Okay, it's time that we get started. I uh like to call the meeting to order. I'd like to um announce Commissioner Atinson will not be here. I got a note from her. She had a purse emergency could not make it. She apologized.
But u we have a quorum and so we can proceed. First, let's start with the pledge of allegiance. Please raise the flag. Pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we have item C, public comments. I don't think we have any public comment cards.
So, we will move on to D. Proof of notice meeting posted by the clerk. We have that. And new business, a request for reconsideration on the following petitions. We have three minutes per speaker. First item is
petition 2025000095. And just for the board's um information, these are the uh requests that what were considered and granted at the last meeting >> and uh revised recommendations have been submitted by the special magistrates. >> Okay, great.
>> Thank you. >> You're recognized. >> My name is Anna Long. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Dean 7380 Murell Road, Sweet 200 Vieira. Um, the purpose of this board meeting, as I understand it, is to adopt and finalize the recommendation from the special
magistrate for petition numbers 20250095 and 2025 01334 to the value adjustment board for 2025 tax year. Um, this in of itself is confusing to me. Um, and as a result, I have several
questions that I'm hoping I'll get the answers to during the remainder of these proceedings. Which provisions in the applicable statutes or the county's local code provides for the VAB to direct the independent special magistrate, the
finder of fact, to rewrite its findings. Second, there's a significant ambition. >> Why don't we answer those one at a time and we'll have our general counsel. Those are legal questions. So, we can have council answer those >> and I'll do the best I can. I don't have
all the rules and statutes memorized, but I can at least give you what I can. Uh, the board has discretion under rule 12D9 uh I would say 031 to uh adopt final decisions and under
rule uh 129.030 030 to take up and consider recommended decisions and the board's the final decision maker on the recommended decisions. So if the board finds something they disagree with something non-compliant about a recommended
decision, they certainly have the ability to tell the special magistrate what to what needs to be corrected or changed. >> I'm sorry. Tell the magistrate >> what needs to be corrected or changed. There may have been another question in there, so I wasn't trying to to avoid
it. >> I respectfully disagree. Um, we'll leave that for later, but I don't believe that alerting the special magistrate to some discrepancy is the same as this is what we want you to write, this is how you
went wrong is anywhere in the statute, nor is it anywhere in your code. That's my opinion for the record. Um there's a significant amount of ambiguity regarding local procedures for requests for reconsideration. So there's
a time frame time sensitive once trim notices go out and the taxpayer payer property owner has to appeal to the VAB which I believe our clients did in a timely fashion. But then thereafter seems to be this local process for uh a
request for reconsideration. So I'm just asking for clarification. The latter is a separate process. Correct. >> It's all part of the same process, but there's separate rules, local procedures. Okay. So, it seems that the
decision made previously by this VAB on this matter wasn't final. Is that correct? >> No. >> Okay. Will today's decision be final? >> That's up to the board. And under what circumstances is it final
versus it's not? >> If the board adopts a recommended decision, it's final. >> Okay. Can the property owner and taxpayer request a request for reconsideration from today's decision? >> If a final decision, no.
>> So today, if the board adopts the recommendations, it's final and so the appeal process can commence. >> Yes, ma'am. I defer the rest of my time, yield the rest of my time to my colleague Joe Crawford who will be speaking last
today. Thank you very much. >> And I would just say that the property appraiser certain certainly has the opportunity to respond if they wish. >> I think she's just asking procedural. >> Okay. Can you hand me my cup?
>> Hi, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Shay Dollar. I rep I'm representing Watermill Holdings in Ramilia Farms for the petition of 20250095. I want to briefly acknowledge to you that we were not present at the April 8th hearing or meeting. Um, and I do
apologize for that. Um, based on your council's written opinion, which applied the law and recommended denial of the request for reconsideration of the property appraisers, we expected that that recommendation was going to be followed. And after reviewing the outcome and the recording of that
meeting, um, it became clear that it was not. So that's why I'm here today. Um, I'm here because the request for reconsideration was approved and it was not due to any legal or factual error, but it was based on a reweighing of the evidence that had already been fully
submitted, presented, and decided decided in an evidentiary hearing. Following that, the board recognized and authorized their council to instruct the special magistrate to adopt the property appraisers findings and position and
return. Sorry. and return that with a revised recommendation denying restoration of our agriculture classification. That is not a purpose of a request for reconsideration. Throughout this process, Watermel Holdings has presented facts. We have
supported that by sworn testimony, documentation, and properly disclosed evidence in the file. No assumptions, not incomplete information, and not undisclosed materials. And today, I'm going to walk you through some of those facts. This is not simply just a
disagreement with the board's decision. This is an objection based on procedural error, evidentiary error, and mislication of the law. Each of which led to the reversal of the magistrate's original recommendation and the denial of our ad classification. Before addressing the legal issues, I want to
briefly walk through a timeline because it clearly shows how this this matter was handled, particularly after we presented a full evidentiary case and how those actions directly impacted our property and our rights. The agriculture classification for this property did not
begin in 2025. It dates back to 2022 where we filed an application and it was denied by the property appraisers office. We timely appealed at that time and a full evidentiary bab hearing was held in 2023 where both sides presented
disclosed evidence before the special magistrate which is the same magistrate that's on this case today. In March of 2023, the VAB issued a final decision granting classification for agriculture. And that point is critical because from then on, this property had an existing
VAB approved classification of agriculture. So in 2025, this was not based on a new application. This was a continuation case governed by the standards for removing an existing classification per the Florida statute 193.461.
Moving into 2020 24 and 2025, there was no sale of the property, no title transfer, and no deed transfer. The property has remained under Watermill Holdings, Inc. since 2021. During this time, agriculture operations continued, including an active aquaculture license
from the state of Florida for January 1st, 2025. Livestock is all over the property, ongoing improvements to pastures, roads, and animal housing, continued water and land management, and the development of horiculture and a nursery to portions of
the property. All of these activities fall squarely within the definition of a bonafideed egg use under the section 193.461. 461. None of them constitute as abandonment or a change of use. Before going further, I want you to understand that what this property property
actually is. It was never a singleuse property. The agriculture classification that was granted in the VAB under 2023 was based on a multi-use A operation including livestock, aquaculture, fish breeding for profit and ongoing land
improvements and agriculture development. Agurism such as the petting zoo of Vermilia Farms is a secondary component. You cannot take a multi-use a operation, remove or temporarily pause a secondary component and then claim that
the entire egg use no longer exist. Under the section of 193.461, the law does not require identical activities year after year. It requires that the land is used for bonafide a purposes as of January 1st. So the question was not
whether every activity remained the same. The question was whether a use continued and it did. In mid late to in mid to late May of 2025, a neighboring complaint regarding land maintenance triggered code enforcement to our
property and involvement. Through that separate department, we were notified for the first time ever that our craification had been removed. In late May and early June, we made multiple attempt to contact the property appraisers office, including calls, in-person visit to the
Vieiera office and ultimately having dry having to drive the same day to the Titusville office and ask if we could meet with Mr. Casala. During that meeting, we explained that the property had an existing ad classification with ongoing use. We were told by him that the ad classification had already been
removed based on an assumption of no a activity including information from a neighbor. Uh notably this was also the first time that an inspection had ever been offered to us which we did schedule for June the 30th. However, after consulting with our
council at the time we canceled that inspection due to concerns over the procedural issues and this is critical under section 193.461 461. Once an agriculture classification is granted following a VAB hearing decision, it continues in
subsequent years unless it is properly removed. That process requires that the property appraiser notify us with a notice sent to our address by January 31st and we never received that. An official denial was then issued on June
July 1st claiming that the property was no longer in the bonafide a use and relying in part on imagery from an aerial stating that there were no animals on site. But as of January 1st, 2025, we did hold an aquaculture license with the state that was active. And
importantly, aerial imagery on one day not documented on that day cannot determine the presence or absence of any fish in our pond. We timely appealed the denial and we made multiple attempts to resolve the matter prior to the VAB hearing, but those efforts went
unsuccessful. We fully complied with the rule 12D and provided our lo our disclosed evidence 15 days prior and our rebuttal one day prior to the hearing. We proceeded to the hearing on December the 10th, 2025 and presented fully prepared to present our case. At that
hearing, we presented sworn testimony, photographic evidence, operational and financial records, and documentation of their ongoing a class activity, including land improvements and continued development. Most importantly, we provided unders sworn testimony that
we held an active state aquaculture license as of January 1st, 2025. For context, if you're not aware, that license runs annually. It's more of a certificate. So, it's from June 30th, 2024 to June 30th, 2025, and then you
have to renew it for the next year, which we did. During the hearing, the property appraiser arranged an ownership argument for the first time on record. In fact, his first word was ownership. The claim that was was that a change in ownership required a new application.
