FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PUBLIC WORKSHOP

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PUBLIC WORKSHOP Rule D-.0, Exchange of Evidence Rule D-.00, Index to Forms DR- and DR-PORT November, :00 p.m. - : p.m. Building, Room 0 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Tammy Miller, Moderator Stephen Keller, Esquire Mark Hamilton, Esquire Kyle Christopher, Esquire Anthony Jackson REPORTED BY: Lisa Babcock, FPR For the Record Reporting 00 Mahan Drive, Suite 0 Tallahassee, Florida 0

PUBLIC WORKSHOP MS. MILLER: Good afternoon. My name is Tammy Miller. I am the deputy director of the Office of Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution here at the department. I will be today's moderator for today's workshop. My role as moderator is to preside in a neutral fashion. It does not include addressing any substantive issues. Staff from the department are here today to receive comments on proposed rules. At this time, I would like them to introduce themselves. MR. CHRISTOPHER: Kyle Christopher with the Property Tax Oversight Program. MR. HAMILTON: Mark Hamilton, general counsel, Department of Revenue. MR. KELLER: Stephen Keller. I'm one of the attorneys with the department. MS. MILLER: Today is November th,, and this is a public rule workshop scheduled under subsection () of Section 0. Florida Statutes. The department is holding this workshop to discuss the proposed amendments to rules and forms. The department published two notices of development of

rulemaking in the October th, edition of the Florida Administrative Register, Volume, No., pages to. We have placed copies of the agenda, the draft rules, and the draft forms on the back counter. For those who may be on the computer, the draft rules and forms are also available at the department's proposed rule page -- (Interruption.) Okay. Technical difficulties there. Let me start that one again. For those of you who may be on the computer, draft rules and forms are on the department's proposed rules page at www.floridarevenue.com/dor/rules. You can select the Property Tax button at the bottom of the page and then select the rule you would like to view. I'll now ask Anthony Jackson to explain the process that we will use for taking comments via our electronic means. MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you are attending this workshop using the option "telephone with audio PIN" and you have a question or a comment, send an e-mail to dorpto@floridarevenue.com to let me know you wish to speak. We will address you by name and

unmute your phone when it is your turn to speak. If you're using the option "telephone with no audio PIN," you must e-mail your question or comment directly to dorpto@floridarevenue.com. Please use the subject line "November meeting." For the comment, add your name and whom you represent in your e-mail. We will read your comment out loud and the court reporter will enter it into the record. If you are attending this workshop 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-check option to send me a message. If we have visitors, which we do, please -- you will 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 noise-making devices. MS. MILLER: We will be taking comments on each agenda item from anyone present or from anyone who's a conference call attendee. For those present, if you would please step up to the podium when you'd like to speak. For anyone using a computer, you were asked to raise your hand electronically. Please tell us your name and whom you represent. We ask that you provide only comments or suggested changes that are directly relevant to the drafts. Please hold all other general comments until we have discussed the agenda items. The rules we will be discussing today are Rule D-.0, Exchange of Evidence, and Rule D-.00, Index to Forms, along with two forms, the DR-, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board - Request for Hearing, and DR-PORT, Petition to the Value Adjustment Board - Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference - Request for Hearing. Does anyone have any questions? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. MS. MILLER: You have a question on how we're going to conduct the hearing? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. On the initial document,

who participated in drafting the documents? MS. MILLER: Okay. If we could wait -- that sounds like a substantive question. We just want to confirm that -- on how we're going to conduct the workshop first, if there were any questions on how that would be conducted. Okay. Assuming there's not, I'll go ahead and turn it over -- as I said, I do not address substantive issues so I'll go ahead and turn it over to our department employees to go ahead and we can jump right in. MS. ANDERSON: Also, is anyone else here who's going to speak besides me so I can -- in addition to Mr. Keller so that I can stand here and don't have to sit down, stand up? MR. HAMILTON: I think you'll be okay standing there, Ms. Anderson. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. MILLER: For the record, there does not -- I don't believe we have anybody who's outside -- from outside the department. MR. KELLER: Good afternoon. Is this microphone working? We have before us today two rule drafts and two form drafts that, together, comprise what we

