are you guys do you guys have anything to say? >> I just had some questions. I I know in the document by the attorney for the land owner um
stated that um that they submitted evidence, photographic evidence showing animals present on the property in January 2025. materials relate to apparent use of the
property and documentation describing agriculture, livestock and nursery activities as well as introduce invoices and other materials reflecting substantial agricultural investment and development activities during 2025.
Um, did y'all see those? >> Yes, sir. If you look at the evidence, the pictures were of goats, pig, goats and pigs, >> donkeys, >> two cameras. >> I think there was a >> no with um >> the new pictures in the evidence. The
pigs and the goats were used for keeping instead of mowing, they were using them for um ground cover maintenance. >> Interesting. >> Which was not the what was granted by the VAB. The VAB granted cattle grazing with cows.
>> Okay. not raising um pigs or or goats, which would require a different application. >> How about the invoices they claimed that they submitted? Did you see any invoices? >> They they submitted invoices um for feeding the animals that they had.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. But it wasn't, you know, it wasn't cow supplement bonafide. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. What is the desire of the board?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the um petition to go back to the BB or the special magistrate and have them reassess and come back based upon what we've found as far as not being the owners but actually the merits of
agricultural operation. Does that make sense to you guys? >> I'll second that. Second that. Do we need to add anything to the motion? >> I I would say if it's the board's desire to to adopt the findings and conclusions in the property appraisers request, then
I would just add that if that's what the board wants. >> So, we'd include that in the motion. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. There's a motion second. I want to make sure. >> Uh, any discussion? All those in favor
signify by saying yay. >> Opposing nay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. >> All right. Okay. Now, let's move on down the agenda to item two, new business. Other requests for reconsideration.
>> That's that's really a catch and all, but I don't think there's anyone else here today. >> Okay. All right. Uh, approve denials of petition number 2025-0000 834 and 20225- 00296 for nonpayment. >> And that is that's a that's mandated by
statute if they >> pay reasonable taxes on that. >> Do we need a motion? Yeah. >> Do we need a vote on that? >> Make a motion to approve the denials. >> Second. >> All those in favor say yay. >> Nay.
>> Oppos? Nick carries unanimously. Okay. Number four, adopt and finalize recommendations of special measure strengths for petitions to the value adjustment board for 2025 tax year. Approve the 2025 notice of tax impact
and authorize the board to publish the tax impact notice because >> I believe this is where I have to recuse myself, isn't it? >> Yes, >> it is. um because we're looping and the only really what the board can do is adopt all of the recommendations except
for the two that the board is not uh has not finalized yet. Okay. Is that 95 and 1334? >> And then um if you want to put on the record your recusal and we also because we're not going to finish the um
final decisions that's as far as we can go on reporting. So only to adopt the recommendations other than those two. >> Is that what you'd like to do or do we bring it all back at the same time? What's the difference? >> I would say finalize them today. Better to have them done. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. We got that in the record for the motion. >> Do what was the uh do you have the the name of the uh petition that you needed to recuse yourself on >> the number of it? I don't >> the number or the name of the owner just so we can put that in. >> It's me.
>> Oh, your your petition. Mine. Okay. Then that that's enough. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just not that she's recused from her own petition, of course. >> So, the if I can if the board wants the motion would be to adopt all recommendations except for 95 and 1334
and uh make adopt them make final decisions. >> Okay. So today >> I'll motion that. >> Second. >> Is there a second the motion? >> Second. >> A second to the motion. Any discussion?
None. All in favor say yay. Yay. >> Post nay. Motion carries unanimously with one abstension. >> Right. >> And that's commissioner. Okay.
Uh for five, the board can authorize the certificate for the tangible personal property but not the real property. So that that would be my recommendation is to do so. >> Okay. Is there a motion on the tangible personal property? Move to approve. >> The motion to approve the tangible
personal property is our second. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Atinson. All in favor say yay. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries unanimously. Six, uh, grant permission to advertise and
set compensation rate for special magistrates. >> Okay. >> Any motion, discussion, questions. >> I'll make a motion to grant permission to advertise and set compensation rates for special magistrates for 2026. >> Second.