This argument was not included in any additional deni in any official initial denial was not disclosed prior to the hearing as an argument and was not supported by any properly exchanged evidence from the property appraiser confirming this. They also introduced
undisclosed materials that included emails between them and FDAX regarding our aquaculture license. they who regulates that license and certification and third-party communications alleging three cattle were removed from the
property. We immediately objected in the hearing and we stated that those materials were never disclosed required by law ahead of time. We had no opportunity to review them or verify them. The individuals involved in those
communications were not present. We could not question them. They were not subject to any cross-examination. We preserved these objections at the hearing and twice in writing to the VAB clerk on 1211 2025 and 12:15 2025. These
are preserved in the record and available for your viewing. It's also important to understand what actually was disclosed prior to the hearing. The evidence consisted of an internal article from the property appraiser about financial issues relating to a
secondary acurism component which showed animals on the property still. They also relied on hearsay statements from a neighbor about the farm closing permanently. They also relied on aerial photographs
from January through March, not the assessment date of January the 1st, claiming that no animals were present. The testimony also was based on driveby observations. That is the full scope of their properly disclosed evidence. All
materials, all other theories raised at the hearing were not fully disclosed in advance and should not have been considered. So I want to say let's take a look at their actual evidence that was supposed to be meeting their burden of proving discontinuation of a activity.
Number one, an internet article. It references the finan financial troubles of the petting zoo in Rmilia Farms. Yes, that's true. The author never testified under oath. No sworn statement was ever provided. This was simply printed out
from the internet and used as a basis for denial. It was also a hearsay statement from a neighbor about the closure of a farm of our farm. No one testified. No one sworn statements were provided. No evidence supporting that claim. And more importantly, no neighbor can see inside
our property and and completely see the entire agricultural operations from the road or the gate. So any assumption of a full shutdown is fundamentally flawed. In the April 8th meeting with you guys, Mr. Masselino stated as well that it was
well known within the community that the agurism petting zoo Romeilia Farms had shut down. Again, that does not prove complete full discontinuation of a use on the property. In their evidence also in the article,
it states that it states that it is a temporary shutdown. So to go from a temporary shutdown in their evidence to a full shutdown as a basis for denial doesn't make sense. aerial photos with no dates, no to determine any kind of
accur accuracy. It's zoomed in photos where you cannot see the fish or the animals in January that are enclosed in houses to provide heat for them. A snapshot in time does not constitute competent substantial evidence and the
dis of the discontinuation of all of our agriculture activity. Now, it's just as important to show what they did not bring to the hearing. There was no contact with us from late 2024 until June of 2025 when we made contact
at Mr. Cala's office. No documented driveby inspections, no photos of the property or the gate, just as code did when code came by. They took a picture of the gate showing that it was closed. It is a farm. It has to remain closed. No logs, no dates, no
identified personnel giving a sworn statement, and no sworn testimony what was actually observed on the property. No certified mail requesting a contact or an inspection, no January 31st notice, no emails, no phone calls to any
information to any person on file, and more importantly, no physical on-site inspection of the condition of the property at that time. Instead, this decision was based on assumption that does not meet the standard of competent substantial evidence. And if access had
truly been an issue for them, there would have been a record for it in the hearing and it wasn't. So now let's look at our evidence properly disclosed and exchange demonstrating that agriculture activity continued. Our photographic an evidence were of animals on the
property. We took their evidence of what they supplied to us stating that the proper that the agriculture had ceased and the same animals that were inside of their evidence, we took pictures of in our files and printed them and presented them as evidence. So the same animals
that were in their evidence are the same animals that still remain on the property today. We also showed receipts of animal feed, farm equipment, and materials that we used for pasture, road work, and animal housing improvements. diesel fuel receipts showing substantial
operation use of equipment for ongoing agriculture work and tens of thousands of dollars. Sworn testimony and documentation confirming our active aquaculture license as of January 1st and brought its new renewal to the hearing as well. A detailed farm plan
outlining daily operations, future developments, animal care, and how those activities support a bonafide egg use. a full property layout in our evidence identifying how each portion of the property is utilized. Livestock grazing,
nursery development, horiculture, aquaculture ponds, and more. Photographs of multiple pieces of farming equipment actively used on the property. An active best management practice map for cattle operations. photographs of well our agreement with
Snyder Bees for the adjacent property for the bee apiary that's on that property. Receipts documenting substantial investment into the nursery and horiculture component demonstrating development, not a transition and not a change in use. a comprehensive summary
of improvements that's in the record that show from late 2024 into 2025 that include pasture restoration, overgrown vegetation removal, animal housing updates, livestock systems, and water and storm water management consistent with the plan that we presented in the
2023 hearing and submitted into the evidence. This is not assumption-based evidence. This is sworn testimony, documentation, and photographic proof of our ongoing a activities fully consistent with the section 193461.