call the exchange of evidence to the value adjustment board. My role today will be to present these rules and forms as drafts, and to receive comments addressed to them, and to explain the draft amendments, and to try to answer any questions related to the substance of them. Although these rules and forms are sometimes labeled as "proposed," at this time, they have not been proposed and they are only drafts. The amendments shown by the underlined text and stricken-through text accomplish the updates necessary to address law changes made by the Turner vs. Department of Revenue case; some legislation, Chapter -, Section ; and legislation, -, Section. These 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. The text is from that latest rule and form. Unchanged text has been in this rule for some number of years in most cases. Some text shown as underlined is actually text that is being moved from another part of the rule where it is shown as stricken. When we go

through this, we'll try to indicate that as we go along. As to the forms, there has been no change to the first two pages of these two forms. There is an additional page for each form that should be identical to each other. These forms' changes incorporate the draft rule text as instructional material on the third page of each form. These forms are disclosure to public users of the forms and inform the users of the feature of the rule and the evidence exchange procedure. We believe these changes will go a long way to promote, enhance, and maintain a high level of public trust and confidence in the administrative review process. I would like to encourage everyone here and online to direct your comments to these rules at this time, and if there's an explanation needed, we will try to offer it. The first rule on the agenda is Rule D-.0 entitled Exchange of Evidence. And I'll open that up for comments at this time. Does anyone have any comments on this draft rule? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. Question: Who did the drafting, please?

I'm sorry, my name is Sheila Anderson. I'm from Ocala, Florida. I'm representing myself. Okay? MR. KELLER: Well, to answer your question, I was certainly involved in the drafting of these. MS. ANDERSON: Who else? MR. KELLER: Certain other attorneys in the Office of General Counsel, Mr. Hamm, Mr. Hamilton, several people from the Property Tax administration -- Oversight Program, and our rules coordinator. It was essentially a team kind of process where everyone indicated their consensus to this draft. MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Hamilton, I'd like to recommend that from now on, the names of everybody who participates is included in any rule present drafts that the department presents so that we all know who is involved and who is not. And if anyone has ever attended a value adjustment board hearing in addition to Mr. Keller's distant experience, it would be useful to indicate that as well. Also, I would like to ask if anybody else was involved, such as the director of Property Tax Oversight.

MR. KELLER: I'm not aware that he was involved directly in this, no. MS. ANDERSON: Is the director of Property Tax Oversight here today? MR. KELLER: I'm not seeing him in this room at this time, no. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. I have comments to make about D-.0,, "To calculate the days." This language changed recently to indicate that if the last day of the period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, that the next business day would be the time for deadline. The language correctly written reduces the evidence period for a petitioner to prepare and the language is not in any statute in Chapter. So we've been through this discussion before. Where did this contrived protocol originate, Mr. Keller, and why is it there again? MR. KELLER: The answer to that is that the statute provides the time in terms of days, and in order to meet those requirements specified in the statute in terms of days, it's necessary to provide the evidence in the exchange in time so that those number of days are not reduced and so that they are exceeded.

MS. ANDERSON: This cuts it short. If I had days to present evidence and I have to eliminate three days because Monday is a legal holiday -- and by the way, not every county observes the same holiday schedule. So some counties say, okay, this is a legal holiday and we're going to implement something, and another county may say we don't observe that holiday so we're counting differently. There needs to be consistency in two respects. One respect is everything in every other protocol with which I'm familiar, and I'll admit I'm not familiar with the whole universe of deadlines, but in every other tax-related deadline with which I'm familiar, the next business day is the day. And since this information is being requested of a taxpayer when it is, in.0, the burden of the property appraiser to prove their assessment complies with the law and this provision of the taxpayer having to provide evidence ahead of receiving evidence of the property appraiser is not consistent with the intent of.0 which says property appraiser must prove that they have complied with the

criteria. So you're just adding to the difficulty. And for the sole process that protects taxpayers' rights, to make it even more complicated and to go against conventional wisdom is not exactly due process. MR. KELLER: I understand your concern about this and I shared your concern certainly. If you're referring to ()(a) there on the first page -- MS. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. KELLER: -- that's actually existing language in the rule that is being moved there from ()(a) and ()(b) -- MS. ANDERSON: It was changed a year ago. It said the next business day. And even if it didn't, I'm suggesting to you it needs to. MR. KELLER: Well, I can go back to when this rule was drafted in the first instance and what we were faced with there is that when the number of days is reduced, effectively -- in other words, not more than days before the hearing, then it eats into the time that the property appraiser has -- MS. ANDERSON: You mean the --

