Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT
9 RULE WORKSHOP
10 RULES 12D-9.020 and 12D-16.002
1
11 The above entitled Meeting convened at Florida
12 Department of Revenue, 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard,
13 Tallahassee, Florida, on the 6th day of February, 2018,
14 commencing at 10:00 a.m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORIGI AL
Reported by:
JEFFREY R. BABCOCK, FPR
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 TAMMY MILLER, MODERATOR STEPHEN J. KELLER, ESQUIRE
3 KYLE CHRISTOPHER, ESQUIRE MARK HAMILTON, ESQUIRE
4 ANTHONY JACKSON JANICE FORRESTER
5 ATTENDEES:
6 SHEILA M. ANDERSON JULIE SCHWARTZ
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
2
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
MS. MILLER: Good morning, my name is Tammy
Miller, I'm the Deputy Director of the Department's
Office of Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution,
I will be the moderator for today's hearing; my role
as moderator is to preside in a neutral fashion.
Staff from the Department are here today to receive
comments on the proposed amendments. At this time,
I'd like them to introduce themselves.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Kyle Christopher, with the
Department's
MS. ANDERSON: I can't hear.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: -- Property Tax Oversight
Program.
MS. MILLER: I'm sorry, she can't hear you.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Kyle Christopher,
Department of Revenue, Property Tax Oversight program.
MS. ANDERSON: I still couldn't hear.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: Kyle Christopher,
Department of Revenue, Property Tax Oversight program.
MR. KELLER: My name is Stephen Keller, I'm
one of the attorneys with the Department of Revenue.
MR. HAMILTON: Mark Hamilton, General
Counsel, Department of Revenue.
MS. MILLER: Today is February 6th, 2018, and
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
As
this is a public rule hearing scheduled under
Subsection (3) of Section 120.54 Florida Statutes.
requested in writing and deemed necessary by the
agency, the Department is holding this hearing to
discuss the proposed amendments to rules and forms.
The Department published two notices of proposed rule
in the January 12th, 2018 edition of the Florida
Administrative Register, Volume 44, Number 9, Pages
162 to 165.
We have placed copies of the agenda, the
draft rules, and draft forms on the back table. For
those on the computer, the draft rules and forms are
available on the Department's proposed rules page at
floridarevenue.com/rules. Select the Property Tax
button at the bottom of the page, and then you can
select the rule that you would like to review.
I'll now ask Anthony Jackson to explain the
process that we will use for taking comments via our
online prep.
MR. JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. If you are attending this hearing using
the option "Telephone with audio pin," and you have a
question or comment, send an email to
[email protected] to let me know you wish to
speak. We will address you by name and unmute your
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
phone when it is your turn to speak.
If you are using the option "Telephone with
no audio pin," you must email your question or comment
directly to [email protected] . Please use the
subject line "February 6th Hearing." For the comment,
add your name and whom you represent in your email.
We will read your comment out loud, and the court
reporter will enter it into the record.
If you are attending this hearing using your
computer, raise your hand using the icon on the grab
tab left of your control panel and we will address you
when it is your turn to speak. Please state your name
and whom you represent, and the court reporter will
enter it into the record along with your question or
comment.
If you experience difficulty, use the quick
chat option to send me a message. All visitors need
to wear a public meeting badge while in the building.
Please return it to the back counter when the meeting
is finished. If there is an emergency evacuation, we
will walk together to the evacuation zone for your
safety. For those in the room, please mute or turn
off any cell phone ringers or any other noise-making
devices. Thank you.
MS. MILLER: We will take comments on each
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
agenda item from anyone present or from conference
call attendees. Please tell us your name and whom you
represent. We ask that you provide comments only on
suggested changes that are directly relevant to the
drafts. Please hold all other general comments until
after we have discussed the agenda items. For those
present, if you would like to make a comment, we would
ask you to step up to the podium when you'd like to
speak on any agenda item.
The items that we will be covering today are
Rule 12D-9.020 Exchange of Evidence; Rule 12D-16.002,
Index to Forms, and the following two forms: Form
DR-486, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board,
Request for Hearing; and DR-486PORT, P-0-R-T, Petition
to the Value Adjustment Board, Transfer of Homestead
Assessment Difference, Request for Hearing. Are there
any questions? Okay, I'll now ask Department staff to
present the proposed changes, and we will be happy to
take your comments.
