Loading...
VAB Minutes 02/11/2021 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 11, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Value Adjustment Board, in and for the County of Collier, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Solis, County Commission Member Burt Saunders, County Commission Member Rebecca Earney, Homestead Citizen Member Erick Carter, School Board Member Ron Kezeske, Business Citizen Member COUNSEL TO THE BOARD - Holly E. Cosby, Esq. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE Jennifer Blaje - Director Tax Roll Compliance/Data Mgmt. Annabel Ybaceta - Director Homestead/Exemption Chris Woolsey, Esq. - Property Appraiser’s Attorney Page 2 MS. COSBY: Okay. We now have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Welcome everyone to the February 11th, 2021 Collier County Value Adjustment Board meeting. I think we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance -- or do we need to do a roll call first? MS. COSBY: We can start with the pledge, please. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So next, the affidavit of publication. MS. COSBY: Okay. This is Holly Cosby, Value Adjustment Board Counsel. I will advise, for the record, that I have reviewed the affidavit of publication, and I find it's sufficient to proceed. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Very good. Introductions. Why don't we start to the left. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Ron Kezeske, Business member member (sic) -- Business Citizen Member. There we go. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Erick Carter, Collier County School Board member, District 4. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Rebecca Earney, Citizen member. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'm Andy Solis, apparently the Chair County Commissioner, and there is my colleague. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Perfect timing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sorry. I apologize for being a little bit late here. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. We were just introducing ourselves. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Burt Saunders, County Commissioner, District 3. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I am from District 2. Page 3 Okay. So, quorum and requirements. MS. COSBY: Yes, sir. Again, Holly Cosby, Value Adjustment Board Counsel. I will advise for the record that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 194, we do have a quorum today, and we may proceed with the quorum. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So, approval of today's agenda. Are there any changes? MS. COSBY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Revisions? MS. COSBY: No, sir. Everything that you have in front of you is what we'll be proceeding with today. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion to approve the agenda? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: A motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a second? BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: A motion and a second to approve today's agenda. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's approved. Next is the approval/acceptance of the minutes from the June 29th, 2020 Value Adjustment Board Organizational Meeting. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Motion to approve. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any discussion? Page 4 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The minutes are approved. And I guess we have -- next are the updates from the Department of Revenue and/or the current session of the Legislature. MS. COSBY: Yes, sir. And these are informational only, and with the board's permission, I'm just going to fly through it. I'm not going to talk about each one, unless the board -- any board member actually has a question about any of them. But the Department of Revenue put forth 10 property tax -- I'm sorry -- 12 property tax oversight bulletins this session, most of which just advised the VAB of the different statutes that are in place that will be applicable to hearings. None of the items that we have on this agenda affect the board itself. It's more what happens during hearings and what special magistrates need to apply during certain situations. Moving forward past -- what I just flew through was 3(A)(1) (a) through (l). And then (m), the Department of Revenue, they have resources, additional resources that they have put out for Value Adjustment Boards. They are the Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual, which really contain like Florida Administrative Code 12(D)(9) and (10) and the Florida statutes that are applicable to the operations of Florida Adjustment Boards. Other legal resources, including statutory criteria -- I'm sorry -- statutory criteria is in there. Page 5 And then other reference materials and guidelines. And those three manuals were updated this year by the Department of Revenue, so we're just advising the board of those updates, and that those will also be on our VAB website. And then if you want me to move -- if you'd like me to move on to 3(A)(2), there are several bills that are either in the House or the Senate at this time. None of them have passed yet. These are just informational items. If the board has any questions on any of them, I'm happy to answer those questions. But at this point, none of these -- these bills are all still active and in separate parts of their own process. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Moving on to -- MS. COSBY: 3(B). CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- 3(B). MS. COSBY: Okay. During the Value Adjustment Board session, I open up this -- the Value Adjustment Board with a checklist of compliance items. That checklist is not complete at the time of organizational meeting, because there's usually a few items that are remaining. For example, Department of Revenue training and the completion of that training. Sometimes it's not even available when we organize. And then the magistrates need to take that training and complete it before they hold hearings. The other thing that we cannot complete at the time of organizational meeting is notices to the municipalities when a property has been petitioned before the VAB. If that property falls within a city or a town, then notice needs to be provided of any hearings to the CEO, ma yor of that entity. And so those items can't be accomplished at the time of organizational meeting, because we don't have hearings set at the time. So, I follow through during the VAB session and make sure that those items are completed, and they are. And I'm reporting back to Page 6 you on that today. So that will be Item 3(B), and that's included there in those two items that I reference the -- actually, there's three. Special magistrate and myself taking the Value Adjustment Board training and then the letters to the municipalities. But all of those have been completed, and I will report happily that I got a 98 percent on the exam for the Department of Revenue training. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Moving on to 3(C). MS. COSBY: This is a new item. We would like to bring this before the board today for some discussion. We need to involve the Property Appraiser's Office with regards to this discussion. And the reason for that is there was some -- there's some confusion with regards to when a petitioner uploads Axia -- evidence into the Axia system and how that works within the session and within the process. There are two ways -- or there's two steps that a petitioner needs to take when handling their own evidence. If they upload it into Axia -- that's our system that holds all of our information, our petitions, all of the evidence, hearing audio, magistrate recommendation, that's our data system. If a petitioner uploads their evidence into the Axia system, that doesn't actually initiate the evidence exchange process, because the petitioner still also needs to follow the Florida Statute and the Department of Revenue rule with regards to exchanging evidence with the Property Appraiser. And what I was noticing this year was when a petitioner was -- some petitioners, when they were uploading evidence into the Axia system, they believed that that started the evidence exchange process with the Property Appraiser. And I wanted to eliminate any confusion. Now, I also represent -- as you all know, I represent Lee County Value Adjustment Board, and I have been since they needed private counsel in '08. So, we have a lot of local administrative things that the rules don't actually address when they're vague that we put into place to clarify certain things. Page 7 So what I did was I took kind of what we had in place in Lee County, and I brought it here and worked very heavily with administration on seeing how we could make that process work for Collier County so that we have no confusion. Because what potentially could happen is if a petitioner believes that they put evidence into the Axia system and then that started the evidence exchange process, when they get to their hearing, they can tell the magistrate, I gave the Property Appraiser my evidence. The Property Appraiser didn't give me their evidence back. We need to hold a new hearing. That's not the law. So it's -- I think we need to make that clarification at this time as to what the evidence in Axia really constitutes and clarify what it doesn't constitute, and we need to have that in clear and plain language. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So -- MS. COSBY: And that will -- that will aid the community, you know, the taxpayers in understanding the process. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Who manages the Axia? Whose system is that? MS. COSBY: The Value Adjustment Board is the -- if you want to call it the ownership, has complete control of the Axia system as far as administrative functions, making changes within the system. However, the Property Appraiser has full access to the Axia -- the things that are uploaded in the Axia system. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I mean, I can see where that would be confusing. MS. COSBY: Yes. Because as soon as the petitioner -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I would have assumed that, too. MS. COSBY: -- uploads their evidence -- well, every time -- once a petitioner uploads their evidence into Axia, it is immediately viewable to the Property Appraiser. Page 8 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. But that's not -- that's not service of the evidence then? MS. COSBY: It is not. And further, there was a situation or two this year that when the petitioner had difficulty getting their evidence uploaded into Axia, they then mailed it to the Value Adjustment Board. Okay. They did not mail it to the Property Appraiser. So, sending it to the Value Adjustment Board is also not initiating that evidence exchange process. So these are things that when I saw that happening, I really wanted to make sure that we now reacted to this situation and put something in place that really clarified what that Axia upload or forwarding to the Value Adjustment Board, what that really constitutes, which is nothing more than just -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Just filing it. MS. COSBY: -- just filing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Is there not -- well, I guess we should hear from the Property Appraiser or -- MS. COSBY: Well, here's where I want to make -- where I want to be careful. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: The Property Appraiser may not -- and for some reason what I forwarded yesterday did not get uploaded in the system. Because we did get a letter from the Property Appraiser's counsel, and I want to let you know that I appreciate that letter. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: I found it really helpful. And I made a few changes that I wish I -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I guess, I mean, from my perspective, the question is where or how better can we advise the property owner that's filing something in Axia or uploading something that -- I mean, Page 9 why not have a banner or something that comes up and says, Remember, you have to mail this directly to the Property Appraiser's or e-mail it or whatever the process is? MS. COSBY: I don't know that we can configure Axia to do that, because PTG is the company that makes Axia. So , what happens is PTG gives us Axia, and then our IT department has some ability to manipulate the program how we need it to work, but there are limitations to that. So I don't want to speak to that, but what I think is important is having some local policies in place that really clearly address it, and then these local policies will be on our VAB website that clearly address what that Axia upload -- that evidence upload really constitutes. And the only reason that the Property Appraiser is even brought into the conversation is because there's one place in Lee County, and I don't mean to keep Lee County, Lee County, but it's my example. In Lee County, what I do each year is I reach out to the Property Appraiser's Office, and I say we have an agreement each year that the upload of Axia evidence by the petitioner, the Property Appraiser recognizes that as provided. It doesn't initiate the evidence exchange process, and it doesn't waive all of the other -- any other objection that the Property Appraiser may have to that evidence, but they acknowledge it as provided. So, in a hearing, there may be other objections that the Property Appraiser may have to that evidence, but they won't object to it on the -- on the issue of timeliness. They may object to it because they requested it and they didn't receive it, but on the issue of timeliness, the Property Appraiser waives that that -- that specific issue, and they do view -- they do acknowledge that evidence uploaded as provided. So that's where I would reach out to the Property Appraiser's Office each year and just talk with them and make sure that that is something they agree to. And that's why they're here today is Page 10 because that's really the only portion of the local evidence procedures, which we're going to probably change it to say, Local Operating Procedures, Evidence Upload. We'll probably change the way that that's worded. But really other than that, the Property Appraiser is not playing a role in what we are devising as a local policy. They're not directing us, they're not advising us, they're not part of the process. They just -- they need to be part of a teeny, little portion of consent, and that is, do they recognize that evidence as provided. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. When? MS. COSBY: When? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes. MS. COSBY: When it's uploaded. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Maybe I haven't had enough coffee. Okay. MS. COSBY: Okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So, they're going to recognize it as having been provided when? MS. COSBY: So long as it's uploaded at least 15 days prior to the corresponding hearing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh, okay. MS. COSBY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, that's reasonable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going to -- I'm trying to figure out what you need from us specifically. MS. COSBY: I need -- I'm looking for you-all to approve the local policies that we've drafted. The problem is that what's in front of you today is not what was the final -- I finalized something last night. We were working until the eleventh hour on this. So, unfortunately, some things didn't come through in the places that they needed to. But the items that I've changed are small, and I can Page 11 explain to you now what I did change. If you look at your item -- if you look at the exhibit for Item 3(C), I'm going direct you to Page 3 of that exhibit. The -- it says at the top, the header, Collier County Value Adjustment Board, I changed that to Local Operating Procedures or Local Operating Policies and Procedures, and then colon Evidence Upload is, I think, what I called it. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Can you -- can you -- have you been able to pull it up? HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Everybody's got it? MS. COSBY: And then -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Oh, you can't. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So what page are we looking at? MS. COSBY: 3. Page 3. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Page 3. One, two, three. Okay. Local -- so the red -- the red changes are what? The changes that have been made? MS. COSBY: Do you see red changes? Because I don't have that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Those -- I don't see -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I have red changes says -- one says in brackets Collier VAB mailing address. MS. COSBY: Oh, no. That's not a change. Those are just information where they're going to be inserting that information. That's just giving the Value Adjustment Board Administration -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: -- an idea of what they need to insert in that -- I guess in that area. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Page 12 HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Ms. Cosby? MS. COSBY: Yes, ma'am. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: My question is, is -- so the upload it into a system, but they also had to mail it before? MS. COSBY: They still do. Per law, even if they upload it in the system, they still have to either e -mail it or mail it to the Property Appraiser within no less than 15 days prior to the hearing -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Um-hum. MS. COSBY: -- that it corresponds to, and they need to request the evidence from the Property Appraiser. They need to request the Property Appraiser's evidence in writing as well in order to have a full evidence exchange. And that's legal. We can't change that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's statutory? MS. COSBY: That's statutory. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So, it's the owner has the obligation to send evidence to the Property Appraiser, but the Property Appraiser only is obligated to send it if the owner asks for it? MS. COSBY: Yes. Sends it and asks for it in writing, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Wow. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: We don't want changes. MS. COSBY: It's a very particular process. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: But, unfortunately, what you're looking at in front of you is not only not the one that I did last night that I uploaded or updated, but this isn't the one -- this is not the one that Clerk Kinzel reviewed and made a few modifications in the verbiage. This isn't even that one. So, what I'm going to do is this, I think we'll have a resolve, because we're going to bring this in front of the new board in July as well. What I would like to do right now is discuss this issue in theory -- Page 13 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: -- and then we will have a perfected version of these rules -- or this local policy rather. We'll have a perfected version for the organizational meeting. Because one of the things that we discussed at administration is that even if this board passes it, if we have any change of board for next year's organizational meeting, we would like to give that board an opportunity to also look at these policies and procedures and make sure that they're comfortable with them before approving as well. So if we could, what I would need a motion for today is advising -- or approving the policy of what I'm looking to do with the understanding that we will bring a final in front of the organizational board -- organizational meeting board. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So moved. MS. COSBY: Thank you. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: So moved. What she said. MS. COSBY: Okay. I'm looking for a motion to allow Value Adjustment Board administration to continue to work on and finalize local operating procedures in Collier County for Axia uploaded evidence by the petitioner. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: I'll make the motion. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. Page 14 BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's unanimous. MS. COSBY: Thank you. I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's all right. We've got to know what's going on. Okay. Moving on to 3(D), correspondence from VAB participants. MS. COSBY: This is an informational item. This is not where anybody is going to be invited to speak, but I am just advising the board that we had four participants this year that reached out to the board that were disappointed with either the actions that happened during their hearing or -- yeah, usually it's during the hearing. Mr. Suarez reached out to us, and this had to do -- if I remember correctly, this had to do with the evidence exchange issue. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh. MS. COSBY: And, unfortunately, at his hearing, the evidence that he attempted to put forth was objected to and not recognized as admissible by the magistrate. And I don't remember the particular situation, but I know there was quite a bit of back and forth about it, but I did provide, you know, a response that what had happened during the hearing was appropriate according to law. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: Nonetheless, we did get a complaint about, you know, special magistrate actions or actions during the hearing, and I must advise you-all of those. So D(2), we had Tim Hart petitions, and I'm pretty sure this one had to do with the Axia upload, and then Axia providing evidence to the Value Adjustment Board, rather than providing it directly to the Property Appraiser. And Mr. Hart is a professional taxpayer Page 15 representative. So, I provided some information in response to him with regards to his concerns. But, ultimately, my statement to him was, Well, you work in this industry, and you should know the law. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Ouch. MS. COSBY: I did it more diplomatically than that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: With regards to D(3), we had a complaint from a taxpayer about -- initially, we did not -- Collier County did not have the capacity to hold telephonic hearings. Now, there was an executive order issued by our governor that allowed specifically Value Adjustment Boards to meet remotely, both meetings and hearings through December 15th. So, a petitioner had written to ask for a telephonic hearing, and they were denied that request initially. And the n they provided that request -- they provided that complaint to the Department of Revenue, and when Value Adjustment Board administration reached out to me and asked me further about this, I advised that we really should have some capacity to hold remote hearings, that there was an executive order that provided that we may, and that to be honest, counties with lesser resources are doing it. So, administration made huge strides and quick moves and came up with a way to hold telephonic hearings, and they did so pretty seamlessly this year. They did a great job. So that was resolved, but nonetheless, again, we received an inquiry and a complaint, and I need to advise you of that and how we resolved. And then No. 4, and I believe Mr. Draper I know is here today, but No. 4, I did receive correspondence from Attorney Mark Draper with regards to his client's displeasure at the result of his Value Adjustment Board hearing. And Mr. Draper is going to speak today during public comment. And, unfortunately, instead of his correspondence being attached under 3(D)(4), his correspondence for Page 16 some reason was attached under Item 4, public comment, probably because we knew he was coming to speak today. That's in the wrong place as far as agendas and headers go. But there is some information in 3(D) that I'm going to point to the board to when Mr. Draper is discussing items with the board, in the event we have to respond in any way. And that's all I have. Does the board have any questions? It was a busy year this year. We had a lot more petitions than we normally do. A lot more issues to sort out. COVID-19 has obviously affected every operation in every way. But to be honest with you, I have to tell you, administration handled everything really fantastically this year. I'm really proud to work with them. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there anything -- these are just informational items. So, you don't need anything from us on any of these? MS. COSBY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So, moving on to public comment. MS. COSBY: Okay. I would like to find out -- do we have anybody else here to speak today during public comment, or is it just Attorney Draper? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other registered speakers? (No response.) MS. COSBY: Okay. All right. Mr. Draper had advised me prior to the meeting that he has some exhibits that he wanted to provide. So, I told him he could hand the board whatever he wanted, and I also told him that I wouldn't cut into his three minutes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You can also put them on the -- MR. DRAPER: May I approach? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure. MR. DRAPER: I've already separated them out. Page 17 HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Thank you. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Thank you. MS. COSBY: Thank you, sir. Attorney Draper, I have a speech that I need to read into the record. So, I will do that before you proceed, if that's okay. MR. DRAPER: Sure. MS. COSBY: Value -- okay. At this time, we are at public comment. Value Adjustment Board policy provides the opportunity at this point in the meeting to address the board concerning any matter on this agenda or concerning the Collier County Value Adjustment Board process. The board will not consider subject matter of any public comment which is provided with the intention of appealing any portion of any special magistrate recommendation or Value Adjustment Board final decision as pursuant to Florida Statute Section 194.036. The appropriate relief at this time would be through the Circuit Court. The maximum time allotted per speaker is three minutes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt for just a quick second, I have a little familiarity with this. I know that Mr. Draper's client had a very serious health issue which was the -- I understand was the reason for the problems that he's here with today. So, I'd like to suggest perhaps extending that three-minute time limit so that we can get a full discussion of what happened. I don't know if there's anything we can do. MS. COSBY: We can definitely extend, but I will say this, that if Mr. Draper provides any evidence for the board to consider, we need to give the Property Appraiser an equal amount of time to also, Page 18 you know, give some rebuttal because that's -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: But this is just public comment. We're not going to make a decision or vote on anything on a public comment. MS. COSBY: Well, I think that is possibly what Attorney Draper's going to be -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I guess the reason I suggest that is there -- if we do hear this and we are compelled that there should be something done in reference to this, are we able to continue this item or put it on another board meeting, do we have any authority? MS. COSBY: I would like Mr. Draper to speak first before I advise, and here's why, because I cannot preemptively tell you what I think he's going to say and then give you legal advice on what can or can't be done on what he's going to ask, so -- Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, so can you read again what you read at the beginning? MS. COSBY: I will. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Read that again. MS. COSBY: All of it? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes. MS. COSBY: Okay. Value Adjustment Board policy provides the opportunity at this point in the meeting to address the board concerning any matter on this agenda or concerning the Collier County Value Adjustment Board process. The board will not consider subject matter of any public comment which is provided with the intention of appealing any portion of any special magistrate recommendation or Value Adjustment Board final decision, as pursuant to Florida Statute Section 194.036, the appropriate relief at this time would be through the Circuit Court. Page 19 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: The maximum allotted time per speaker is three minutes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Seems like that's the -- MS. COSBY: But if the board pleases, you can certainly extend that time and give Mr. Draper more time to speak. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. I have no objection to granting more time. MR. DRAPER: Thank you very much. MS. COSBY: How much time would the board like to give Mr. Draper, or are we not going to set a time? MR. DRAPER: I think I can be -- I think I can be pretty quick and thorough -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MR. DRAPER: -- if you don't mind. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Mark Draper. I represent Mr. El Masri, who is here today. Mr. El Masri was first granted his homestead in 2014 by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. In 2018, Mr. El Masri suffered a significant health incident, which is documented within this letter. For Mr. Cosby's purposes, it's my understanding that this record was introduced in his Petition 2020-0043, which was heard during this season. So, I don't believe this is any evidence which the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office has not been aware of and was not awa re of. But in any event, for your review, we have this correspondence from his treating physician which documents his significant health issues in 2018. And the facts I'm about to provide to you are also contained within the special magistrate's recommendation, which for your information has recommended denial. I don't agree, and I -- but I understand why the special magistrate probably took that position Page 20 with regard to recommending a denial, because this is a little out of bounds. It's a little different than the cookie-cutter process that we're all used to in working with the Value Adjustment Board process. But in any event, I agree with your attorney's comments that you don't have the power to reverse or not go along with the special magistrate's recommendation. I think you have the power to pull this from the consent agenda, which is the next item, and I think you have the ability to vote in favor of granting the petition, if you so choose, based upon what we're going to have today. Once again, in 2018, he suffered that significant health crisis. The Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, as they do every year to all of us, who have homesteads wherever it is, throughout Charlotte (sic) County, mailed out a little card that said, Hey, if you still got the same -- if you're still entitled to this exemption, don't do anything. It's a good process. But in this case, it kind of failed. Because what happened is the United States Postal Service returned that card