MR. KELLER: -- to do their preparation and so there's a trade-off there. And so what we're essentially stuck with here is the way the statute reads, which is specifying a certain number of days, and we're not really at liberty here to reduce that based on what we're talking about. MS. ANDERSON: You're reducing it for the petitioner, number one. And number two, you're assuming the property appraiser does not prepare to support their assessment, even having presented it to the Department of Revenue, until they see the petitioner's evidence. What is the credibility of the property appraiser's evidence if what they're doing is waiting to see what a petitioner has to say before they prepare for a hearing? Think about the ludicrousness of all of that. You have approved a tax roll by the end of July based on the assumption that they have prepared properly to submit that information to you, and now you're suggesting, well, they haven't done anything until they see what a petitioner has to say. If the petitioner never presented a lick of

evidence, the property appraiser still has to prove their assessment complied with the law, so it's mute, frankly. They shouldn't have to see petitioner's evidence. And since I was involved when this evidence exchange was first described to the governor's Ad Valorem Tax Task Force -- and I'm trying to remember the year and I think it was or '. I don't remember. You're nodding your head. You have a better memory than I do on dates. Okay. The reason for the evidence exchange was because in Palm Beach, petitioners never saw the evidence of the property appraiser ever. It was taken out of the hearing room by the property appraiser so the special magistrate never got to review it either. And so that disparity came as something of a shock to the governor's office at the time, which led to other people asking for an evidence exchange. How they ended up with this disparity in an exchange which favors the property appraiser is something only the legislature can explain, because they clearly were not protecting the rights of their constituents when they adopted this.

But that said, the petitioner has the right to the days and you're cutting out three of them. So I think the more important party in this, if you're not going to have equality between the parties, the more important party in this is the petitioner. This is why we have a process is to protect the rights of petitioners to have lawful hearings and lawful assessments. You cannot cut out three days from the petitioner and consider that fair. And again, if the property appraiser hasn't done the work of backing up their assessment by the time the petition is filed, you ought to look at what they're giving you in July and June. Because if it's not backed up at that point, why are you accepting it? I'm in favor of getting rid of the value adjustment boards and PTO altogether if you're not going to do it in good faith. MR. KELLER: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. I'll just give a thumbnail of this before we continue onwards to what is in this draft rule. When you look at ()(a), that sentence there is stated more in a mandatory, directory manner that comes from the Turner decision which stated that

the statute does refer to it as mandatory. MS. ANDERSON: days, Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: Yes. Then when -- MS. ANDERSON: Okay. So if you go to days, that's not exactly. MR. KELLER: Then when you go to (b) there on page, the petitioner's noncompliance with this does not authorize the value adjustment board -- I'm sorry, does not interfere with the petitioner's right to receive the copy of the current property record card. That was amended by Chapter -, Section and -, Section, Laws of Florida. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. But -- MR. KELLER: And the last part of it is in (c) on page which says that the petitioner's noncompliance with the evidence exchange does not authorize the value adjustment board or special magistrate to exclude petitioner's evidence, and that was the direct ruling of the administrative law judge in the Turner case that is being implemented here. MS. ANDERSON: But to clarify, in (b) on page, receipt of the current property record card needs to include two things. One is the property

record card needs to be provided before hearing notices are mailed, and two, when it comes to tangible personal property, the complete property record card needs to be provided before hearing notices are mailed, not a redacted form which some counties have attempted to do. So I think with Osceola County that you were made aware of a few years ago and I know this redaction has occurred in Miami recently where after a petition was filed and accepted by the clerk with proper documentation from a petitioner, the petitioner -- not me, but a petitioner I'm familiar with -- received property record cards that were redacted and therefore didn't give material information and could not be used to prepare for evidence for a hearing. And that is both improper and I would say unethical. So there needs to be clarification when the property record cards should be provided. MR. KELLER: That is provided in a different rule that's already been in effect for some time. It talks about when and how the property record card gets provided. There is actually a feature in the statute that refers to redaction of the property record card when it is first provided.

