[Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] [Music]
Why don't we stand for the pledge? Bob, won't you lead us in the pledge? Sure. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Okay. Do we have any public comments? Seeing Okay, go ahead. you might be able on the Burkovich case. Uh public
comments. Well, I that's a good question because I looked at the uh maybe I should ask our council. We do have under new business adopt finalize recommendation special magistrate petition. Would that include the Burkowitch case? It doesn't mention that. It does. Okay. So, we'll wait till
we get to new business then. Right. That would be the proper course. That would be better. Okay. Um, and why don't we just just let's do the board reports at the end of the meeting. That's typically what we do them. It makes that makes better sense.
Um, okay. So, I guess we'd go to new business then. Yes, sir. All right. Now, getting your steps in for today. Yeah. Uh E1 adopt and finalize recommendation of special magistrate for
petition number 2024 01 000166 to the value adjustment board that is the Burkovich case. So um okay thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Jeffrey Smith on behalf with Smith and Associates on
behalf of the taxpayer Alex Burkovich. Um, last time we were here, um, we spent a lot of time on the board's authority and I I wanted to be a little more direct and succinct on that. So, I'm
going to hand the board. Um the first document is just a highlight from the second document which is the the rules as published of of the
value adjustment board. And as you can see, the authority of of the board, I forgot to keep one so I could read from it, but the uh authority of the the board um is and and allows the board to
make a decision different from the decision of the special magistrate. And we seem to kind of chase our tails on that uh last time. And you know this time I just wanted to be clear um that that is clearly within this board's
authority to make a decision if they find that there has been a incorrect legal conclusion or if there was evidence that was not considered. Um and so if you look at the actual rules it's highlighted I think it's the second page
from the back. Um, and it makes very clear that that last sentence in the highlighted paragraph will tell you the value adjustment board is the final decision maker. Um, and with that background, what we would show to uh as
to the revised uh special magistrate report that there remains a legal error and evidence that was not properly considered. Um the legal error is that
the uh special magistrate finds that the presumption of correctness that comes with the property appraisers's initial uh evaluation was found not to meet the standards in 19301 because it didn't
follow proper appraisal methods and was not entitled to a presumption of corre correctness. But after finding that it didn't meet those standards, did not meet the standards in 193 011, the the
special magistrate ultimately relies on it anyway and says even though it doesn't meet presumption of correctness, it doesn't meet these standards in 19301, he goes on and says I'm going to use it anyway. and his basic rationale
is that well the the burden of proof was on the taxpayer and the the the taxpayer didn't present any evidence of that. He does recite the actual evidence that was presented but then
essentially ignores that evidence and I just want to summarize what that evidence showed. This is not new evidence. This is evidence in the record which I'll I'll hand to you. But the the the valuation method that was presented by the
taxpayer used a per square foot value of four parcels that were in the immediate vicinity. Um you'll find a work spreadsheet on that. It's on page 34 of the evidence packet which I'll I'll hand
to you. But the the the value using the average per square foot cost of the the just value for four adjacent or four properties in the immediate vicinity came to 460 a square foot. that was
applied to the square footage of the uh subject parcel and the that was then added the cost of the uh improvements on the property and then the cost to cure
by uh adding the fill and the resulting um value of 1,388,256. And that is in the record. And I'll hand you each a copy. And this is material that is not
new material, but material that was presented. And if you look at the second page, it includes the opinion of value. That land value was using that four $460 square foot from the four adjacent
properties or properties in the vicinity. Um it the main structure was valued at 637370. The improvements, the cost to cure, and there is the the calculation.