MR. KELLER: Good morning. We have before us
today two rule drafts and two forms drafts that
together comprise what we call the evidence exchange.
My role today will be to present these rules and forms
as proposed rules to receive comments addressed to
them, and to explain the proposed amendments and try
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
to answer any questions related to the substance of
them.
The amendments shown by the underlined text
and stricken-through text in the Rule 12D-9.020 and
the other rule, 12D-16.002, accomplishes the updates
necessary to address law changes made by the Turner
case by Chapter 2016-128 Section 10, and Chapter
2013-109, Section 8.
The underlined and struck-through areas are
to show changes to be made to the current effective
evidence exchange rule and forms which were last
amended in January of 2017.
latest rule and form.
The text is from that
Unchanged text that is not being amended has
been in the rule for many years. Some text that is
shown as underlined is actually text that is being
moved from another part of the rule where it is shown
as stricken. When we get to the rule, I will try to
point out those areas as we go through it.
Substantively, there are three main
objectives of the rule change to 12D-9.020: First is
to remove the term "optional" in (1) (a) (1) and the
sentence there is stated as more directory which comes
from the Turner decision which stated that the statute
does refer to this as mandatory.
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Second, the draft provides that a
petitioner's noncompliance with the evidence exchange
does not interfere with the petitioner's right to
receive a copy of the current property record card.
That was amended by Chapter 2013-109, Section 8, and
2016-128, Section 10, Laws of Florida.
And third, the draft will amend Section
(1) (c) to say that the petitioner's noncompliance with
the evidence exchange does not authorize the Value
Adjustment Board or special magistrate to exclude the
petitioner's evidence. That was the direct ruling of
the administrative law judge in the Turner case that
is being implemented here.
A further nuance is that under Section
194.034(1) (h) Florida Statutes, if the property
appraiser asks in writing for evidence which the
petitioner had knowledge of but denied to the property
appraiser before the hearing, the evidence or
testimony may not be accepted or considered by the
special magistrate or Value Adjustment Board. That is
a summary thumbnail of the changes in these rule
drafts and forms drafts, does anyone have any comments
on Rule 12D-9.020, Exchange of Evidence?
MS. MILLER: Ma'am, if you'd like to step to
the podium.
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
MS. ANDERSON: My name is Sheila Anderson, I
am a private citizen residing in Marion County,
Florida.
this?
I have initially a question: Who wrote
MR. KELLER: And we responded previously,
this was a draft that was created by several people,
myself included, Mr. Hamm, Mr. Hamilton and the Office
of General Counsel, our rules coordinator, and some of
the attorneys in the property tax administration
program.
MS. ANDERSON: How do I know, or how does
anybody know whether or not Will Shepherd, Lauren
Levy, Jay Wood, John Dent (phonetic) or anyone else
who has a vested interest in the outcome of hearings
did not influence or participate in the drafting of
this language?
MR. KELLER: That is not a process that
occurred in this drafting process.
MS. ANDERSON: Are you under oath? Do we
have assurance, Mr. Keller?
MR. KELLER: I can assure you that I
participated in the draft of this, and I'm aware of
where the words came from, and what you just described
did not occur.
MS. ANDERSON: And I'd like to also put on
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
the record whether or not the Director of Property Tax
Oversight is in attendance today.
MR. CHRISTOPHER: He does not appear to be in
the room.
MS. ANDERSON: Is there anybody in the room
from a cabinet aide off ice or representing a cabinet
office?
MR. HAMILTON: Ms. Anderson, do you have any
comments relating to the rules
MS. ANDERSON: Yes, I do, Mr. Hamilton --
MR. HAMILTON: -- we
and we are here for comments.
are here for the rules,
If you'd like to
present comments relating to the rules, we would like
to hear them.
MS. ANDERSON: I would be glad to comply with
your request, Mr. Hamilton, after you answer my
question. Is there anybody here from a cabinet
office? The cabinet members are the heads of the
Department of Revenue, I'd like to know if anybody is
present.
MR. KELLER: There's no one present of that
nature. There are a number of people listening on the
telephone, and I don't know who those people are.
MS. ANDERSON: 12D-9.020, Exchange of
Evidence, Section 2, "The last day of the period shall
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
be included unless it's a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday in which event the period shall run until the
end of the next previous day that is neither Saturday,
Sunday or legal holiday."
