origi al - florida dept. of revenue - florida dept. of revenue€¦ · mr. keller: my name is...

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

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


2

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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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?


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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 --


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.


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.)


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


origi al - florida dept. of revenue - florida dept. of revenue€¦ · mr. keller: my name is...

Documents