It's also important to note even if there were financial challenges related to the agurism petting zoo of Vermilia Farms, that does not equate for an abandonment of a use. It's agriculture operations evolve. At times that includes temporary relocating animals,
pausing a secondary component in order to improve the property such as upgrading the pastures and so forth and perform land work which requires heavy equipment. Those types of improvements are part of maintaining and strengthening a bonafide agriculture
operation, not evidencing a discontinuation. And there's been no evidence presented that Romeilia Farms will never resume operations again. In fact, revitalizing efforts support the exact opposite. A temporary pause on the agurism
combined with land improvements and ongoing a use does not it constitute continuation. So importantly, the claims that the evidence was not analyzed by the special magistrate is simply not accurate and that shows within our evidence. So let's
move beyond the hearing. The special magistrate issued her recommendation and it's important that I quote her directly. The testimony and evidence of the petition continued the previous commercial agriculture operation as of January 1st, 2025 is sufficient. The
petitions are therefore granted. That is a clear finding based on sworn evidence and nothing in the record changed after that. Despite this, the property appraiser filed a request for reconsideration claiming a lack of analysis for the a use under section
193.461. 461 over reliance on the ownership issue that they brought up for the first time and discontinuation of the A activity. But a request for reconsideration must identify a legal error. Instead, it relied on assumptions, undisclosed evidence, and
ownership. The last point is critical. The source of the claims were never testified. The no statements or emails were disclosed prior to the hearing. And there's no competent evidence that only the animal that those were the only animals on the property. Prior evidence from John Cala
in 2023 at his inspection during our VAB hearing noted 11 pals on the property. Even more concerning statements were made at the April 8th meeting that were factually incorrect. Such about the origin of the cattle. It did not come
from the person that they claimed it did come from. Those cows have been there for many, many years, even before we purchased it in 2021. And also stated that our aquaculture tilapia operations never happened. That is false. Those claims are unsupported
by any evidence in the record. They also attempted to relitigate a fee fishing argument, citing statutes that do not apply. Our agriculture classification was not based solely on fee fishing. It was based on aquaculture raising fish for a sale under a valid
state regulated license continuously inspected every year maintained and renewed since 2022. Even if properly disclosed evidence, which it was not, the alleged removal of three cows does not establish discontinuation of an entire a
operation. And because this material was never properly disclosed or subject to testimony, it cannot be relied upon to support a request for reconsideration. The same applies to feed fishing arguments. If these points were so important and important enough to rely
on, they were definitely important enough to disclose so that we could properly review all of the email communications and challenge it. We submitted a detailed objection on March 5th of 2026 to the property appraisers request for reconsideration. It is on
record. That objection is I'm sorry a part of the record. They did not establish a legal or material factual error which is required for reconsideration. On March 6, the VAB council issued his formal opinion. He first clarified what a request for
reconsideration under the rule 12D is. It is the limited scope and it must number one identify a material error or fact of law. Number two rely on only the existing hearing record. Number three not introduce any new evidence and
number four not reweigh any evidence that was already presented and decided. That is the standard. He then applied the standard to this case. After reviewing the record in the special magistrate's decision, he found that she considered the competing evidence,
evaluated both parties positions, and made a clear finding that a use continued as of January 1st. That finding is explicitly stated in her written recommendation. Most importantly, he confirmed that there was competent evidence in the record supporting that finding, including
photographs of animals, documentation of the activity, evidence of aquaculture operations, and proof of continued investment and improvements. He also acknowledged that while operations may evolve, that does not constitute as abandonment. In other words, he found
continuation, not discontinuation. He then addressed the property appraisers's argument directly. He concluded that the request did not identify any material error or fact of law. Instead, it was simply a disagreement with how the special magistrate evaluated the
evidence under rule 12D. That is not a valid basis for reconstruction because reconstruction is not a new hearing. It's not a secondary opportunity to argue the case and it is not a means to reach a different conclusion on the same record. That's his words, not mine.
Based on all of this, he recommended that the board deny the request for the rec reconsideration and adopt the specials magistrate decision as written. So what the board had in front of you was a clear legal standard, a complete
evidentiary record, a reasoned decision by the special magistrate, and its own council confirming that there was no error. The April 8th meeting did not identify any legal error. Instead, it relitigated issues and relied on the undisclosed material that was not part
of the record. As stated before, we were not present because we reasonably relied on the magistrate's analysis and your count council's written opinion, which applied the law and recommended denial of the request for reconsideration. But that's not what happened. On April 9th,
a memo was issued stating that the board approved the request for reconsideration and directed the council to have the magistrate change her decision to adopt the property appraisers findings instead. The board states that the reconsideration is limited to in scope
to address legal error or emissions of analysis. We agree with that standard, but that is not what occurred here. This reflects a predetermined directed outcome, one that departs from the actual evidence and analysis presented at the hearing. This was not about
identifying the legal error as required. It was about disagreeing with the result and reversing it. It's a fundamental legal issue. You cannot say that the MA magistrate failed to analyze agriculture use, but then at the same time use the same record to reach a different
outcome. That's not correcting legal error. that is reweighing evidence to reach a different outcome. The law cannot be applied one way for one side and then ignored for the other. There is another inconsistency here. Our petition
000095 that we are referring to today was also heard in 2025 at the December hearing with our other petition 00094 which is the adjacent parcel that we own. That petition was granted and
approved by the final decision of the VAB restoring agriculture classification based on the magistrate's recommendation. This one was denied through the request for reconsideration despite the same hearing, the same evidence, and the same
findings. The board accepted the result for one and then rejected it for the other. So when you step back, this case is straightforward. We presented competent, substantial evidence. The property appraiser did not meet their burden.
The special magistrate evaluated the property and disclosed evidence and ruled in our favor. Nothing in that record changed. The only thing that changed was the outcome. Um, I also real quick want to go over
um on 129 2026 we submitted our rebuttal to the property appraisers evidence. Um, again, I'm going to put on on there that we um also said that agriculture use was in process. There was no on-site inspection, and we continue to go on
about our agriculture use. On March the 5th, our request, this is an important one, to the property appraisers request for reconsideration. I put in there which is on record as well throughout the entire um course our
Romeilia Farm supplemental questionnaire to the application which is on file for this for this case. Um, in that when we first were denied, but then ultimately prevailed, we stated our agriculture plan for the next 5 years include number
one, restocking the on-site freshwater ponds. That's been completed, improving over number two, improving the overall condition and health of both the animals on the property in order to create a solid foundation for a sustainable and profitable agriculture operation. Number
three, continuing to make various improvements to animal enclosures, barns, land, water, and waste management practices. Number three, I'm sorry, number four, let me get to that. Purchasing the 10 acre adjacent lot, moving the entrance
of the parking lot to it, and building a bridge to do to the front of it. But we purchased it, but we haven't done the bridge yet. raising the height in certain areas of the land in order to assist with water management because the property is extremely low. Clearing
multiple overgrown areas of the property for the following items: expansions of available grazing pastures and trails, animal barns, horse exercises and training areas, vermiculture and compost center, hydroponic garden for crop
harvesting. We will be growing a variety of vegetables and fruits and trees to include strawberries, blackberries, spinach, and kale for harvesting, rainwater collection centers, and also we have two tractors on the um property that support agriculture. So in 2023,
80% of that has been done from 2024 to to date. Um, also I want to note that let me see. Sorry. I think that's about it for me. Yeah, I think that's about it for me.