As previously discussed, that deprives
taxpayers of their full amount of time to present
evidence to the property appraiser, and gives the
property appraiser an advantage of extra time; the
legal holidays are observed differently in different
jurisdictions.
And there is a solution to this situation:
The hearing notice forms which come from the
Department of Revenue include a date for evidence; the
clerks fill it in. Evidence is due on February 6, for
example, that's filled in by the clerk. If the clerk
finds that that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or
holiday, the clerk could move the hearing to a date
where that conflict would not occur without depriving
anybody of any rights and you would solve the problem.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
MS. ANDERSON: That's your response to
depriving people of their rights to time to prepare
evidence is thank you?
MR. KELLER: Well, I will say this, that to
address that comment and by way of explanation, the
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statute does provide specifically that there is a
15-day window for the taxpayer
MS. ANDERSON: Yes.
12
MR. KELLER: -- and that there's a seven-day
window for the property appraiser. If the taxpayer
waits until less than 15 days, that's going to cut
into the property appraiser's time to review the
taxpayer's evidence, and so unfortunately, or
fortunately, the statute sets this out and the rule
must provide for the required period of time,
otherwise we have a problem with our statute.
MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Keller, first of all, the
statute doesn't say the next previous day, it just
says 15 days; and secondly of all -- and what you're
proposing cuts back the 15 days. More importantly,
this process is for the benefit of taxpayers to
protect their rights, it is not for the benefit of the
property appraisers who should already have their
evidence before the hearings are ever requested.
That's the reason they present to the Department of
Revenue a tax role by the end of the spring so that
you can approve whatever the assessments are and
determine whether or not they're lawful. So they
don't need and should not need extra days, but you're
providing for that, and this is not fair, nor is it in
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compliance with the requirement in the statute to
provide 15 days.
Again, there's a simple fix: Where the
evidence deadline date which is filled in by the
13
clerk
do it
and I've gotten those notices, so I know they
falls on a weekend or a holiday in that
county, all they have to do is move the hearing a
couple of days forward and that will change the
evidence deadline. And they're there, that's what
they should do, and it would not deprive the taxpayers o f
their rights, nor change the hearing purpose from
providing taxpayers with a remedy to doing whatever it
takes for the property appraiser, which is not the poi t
of these hearings .
MR. KELLER: Thank you, we will consider
that. As I've indicated, the explanation is what I've
just stated. And this is, by the way, language that
has been in this rule for many years --
MS. ANDERSON: And I've been protesting
MR. KELLER: -- not at this point proposing
to amend that, so what we are talking about here is
something that is an existing rule that is not part of
what our proposed amendments are here to do.
will consider your comments, thank you.
But we
MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Keller, I don't care if
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
it's been in the language for the last hundred years,
it deprives taxpayers of their rights to full period
of time, and it's something that is improper and
should be corrected. And it's been brought to your
attention before, you have not responded to it, and
it's time that you did respond in the way that's
intended to give people 15 days. Whatever it takes to
do that is what you need to do.
In (b), where it says "Petitioner's
noncompliance with Paragraph (1) (a) does not affect
the Petitioner's right to receive a copy of the
current property record card from the property
appraiser," that should be enlarged to read before the
hearing notices are sent out is when the property
record cards need to be received, particularly
tangible; otherwise, you don't know what the
assessment is based on. And if you don't know what
the assessment is based on, property record card
coming after you've gotten the hearing notice doesn't
-- or at the end of the evidence exchange does not
tell you what you need to know. And there are plenty
of jurisdictions who do not have complete property
record cards online, and some counties don't even have
online records. So it would be helpful to have a
consistent and fully-informed statement so that before
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
the hearing is clear.
Okay, the other thing that's missing and
this is repetition again is that there are no
criteria for what goes into a property record card,
and that's a deficiency in the Department of Revenue,
and Property Tax Oversight is negligent and I would
say derelict in its duty when it fails to provide
criteria for what should go into a property record
card. That should be a rule .
What you get submitted by the counties is not
what is provided to taxpayers, and you should know
that, because you should check into it. So I don't
know if anybody else who is here today wants to speak,
but I have other comments to make.
On (c), the language that's not underlined, I
think, contradicts 194.301. The property appraiser
has to prove their assessment complies with the
criteria in 193.011, so why does the property
appraiser need to receive anything from a taxpayer for
that information, since they are required to use
market data, and the only information a taxpayer might
have in their possession would be actual information
which should not be applied by the property appraiser.