But once the evidence exchange is initiated, then there's no further redaction of that. MS. ANDERSON: Do you want to add a reference in (b) to any other section of the rule or any part of the statute so that somebody has a cross reference? MR. KELLER: Well, what's in there right now is the statute. That refers directly to the statute that provides for this and so that is the way it's been drafted at this point in time. I understand your comment and thank you. We will consider that. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. So now I made myself a note on page, okay, what happens if a petitioner makes a specific request to a property appraiser for their evidence and they don't provide -- and have the information and don't send it? Okay. It's -- there are two parties to this process. If the petitioner is obligated -- and frankly, just as a practical thing, okay, if the property appraiser needs the evidence of a petitioner to do their job to justify their assessment, okay, there is a big problem with the tax roll. It should be that the property appraiser

provides the evidence to the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer asks specifically for evidence being used by the property appraiser, that should be included in their submission of evidence to the petitioner. Otherwise, it's a one-way street. It's not fair. MR. KELLER: Okay. Can I respond to that? If you look on page -- MS. ANDERSON: Come to hearings, Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: If you look on page under ()(b) there at the bottom of the page, that refers to what happens if the property appraiser does not timely provide their evidence after the evidence exchange is initiated. That's actually provided for specifically in the statute, which again, we're stuck with. The way the statute is worded, it says if it doesn't occur from the property appraiser, then there's a rescheduling of the hearing. MS. ANDERSON: I want it to be clear in this language. Okay? And I think it needs to also include the fact that there are occasions when the property appraisers' attorneys may show up with information or documents or cases that were not presented in the evidence exchange even when there was an evidence exchange, and it needs to be clear

that those submissions are not to be included. Or if they want to include them, the petitioner should have the right to request additional time for review. And again -- or in addition, to go down to () -- want to jump to ()? Okay? MR. KELLER: Well, I'd like to go to () on page to just respond to your last comment, which the rule specifically states, "Property appraiser shall not use at a hearing evidence that was not supplied to the petitioner as required." So that is already -- MS. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. KELLER: -- in the rule. It's been there for a number of years -- MS. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. KELLER: -- but we are not -- but we are not addressing that by way of implementing the Turner case or these two pieces of legislation at this time. That's just something in the existing rule, and we're here to take comments on the amendments that we're trying to prepare and implement these three law changes. MS. ANDERSON: On () you're talking about? MR. KELLER: I'm talking about () on page

just then. MS. ANDERSON: I'm not -- on page -- you may have different pages. I'm looking at the rule draft and counting those pages separately from the cover page, just to make sure. So I'm on page of the rule draft on (). Okay? Before we go to the next page, under this rule section, the evidence exchange shall be delivered by regular or certified U.S. mail, personal delivery, overnight mail, fax or e-mail. I have run into this on occasion. I like to get notices and evidence by U.S. mail, and I think it's indicated in the petition and that's what should be the -- the point that should be made is just clarify "as indicated in the petition" unless the petitioner and the property appraiser subsequently agree to something else. But "as indicated in the petition" would make it clear since the property appraiser gets, in most counties -- I don't know in all of them but in most counties, they get a copy of the petition. Now, Miami may be different than other jurisdictions, but in all the other jurisdictions, it's important that the petition be the starting place for what transmissions occur from the

property appraiser in evidence and by the clerk. So if somebody says they're okay with fax or somebody says they're okay with e-mail, that's fine, but I never am and there are plenty of instances where, regardless of what's in the petition, people are doing whatever they want to do. Not appropriate. And it creates cost to the clerks because they're going to get requests from me to reschedule if I don't get the evidence I request in a timely fashion by mail. Okay? So then on page, okay, the level of detail in evidence summaries, okay, I just want you to include it in there to make it clear, that last line of "general subject matter of the witness' testimony," I would like to include "including legal counsel" for those jurisdictions where the legal counsel has been known to show up without any evidence exchange protocols being addressed properly. Okay? MR. KELLER: Thank you. MS. MILLER: I believe we have a comment online. And before we get to that, I want to, for the record, state that we have also -- we received a written comment from the Miami Value Adjustment Board attorney. It is a long comment, and with