Okay. So, thank you. >> Have to ask them a couple of questions. >> Yeah. Do we have any questions? Um, >> so what's the state >> your mic on you for your mic? >> My bad. >> Sorry. >> That's good. >> What's the state of the business right
now? >> Um, we're just doing ongoing agricultural operations. We have um prepared a portion of the property for, like I said, nursery and trees and harvesting and things like that. There is a potential to possibly reopen Ramilia Farms. We had to, like I said,
it was, yes, we had some financial troubles and everything. So, we had to go through a lot of pasture work, a lot of roadway clearings on the farm. Um, we had to, you know, just redo all of the animal structures and everything. So, there is a possibility that we may
reopen Romeilia Farms. Um, we also are doing our aquaculture operations, which we breed fish, the tilapia in particular, and um, the bluegill I believe. And um we do that and we help or we sell them to other companies. And >> do you have receipts for those sales
>> back in 2024 and 2025? Yes, we do have receipts. >> Well, 26 is only >> Yeah. >> 20% over. >> Um and then we do have like I said ongoing maintenance and things like that. Um am I missing anything? >> Oh, okay. So, yes, we just recent rec
recently um after all of the maintenance and everything that's been done, we obtained our nursery license um from the state of Florida for both parcels, which is the 10 acre and this 25 acres. We just got that this year going to grow on the nursery. >> Um we have coconut palms that we're
going to be selling to uh landscaping companies and things like that. And then we have um sable palms. We have uh ora palms. Okay. >> And we're going to be doing strawberries and kale like we had originally said, but we had an inspection and um we were >> Did you guys ever open up the tourism
part of it? >> The aggra tourism? No, we have not opened back up to the public. >> This is a hard one. Did you guys ever call the property appraisers office to try and arrange for a time and a meeting place to say, "Look at we'll walk you
around this." >> Well, that's what had happened. So, we were unaware that we lost our agriculture classification. So, when the code department showed up, um, you know, they're a little more forceful, so they ended up showing up and hey, we're
waiting for you at the gate. Um, and then they contacted us and said, "Hey, we need to come out there and talk to you because you're clearing the land." And we're like, "Well, wait a second. We have agriculture classification. We're doing that so we can restore the pastures." And um, basically he said, "No, you do not have agriculture
classification. It was removed from you." And so we were like, "Okay, let's hold up right there." That was in May. That's the first time we had ever heard. So then, um, I personally emailed uh, Mr. Cala several times. We called and left messages and when we couldn't reach
him, we came to the Vieier office and he wasn't there. They said he worked in Titusville. So, we immediately drove up there, went there and had a meeting with him and he said, "Okay, I'll come and inspect." So, we scheduled an inspection for I think the next day or the following day, which was June the 30th,
and um I sent him an email the 29th, and stated after, you know, we told our council, "Hey, he wants to come He said, "Wait a second. You didn't get a January 31st notice because you previously, you know, held." So, we said, "Okay, well," he said, "Go ahead and cancel. I'll take
over from here and, you know, we'll go that route." So, then we uh got the issued um denial, the official denial on July 1st. >> And you still have cattle on the property? At this point in time, they have been moved over to another area um
because we're still doing the the main aspects of moving and >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. You're welcome. >> So, I got a couple Did you have some questions? >> No, I'm fine. >> So, just a couple of things. Um so, what made it to where you weren't
here at the last meeting that we had? Was there You kind of went into it, but then you moved so fast. You You talked forever. Sorry. >> So, I was trying to take as many notes as I could to go back to them. So if you can explain that part. >> So basically after is this your council? >> Okay. So after the um he had responded
or issued his opinion um because we sent a response to their request for reconsideration and we said wait we think that this is flawed for these reasons. the day after he issued his opinion which stated there is no material, you know, error, there is no
legal error in their um argument and you have to go by this this this and we thought we were sure a little naive at the time. We thought, okay, there's no way, okay, >> that you guys are going to go against your own counsel. So, we're not really going to show up for that meeting because we thought it was just going to
be an approval or the denial of their um request for reconsideration and move forward to the adopting the magistrate's final decision or, you know, recommendation. No, I appreciate. >> So, that's why we didn't show up, which now I'm knocking myself out for, but >> listen, I totally understand. And then you said there was a period of time when
you were emailing the the property appraiser and trying to get a hold of them. Was this like you sent an email and then you drove up there the next day or what is the time spread on this? No, I mean if you've ever, no offense, but if you've ever tried to get in touch with Mr. Casala, he's a very busy person and he deals with the agriculture
aspect, so it's very hard to get in touch with him. We weren't notified by code enforcement that we had the as the A removed until I think I say late May or early June. >> Um, so at that point in time, I did send
out multiple emails to Mr. Salah and we did leave messages and for a minute we did play I think phone tag. Um ultimately yes we were like okay something's wrong. We have we knew that July 1st um letter was probably going to be going out since we didn't receive the
July uh the January 31st. So we drove to um Vieira and said hey can we just talk to him and everything? They said sorry he's not here. You have to go to Titusville. So we went up there sat down with him and said look it's ongoing. we have this yes we had financial problems on the agurism petting zoo but that does
not take away what we're doing or not only what you know we're developing because in an agriculture classification you don't have to just stick with one thing you can innovate and evolve over time and that's what we were trying to explain and he said well it's already
been removed there were no animals on the property as the aerial pictures and a neighbor said that you guys you know uh closed which he said you know Also in the community, it was well known that Romeilia Farms was going to be, you know, closing to the public. Um, just because Romeilia Farms obviously closed
to the public at the time doesn't mean the animals were removed, you know. So, we still had obligations and we still had agriculture going on. So, that's the only time we didn't know of anything from January to to May until code enforcement came out to us. We had no
clue. We just thought it continued. Um, and >> and then but for 30 days you were going back and forth. you finally drove all the way up there and he was there. So, you guys were able to sit with him and he took the time that day when you showed up to say, "Hey, I'll take some time and talk to you." >> Right. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And then um Yes. During that, that's
when we scheduled the init the inspection. >> Sure. >> Mhm. >> So, at that time, you got an inspection and and and when was it that the property appraisers office had come out previous to try to inspect the property? >> We don't know. That's what I'm saying. Their in their evidence doesn't show any
driveby pictures. you know, like when the code enforcement comes out, which it's on file, the code enforcement take a picture of the gate and says, "Okay, I can't go any further." Um, but when it comes to the property appraiser, we ask them, there was no certified letters sent to us requesting an inspection or
requesting just to make contact. There was no driveby observations of, "Can you show me a picture of what you observed that took away our classification?" Because if you're familiar with Romeilia Farms, I don't know if anyone is, when you go into the property, it's impossible to see agriculture off to the
side because we have trees and buffers and things like that because there's a neighborhood right beside it. So, there's, you know, that's what we were asking. Did you did you call, email the information on file? There was nothing. They didn't provide any evidence saying that they did. >> All right. And then, um, and are you
guys going to get up and rebut some of this stuff or >> No. >> Oh, okay. Um, do you guys have any uh like do you guys have any receipts from feeding any of the animals? I mean, I know that the cattle will graze, but then sometimes those tilapia you got to
feed them. Do you guys have anything? >> Yeah, we submitted that into evidence. I mean, we buy most of our stuff we do buy from like Tractor Supply because we have an outstanding relationship with them and we do buy in bulk and stuff. So, we did supply receipts for that and
everything. Um but yes, mainly I mean yeah sure they kind of helped us in a lot of ways preparing the pastures because that's what they do. So it wasn't really a matter of you know um a lot of feed for them. >> You did submit >> yes >> feeding stuff. Okay. And then do you
guys have any vet vet bills or anything like that? >> I submitted one vet bill I think that was in there. Um most of the sick animals that were with Romeilia Farms that we had taken over from the Oloys originally um they were in very bad health. Okay.