MS. MILLER: Just as a gentle reminder, we
would like you to address your comments at this point
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
just to our suggested changes. If we have general
comments about the rule as a whole, we will be happy
to address those at the end of the hearing, but
just --
fit.
MS. ANDERSON: I am addressing it as I see
This is part of the context of what you
MR. KELLER: Can I respond to your comment
regarding the timing of the property appraiser sending
the record card?
MS. ANDERSON: Yeah.
MR. KELLER: There's another rule that was
previously amended and currently, as amended, provides
for the timing of when the property appraiser sends
the property record card, which is upon receipt of the
petition from the clerk, so that is well before the
notice of hearing
MS. ANDERSON: I --
MR. KELLER: -- that is a statutory
requirement that has been incorporated into another
rule which is 12D-9.015(12.)
MS. ANDERSON: So thank you. So for the
record, I filed a petition in Miami in 2017 which has
just been completed, the hearing, and never received
anything from the property appraiser's office.
MS. MILLER: Okay, we have a speaker on the
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
phone that we'd like to go to now please.
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead, Ms. Schwartz.
MS. SCHWARTZ: Hi, good morning. My name is
Julie Schwartz, I'm an attorney in Miami, I represent
a number of taxpayers. And I wanted to comment -
well actually, first I have a question because I just
want to understand if the changes that are being
proposed to 12D-9.020 are the same that were proposed
at the November 14th meeting, or if there have been
any changes? It looks to me to be the same, but I
just wanted to clarify.
MR. KELLER: Yes, I should have pointed that
out. The text of the rule drafts and forms drafts is
identical to that which was presented at the November
14th workshop.
MS. SCHWARTZ: Okay, thank you. I'm going to
raise a point that we did raise before, but I think
it's just worth repeating: Regarding the proposed
changes to 9.020, it seems -- I've read through it
numerous times, and it seems to be a change in the
language and the format without any real substantive
change in the process. And I may want to discuss that
a little bit more, but our overriding concern is that
by making a change, it's going to create confusion in
how the process is implemented, because it would
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
appear that there should be some substantive change,
but when you get right down to the nitty-gritty of the
rule, there really is no substantive change.
And so we I understand the impetus is to
remove the word ''optional" and to bring it closer to
the language of the Turner case, but it seems to
really not have any substantive effect, and our -- my
concern is that it's going to people are going to
-- it's going to leave people to think that there's
some substantive change when there really isn't.
And if I could just take a few minutes, I
mean the way the process works previously, and I think
the way it still will work under this proposed change,
is that 15 days -- the petitioner files the petition,
and then they have a choice: If they want to submit
their evidence 15 days prior to the property appraiser
and request the property appraiser's evidence, then
they're entitled to receive the property appraiser's
evidence seven days prior. However, if they don't do
that for whatever reason, they're not -- the evidence
exchange -- the 15 days is not optional in the sense
that there are ramifications for not submitting it 15
days. The ramification is then the petitioner doesn't
receive the property appraiser's evidence seven days
before.
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
However, if the petitioner doesn't meet the
15-days deadline, they're still permitted to submit
evidence a reasonable time before the hearing, and it
still should be heard by the -- you know, admitted at
the hearing and considered by the magistrate. And so
I don't -- I guess I'd like to ask if that is also the
understanding of the people that have drafted this, is
that still the process?
MR. KELLER: Well, generally I think there
was a disconnect there when you said "submit evidence
a reasonable time before the hearing." The
requirement to submit evidence to the property
appraiser is based upon Section 194.034(1) (h), and
that depends on a written request from the property
appraiser to the petitioner for their evidence and
testimony.
So if that request is not made by the
property appraiser, and the petitioner does not
participate in the -- or initiate the evidence
exchange, that they would not have a responsibility to
provide evidence to the property appraiser a
reasonable time before the hearing, they would just go
to the hearing and present their evidence.
The other comment I would make in response to
your statement that this doesn't really do very much
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
in terms of substance, we've had this discussion
before several times at the workshop and what-not, and
I think the Department's point here is that it's
extremely important for the Department of Revenue to
set forth the expectations and obligations for
petitioners -- particularly petitioners, and property
appraisers also -- to follow in this process; and if
that is not done, then we have the opportunity for any
number of participants to characterize what the Turner
case did and what it did not do. This rule here
implements what the Turner case did, and it does it
very clearly and expressly, we hope anyway, and that
is a goal of this rule making process.