>> Motion and second. All in favor say yay. I post nay. Passes unanimous in the election. Okay. Item seven, authorization of ministerial adjustments. Authorize VAB council to implement
ministerial clerical or computational adjustments necessary to carry out the board's rulings, including any resulting changes in the notice of tax impact without further board action. >> This isn't really needed today. >> Not needed today. Okay. Discuss item
eight. discuss an extended VAB private council agreement with Aaron Fwitzer. >> Yes. Uh so before the we're really at the organizational meeting which will be coming up um then it'll be the first meeting for the 2026
tax cycle. The board's required to hire private counsel. It does not have to be myself, but my contract does expire before the organizational meeting. Um I suppose the board has a few options. The board could allow that to happen. Um, but you'd need to have a new council before the organizational meeting and
likely, you know, through the summer. There are things that come up. Uh, the board has, uh, I think once in the past extended me up to the organizational meeting and then considered a further extension at that point or the board could extend me for for another year or more. It It's really in the board's
pleasure. I'm I'm grateful for any extension. I love serving the board. >> Last contact, Mayor. >> Yes. >> Last contract we did, was that a three-year contract? I believe it was a one and one with a one year extension if I remember correctly that was on the tail end of the three and then I think
that's usually what we do. >> So the discussion before the board is do we want to extend another year or do we want to grant something three years >> those are two options. >> Yep. I mean we can pretty much do whatever we want. >> Yeah. And and it's up to us. What
>> length? >> Yeah. Is it the same rate? >> Same rate yesterday. I don't think it's ever changed. Well, I know it changed once a few years ago. >> Well, let's extend for three years then. >> I would I'd second that. >> Okay. >> I pass the Gav.
>> Okay. I have the gavl. Would you >> like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to extend for three years. >> Second. >> All those in favor say yes. >> All those opposed. >> Passes unanimous. >> Chair, can I ask just a question that would help us out if y'all would
consider it before you go into G? um because you have finalized the tangible personal property but not the real estate I I have to certify the role not not just the tangible. So what in a sense this does is it makes the deadline
for those property owners to to disagree with their tangible values a different deadline for filing in circuit court than the real estate. What I'm asking you to do and consider is that readdopting the tangible at the same time that you finalized the real estate,
all it does is give those tangible folks more than 60 days um if they disagree rather than us have two separate deadlines for uh folks from the circuit court. Would you be amenable to that? >> I don't I don't see any issue with that. Uh that we can just put it on the agenda
for the next meeting. That's all that's really needed. >> Thank you. makes it less confusing for >> and that sounds great. Probably that on the next agenda. >> So G notifications to petitions regarding petitioners regarding request
for reconsideration procedures. So that was my request. You guys received an email from Mr. Thazer that kind of overview some of the you know sentiments that we wanted to bring before the board. Um what I had asked if you guys
noticed it's um the notice to regarding recommendation the VAB timeline it's the notices that go out um to include and if you look at some of the samples it has the bold print and stuff like that on top of it. What I would like to do is two things on this document. It's going
to ask if it's okay if we actually put the dates in there because under the current one it just says 10 days 15 days but when these are issued we know the dates. So remember the gentleman that came in and said, "Well, I bought this date and this date and all that." But if it says like a request for consideration
must be received by the VAB clerk in here, it says 10 calendar days. I would like to try to put the date so that they know the date. That's all. >> I think putting the date is a good idea because then people are not going to be confused as Saturday and Sunday count. >> Yeah. Right. And and there's there's a little bit of and and it's not so much
to say that like we're doing anything. It's just that the other piece is is that it opens a door for people to argue apart that they may they may be not telling the truth and saying, "Oh, well, I didn't see it." And all that other stuff. It just closes that door on them. But I wanted to ask you guys, um, when
you're issuing those, is putting the actual date on there and issue or we already know those dates. We already have those dates. >> Does that make sense? >> On what? Put the date on what? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. I didn't know that you guys I apologize. You guys need to get Did you
guys get Mr. >> on that form then? No, because that's a do form. Um, and it's hard to alter that. >> Can we put it? We have to think about it. >> So, the do form >> on on there.