>> So we nourished them and got them you know to a healthier state. But at that point in time you know we weren't able to take care of them fully. The exotics the camels things like that. We had to relocate them because we just weren't able to take care of them properly. >> I got it. I'm okay for now. Are you
coming up to speak? >> I figured as much. So, I'll just wait to see what else we got to ask questions to. >> Okay. Thank you guys. >> Thank you for a good presentation. >> I'll explain. This meeting just got another hour long, didn't it?
>> You take as long as you want, man. >> Bear with me just for one more second while I hand out a few other things. Yeah, there's no mechanism for this. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Good afternoon, members of the Value Adjustment Board. My name is Joseph Crawford. I'm a litigation attorney for the law firm of Dean Meade, partner with Anna Long. Uh I represent Watermill Holdings, Inc. And I'll admit this is my first time being before this value
adjustment award. And so first and foremost, thank you for the time to be heard and for allowing me sufficient time to to present to you all today. I've handed you a binder that contains the record from the uh special magistrate evidentiary hearing and generally the record of this particular
file. Now I don't intend to reference that record. I don't intend to uh pull you into exhibits in that record because we're not here today to relitigate this matter. This matter has already been litigated and resolved by the special magistrate. Now, there are some statutes
that I've provided you that I will reference today. Uh the primary purpose of having that binder was to give one to madam court reporter today. It creates an easy appendix in the event we have to appeal something in the future. So, uh again, I don't intend to reference that. So there was a full evidentiary hearing
that occurred in this matter and at the end of that evidentiary hearing as Miss Dollarer just indicated there were two critical findings that the special magistrate made. The first was that there was no change in ownership right no declassification because some change in ownership occurred before December
31st of 2024. The second critical finding Miss Dollarer just indicated and read to you which I'll read again. The testimony and evidence of the petitioner continued previous commercial agricultural operations on the subject
uh parcels as of January 1, 2025. That was the finding of the special magistrate. That was the finding of the special magistrate based on the evidence introduced at that hearing. You cannot change that outcome to follow the
property appraisers office agenda. And I'll explain that uh that the reality here is the POA, the property appraisers office, cannot substitute, there is no support in law for them substituting their findings of fact and their conclusions of law for the findings of
fact and conclusions of law that the special magistrate made. We can start with the procedures to identify the error that this board is being led down should it ultimately decide to adopt the property appraisers
findings of facts and conclusion of law. The procedures I've handed you are the local procedures. Uh I watched the August 8th hearing and I heard Mr. Thalwitzer uh speak that these are both online. They were enacted uh on a duly appointed meeting and they are available online for everyone to review. If you
look at section 1.1.1 substance, it says a request for reconsideration and responses to same shall first romanette a not include or reference evidence not offered at the
hearing before the special magistrate. That's exactly what happened here. In your binder, which I will not ask you to reference it, you are free to look at it. You will see the request for reconsideration that was filed by the property appraisers office. Attached to that request for reconsideration is a
receipt. At the April 8th hearing regarding the decision to grant the motion to reconsider, this board took in testimony about that particular receipt. It asked questions. It received answers from the property
appraisers office. It discussed that very exhibit to support the property appraisers motion for reconsideration. That's not what the local rules say. You are not allowed to bring in new evidence. That receipt that you will find attached to the property appraisers
request for reconsideration was not introduced at the evidentiary hearing. You will search in vain to find it anywhere. That's the first error that's been committed here. You cannot rely on that receipt. You cannot look at evidence that wasn't introduced at the hearing to redo a decision or to follow
the property appraiser's instruction as to what the decision should be. the property appraiser doesn't get two bites at the apple. And I admittedly, I don't practice before the value adjustment board often. So, I had to look into this myself. And it turns out there's a case that's on all fours for this exact
proposition that the property appraiser doesn't get two bites at the apple. Now, I spend my time litigating in civil court. So, I rely a lot on case law. And I went and pulled the case and I encourage any of you to look at this case. It's uh value adjustment board of Bay County versus Spitzer. It's 27SO3D116.
That's a citation. It's a first DCA case. In that case, the value adjustment board held additional hearings after the special magistrate had made her recommendation of findings and conclusions and ultimately went a different route than what the special
magistrate had identified based on extrinsic evidence, evidence entered after the hearing. The first DCA struck that down. The first DCA and I'll quote said the statutory framework to hear further evidence after the special magistrate provides findings and
conclusions is not there. It doesn't exist. The special magistrate is the finder of fact, not the board. Now, we know that the the board understands and that the property appraisers office understands that you
don't get a second bite of the apple because not only do the procedures say you don't get to bring new evidence in, which they did, uh they also say, and I'll read that there shall be no communication, oral communication regarding such
requests and responses shall not be accepted or considered. considered. Why is that in there? That's in there to prevent the board acting as a second try or effect. You are to look at the written record and make a decision based on the written record, not allow
individuals to come in on April 8th and bring in new new evidence, new testimony, answer questions, present new documentary evidence. None of that is permitted under the rules. and it's intended to protect the discretion that the tryer of fact is afforded when they
actually review the evidence. Now, compounding the problems here, I I wasn't here on April 8th, and I think you heard testimony from Miss Dollar as to why uh Watermill Holdings wasn't here, but I have reviewed the April 8th
hearing. And at that April 8 hearing, there was a motion made by a bo a member of this board to approve petition to go back to special magistrate and have the special magistrate reassess the merits
of the agricultural use. I could not think of a more direct suggestion that we are going to reitigate this matter. And you don't have to take my assertion for that. Your own council has stated that the the board's council that in
their March 6 letter stated what the property appraisers office is trying to do is relitigate this matter. In that March 6th letter, council found the hearing record contained evidence supporting the petitioner's position that agricultural activity continued on
the property as of January 1, 2025. He cited photographic evidence, invoices that some of you have asked about today, apiary activities, aquaculture activities, documents describing agricultural activities and agricultural investment. The conclusion council made
that brought back to this board was that the evidence supported continued use for agricultural purposes. Reconsideration does not permit reweighing or as one board member put it reassessing the evidence in the case.
The procedures don't prevent it. Neither does the regulatory or statutory framework in place. So we heard reference to uh from Mr. Thawwitzer council reference to rule 12D 9.031. I've given you a copy of that rule.
this rule and and other rules uh in 12D lay out the explicit mechanism for the special magistrate to revise a recommended decision. And that exact reference is at rule 9.0314b 0314B, which states that if the
board determines that a recommended decision does not comply with the statutory framework, the board may direct a special magistrate to produce a recommended decision that complies with the statutes.
Nothing in that statutory scheme says you can direct the property appraisers uh to prepare their own set of findings of facts and conclusion of law that they like and provide that to the special magistrate and direct the special magistrate to enter those findings. You can as a matter of course ask the
special magistrate to put more meat on the bone. Hey, there ain't enough finding of facts in that order and it doesn't comply with the statute that says you got to put finding of facts in there. Hey, there's not enough conclusions of law in there. It doesn't comply with the statute. I need better conclusions of law. What you can't do and what there is zero support in law
for the proposition of and I think council uh alluded to this ever so slightly when he was answering Miss Long's question. You cannot say property appraisers's office, we want you to prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law, and we are going to direct the special magistrate to enter those
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Matter of fact, uh 12D 9031 says that when you send it back to the special magistrate to say, "Hey, your your uh your findings and your conclusions, your the form, right, the form of your findings is insufficient."