his agreement, we will not be reading it into the record. We will be posting it on the department website for everyone to -- MS. ANDERSON: What is the subject matter, please? MS. MILLER: I believe it's in relation to the Rule D-.0. Truthfully, I have not sat here and read it so -- MR. KELLER: Yeah. We received this at : p.m., which is about minutes before the start of this workshop. So at this point, I'll make it available if anybody would like a copy of it, but as our moderator indicated, it will remain part of the record. MS. ANDERSON: I request a copy. MS. MILLER: And we also have a caller, I believe, or comments -- MR. JACKSON: Ms. Schwartz? Ms. Beck? MS. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? MS. MILLER: Yes, we can. Please go ahead. MS. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Thanks. This is Julie Schwartz. I'm here with Wendy Beck. MS. BECK: Hi. MS. SCHWARTZ: Just, first, regarding the comment from the Miami-Dade County VAB, could that

be made available now during the workshop so that we could take a look at it and see if we might have any additional response to that? MS. MILLER: One moment. We're conferring. (A pause in the proceeding.) MS. MILLER: Okay. I'm told that we can forward it to you. Will that be acceptable? MS. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Thank you. MS. MILLER: Okay. I believe our -- Mr. Jackson is doing so. Does he have your -- MS. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Okay. So -- MS. MILLER: He's doing it right now. MS. SCHWARTZ: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have a comment regarding the changes to D-.0. I think it was Mr. Keller and then also the notice says that the changes are being made in order to implement the administrative law judge ruling in Turner vs. the Department of Revenue case and then also two other rules. I think those other rules just address the property record card and I don't have really an issue with that. But my overarching question is I believe that if you look back at the history, D-.0 was first implemented in and then that Turner

case came out in. And then after that, there were many proposed changes to.0 and some of the other rules in numerous public workshops that we all attended and went back and forth trying to amend the rule. And ultimately no change was made because it was determined, I believe, that the rule as written comports with the findings of that DOAH court in the Turner case. And so I wanted to ask, what is the motivation now and what triggered this in to be changing the.0 Exchange of Evidence to make it comport with a case when it was already gone through then? Could I get a response on that? MR. KELLER: Certainly. I'll try to give you a short response on that, but the basic answer is that the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the department as to the issue of exclusion of the taxpayers' evidence when the evidence exchange is not initiated. The administrative law judge said that the evidence is not supposed to be excluded. The boards are not authorized to exclude the evidence if the evidence exchange is not followed so -- but the administrative law judge did object to the

word -- one of the words in the rule which referred to the evidence exchange as "optional" with the taxpayer. So it's sort of a strict reading of the way the law is written and the way the rule is written that the administrative law judge said that that wording in the rule is inconsistent with the statute so -- and now we have also received periodic inquiries from our Joint Administrative Procedures Committee about when will the department true up this rule text to what the administrative law judge specified in his final order. At this point, that's taken a number of years but it -- without really going into a large degree of substantive change, what's happening is the wording of the rule is being updated and -- to be consistent with this ruling in the Turner case. MS. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Then my follow-up question, though, is when I read the proposed change, I see that you took out the words that it's optional, and I understand that that is in response to the administrative law judge's finding. But the real framework of how the procedure

operates doesn't seem to have changed at all, and I think that also is consistent -- I think that the way the rule was was consistent with the Turner case and the way that you've changed it doesn't -- continues to be consistent. It seems that the change is almost unnecessary and we're just really going to muddy the waters. Could you clarify, do you -- do you see some change in the process that a taxpayer would follow from this amendment? It doesn't seem to change anything -- MR. KELLER: Thank you for that. MS. SCHWARTZ: -- other than taking out the words that it's optional? MR. KELLER: Can I -- can I respond to that a little bit? All I can say -- what I would say about that is that we do have this Turner decision out there, and we do have the ability of the participants in this process to quote that decision or to refer to that decision as somehow doing something that is not contained in the rules. And so what we want to do with these rules is put the clear procedure in the rule so that it's both consistent with the Turner decision and also

speaks to what the process is supposed to be so that taxpayers and petitioners have full disclosure and confidence that what they're doing is proper. So what this is attempting to do, this draft, is to place that -- those concepts into the rule; and also, by the way, put on the page of these two forms pretty much a blow by blow what the rule says so that when a petitioner gets their petition form and reads those instructions on the back -- on page of the form, they have the ability to understand what exactly their obligations and expectations would be. MS. SCHWARTZ: If I could just comment -- you mentioned the page of the rule, if I could comment on that as well. I think it's actually somewhat misleading because under Part on the new DR -- proposed DR-, there's a citation -- or it's just reiterated the first part of D-.0() but it doesn't reiterate the whole rule, and I think it's kind of misleading to kind of just give half the rule. I think it would be better to give all of it or just reference the rule and not just recite half of -- half of the rule.