to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office with a notation that said, No such street. Unable to forward. Well, that made no sense, because he had been receiving his homestead exemption there since 2014. Everyone knew there was a street there that he lived on and where his homestead was. So, in response to that return of the card, the Property Appraiser's Office mailed a questionnaire in March of 2018 to the same address, which was never returned. Well, we know that Mr. El Masri wasn't there, because he was being treated in the hospital pursuant to this letter that I provided you earlier. After having not received the questionnaire back in May of 2018, the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office removed his homestead exemption that he had enjoyed since 2014 just based on the actions of the U.S. mail or the inactions of the U.S. mail. The certified letter they sent advising Mr. El Masri that he had lost his Page 21 homestead exemption was returned with a notation, Vacant, unable to forward. So, the U.S. mail has yet again returned it with yet a different designation than the original card, Vacant, unable to forward. Mr. El Masri at some point subsequent to that did talk to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office about it said, Look, I was sick, and this was going on. They reinstated his homestead as of 2020. But here's the problem. His 2020 assessed value is $3.5 million. His 2018 value, which he would still have been entitled to had his homestead stayed on was $2.3 million. Even worse, his 2019 homestead value was somewhere around $2.4 million. So these unfortunate circumstances and facts that occurred have taken his assessed value from -- even if we only went back to 2019 from 2.4 million to over $3.5 million for what really was a sickness and was not -- he had not vacated his homestead. In front of you, I gave you a copy of 194.032, and I think this is where we sometimes in this process get lost in the forest for the trees, and we miss the big picture of what the Value Adjustment Board's job is. And you can see at the top, it says, 194.032, I highlighted it for you, Hearing purposes. It said, The board shall meet for the following purposes: Hearing complaints relating to homestead exemptions as provided for under 196.151, hearing appeals for exemptions denied or disputes arising from exemptions granted upon the filing of exemption applications under 196.011. My suggestion is that this is very broad language. There is no limiting language. It doesn't say that you have to -- the board can only consider these problems from this year. It's pretty broad. It says, If you've got a petition in front of you, your job is to hear complaints regarding homestead exemptions provided under that or appeals from the denials of exemptions. Page 22 There will be some argument -- and this is where we get confused, because the Value Adjustment Board and the tax assessment appeal process is really bifurcated under Chapter 194. You have the option of going to Circuit Court, which you heard your attorney talk about. But really the other option and the most friendly and favorable option to the taxpayer is this process. And that's -- that's the process where the taxpayer has the -- has the best chance, it's the least expensive, and has the ability to make this presentation, and say, Look, the system just messed up. Can you fix it for me? And I believe that this statute about your job, about what the Value Adjustment Board can do, is broad enough that it will allow you to correct this misfortune in this situation. Now, there's some argument that there's some case law out there that you have to do it within a certain number of days, and you have to do this. There are, but that applies to the judicial review section. Because the taxpayer had the option of either filing a VAB petition or going straight to Circuit Court. If you go straight to Circuit Court, there's certain rules that you have to follow. And there's a series of case law that interprets the rules and the statute that applies to going to Circuit Court. But I would submit to you that the case law that we're so familiar with, those of us who work in the business, only applies to the Circuit Court process. Your process is quite broad. And I think in support of that is the next exhibit I've given you, which is Administrative Code Provision 12D.-9.015. If you could turn to the one, two, three, fourth -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Can I ask a question? MR. DRAPER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm sorry. The case law that you're referring to, is -- I mean, is that -- you don't have any -- or do you have a citation or anything? Page 23 MR. DRAPER: I didn't bring any case law, because the case law, I don't agree with, is applicable to this situation. I think that counsel for the -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MR. DRAPER: -- Property Appraiser's Office might disagree with me, and I think that in preliminary discussions with Attorney Cosby, she sort of floated that she believes that you lack the jurisdiction to do it. But I disagree with that, based on this plain language of this statute in front of you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. DRAPER: No. It's fine. Any time you have a question, please ask me. I can get by quickly. But what I want to show you is the interesting language in this administrative code provision, Section 14, which has been highlighted for you. And it says, Late filed petitions. And it says to you, you can't extend the time for filing a petition. You can't set a new deadline for filing a petition. But it says the -- However, the failure to meet the statutory deadline for filing a petition to the board does not prevent consideration of such a petition by the board or special magistrate when the board or board designee determines that the petitioner has demonstrated good cause justifying consideration, and that the delay will not, in fact, be harmful to the performance of board functions in the taxing process. Good cause is defined as a verifying or showing of extraordinary circumstances. And I believe that Mr. El Masri's case qualifies for the first three; personal, family, or business crisis or emergency to critical time for an extended period of time. Physical or mental illness, infirmity or disability that will reasonably