So the bottom line is evidence was presented by the taxpayer. There was not a presumption of correctness for the uh methodology that the property appraisers office used which resulted
then in the the taxpayer coming forward with a methodology. So, what is the board to do? And I would urge the board, it's in 19 section 194 301 of the
Florida statutes that says if the party challenging the assessment satisfies the requirements of a which is to bring forward the uh a methodology of showing value when
there's not a presumed correctness. If if the taxpayer does that, the presumption is overcome and the value adjustment board or the court shall establish the assessment if there's competent substantial evidence of value
in the record which cumulatively meets the criteria 19301. And that's exactly what we're asking this board to do. So, um, I would I've presented you with the portions of the record that we would rely upon for
this board to make its decision. I've identified for you the legal error in the special magistrate's uh, opinion, recommendation, and I would urge you to adopt the the value as put forth by the
taxpayer. Thank you. [Music] Any question? Okay. Do we have any questions? Any questions? Yes. Um, and this may be to our council. Um, I don't know that we are actually the final
decision makers here. Uh, what is the next step for the property appraiser? Um, if she doesn't feel like whatever the board comes up with is is what she wants, uh, it would be up to the property appraiser to
either appeal to the circuit court or do nothing. Okay. So we may not be the final decision maker in this. It's it would be the conclusion of the VAB process but no it might might not be the end of the overall process. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions? Thank you board members. Okay. Thank you. So, uh, discussion. I'll I'll kick it off here because I did, uh, I I did go back and listen to
the discussion. It's a lot of discussion. There's a lot of deliberation, I thought, which is is good. Um, my my here's my opinion on this matter. I think that um that the property owner has proven by
preponderance of evidence that the assessed value does not represent the just value of the property. Um they testified and provided evidence that the uh that in late January 2021, FEMA changed uh flood zone maps. All of
subject property then was included and all structures was included in the AE flood zone and they provided the FEMA flood map as evidence to prove that uh they did provide u cost to cure
uh that approximate cost of cure was 527,000. But that wasn't just the the re thing I looked at in terms of the valuation. the uh the property having been reclassified into a flood plane in and of itself was enough to offer some
relief for this particular property owner. Um also they testified that there was and you can see on aerials that there there was um uh development done in proximity to this property. They did not use proper drainage. Subject property now must deal with runoff from
that property which exasperated the flood problem. Uh, also when you look at the surrounding values of the property, the property just north of it is assessed substantially less and it to me is a more desirable. It is it is a smaller
lot, but uh it's barely over a million dollars in value. Smaller lot, yes, but a more desirable one. Uh, this lot by testimony given at the presentation, the the the shoreline is floods often. Uh the trees block the
view from the house. It is a older house that was built not at the date that was originally um originally uh provided and um the council for the Atlanta is correct. the special master and to that
master's credit acknowledged that that um that the prop appraiser did not meet the burden of proof because of mistake and so I think they were taking an objective look at that. But here's one of the things that troubles me in this case and I think it affects countywide.
We we seem to be penalizing land owners that buy low land, flooding land, and choose not to fill it. This land floods. And I think there was an overemphasis on square footage, not on
the overall attractiveness of the lot. Yes, it's bigger. And if you had a square footage uh a square footage application of of value, you could have a smaller lot that was more attractive and apply the same square footage formula and come up with an exorbitantly
high number. Uh I don't think that's a fair way of doing it. I think you should look at the total lot. Um and I I think that the applicant in the presentation gave a lot of good information. Uh, and there was more about the heartache and the difficulty and the way it was
developed and the previous land owner, the reclassification in the flood zone, but there was no relief. It was strictly a a square footage figure that was that was applied to this particular lot. And you have an assessment now that's well,
I think it's over twice as high as the lot right next to it. And I would argue the lot right next to it probably it's a more modern house. It's better view. is drains better. It's a much uh much uh more valuable lot, but yet half of the
assessment. So that doesn't meet the fair and just valuation of the property or equal application. So I I I recommend that we uphold um that we don't uphold the recommendation from the property appraiser. Whether we go with the value
established um at from the cost of cure, I would probably take a different approach. I would, and this is just me, I don't know if it's I would basically recommend recommend not changing the value, keeping the value that it was set at for the previous fiscal year. I
assume the presumption of correctness that the property appraiser got it right the year before, but then when they changed it and it up, they got it wrong. And that would be the amount I would recommend. Mr. Chair, can I ask for a question? If I can do that, I don't know what my limitations are. trans.