MS. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. Yeah, I understand
that, and I just wanted to -- actually, the first
point you make is something -- is a good point that I
kind of misstated or overlooked, is that if the
evidence is not something that was specifically and
properly requested by the property appraiser, then it
need not be given even a reasonable time in advance,
it can be brought to the hearing for the first time,
and I appreciate your clarifying that.
And I understand -- I just wanted to -- I
feel that I understand the reason for the change and
just kind of wanted to clarify, because whenever there
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
is a change in the rule, I think that people will be
looking in practice -- what practical effect does this
have. And so parties that are already accustomed to
participating in the evidence exchange, it really
won't have much practical -- or any practical effect,
it doesn't change the process.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
MS. ANDERSON: There's one more part to that,
I if I may comment on what Ms. Schwartz just said.
agree with her, but I'd like to add that,
notwithstanding the evidence exchange, if petitioner
does not initiate it, it should be made clear in the
rule that the evidence brought to the hearing by
either party should be with copies for the other side
so that there is no way that a Petitioner's deprived
of the copies of, and access to, the evidence used by
the property appraiser to defend their assessment;
which is why the evidence exchange was initiated
initially, because that was happening.
here, it needs to be, Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
So it's not in
MS. ANDERSON: And what's the remedy for not
receiving property record card? Before a hearing
notice would be a good -- would be/should be the
requirement, but what happens if you don't get it?
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
And what happens if it is not a complete document?
MR. KELLER: That is something that we are
considering at this point in time. The evidence
exchange feature of this does say that if the property
appraiser does not exchange fully their evidence, they
should not be using evidence that has not been
exchanged, and so there is that provision already in
the rule.
MS. ANDERSON: Here's the practical
consequences of that: The property appraiser's
failure to provide a property record card for the
in the seven-day window at the end of the evidence
exchange does not provide the taxpayer access to the
data, particularly intangible, before they even begin
to prepare for a hearing, so they cannot provide
evidence. If you don't see the tangible, for example,
property record card, which is not online -- the
numbers may be online, but the record card is never
online, at least I've not seen it anywhere that I've
worked -- then how do you know how the property was
assessed?
In the instance of tangible: Computers,
microphones, speakers, desks, chairs, paper, whatever
might be listed in a tangible property record card,
you would not know without getting that document
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
before the hearing notice so you can prepare evidence
for a hearing. So again, this needs to be fleshed out
so that it's clear when the property record card needs
to be provided to a taxpayer, and what goes into the
property record card so the taxpayer receives a
complete document.
MR. KELLER: Thank you. Does anyone else
have any other comments on Rule 12D-9.020? Okay, we
can move on to the form DR-486, Petition to the Value
Adjustment Board, Request for Hearing.
MS. ANDERSON: Are you going into 12D-9.025?
MR. KELLER: Not at this time. We are on the
form that I just named, and does anyone have any
comments on this form?
MS. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. KELLER: I should say does anyone have
any comments on the amendments to this form?
MS. ANDERSON: Are you -- repeat again the
form you're referring to.
MR. KELLER: I'm referring to Form DR-486.
MS. ANDERSON: Well, you have several
documents here all labeled 486, the first one in the
packet I have is 12D-16.002, okay? It says -- there's
no indication of what changed or what has not changed
in this document, but I would ask, okay, again, that
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
availability should include dates and times. There's
room on that line to add the word "and times" without
using up more paper.
Okay, underneath that, "you have the right to
exchange evidence with the property appraiser," you
should have the right to have witnesses and attorneys
sworn in some hearings. As a practical matter,
attorneys suggest they're not witnesses, even though
they're testifying to their interpretations of the
law, and so they should be sworn, okay? And just by
saying "witnesses," that creates a problem for those
people who don't demand everybody is sworn, okay?
And again, at the bottom of that box, when
the property appraiser receives a petition, he or she
will either send the property record card or notify
you how to obtain it online, and again, there's no
criteria for what goes into the property record card
which means that not everybody knows whether or not
they're getting everything they're entitled to know.
Okay, the next DR-486, page 3, is not marked
to indicate changes, but Part 1, Taxpayer Information,
"If you will not attend the hearing but would like
your evidence considered, you must submit two copies
of your evidence to the clerk," okay, "and the
property appraiser may respond." Shouldn't that also
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
be that you "can receive the evidence of the property
appraiser" so that you too may respond if you choose?