But I guess what really my -- what I think I hear from your comment on -- or your answer on.0 is it's really not changing -- if this change is implemented, it's not changing the framework that a taxpayer would have to follow. I mean, the way that I believe that it's been and the way that it still seems to continue to be is that a taxpayer -- if there's a proper request for information by the property appraiser of the taxpayer, that information needs to be given. It can't be sprung on the property appraiser by the taxpayer at the hearing for the first time. It needs to be given a reasonable time in advance. But then separate from that, the taxpayer has the choice really of participating in the evidence exchange. And I know that the court in the Turner case said that it's not optional, but what they meant -- they go on to clarify it's not optional because there are ramifications. If the taxpayer doesn't provide their evidence days in advance and request the property appraiser's evidence, then they don't get to see the property appraiser's evidence before the hearing. So in that sense, it's not optional because there are consequences.

0 And I think that the rule does protect the taxpayer. It clarifies it. Not -- choosing not to participate in the evidence exchange doesn't bar presentation of the evidence. It just needs to be given a reasonable time in advance. So I guess I'll wrap up by saying I don't think that these proposed -- the proposed changes to.0, as I read them, really don't seem to change the framework and the process at all. It just seems to have removed the words that it's optional. But I think that by doing that, it's going to open the door to -- it's really muddying the waters. And this already went -- I think we participated. We went through, for a couple of years, numerous proposed rule changes and back and forth, and that was all subsequent to the Turner case and it was really -- no change was ever made in this.0 because in the end -- at the end of the day, it was consistent with the Turner case. And so I think that to change it now really is not necessary and will create confusion. MR. KELLER: Thank you for your comments. MS. ANDERSON: May I add something -- practical note for you to understand? There are

people who are experienced in this process who have expressed over time that comparable sale information need not be included in the evidence exchange. That's the personal opinion of not me but other people who have said that since that information comes from the property appraiser's data to begin with and so they already have it. What is selected or presented at a hearing on comparable sale or by someone who is not a professional but is representing themselves -- I hate to say "mom and pop" but somebody who is not familiar with the process may come in and not understand what was involved in the evidence exchange. So there are some interpretations, particularly in Miami, having read that e-mail, that suggest that there may be some shades of gray that needs to be clarified. What exactly should be submitted in a way of evidence? And what -- it may be optional if the petitioner is using comparable information as an example. Cost calculations and income calculations typically are not necessarily available from every property appraiser's data. Should be but it often

is not, so it may depend on exactly what the evidence is intended to be, just to complicate it for you a little bit. But the reality is that it's not all the same at every hearing with every petitioner. So if you're going to clarify D-.0 and talk about evidence and submission of evidence, you might want to be very specific about what you think that needs to be. MR. KELLER: Thank you. We'll consider that. MS. ANDERSON: I would like to comment when you're ready on. MR. KELLER: Okay. Before we do that, do we have any other comments on this Rule D-.0? Okay. Thank you. We can go to the Form DR-. MS. ANDERSON: I have three comments. Comment one is that on the next form, the taxpayer information, taxpayer name, parcel ID, and physical address and information are lined up on the form. On this form, on, the mailing address for notices comes under the taxpayer's name, not necessarily under representative. I think if you use the formatting on the other form, it's easier to fill in and it just

will flow better. And when I saw the way the other form is set up, it would just save time for people who are doing these by the hundreds, to get them in logical order. So just -- I've made the suggestion before to switch mailing notice to the right and the parcel ID and physical address or account number to the left so that you have -- the information is in appropriate sequence. Okay? The second comment I made is just a reference. It says -- where it says, "My witnesses or I will not be available to attend on specific dates. I have attached a list of dates," dates and times. For those of us who have to travel and get on the road in foggy mornings, the times are relevant. But more relevant and substantive and something I'm going to request the department look into is a policy being proposed in Miami which would curtail duplicate hearing dates from being considered as good cause, which I object to strenuously. And I think it is improper for any value adjustment board to make interpretations of the law or the rules outside of the Department of Revenue's authority. So it's not in the documents