>> So, we're adding 10 days, all this other stuff. We're holding certain things, but what I'm hearing you say is we can't alter it to put the date in there >> on this one here. >> Oh, no. No, ma'am. I'm sorry. >> My memo. the memo that he sent out had a couple of key um had um put in a couple
of documents that the notice for regarding recommended decision and reconsiderments. Do you want to speak to that? >> Yeah, this this was adding some you know I guess extra uh explanations and information about the the timeline of the the whole VAB process and
specifically request for reconsideration. It was the me it was it was attached to a memo. >> That's fine. It's not a DR. >> No, it's not a DR. >> Well, if I may, just cuz there seems to be a little bit. Um, I want to verify that on that you guys see, you guys are
okay with adding that date and I want to make sure that we have those dates because sometimes I've heard that we may not have the dates yet. Remember, we were saying maybe we could set those dates out ahead of time so that everybody knows when these dates are. We can put them on the website and stuff like that. What I would like to do is um
um property appraiser mentioned earlier that the process of notification and all that stuff she feels could improve. We've heard from the attorney that this could improve on websites and all that stuff. Um I would like to ask our um
clerk to review this to make sure that we can do that and then also add part of the discussion the next meeting to include what our property appraiser along with the other individuals had stated that we might need to add to so website stuff and everything else and I'll work on that and bring it back if
that's okay with you guys. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes, sir. >> Jason Arthur, chief deputy with the clerk's office. Um, my concern is well, you're you're asking I don't have the form in front of me, but what it seems like instead the form currently says 10 days from the decision or or 15 days,
whatever it says. >> Uh, you want the the clerk to the board to actually put the actual date. >> U, that concerns me from the standpoint of errors if made on the part of the clerk to board. They were not able
miscalculated that date from for some reason. Uh I am not in favor of them actually adding dates to the to the form. If you want to make the form more clear to include say it says 10 days and put in parenthesis next to it including
weekends if that's what the concern is whether it's business days it says calendar days if that's not clear enough for the public on the form then add some wording that makes it clearer. I'm not in favor of the board actually figuring out
the number of days from the date of the final decision. I'd rather it be left up to the uh person who is using that form fill out the form of those days or make sure they're in compliance. So, what you're saying is
that um in order you don't feel confident putting a date down on the form because the clerk might get it wrong, but we want to ask the actual tax owner to figure out based upon the rules. Is that >> that's what I heard? >> That's what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. I do not want that burden to be
put on the fund to the board of staff. >> But we put it but we put it on the public >> that they are the ones that are filing that for the for the reconsideration. Um, and it they're it's incumbent upon them if they >> can they call your office and say, "This
is the letter I just got. What would the date be?" And then you give them an email that said, "In your particular case, this is what this date would be." >> I would have a problem with the staff telling them that the the date of the final decision >> was this day and then let them calculate that out from there.
>> There is a degree of legal judgment in calculating dates. I know it seems like a very simple thing that does cut both ways. >> Do you include the the day that expires is the day after it expires or do you include when you start counting? It could be
>> agree and and I can understand why that's confusing to the public. I understand where you're going, but I would rather clarify that what you mean by 15 days or 10 days, whatever the number is on the form and clarify that language to make it easier for the public versus putting the burden on
board staff to actually make that determination. As Mr. Ber, it does require some sort of legal determination and that's we're ministerial. So the issue is is that it's where that 15-day line lands that they then determine based upon that whether it's the
beginning end all that stuff >> I see what you're saying can we can we work on that and bring it back and have conversations about hear what you're saying >> yeah I mean I'm all about >> Dana I see Dana has her hand up >> would it be possible for us to get a copy of whatever your recommended
changes >> absolutely if we implore that to them >> and I would ask review the language before anything brought back court anyway. So, and if that language does not require the clerk to make some firm action,
legal or not, um then I'm I don't would not have you would have a problem putting the date that it occurred and then saying 15 days after this based upon this and this. >> No, the date that occurred that the final >> so the date that starts the 15 or 10 day process. You wouldn't have a problem
putting that date on and then >> that date on Okay, gotcha. and then specifying. Okay. >> So it says it says 15 days from this date >> excluding how you know recap >> that you know the date of the the date of the recommended decision is on the
form. There's nothing telling you about the reconsideration process giving you the days amount on this form but the actual date that it it was mailed out and emailed out is the date is is there for them. Like we wouldn't have to necessarily provide that date because it's already on the form. instead of
moving forward with some of this stuff, what I'd like to do is go back and look at it and then bring it back to the next meeting and hear what you're saying. >> Um I think I think we're both trying to get to the same place. >> Absolutely. >> Can I approach so I can show you? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem.
>> So this is the date they get the decisions in the value adjustment and this is the date. This is the one that the special magistrate signs and it could be sitting in a queue for a long time. So the top date is a different date. >> When the clerk sends it out, this is the
date that we're going by and that would be the 10 days from that date. >> And I believe in the request for reconsideration, it says um if it's ends on a weekend or a holiday, then it goes to the following Monday.