Um, so is is the question whether the board could adopt the 2023, right, adjust value? I'm not sure if there's evidence of that in the record. I I'm I'm not saying I don't I I honestly don't know if there's evidence of that. Well, the evidence is that the property appraiser came up with that value,
deemed it to be fair and just, and and it was it was there was not ample evidence to come in and re reassess the property at a higher value. By the way, the cost to cure value and the value that was that was established are very very close. I mean, we could go with the
cost to cure value, but but that would be the evidence that the appraiser did it just 365 days earlier and used ample evidence. And by the way, I don't think I don't think they readjusted the property next to them either. I don't
think that was re-evaluated. I don't understand why they would have re-evaluated this property and not re-evaluate the property next to it if if indeed if there was an inflationary impact. But there can be well properties are reassessed when there's a transfer
of title. U I mean that that's the primary reason. So if the neighboring property wasn't transferred at the same time, it would not have been necessarily reassessed. Now are you sure about that? because I understand that properties are supposed
to be assessed based on what is fair and just assessment. It's not a matter of whether they've been transferred hand. Now, sometimes they may review that, but that should not be the grounds of assessing property whether it was transferred or not. The the property appraiser has the the duty to reeval the tax role and
ensure that all properties are t assessed fair and just valuation. Anyway, I'd like to get more information on that because I don't think that's a criteria that should be considered and coming up with just valuation. I'm I'm happy to provide a Okay, that'd be good.
Yeah, I'd like to see that. So, one of the things I I didn't know about the process that you guys from the county side, but normally we do a move to approve the item, go to second, and then we open discussion and then any additional amendments or changes we would make. I didn't know if that's the
proper process here. if we need to make a motion and open up discussion or if we're okay to just open it up like this. It's totally either way. It doesn't matter to me. I think we can just open up discussion or questions. All right. I think Miss Commissioner Yeah. I I'm obviously learning and what
I'm learning is that Florida statutes um provides that the party who's initiating the challenge um has the burden of proving and our special magistrate and um our attorney who know these things
far better than I do are saying that that wasn't done. So, opening our taxpayers up to what could cost them in an appeal by the property appraiser. Um, I I'm taking that seriously.
On that point, I read the report from the special magistrate and the special magistrate acknowledged that the property appraiser did not meet the burden of proof. because of a mistake. Yeah. The mistake
that was made. But even if they corrected for that mistake, it wouldn't have changed according to his his opinion. Yeah. Exactly. And that's the thing is if we go to an appeal or not we, but if the property appraiser does, then what we have are our legal counsel and the person we gave the responsibility to make the
decision saying one thing. Like I said, it just makes me nervous that we'll be putting the taxpayers up for for that commission. Yes. So, I I did look it up on my phone and um the statute is 1931
15 uh excuse me, that's not it. Uh the statute provides that a change in ownership triggers a reassessment to just value. Of course, we the property appraiser reassesses each year on January 1st, but the just value is only uh change when there's a reassessment.
So, that doesn't necessarily occur each year. Okay. If I can say something um philosophically from a perspective of what you just laid out, Commissioner Alman, I completely see where you're
going. See the process and see it. I've got a problem with when you see a clear direction and sound argument like you presented being overrun by the fact that we might have a situation where the
property appraiser may appeal it. I I believe that our government is set up to protect the citizens and if there's a situation like this, I would love to see it play out just to see how it how it goes. I've had and Commissioner Atinson, I called some of my former VAB
um members on the council and I asked them and they said it's the most frustrating thing in the world because we feel like we can't make a change at all. And when that happens, I don't believe that that's supposed to be the process, just my gut. And I believe that if that's the process that it has to go
down, then it does. But I really believe that there's a sound argument here. I believe that um we should be protecting the taxpayers even if it does mean that we have to go to court to present our position against the property appraiser for that um or that our decision
ultimately ends up going to court and then the they the opposing council has to defend it. But I believe that this is a good sound argument. I do. Um I went back and forth with it all weekend long about exactly what you're thinking, Miss Atkinson. And I I weighed towards the
side of this is something that I believe after years of being on the VAB that is an opportunity for us to learn about the process, get through it, and then also justify supporting a uh taxpayer. And that's where I'm at. That's where I I feel. And
um Commissioner Alman, I think you did a great job um on laying out exactly a good argument. I had about half of that and I was willing to get there. Um, but I did want to say good job and I see Miss Atkins in your side of the argument also. So that's all I was going to say.