They get a chance to look at the entire record again if they would like and then draft a uh findings and conclusions that is consistent with the statutory obligations. You don't get to redirect the findings and conclusions. That is
There there is one final point uh that I would like to make and it it relates to the last statute that I provided you and it it also goes to the relitigating that council for the VAB indicated was occurring in the reconsideration
hearing. So at the reconsideration hearing there was discussion about the particular type of a use right uh a use being cattle you now don't have cattle you're using pigs and donkeys and that's a little bit different so maybe we ought
to revisit this issue and reliance again on revisiting it or the board's ultimate decision at that hearing was placed on this receipt that was attached to the motion for reconsideration something the board should have never looked at uh And and ultimately what the property appraisers office was asserting is they
were saying, "Look, if if if Watermill Holdings didn't come to us and tell us, hey, we're doing something a little bit different. We were doing cattle, now we're doing donkeys and pigs." If they didn't come to us and make that statement, we can declassify
them based on a change in use. That's not right either. That's not what the statute says. And it's a relitigation of an issue that happened at the evidentiary hearing. The statute 194034 which I've provided to you lays out the mechanism
uh upon which let make sure I got the right statute here. Be that be that as it may. The statutory scheme involved says when you uh when you uh want to declassify somebody based on a change, right, their their
classification continues year after year after year unless you the property appraisers office notify the land owner that hey, we're going to declassify. You have to send that notice by January 31 of the particular year. Now, what happened at the hearing is the uh the property appraisers office said, "No, we
don't have to do that. We don't have to meet that requirement because we have a waiver." And I'll concede there is a waiver in the statute that says if the county has come together and waved the obligation to provide notice to the land owner then you don't have to give notice and you can just declassify without that notice. The problem is the special
magistrate made a finding that the property appraiser office had failed to produce that waiver. So what what the property appraiser office is trying to do in this argument where they're relitigating an issue of change in use is they're trying to flip the burden here on the petitioner to say, "Hey
petitioner, you had to come to us." But the reality is absent evidence showing that the statutory waiver is in place in this county. It was in fact the property appraisers's office that had to go to the petitioner and say we are declassifying you. So the fact that there has been this change in in a is
it's it's frankly it's a or a use it's frankly a relitigation of the issues and more importantly as you look if you choose to even though I don't think it's procedurally proper at the evidence in the record there was evidence of best management practices for cattle there was evidence of significant uh
continuing uses and as Miss Dollar uh initially indicated this was multi-use agricultural so the fact that we have cattle or don't have cattle is not the dispositive fact. The members of the board, you are being invited to commit
reversible error in this case. Directing the special magistrate to adopt findings that they drafted is not what the statutory framework is intended to do. I strongly suggest the only just and right outcome in this case is that the original findings of the special
magistrate be adopted by this board. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? I don't think we have any. Is there any more testimony? No more testimony. Okay. The issue now
comes before the adjustment board. Is there a motion? Does our council have anything that he would like to add? I'm certainly happy to to answer any questions and okay, just to remind the board of the specific matter that's before the board is whether to adopt the
special magistrate's revised recommended decision. >> Okay. >> And can I ask him a couple of questions, chair? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Because I I had requested this. Um we are at a place where the two options are in front of us. Uh either we do adopt
what the special magistrate said recently or what is the other option and is that possible? >> I suppose well the other option would be to reject the revised recommendation in whole or part. I would suggest that that's not a proper
option. Um reconsideration has already happened. there was a request, a response, a hearing, and a decision by the board. If there's an if the board believes that the revised recommended decision doesn't conform to its
direction, that would be one thing. But, uh, essentially, I think what the petitioner is asking is for a second reconsideration hearing or meeting to be to occur. Um, and and that already
happened at the last meeting. >> There was one thing that I remember came up in the last meeting was the fact that you guys had said that you went out to the property and went up there to try to take pictures and access it and everything else. Um, did you guys
notify them prior to that? Is that something that you guys normally do? >> Just out of curiosity. With all due respect, members, the property appraisers office provided the property owner notification of the denial. We've been through the value adjustment board
process. We've been through the reconsideration process. We don't have any other evidence or testimony to provide to you today. >> But just out of curiosity, it was not new testimony or anything like that. I just >> we contacted the property owner, made an appointment to come out there and inspect the property and they called
that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. >> What's responsive question? >> Sure. Yeah. I mean, I'm okay with it.
It's the chair's >> the request was what can be done other than uh adopting the property appraisers findings of facts and conclusions of law that are inconsistent with the special magistrate. This board can vacate its
prior uh uh u approval of the motion for reconsideration. This board has remedies that it can operate with today to ensure that we don't follow this continue down this path of reversible error that frankly we shouldn't be down this far at this point. I just heard Miss Blickley
say I have no further evidence to present. She got the extrrenuous evidence she wanted in the record through her request for reconsideration which is in and of itself improper and now has conceded that the reconsideration process should not include extrrenuous evidence. This board
should correct its prior decision. There is more that can be done rather than just adopting the property appraiser offic's uh findings of facts and conclusion of law that are inconsistent with the special magistrate who actually heard the evidence. Thank you for allowing me to speak again. >> Two options. We either send it back or
we keep it today. Right? We don't have enough time to send it back because we have to seal it, right? and it would be inconsistent to continue to do it >> if the board essentially took up the reconsideration a new in one case.
I think the board is setting a precedent of sorts that that should that that could happen in any case. So could the board do it? Yeah, I I suppose the board could. It's not part of the the process. There's no
provision for anything like that. But even just on a practical level, it's setting a danger. I think I think it's it would set a dangerous precedent. So I I I think that the decision before the board is to adopt the revised recommended decision or identify some
specific issue with it as to how it it doesn't conform with the direction from the last meeting. We need a motion. >> I'm ready for a motion. >> So move to approve the recommendation that is before us. It's to accept the special magistrate's
reconsideration. That's would be the new that would be the motion. If we don't have if you're telling us that your legal opinion is is that we should not reverse this, then that would be my motion.
>> As I said, I think it would set a bad precedent. >> And if we did that, then it would have to go back to the special magistrate. He would have to go give a new evidentiary hearing and then come back to us and we would have to have a special another meeting prior. I mean, you know, if the board were to do that, it opens up a number of
possibilities, I suppose. Um, theoretically, all the options are available at that point. The board could remand for a new hearing to revise the recommendation further to revert to the earlier findings and conclusions. I suppose those are all theoretical
options, but as I said, that would essentially reopen the entire process u post-hering process, which so we could at this hearing right now recommend make a recommendation to accept the first recommendation of the actual first
special magistrate. We could do that. >> I'm I'm not 100% sure of that because that's really not on the agenda. So I I would have an my issue with that would be I don't know that the property appraiser has notice of of that possibility for today. The agenda today
which provides notice to everybody doesn't haven't nothing like that would be uh I I don't think it would be fair to to say that anyone's on notice of that possibility. >> I wanted to make the motion so I could hear what you guys are thinking is basically that's what I I wanted to make the motion to hear what you guys are
thinking so it puts it on the table. doesn't mean that you have to accept my motion, but it gets the process of us actually discussing between all of us each one of it. So, if I don't have a second, then I don't have a second and then we can discuss, but it's up to you guys question. Um we could today if we chose
to uh just accept the recommendation of special master magistrate for approval. >> The the revised >> the no the original special magistrate that gave the egg exemption. We have the ability to just
agree with that. I would advise against it. The the baseline authority perhaps. >> Well, for two reasons. First of all, right now the special magistrate's recommended decision is the revised one. So that's what's before the board.