>> So it would be the date after that. appreciate it. >> But there is a date on there and that's the date that we go by when we say 10 days. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good. So the idea is to bring it back not only with recommendations based upon what we have here that are correct that
may alleviate some of the issues but then also notices on websites and everything else that we have that are not here. >> Um I'll work diligently to get that taken care of before. >> Okay. If that's okay. >> Yeah. Great. And I have something to add also. In the future when we do mail out
the recommended decisions, we are now going to mail out the request for consideration procedures as well so that they will receive it even though it's on the website a few places. We will make sure we mail it to them as well so that they are aware with each recommended
recommended decision. We got 10 15 days. >> Yes. Well, no, it's it's a local rule, but it is there's no discretion. >> Okay. >> It's a it's a breakout >> under our rule making authority, or is that another >> It's under the VA's authority. I just want to check. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
>> Okay. Great. All right. That concludes G. I think we go to Hard Reports and our attorney. >> No report. I have no report. Vice Chair, >> I have a question. So, and this may be
Aaron for you, it may be for Dana, I'm not sure. When the property appraiser makes a decision on appraisal of property, they have particular um categories. It has to be a like property and all of those things. Who determines
what those are? >> Uh appraisal standards and guidelines. It's ultimately it's by it's I suppose set by statute that they refer to privately determined appraisal standards.
>> So like I said, I went through the process and I believe that the way my property was valued didn't we didn't nobody violated any laws. Nobody did anything wrong. But but the issue is how and what they um what rules they're using. How does that get looked at,
challenged, discussed? >> The standards themselves or actual or the actual process for for applying >> the standards the pro I believe that they were applied correctly, but the standards themselves >> there by statute at the end of the day >> by the legislative.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> That was just a question. >> Good question. Very good. It's always good to have firsthand experience. That's why we have citizen representatives. Um, Matt Susan, >> yeah, real quick. Um, we had spoken before and you had mentioned that part
of the process may be flawed. Um, and you had given us a memo which I reviewed from last year. Um, if you can make any recommendations that you've seen since then, um, if it's solid the way it is from last year, if you could resubmit that to our board so that we can take
that into consideration when we do these next steps as far as possibly changing some of those problems that we see. Yeah. Um the answer to you is yes. Um but no in the respect that my concerns were spelt out in that memorandum for my
attorney because I my uh concerns on noticing and the understanding of that and the threshold to be able to meet the standards of your local procedure and all I I believe makes this almost insurmountable without
an attorney for the taxpayer. So whether or not in my opinion it's just my opinion remember I'm I'm the defendant in this positive judicial process but my opinion is that it is a very uh topsided process for those 3% of property owners
that are not represented by attorneys or tax reps who are going to be able to to meet that threshold. What I would say is that um we as the property appraiser and the property owner have to understand that when you come to a quasi judicial
hearing that we're going to defend our values and have the evidence that we use, the standards that we use, the statutes, references, all of that to to defend our values. And they're going to have their evidence. and you are hiring state certified general appraisers and
residential appraisers and attorneys to review these for you. So what I would say is if you are having to have another local procedure because you are getting findings of facts and conclusions while they're inconsistent, I would say go back to your magistrates and maybe
ensure some additional training or maybe have some sessions. I don't know what legally you can do um with your current attorney. It's got to be with us at least another 3 years to your magistrates rather than create another auous process. you had everyone here
today say to you, I I I don't even know how I I mean this um to be able to have one and clearly we have one circumstances are horrible, but she wrote a one-s sentence email. And so I I I think we are we as a
citizenry are creating an additional insurmountable process for a property owner not represented by an attorney that they are not going to overcome. Okay? And unless you grant an exemption without an application in Mr. Miss
Grantland's case, I will have been successful and now all of them. And that's not where I want to be. That's not the perception I want to have. And I don't think that's the perception that you want to have. This is supposed to be an informal exchange of information. We do our best to get information from
property owners like access to the property, information we can use to determine value so we can come to a right consideration. I am not in favor of this additional rule. I I think that you are finding now all of the caveats
of DR forms, but they don't recognize this procedure. So where do you add the date? Who decides what that date is? Who decides if you're going to accept it if it's a day late versus 12 days late? Are you going to apply the same standards to the other folks that apply for this
process versus Miss Grantland's as horrible as her personal circumstances are? But folks, I get those hardship cases every day in my job. I I get the widow that is now luckily a property that she can't afford to live with. and
nor can Mr. Grantland say, "I'm going to only accept 20% of your taxes because you have an inability to pay." Those are not things we we have the discretion to do. So, I feel like this is a great initiative by you. You're wanting to give the property owners
another bite at the apple. Um, and I understand that, but but I think that the unintended consequences we are all now feeling as we sit here today. So, I I just don't have anything other to offer other than the the legal pitfalls
of that and the noticing requirements that I mentioned last year and this year. >> I appreciate that, Miss Bookley. Um, I think where we and I appreciate your long arduous explanation of >> the other that's okay. Um, where we are speaking to is the actual notification
of the people that come before here, which seems to be a common theme among the people um, understanding the dates and stuff like that. So when we've reviewed that, we felt like we could do a better job of our websites of all of those things. It wasn't to change the dates and all of those things. It was
just to try to find out how can we legally notice our people and do um a better job at that on our end as a VIP. And so, um, are you saying that you would not submit that form from a year ago or you go like I I had requested at the beginning of it, would you submit
what you gave to us before but resubmit it to the board? Um, or would you like to update that because you had said what you said just now and previous to a new form or would you like to submit the old? We just want I want to include what your concerns are in this as we move forward. That's all.