Thank you. I might add to this is a bigger picture than just this particular proc process, this particular property. I think there's a very dangerous precedent that could be established with this uh appraisal as is by taking a square
footage assessment and equally apply it across the board uh endangers us of overt taxing many properties that are in the flood plane. So we we have a property clearly has been reassigned. It's in the flood
plane. There's there's testimony toward flooding issues and problems, but yet taking the same square footage value of properties that are not flooding and applying it to a flooding property. Think about the impact that would have on the St. John's Basin and other areas
of the lagoon where you have land owners who have property that floods, but yet they're going to be forced to pay taxes at the same rate as properties that do not flood. So, you're pushing people into um not being able to have their property because of the taxes. You're
also pushing people to maybe prematurely or improperly attempt to develop and fill that they may not want to f fill that land. They may appreciate that it's productive wetlands. It's providing a public benefit in terms of water quality and wildlife and and flood storage, but
yet we're saying, "Well, that's too bad. Even though you're providing flood storage, even though you're protecting the wetlands, we're going to tax you at the same level as the guy that just filled their property and all the other associated negative impacts. I think that's just wrong. And I think that this
sets a very dangerous precedent. And I think we should give this landowner relief for the public good. And I agree um with uh our school board member Susan. Um, I think it's important enough that this is, if they choose the appeal, it should
be played out because it's a very important decision. Okay. I don't think there's any discussion. Is there a motion? So, we have to move to approve it. I think we'll go to our council and see what be the proper If we were to move to
We have to move to approve the item. I think if I understand what's desired, it's to direct the special magistrate to revise the recommendation to change the the value to uh the 2023
uh assessment. I don't know. I I mean, it could either be the 2023 assessment or or the cost of cure, the cost of bringing this property up to the level of the commensurate properties that are filled. I don't know what would be the better approach or what would be more legally sound, but the both numbers are
really close to the same. I I don't know. Can you tell me what the numbers are just so I have it fresh in my head? So, let me see. I don't know if I have those right handy. What's the corrected number based
on the cost of cure? The number, and I'm sure council will correct me if I'm wrong, that they're seeking is 1,388,256. That's correct. And that accounts for the approximately half million in costs to cure,
uh, which is a higher number, I think, than the previous year's assessment. So, I think we could go with that number. Um, if the legal side of what they're trying to make an argument Yeah. might be stronger to go to cost of cure. I happen to feel they need they deserve more
relief, but I think that's a reasonable and fair and just request. So I would let's go to what if I can ask one question on the tail end of that. Does this set precedents that other land owners may come forward and ask us for relief based upon what we're doing? And
if so, would cost of cure be the stronger argument or would going back to the 2023 I know this is kind of a hypothetical curveball coming at 90 miles an hour. So it's not a legally binding precedent in this like an appellet opinion would be.
Okay. The VAB doesn't have that sort of capacity. Okay. But I would say that the board should always be consistent. So internally the board's decisions should be as consistent as possible. So if there were to be another case on all
fours, in my opinion, the board should be consistent within the law as much as you can. So Commissioner Alman, if you can do um a little bit of an explanation between the difference between the cost of cure and going back and seeing what makes sense to you since you have more experience in this area. My gut feeling
since we have evidence that's been presented to us in public at a at a hearing that this is what it would cost to bring this property up to the level of the other properties. Got it. That's an objective, measurable, quantifiable
number. Okay. It happens to be pretty close to the previous year's assessment and and acting on reliance on the last year's assessment, assuming the appraiser did it right. Then I think it's I think that's the better number. Okay. So cost of care. Yes. Okay, that's that's
okay. So, if I understand stand the requested motion, it would be a motion to direct the special m to direct me council to confer with the special magistrate to revise the recommended decision to reflect um a new just value of the the
1.388 million. Is that the requ is that the required process that we have to go through or can we just say this is what it's going to be and move forward? The rule does specify that that has to be the process. Okay. Okay. Okay. I wish it were simpler. Well, I have to say I was
reading the documentation and uh it sounds like we did exactly what we were supposed to do based on what was so what they say blind hog finds acorn every once in a while. So I guess that was with the guidance of our council. We did it what we needed to do. But I think
that's a appropriate approach if that's the motion I laid out is is compliant. So um we normally would have to open up the item, vote to second it, then amend it because it asks for the approval,
right? So we would have to then vote on another motion to amend it, approve it, then come back to the original and vote it. Yeah. If the board approved that motion, we'd have to have another meeting to approve the the then revised recommendation. Yeah. So, I'll make the
motion. Um move to approve the original recommendation that's on the agenda. So, we can open it up for discussion. So, if I can get a second to that. Second. Okay. And then Mr. Alman, if you
would like to make your amended motion to go with the cost of cure and then we can open up that pass that and then we go. That's how it works, right, Mr. Council? Yes, sir. Okay. So, if you'll open up your motion. So, my my motion would be to uh recommend an appraised
value at the amount that would be reflected with the cost of cure, which is approximately 1.388 million. 1.388 million approximately uh based on the evidence that was provided to us to to cure the deficiencies on the and I'll second that
motion and then do we have any other discussion? That's up to the board. Okay. Any discussion debate on the matter? All right. Um all those in favor of the motion signify by saying yay. I oppose.