There's no the earlier one. It could be reverted to that if but but it has to go through the special magistrate to do that. So that would have to be >> So what would you recommend the whole process? >> What would you recommend we do here today then? Uh my recommendation is to adopt the recommended decision, the
revised one before the board. >> Did you want to say I see you jumping up? >> I I have to point out the the inconsistency in what I just heard from your council. He's telling you now to accept the recommendations revised by
the property appraisers office when he submitted a written letter in this proceeding on March 6 on the record that says you should follow the original special magistrate's decision. It was sound. It was supported by evidence and they're re litigating the issue. Now
we're hearing council advise you that you should ah let's follow the the the the term drafted by the property appraisers office. There is no support for that in the statutory framework. You can ask the special magistrate to say I need more meat on the bone. Need more
facts, need more conclusion. The form of your order does not meet the statute. You cannot tell somebody that is the uh granted the province to review the evidence that they have to change their mind about what the evidence showed. You can't do that. That's a there's an
inconsistency here that the board can correct today. Thank you. Can you restate in your mind how we could correct that here today? I think you mentioned that earlier. I just want to bear with me one second. Members of the
board So, the VAB has granted their a motion uh for reconsideration. And in granting the motion for reconsideration, the VAB can direct the special magistrate as to how to change the recommendation. Not direct the special magistrate as to what
facts to find and what conclusions of law to make, but how to address the form of inconsistencies in the order. Surely today the VAB can deny the motion before it and and send this back to the special magistrate to make whatever
uh changes to the uh to to the to the prior order that don't meet the form of the statutory scheme. It doesn't say put new facts in there, change conclusions of law. It says correct deficiencies, missing facts, omitted things. So, if the if the board denies the motion
before it today, sends this back to the special magistrate to correct any uh any issues in the form of its motion based on the findings the special magistrate made. We think that would be a sufficient way. I also think the board
can vacate the order today by a motion to vacate the order uh granting the request for reconsideration. That is what we're here on today is approving that. And surely the board can correct any failure that occurred in a prior hearing before we go down the path of
just following through on something because we can't figure out a procedural remedy. I am happy to brief this board on additional mechanisms by which we may address this issue, but the answer to trying to find a solution is not to follow the path of least resistance.
Thank you. So, just so everybody knows, since I didn't get a second, we'll just cancel what I had said. >> Right. Right. >> So, we're open for now. >> Do we have any other motion? Aaron, how long until we have to seal?
When is it that we have the deadline to Is it May 1st? >> Well, June 1st is really a hard deadline, but yeah, I'd like to have it done. It'd be better to have it done today, ideally. I'm not saying that should be the reason to do it, but yeah. >> What is today? The 23rd.
>> Uh 22nd. Yeah, there's not a lot of time before May 1st, >> but it doesn't have to be submitted. How long does it When does it have to be submitted over to the to the clerk? >> We've got to be finished before June 1st. So, there's enough time to send it back and then have it come back if we have
another meeting. If that's what everybody wants. Here we go. I knew it. I'm going to have to object to that on the record and you understand why. You understand what's on the agenda to be heard today. So, if this was a second
request for reconsideration evidence hearing, which it appears that it was with the evidence that you've received in the couple of hours of testimony you've had, um I would have to object object to that on the record because that is not what's on the agenda to be
heard by this board today. Well, I'll make a recommendation. Let's hear it. >> My recommendation is that we bring this back at a later date. >> Second. >> Would that be a motion with you? >> Yeah, I'll make it a motion. I'll >> I'll second that. And then the idea is
is can you further that saying do you want to send it back to the special magistrate or do you want to just pause and then come back to it? Well, I think we should just bring it back to this body. >> Okay. >> Giving us time to >> You want to have another
>> Obviously, we need more information because there's no clear um the committee doesn't have >> Yeah. >> the ability to make a decision. and they need more information. Give them time to study it, come up with
the best possible decision we can. Being the fact that those decisions and those options that are available to us may take an extra amount of time, would you like to try to set a meeting for next week where we can come back or what do you got? What do what is your
suggestion that we come back to? We'll definitely have to come back >> and I'm open anytime that the committee can can meet. >> Are you guys okay with this? >> And we're down one member anyway today. >> I'm out. >> You're out what? >> I'm gone. >> Okay.
>> Country starting for two weeks. >> When you when do you take off? >> Friday. >> Well, we don't have to set the date today. We'll let's let's get to the clerk and we'll come up with a date that everybody >> All right. If that >> Mr. Atkins is not here
>> if you guys are okay with that. He needs call. >> If May I make a suggestion? >> Yes. Based on the chair's uh I guess suggestion or thought about uh deferring the the decision. What I would suggest that's
fine. Simply come back at another meeting. Uh the parties certainly may submit to the board whatever they wish. I would not invite the parties to do that. I would suggest that the record is complete in this case.
The hearing has been completed. Evidence has been submitted. The request for reconsideration and its response has already been been received. I've I've briefed it. I would suggest that the board uh take the time it needs to review that record, make whatever decision the board wants, but not invite
further submissions, not decline any uh but not necessarily, you know, request them. >> I agree with that. >> And then let me ask you this. Since there seems to be some debate over the agenda items as this and we can't do that because of this, which
was what you said earlier, is there a way to craft it so that you have the available options to us when we come back at the next meeting? Yeah, I can certainly present what what options the board could do. >> We can add it on the agenda >> consequences >> just as a thinking ahead. >> Okay. All right.
>> Good with that. >> Do we need to have >> everybody understand the motion to defer and we'll follow up with you for a date that? >> Okay. All in favor of the motion say yay. >> Yay. >> Oppose. Nay. Carries unanimously.
>> Mr. Chair, just a question so the the property appraisers office can understand where we're at in the process. Now, I understand your motion to not make a decision today. >> Will you be taking the testimony that you heard today along with the evidence that was submitted in the binder and
considering that and then coming back with your decision? Or are you going to be sending that information back to the magistrate for consideration? I just need to understand what what we're doing. I think that we'll all check in with what we can
legally do and make decisions based on that because I think that there's some evidence um when I was reading to do what I'm going to talk about in a little bit. There's a 15-day and a 10day and all these other things that we're supposed to be submitting evidence by and everything else. So, we can get with our attorney and figure that out.
My recommendation very simply is to review the record >> up through submission of the uh request and its response and including anything that was said at the initial uh meeting the last meeting on this request
>> including the testimony that was given today and the information that was submitted to the board today. >> You're trying to put us into a legal loophole is what you're trying to do. You're trying >> No, sir. I'm just asking the question. if the evidence that was submitted today is going to be part of the second request for reconsideration.
>> That that's up to our attorney to let us know if we can. >> Yeah, we're going to we'll get with our attorney and evaluate what our options are. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. We will move on. Thank you, >> Chair.