After all, 194.301 says "the property appraiser shall
prove their assessment complies with the criteria in
193.011." So again, without having that
information -- and this seems like a partial
contradiction to that requirement.
And again Part 2 -- Number 2, you've got that
next previous day business which is contradicting the
15-day requirement. And again, in (b) of Part 2, too,
you have a time table question about when the property
records cards should be received. And (c,) again, I'd
like to say contradicts -- seems to contradict
194.301. And there is a bulletin, is there not
Mr. Keller, on the subject of the request for
information, and doesn't this suggest a contradiction
in the bulletin?
Okay, Number 486-PORT, I wouldn't know if
there are changes, but again filling out these forms,
okay, the petitioner's name and mailing address for
notices needs to be lined up so it's easier to fill
in.
MR. KELLER: Thank you. Does anyone else
have comments on Form DR-486?
MS. MILLER: I believe we have a comment
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
either on the phone or online -- on the phone? Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Ms. Schwartz.
MS. MILLER: Go ahead, Ms. Schwartz.
MS. SCHWARTZ: Hi, thanks. My comment
actually is about the form and the rule, but not about
the section that's being changed. So I think you said
that you would take those comments at the end?
MS. MILLER: I think we're there, go ahead.
MS. SCHWARTZ: Okay. If I could just finish
with 9.020 just briefly, I would like to say that I
agree with Ms. Anderson, that the counting of the 15
days and the seven days when it falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal holiday, every other court that I'm
aware of extend the -- a deadline to the following
business day, not ~he next previous day, and I think
that that would be appropriate here as well.
It's very burdensome, particularly when you
have a holiday and a weekend, it can really leave
very-little time between getting the hearing notice
and the deadline to submit the evidence, and so I just
wanted to make that comment. And I think it would be,
you know, appropriate to have it fall on the following
business day for the taxpayer and -- or the petitioner
and the property appraiser.
One other thing related to that is we've seen
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
in a number counties, particularly I think the
counties that use Axia, they are imposing a 5:00 p.m.
evidence exchange deadline; not every county, some of
them are specifying on the hearing notice -- and this
is on the DR-481, Value Adjustment Board, Notice of
Hearing, it has a space for the VAB to fill in the
date and the time. Some for example, Orange County
fills in 11:59 p.m., but then a number of other
counties are filling in 5:00 p.m.
And as far as I can tell, that's not
addressed in the rules, and it seems to be handled on
a county-by-county local basis, and I don't know if
that's something that could be put in a future draft
of the rule, or maybe some direction given. But
5:00 p.m., again is not customary with any other
courts that I'm aware of, they're usually a midnight
cut-off or 11:59 p.m. cut-off, and it's somewhat
arbitrary and it's burdensome for the party that is
submitting the evidence without any real benefit to the
other party. And so I would request that that's somet ing
that be addressed in one way or another.
And then the other comment I have is on the
DR-486. Again, it's not something that is being
changed right now, but since you are taking comments
on the form, I wanted to raise it. Under Part 2,
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
Reason for Petition, there are a number of boxes
starting with Real Property Value, and then I think
the most-recently-added was the last box that says
Qualifying Improvement or Change of Ownership or
Control, and it refers to the homestead and the capped
assessment statutes, and I know that that was put in
in response to a change in -- I think it's 194.032
yes, where (1) (a) (5) was added. But I just wanted to
raise something that has occurred.
There's been some question raised by the
property appraisers as to what jurisdiction the Value
Adjustment Board has to hear matters related to capped
assessed values, and it was clarified even before this
new section of 194.032 that the VAB has jurisdiction
to hear matters relating to the uncapped market value
and the capped assessed value; and I think that
Mr. Keller wrote a memo to the Miami/Dade VAB back in
2015 to that effect clarifying that they do have
jurisdiction to hear these issues.
Then after that, this last check box was
included, and at the time I think I commented that it
was unnecessarily limiting, although I understanding
it's tracking the language of Subsection (5,) but
regardless of Subsection (5,) Subset Part (1) which
says hearing petitions relating to assessment is broad
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
enough on its own to include capped assessments.