Nay. Nay. Nay. Um now we go back to the original motion. It's amended. Passes three to one with uh Commissioner Axton voting against. Yep. Now we're back to You're helping guide me here. I'm just I'm learning on the school board. We get these really tight votes and everything else. I know it. Um and then we're just
now we're back to the original motion as amended to move forward um with the recommendation to send it back to the special magistrate uh amended to make the changes. Um correct council? Yes, sir. And that's a motion. Is there a second to the motion? Yeah, it's already
been second. We'll just uh call the question. Is there a second? Who second it? Okay. Yeah. Um board member Springer seconds it. Any discussion, debate? Call for question. All in favor favor signify by saying
yay. Yay. Nay. Nay. Nay. There's one negative. Uh Commissioner Accent vote votes in the negative. It passes three to one. Okay. I think we're complete. Uh there is one more item on the agenda. Okay. Packs the rest of the tax report. I
believe we can take part of it. Can we approve the tangible personal property certificate since we're done with those ones? At the same time, we can we can I'm just adhering to the agenda. Now, I would like to say since we were able to move quickly, we have to have these done by
June 1st, right? Is that the window that we need to be in by? That's Yes. So, if we can do the special magistrate at the same speed, we might want to look at our calendars. You know what I mean? Yeah, having a a meeting next week would be good if possible.
I am available on the 12th Monday. For what it's worth, I can also make Monday work. The 12th at noon. Yeah, he said no. After lunch, that would be helpful for me. Maybe it's fine with me. I have a 10:30. 1:00 p.m.
A 12. 1:30. Yeah. 1:30. Yeah, I can move stuff around. 1:30. The 12th works for me. It's good. You can do that. All right. Okay. So, our next meeting will be
uh May 12th at 1:30. Okay. Okay. Board reports. Okay. Okay. Now, let's go to value adjustment board reports. Uh, I'll go by the chronological order. Starting with the chair. I always like the chair to go last. I might change it next time. How
you want? All right. I'm going to go last. Go ahead. Um, I have no board report. No board report. Okay. Matt, you I just had a couple of things. Um, we talked about what I'd like to do is is all of us to have a discussion at the next to establish we
just avoided the possibility sorry we just avoided the possibility of having a tie. I would like to try to work something into the policy that says how that would work out. Um, the easiest way to do it is to establish more rules would be to establish Robert's rules of order for the small boards which allows
us to do not only the ties but a lot of other things. Gives the structure so that we're not like the wild wild west. But I would like to have a discussion around that. So if you can email out some of those Robert's rules of small boards and any other ideas and maybe at the next meeting we could discuss that.