I I believe that takes us to uh item E four, but I we can't do that on uh today because of the open decisions. So, we've got to skip E4 and go to E5 >> just to bring the board up. >> We
>> do. We have that other one 34. >> Those were both. >> No. >> Oh, was there was one of those? Yes. >> Oh, we we're still on 133. I'm I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Ah, we got Aaron. I'm trying to get ahead of it. We got >> Sorry about that.
>> Yeah. Let's hear 2025 01334. >> Hi, I'm Kelly Grantland or Kina Grantland. I really don't have anything new to present. Um, I don't know if I need to recap what my case was that we continued to listen to today, but um,
it's a situation where the property that I live at currently and purchased in 2014 with my late husband um, the Save Our Homes cap was removed from it and my house reassessed after my
husband died because I did not notify the property appraisers office that I had moved back into that home, which I had no knowledge that I needed. to do when I had ported my homestead and bought another home. But I had sold that home, no longer had benefit of that
homestead exemption anymore, moved back into our family home. My husband died before I knew I needed to notify the property appraisers office that I moved back in. I've provided ample evidence that I was living back in the home
before my husband died. um just no knowledge that I needed to notify them and no way to correct that because my husband is deceased. Anyone else in my same situation if their spouse was still alive um would have been able to rectify
that error at any point in time for the next 30 years. Um but I can't do that because my husband's no longer here. So, I don't know if I need to go any further than what was tabled. >> You did a great job the last time we
were when you we heard you. >> For sure. >> Yeah, you definitely did. You communicated extremely well. Um, and it appears that you what's got you messed up here is just a procedural
issue. Clearly, you um are entitled to the homestead, but the statute requires that you notify the property appraiser of the change of the you had to you
I don't know the right word u severed your relationship went through a legal procedure a process with the property appraisers sele that and acquired a homestead on a second piece of property
and the statute um is pretty clear that you had to take action to undo that. My heart goes out to you. My every inch in inch of my body is to want to grant you this and probably the property appraiser
feels the same way. But unfortunately, we're bound by by the statute. I was reading the Department of Revenue uh documents in terms of their handbook and it it clearly sets out what what you
have to have to get a home the homestead exemption. You met every one of them except for one that has to be appealed for and because you severed that and that's the way I read the record and
I don't know we we can grant an exemption but I don't know if we have statutory authority to do that. I think that record was set pretty clear in the last meeting. In my opinion, if if the court, pardon, if the board um did not
follow through and adopt the revised recommendation today and the property appraiser appealed, it should be that that decision would be incorrect and should be reversed on appeal. >> Yeah. >> Whether it would, I don't know, but I think it should be because it would be clear >> because it's unfortunate that the law
doesn't cover this specific situation. You know, typically in any other situation, there is an exception whenever there's a death or discretion by either the property appraisers office or the board itself. Um, whenever
extenduating circumstances have happened in a case, I mean, the property appraisers office said theirel had this in how many years? You know, it's never going to get covered. No one's ever going to be protected in my case because one single person's never going to be
able to change it. But I'm going to keep trying and keep pushing and raising the concern as high as I can go. So that's all I can really do. >> I know I wanted the extra time to bring this back to to see if there's a way we
could look at some way some >> some way and there really isn't. I was thinking if you could delay it long enough to get it changed, but there's no >> change the law, but it would have to be retroactive. I I don't >> expose facto. >> Yeah,
>> I looked up as much as I could, too. I couldn't find anything. >> I know. >> Couldn't >> um It's heartbreaking. I know. I think this board wanted to help in every way that we can. We wanted to give you the benefit. You've made the effort to make the appeal and you're very articulate.
You could have been a lawyer. >> Maybe after this you will be one >> maybe. >> But it I I did the very thing and just can't we can't find a >> Yeah, it's unfortunate because the law is really supposed to protect the homeowner and the you know um people in
these unfortunate situations and I don't feel like it did that at all in this case. So, I do hope that not board, but the property appraisers office or anyone else who has any influence to >> um try to get this change for somebody in the future does. So,
>> what's the difference in cost? >> Um once they did my portability back, it's about $4,000 a year >> compounded. >> So, next year it's another four, another four.
>> Yeah. Because now every year my 3% that's capped is on a higher amount too. Yeah. Right now my mortgage has gone up $900 a month. >> Mhm. >> To account for it. I know it'll adjust some next year after they, you know, have the cushion, but for right now $900
more a month. >> So >> we have her contact information, right? Her contact information is in >> it would be in the file. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll reach out to you. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Now I guess I'm move to approve it. >> I don't think we have a choice. >> No, really don't. Our own council has recommended. >> We're good. >> So you want me to make a move? Motion to move to approve.
>> Uh 2025 01334. Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say yay. opposed. Nay. Uh motion goes unanimous. Um yeah,
that gives me no pleasure whatsoever. >> All right, I think I have the next one. Um we were talking before about putting together the petitioners opportunities through um having a better process and stuff like that. So, I reviewed the website, went through it, and the
information is on the website, but if you guys have ever gone to the website, there's its detailed listing over here and um clicks over here. There's no formal document that says in the event that you are going to go through the petition process, here is the entire thing and just kind of an overview with
links and stuff like that. So, I went forward, I called uh Mr. Thoritz and we sat down and I apologize about the 30-minute conversation we had just to verify each one of the steps to make sure that some of the actual um processes are being filed and and they
are for the most part. The issue that we run into is is that the taxpayer or the petitioner may not know what the next steps are and by the time those next steps come then they're they may be behind. They may get stuff sent to the junk mail and stuff like that. So what I
did was I took and addressed all of the all the steps down on one sheet of paper and then I went through and put in where we could put links. Say for instance so they could say okay here's my entire form. I know that I have 15 days to turn in my evidence. I know I have to respond within 25 days here and then they
actually I can put in the links to the website. We can also put links to the petition and all of those things in here. What I'd like to do since we're going to come back is I'd like to formalize all this because Erin and I were working on this up until today and then bring it back at the next one. You guys can look it over. I can also send
it to Miss Summers so that she can look it over to make sure we're good and then we can come back. But basically, I think that rewarding some of the websites, one thing, getting some of those notices that we were talking about to make sure that they have the information inside of them, but then also what I really felt
like was one form that kind of explains all of it so that if you're looking at it, you would actually know what the next steps are so that you could be prepared. >> Question, would this be on the appraisal on the county? Yeah, that's what I was that's what once we get this approved,
what I'd like to do is is there's like in order to file a petition, you have to go up to the lefthand side in order to do there's just like different processes on the website. I would like to make those recommendations, bring this back at the next meeting and we could do it if that's okay with you guys. It' be a lot simpler.
>> Okay. >> Is that okay with you, Miss Summers? >> Helps you out. Okay. Thank you. Do we need that in the form of a motion or do we >> No, I'll just bring it back. >> All right, I do that. >> Okay,
are we on item four? Is that where we are? Four. Am I missing something? We would be uh that was number uh E5 because we can't do E4 today due to uh petition 95 remaining open. >> Okay. >> So that's it.
>> Yeah, we're on board reports. >> Yep. Do I have board report from the adjustment board attorney? >> No, sir. >> I have no report. Jim is not here. >> Matt, you have a report? >> No, sir. >> Bob or Rob? Okay, good. Meetings
adjourned. If I was you guys, I wouldn't bring home all this.