>> I I can do that. I can put everything that I said last year and this year and memorialized in the legal memorandum um to to pen and paper, but I can tell you that it will be if the property appraiser and and you understand you're
asking the defendant to weigh in on the process. And that is a a bit difficult for me. um when there's a lawsuit in case the defendant normally doesn't nor the plaintiff get a chance to tell the magistrates or the judge hearing the cases what they should do with their
procedure. So I am tiptoeing around this saying that I feel that that you are creating though again good initiative but bad judgment and that we're creating a process that is almost insurmountable for them and it doesn't need to exist >> and I understand that
>> it doesn't change due process doesn't give them more rights you can't review uh uh you know if if Aaron determines that findings and facts and conclusions of law are inconsistent he absolutely has the authority to send that magistrate that decision back and saying
you need to this is incomplete >> and and I appreciate that misspley you are a part of this process and I want to make sure that your concerns are heard and a part of it so if there's something that we can do that might work in that you know I want to make sure that we're not creating something that then becomes an issue with you so if you could
resubmit that'd be great thank you so much do we have a date that we need to set you guys okay with can you look at your calendars for the next meeting >> I think we should move pretty quick too cuz if there's do you feel like there might be anything after that needs to be
>> there should be. >> So, we're going to send to the special magistration come back. So, our next day should be our final episode. >> I would say the board could have a meeting as soon as a week. >> You think you get to them by then? >> Unless they're away or something like that. Yeah.
>> Aaron, can I just ask you um and again, I'm not the officer of the court here. um you know, you're weighing in on local procedures that have been adopted by the board and you're allowing us to weigh in on them and of course the ministerial farm.
Does the public get to weigh in on whether or not they find because I I think if you're going to be accepting recommendations on a local rule, then you're it's your policy. It's not DOR policy. is not state laws, not the rules
of regs. Should you have a public hearing that says we have a local procedure here and we are looking for input from the public to to weigh in on this. Is it arduous for you public? What are the pitfalls for you public? I would feel much more comfortable if if I'm
going to be weighing in. I I feel like that the property owners and and granted I understand the Pandora's box because the tax reps are certainly going to weigh in as well, but no, I think I think I hear you what you're saying. My goal was was to meet with because we have a short notice and setting up a
town hall and all that stuff would be great. I think my goal was was to meet with the individuals that have come before this, their painstaking process of what they feel. Um, so identify probably 10 or 15 of the people that have applied, go through each one of these, make sure that we find I'm going
to call that attorney, make sure that they're and then make a recommendation based on that. I like that. U maybe that's what the next VAB will do next year. Good good uh good example. I think right now because of the short amount of time that we have to make these changes and stuff, I'd like to try to work
diligently to try to complete that. But great great suggestion. >> Schedule's my schedule's a little bit crazy next week. Um, but the 20th and the 22nd I could make work and and the and probably the 23rd. So for me, the 20th, 22nd or 23rd be
>> okay. The 20th, 22nd or the 23rd. I've got that 22nd looks good for me. >> 22 for you. >> I can only do the 20th or um the
afternoon of the 22nd. 22nd. >> It works for me. The afternoon 22. >> Yes, sir. 22. >> What time? >> Uh, really anytime in the afternoon is fine with me.
>> Let's see. Second at 1:00. Thank you everybody. I appreciate that. >> I guess none of you are celebrating birthdays. >> Celebrating here. >> Exciting way to celebrate.
>> I'll bring the trees. We'll go put that change. >> Did we ask that? >> Yeah, that's what I was going to work for you guys. >> I have no idea. >> It'll work. We'll make it work. Somebody will be here.
>> Right. So, one:00 looks good for me. you guys. >> She's calling the switchboard to see if there's a room available. >> Okay. We can always meet over at the school board if we need to, too. That'd be come over and hang out with us. Plenty of rooms over there.
>> And we like public comment. still report. >> Was that your board? >> That was my report. >> All right. Good. >> All right. Um, Robert Springer. >> I have nothing to service. >> All right. Rob Adams.
>> Good. Thank you. >> Oh, good. That concludes our board our reports and I think that concludes the agenda meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.