The other thing I'd like to do is is one of the things I noticed here is is we had discussion about how if I'm somebody who is um wanting to appeal my property taxes that at the meeting they say there will be a future meeting kind of keep an eye out. I would almost like instead of
us coming up with hey the next meeting will be and she has to chase us after for like setting that meeting if there's a way that we can set the meetings ahead of time enough to where the people who wish to um you know what I mean make their objections known they would know
when that date is so they could put it on their calendar. if we're going to move towards a more you know what I mean um working with some of these property owners on some of their issues then that might be help that out. So I don't know the process of we usually have these
meetings. We set them about 30 days to 20 21 days roughly ahead of time if there's a way maybe at the next meeting we could discuss if that's even possible to allow the people who are making the requests to know when that date would be so that we could have that process or
maybe like a year calendar of these are the dates because we do that already for county commission meetings. We do that already for schoolboard meetings. Not something we couldn't do for VAB. So if I make that I don't know to me but one um so the board has authority to adopt
local procedures which aren't in as long as they're not inconsistent with with a rule or statute. Sure. So one thing that other VABs have done for sort of that scenario in general is for as far as the meetings
they might have two meetings. So on one meeting might be a meeting to hear this sort of thing and then uh they'd already have a second meeting set up to finalize everything. Okay. Before that though, uh there's no way for petitioners of property appraiser to know what to do at
that first meeting. In other words, who's going to show up other than someone just kind of randomly showing up. Sure. So what other boards have done is is put in place um procedures for reconsiderations, which is essentially what's happened here. Um, I've ha I have
uh written procedures that have been approved by uh at least a half dozen other boards uh and and do sort of incidentally um through complaints against it, but it's all been approved by do. So, I'm happy to bring those to the board either at the organizational
meeting next year or at the next meeting, whatever the board would like. And that way there's a set of there's a procedure both in terms of timing, procedure and substance for these sort of requests and then the board can take those up specifically if there are any
uh at one meeting and if anything changes there will already be a second meeting to deal with those changes. Yeah, it makes sense. That puts in place a a global process. Yeah, that would be good. I would I would say if we could get those in at the next meeting, maybe have a discussion wrapped around them. And I know that we're coming back pretty
quick, but it shouldn't be hard to get the Robert's rules of small orders and anything you've already got so we can just kind of look at it and we don't have to make a decision then. I just wanted to kind of get that ball running. That's all it's all I got for my board reports besides that. I'm really I think it would be interesting to see what
other boards are doing. Yeah, I'm sure each each county has its own personality. And how many other counties do you do? Nine. Nine. That's great. So, um, Robert Springer, uh, I have nothing, sir. Okay.
Um, Rob Adams not here. Um, couple things. Uh, one, I want to thank the staff both with the property appraiser and uh the the um u our our general counsel and our uh
clerk of the board as well as um the staff that's helped prepared the agenda here. I um I I had a couple things that I wanted to bring up. Um I listened to
I I listen to the the agenda is amazing. The work that's been done that's prepared by the staff of the clerk of the court and really appreciate it. It's beyond what we've had in the past. But there's a couple changes I'd love to look into is one listening to
the recorded sessions presentations. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Maybe it was my system. But when you listen to the recording, there was no ability to pause the recording and to rewind them. And once you listen to it and you close out
that file, you had to start all the way from the beginning. I was amazed how much time and effort went into this case. It's like, wow. Definitely they're hearing out the mattresses are really listening to the
property owners. Um, but it was hard to to to go back and and I'd like to look at the how we can improve that technology. Now, that might be a fiscal thing. Maybe it's something the county needs to work with the clerk to um to
help out, but I would like to look at it so we can make it a little more user friendly. Not critical. I mean, beyond they've done so much, but maybe we need to help out. make it a little easier to track that and listen to that because it is invaluable to go back and listening listen to the the audio was the sound
was excellent. It was very understandable. It was well done. Just wanted to look at that inter interface. I um I know that this year too is a unique year and what we do is very important. The central
core biggest issue before the legislature this session is property taxes and property tax reform. the governor wants to do away with property taxes. Um I don't know if the Senate would agree with that, but it's going to be an interesting debate to watch, but I
know the House did uh appoint a special select committee for property tax reform. So there will be a lot of discussion about property tax, either doing away with them or reforming them. Um so there may be an opportunity. We should monitor that and we'll have our
lobbyists monitor it with the county. Imagine the school board would do the same because it affects them. There may be some input. I don't know if they'll be opening up the VAB process, but if there's any improvements that we see or changes, yeah, that should be done. And uh I I'll
reach out to property appraiser as well to see if some feedback they would have there. But um this is um I foresee us tracking that and I don't think there's anything would preclude us meeting mid-fiscal year if we wanted to have a discussion about some of the changes or
proposals or like there. Nothing wrong with that. Okay, great. And that's my report. It's a good report. You got anything? And I don't have any additional report. Okay. Well, I think we're done. Uh, show the adjourned. Thank you. You're
welcome. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those
of the presenter. The board of county commissioners of Bvard County Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such
period. [Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] [Music]