but I request that you get them. I also would like to make a Public Record Act request at this time for any back and forth you've received from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee related to D-.0. And then finally my last comment here is the statement at the bottom of this section on that says, "You have the right, regardless of whether you initiate the evidence exchange, to receive a copy of your property record card." Again, please make clear that should be received before hearing notices and should be complete. And that should be for real property and tangible property. MR. KELLER: Thank you. MS. MILLER: I'm being told we also have a -- we have another commenter on our electronic means. MR. JACKSON: Go ahead, Ms. Schwartz. MS. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. I just wanted to further -- make another comment regarding some of the -- what has transpired in the prior years. Back in during one of these rulemaking processes, there was a letter which I can resubmit because I think it's still relevant. It was submitted by Victoria Weber from Hopping Green &

Sams on behalf -- I think she represented the chamber. And she made a suggestion that I think would be good at this point if changes are going to be made now to.0, and the purpose of it was to clarify and, she said, to fairly communicate these exchange requirements to taxpayers. And the suggested language was to include, "If the petitioner does not provide this information," meaning in the evidence exchange, "the petitioner will not be entitled to the property appraiser's evidence in advance of the hearing, but a petitioner's noncompliance with the statute does not authorize the value adjustment board or magistrate to exclude the petitioner's evidence." And so I think that that's good just to make sure that the taxpayers understand that their evidence isn't excluded if they don't participate in the exchange. And then lastly, I have one other suggested comment. Under the new proposed rule, number ()(c), it says that, "However, under Section.0()(h), if the property appraiser asks in writing for specific evidence before the hearing," after "evidence," I think it would be good to make

a reference to the statute that authorizes the taxpayer -- I'm sorry, the property appraiser to ask for the evidence, and it's authorized under.0() and that's really the only place that authorizes the property appraiser to ask for the evidence. And the reason I'm bringing this up is that the evidence requests from property appraisers in certain counties have been growing ever more expansive and they're really only permitted to ask for specific information from the taxpayer when it's needed in order to make an assessment. And these evidence requests now seem to be requesting everything under the sun, including comparable sales and things that are not something that would just be within the possession of the taxpayer. It's almost as if it's being used in order to later bar the presentation of that evidence at a hearing, and so I think it's important to examine what is the authority for the property appraiser to request the information? And it could be referenced right in the rule section. MS. ANDERSON: May I add Chapter makes it very clear that that request for evidence is only

if they cannot create an assessment without the information. And it reads as though it's a Sunshine request and it's for examination of documents which would have to be returned to the taxpayer. And it's talking about contract information and personal information which is not necessarily ever market, and since the assessments are intended to be based on market data, the information in possession of a taxpayer in their own records is seldom going to be current, let alone market. Actuals are not the same thing so if the property appraiser's submitting a roll to you and has not verified that they're relying on market data, why are you approving the roll? MR. KELLER: Thank you. I'd like to respond to the comments made by Ms. Schwartz, specifically with respect to the letter from Ms. Weber from. The suggestion that it be added to this rule or provision that the taxpayer or petitioner is not entitled to the property appraiser's evidence, we don't feel that that is something we can put in this rule at any point because the taxpayer would always be entitled to the evidence that was asked

for under the Public Records law, and Ms. Anderson just referred to the Sunshine Law which is what we're talking about. So much of this evidence information would be subject to the Public Records Law and so the taxpayer would be entitled to it under that. The second point that was made was with respect to.0(). That's a feature of the statutes that applies long before the value adjustment board process, and we don't think it applies to the value adjustment board process. The specific statute that we have cited here,.0()(h), is a statute that specifically authorizes the property appraiser to request evidence from the petitioner, and that is what is being implemented by this rule here. This is not at all dealing with.0(). Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Keller, I need to interject before Ms. Schwartz responds to say for a taxpayer who's filed a value adjustment board petition or has someone file on their behalf has to do a Public Record Act request for information and pay for it on top of paying filing fees is really offensive. They're entitled -- everyone is entitled to see how they're being taxed. That's