And we've had situations where the property
appraiser relies on this form, rather than the statute
and the interpretation by Mr. Keller, to argue that
petitioners don't have the right to a VAB hearing for
those issues. And so I wanted to raise that and
suggest that perhaps some change could be made maybe
where the real property value box is to say "including
capped assessment values," so that the issue can be
put to rest and it can be clarified that if there is a
problem with a capped assessed value, whatever it may
be, it may be just even a mathematical mistake, that
the VAB has jurisdiction. Because if there is a
mistake, clerical, mathematical, or for any other
reason and the property appraiser doesn't choose to
fix it, that's exactly when the taxpayer would need
the right to an impartial hearing before a magistrate
to get that fixed. And that's my only comment on that
form.
MR. KELLER: Thank you for providing that
information.
MS. ANDERSON: I'd like to add that I agree
with most of the points raised by Ms. Schwartz,
particularly the first one when it comes to time for
submission of evidence; that is arbitrary, and it was
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
my understanding that the Value Adjustment Board is
not authorized to create substantive rules for this
process, so where that comes from seems not only
arbitrary, but totally improper.
MR. KELLER: Thank you. Does anyone have any
further comments on Form DR-486?
We can move to form DR-486PORT, P-0-R-T,
Petition to the Value Adjustment Board, Transfer of
Homestead Assessment Difference, Request for Hearing.
Does anyone have comments concerning the amendments to
this form?
And lastly we can move to Rule 12D-16.002.
This rule is being amended solely to serve as the
mechanism to incorporate these two forms that we've
been discussing by reference, and those forms are
incorporated into the rule, therefore becoming adopted
forms. Does anyone have any comments concerning Rule
12D-16.002? Hearing no further comments, we can move
on to the next portion of the agenda.
MS. MILLER: Okay, well, that -- I believe
that is all the rules and forms we have to present
today.
MS. ANDERSON: We have here 12D-9. 025 (4) (a)
and (f,) that's part of the package. There are
changes here, are you not conducting this meeting to
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
31
include those?
MS. MILLER: I did not have that on my
agenda .
MR. KELLER: I'm not seeing that in my packet
that I got from the back.
MS. ANDERSON: Well, this is what I picked up
at the front so --
MR. KELLER: That is not on the agenda today.
I don't know how that document came to be on the
table. We have finished the agenda of those rules and
forms that we are presenting today.
MS. ANDERSON: Hold on, Mr. Keller.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. ANDERSON: Are you incorporating from
025 (4) (a) and (f) into 20?
MS. FORRESTER: She's looking at page 2.
MS. ANDERSON: It could be that you're
blending, but that was not clear to me. Well, we can
19 spend more public money and have more public hearings,
20 Mr. Keller, what the heck.
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KELLER: I think what you're referring to
is set forth on page 2 of the prepared amendments to
Rule 12D-9.020, and there are cross-references to
9.025 --
MS. ANDERSON: However --
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
MR. KELLER: (4) (a) and (f) there, but
those -- that rule is not here today to be amended or
presented for amendment.
MS. ANDERSON: So just for the transcript,
okay, on two -- on page 3 of these documents, number
(2) (a) at the bottom of that first paragraph, it says
"There is no specific form or format required for the
petitioner's written request." To bring to your
attention, some jurisdictions have created their own
forms, and to the extent that they have done so, some
of them may or may not be appropriate or consistent or
compliant with the fact that Value Adjustment Boards
cannot create substitute rules. So you might want to
look at whatever is being passed out in various
jurisdictions and you might want to create a form for
optional use.
MR. KELLER: Thank you, we will consider
that.
MS. MILLER: Are there any other comments?
Okay, we anticipate proceeding toward the next step in
rule adoption as soon as feasible. The next step is
to present the rule package to the governor and
cabinet, to request final adoption and approval to
file and certify these rules and forms with the
Department of State.
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
On behalf of the Department, I'd like to
thank you for participating and sharing your comments
with us, and this concludes today's hearing.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded at
10:48 a.m.)
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491
Page 34
34
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 1
2
3
4
5 I, JEFFREY R. BABCOCK, do hereby certify that I
6 was authorized to and did report the foregoing
7 proceedings, and that the transcript, pages 1 through 33,
8 is a true and correct record of my stenographic notes.
9
10 Dated this 7th day of February, 2018 at
11 Tallahassee,
12
13
14 JEFFREY BABCOCK, FPR
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE RECORD REPORTING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850.222.5491