the whole point of the evidence exchange. MR. KELLER: Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: And let me add that Chapter was adopted in the evidence language -- generally was adopted before.0 was modified in 0 to create the requirement that the property appraiser must demonstrate that their assessment complies with the criteria. So the evidence exchange language may be a little bit dated in the context of the requirement that the property appraiser demonstrate that they follow the law. MR. KELLER: Thank you. Okay. I'd like to direct us back to page of the Form DR- and let you know that that is a form -- a page to the form that is being drafted as an addition to the form so it would now be a three-page form. And the instructions on there are a direct quote of this draft rule that we've just been discussing, D-.0, and that is intended to disclose to taxpayers/petitioners what exactly their expectations and responsibilities would be under the evidence exchange. MS. ANDERSON: So Mr. Keller, would you mind considering adding clarification to Part? The

0 evidence to be considered if someone does not attend a hearing should not preclude them seeing the evidence from the property appraiser so the evidence exchange should be included as part of that statement. And the property appraiser should have to send their evidence to that petitioner if it's been requested. In Part,, again, you're cutting out the days available to a petitioner to submit evidence so I'd like that language to be clarified per the prior discussion we've had today. And (b) of that, okay, "to receive a copy of the current property record card," again, timing is critical, particularly for tangible but for real property as well, before hearing notices are sent out. And (c), okay, should also apply to property appraiser, to be fair. Okay? The evidence, if it's going to be submitted at a hearing, should also be exchanged between the parties at a hearing so that you can see what's being provided if you are a petitioner. And on the second column, I would also include, okay, the evidence from the legal counsel as well, if any, as well as anything from the property appraiser.

MR. KELLER: Thank you. MS. MILLER: I believe Ms. Schwartz would like to also respond. Ma'am, are you there? MS. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Thank you. I just had one last response to Mr. Keller's response regarding the authorization for the property appraiser to request specific information from a taxpayer. The reference was made to.0()(h) and I think that -- I would ask that you take another look at that because I don't think that it actually authorizes the requests. It talks about what happens if information that was requested is not provided, but it's not an authorization for the property appraiser to make the request in the first place. That authorization really only stems from.0(). MR. KELLER: We'll consider that. Thank you. MS. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. MR. KELLER: Do we have any other comments on Form DR-, Petition to Value Adjustment Board - Request for Hearing? Okay. We can go to the next form, which is Form DR-PORT, Petition to Value Adjustment

Board - Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference - Request for Hearing. This form is a two-page form currently and again, the same exact page is being added to this form that's being added to the Form DR-. Does anyone have any comments on this form? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. If you look at the way this is formatted -- taxpayer name, mailing address for notices; representative, e-mail and phone on the right-hand column -- you see how simple that is and how easy it would be to fill that in? And I think any comments made in a prior form should be incorporated on page. Okay? MR. KELLER: Thank you. Do we have any other comments with respect to Form DR-PORT? Okay. We can move to the Rule D-.00. And this rule here serves a function to incorporate these two forms by reference into the rules and that is all it does. The amendment here is being made to incorporate Form DR- and Form DR-PORT, the two petition forms that we've just been discussing. Does anyone have any comments on this rule? Okay. We can conclude our substantive review

of these rules and move to the next portion of the agenda. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. MILLER: We thank everyone for participating, providing comments. We anticipate proceeding toward the next step in rule adoption as soon as feasible. I know this has been going on a couple years so take that with a grain of salt. If anyone would like to submit additional comments following this workshop, please remember that these comments become part of the public record. We ask that you would send them by the close of business on November th,. You can submit them by e-mail to dorpto@floridarevenue.com. In your e-mail, please reference November, workshop so that we can distinguish your comments relate to today's matters. If there's nothing else, on behalf of the department, I'd again like to thank you for participating and sharing your comments with us. It's very helpful during our rule promulgation process to have input from the public. Thank you very much. This concludes the

workshop. (The workshop concluded at : p.m.) * * *

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) I, LISA BABCOCK, court reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the time and place therein designated; and that the foregoing pages, numbered through, are a true and correct record of the aforesaid proceedings. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. DATED this th day of November,. LISA BABCOCK, FPR Court Reporter