affect the petitioner's ability to timely file. Or misinformation received by the Property Appraiser. I mean, I think in this case the United States Postal Service bears a significant amount of the blame that's led to all Page 24 of this. And so here today -- we're here today, I believe you have the authority to pull this petition off the agenda. I don't think there's any reason you can't. And I've been in plenty of Value Adjustment Board hearings and meetings where special magistrate recommendations have been pulled off and have either been agreed with or disagreed with and have been voted the opposite way. That's your prerogative. You don't have to do just what -- it's a recommendation for that very reason. It is a recommendation. It is not what you have to do. And I submit that based upon the authority that you have in front of you, you have the ability to correct what is a serious mistake and is just that, was a mistake, and I would ask that you do that with regard to 20-0043. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman, just real quickly, the reason I asked for the extension of time is that I had had some communication directly with the applicant/petitioner and felt compelled that this was one of those circumstances that if there was an ability for this board to do something, that we should -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Agree. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- do so. And that's why I wanted them to have more time. MS. COSBY: And I appreciate that. And I have -- I will be happy to advise the board when you hav e -- whenever you would like to hear from me. MR. DRAPER: May I make one other comment? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure. MR. DRAPER: Because I can anticipate what Attorney Cosby is about to say, and my clients ignore my advice all of the time, so if she advises you that she doesn't think you can do it, I just give you Page 25 that for a little aside. But I disagree, and I think you can. MS. COSBY: Really, Mark? MR. DRAPER: In a nice way. MS. COSBY: Yes, respectfully. Thank you. All right. Firstly, Commissioner Saunders, I understand that as commissioner you are absolutely charged with hearing from your constituents. And you absolutely should listen to them. However, hearing from the petitioner with regard to this matter is actually considered by the law as an ex parte communication. So, he had a discussion with you as a member of the VAB outside the presence of the Property Appraiser. An ex parte communication is frowned upon, is actually not permitted in this process. But all that it's done -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Duly noted. MS. COSBY: All that it's done is it has provided the petitioner an additional time for his attorney to speak. So at this point, I don't believe that there's any harm due to the Property Appraiser, but I want to make sure of that, because this is the first I'm hearing that the petitioner reached out to my board as well, so -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me just respond, because you said something, and I think it's important. MS. COSBY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You indicated that that would not have any harm to the Property Appraiser. We're not here talking about harm to the Property Appraiser. We're here talking about harm to an individual, who was in the hospital when notice was sent to his house, which was returned by the United States Postal Service incorrectly. So, let's focus on the -- on the taxpayer, not necessarily does this do harm to the Property Appraiser, because that's not what this is about. MS. COSBY: Okay. I'm only protecting the process. So Page 26 that's where my head was. I am not disregarding in any way the petitioner's -- any of the petitioner's hardships at all. My job is to advise on the law, so that's what I -- I just want to make sure that I advise on the law. Now, I've heard what Mr. Draper said. And I will advise that there are several rules and statutes that I provided to all of you. If you would please go to your section, this would be -- I think it's Item 3(D), we're going to start on Page 278 of Item 3(D). CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 278. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: I don't have -- SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I don't see page numbers. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: I can't find it. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. I don't know -- MS. COSBY: Item 3(D). It's -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 3(D), we just don't have a sequential numbering of all of the pages. MS. COSBY: If you look at the top bar of the -- it's like 270 -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh, up at the top. Okay. MS. COSBY: -- or 293. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So it's Page 293 that you want us to be -- MS. COSBY: No. 293 is the last page. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. COSBY: I'm looking for you to get to 278 of 293. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 27 -- oh, 278 of 293. MS. COSBY: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Way down here. 278. MS. COSBY: Mr. Carter, are you there? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Yeah, I'm lost. MS. COSBY: Ms. Earney, you there? Page 27 HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: I'm not there. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. If you look at the top, there's pages. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Oh, you don't have the file. Oh, there you go. Now, it's 3(D). You've got to expand that out. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Almost there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then where do we go? HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Where do you see the page number? MS. COSBY: Page 278. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Page 278. I'm with you. MS. COSBY: Ultimately, I want to make sure to tell the VAB -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: 278. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 278. MS. COSBY: 278. We're going to start there. We're going to get through Page 293. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Since we all read every page of this agenda -- SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: We really have it memorized. I'm getting there. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You can just type the number in up at the top. You can just type it in, and it will jump there. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Now you tell me. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: We kind of like seeing you scroll. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: You're just mean. Okay. All right. I've got it. MS. COSBY: Commissioner Saunders, are you there? Page 28 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. COSBY: Okay. Great. Ms. Earney, are you there? HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Yes. Yes. MS. COSBY: Oh, great. Okay. So, ultimately, I'm going to provide you with my stance on this, as far as advising you as a board. Okay. My job as VAB attorney is to advise you of the law and to respectfully request that you follow the law. That's our duty. Because if we don't follow the law, we're going to hear from the Department of Revenue. They have an oversight program that ensures that we follow the law. In this case, unfortunately for the petitioner, this is out of the Value Adjustment Board's jurisdiction. The Value Adjustment Board is charged with hearing the current tax year only. And there are several places in the statutes that I'll point to that reference January 1st as the date. Okay. And what January 1st means is as of January 1st what exists is what is to be reviewed. And that means that you take January 1st of 2020 and 360 days prior to that, that period is what we review. So, if it wasn't in place as of January 1st, 2020, we cannot review that for the previous year. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And where do the rules and the statutes say that? MS. COSBY: I'll get you there. I just want to give you an overcap (sic). And I also want to make sure that you understand that I've represented Lee County since 2008. Glades and Hendry since 2009. Hernando and Collier since 2017. And Sumter since 2019 and a little bit of 2018. And never in my years as VAB counsel has a Value Adjustment Board pulled a matter and heard it themselves. Okay. It has not happened. And I represent VABs of all ages and sizes. Some have magistrates, some don't. Some use Axia, some Page 29 don't. Attorney Draper provided you with Florida Administrative Code 12D-9.015 with regards to the late-filed petitions. And those are with regards to late-filed petitions and the good cause. And I agree with Attorney Draper, when you define good cause, I do use that pretty broadly through other areas of the VAB process. For example, when somebody is asking for a good cause for a rescheduled hearing. We can take those same good cause reasonings and apply them there, but we still have to apply them to the year in review. So I'm going to point to 12D-9.005, which is the first page of your -- what I asked you to pull up, the highlighted portion, Section 4, Value Adjustment Board shall perform all duties requi red by law and shall abide by all limitations under authority as provided by law. So we do need to abide by the limitations that the VAB has. Moving on to 12 -- the next page, 279, highlighted portion, Special magistrate shall perform other duties as set out in the rules of the department and other areas of Florida law and shall abide by all limitations on the special magistrate's authority as provided by law. Moving on to the next page, 280, we're at 12D-10.003, Board has no power to fix the original valuation of property for ad valorem tax purposes or to grant an exemption not authorized by law, and the board is bound by the same standards as the County Property Appraiser in determining values and the granting of exemptions. The board has no power to grant relief either by adjustment of the value of a property or by granting of an exemption on the basis of hardship of a particular taxpayer. The board in determining the valuation of a specific property shall not consider the ultimate amount of tax required. Moving on now, and I'll show you -- we start with the statutes that reference January 1st. I'm on Page 281, referencing Florida Page 30 Statute 192.042. Date of assessment, all property shall be assessed according to its just value as follows real property on January 1st of each year. Of each year. Moving on to the next page, 196.011(1)(a), Every person or organization who on January 1st has a legal title to real personal property, except inventory, which is entitled by law to exemption from taxation as a result of its ownership and use, shall on or before March 1st of each year -- each year -- file an application for exemption with the County Property Appraiser listing and describing the property for which the exemption is claimed and certifying its ownership and use. Moving on to the next page, I'm looking at 192 -- 196.011 still, Sub 7 and 8. Value Adjustment Board shall grant any exemption for any otherwise eligible applicant if the applicant can clearly document the failure to apply by March 1st was a result of postal error. Understand that. But we're still looking at March 1st of each year, not March 1st of any time. Any applicant who is qualified to receive an exemption of Sub 1 who fails to file an application by March 1st must file an application for exemption with the Property Appraiser on or before the 25th day following the mailing by the Property Appraiser of the notice as required by -- under Section 194.011, Sub 1 of the Florida Statutes. And that would be the TRIM notice. So, a property owner does have the right, if they did not file by March 1st, to also file 25 days after the TRIM notice is mailed but still for that year. And the petitioner does have his exemption for 2020. But what they're seeking is the 2018 and the 2019 years, and, unfortunately, those fall outside of VAB jurisdiction. Ms. Earney, let me finish reading out these statutes, and then we can -- a person who -- I'm looking at 196.031, exemption of homestead, specifically, Sub 1(a), A person who on January 1st has a legal benefit of title in equity of real property of this state and whom Page 31 shall in good faith make the property his or her permanent residence or permanent residence of another or others -- this gets past where I'm -- what my point is. But we have another January 1st, and if you scroll down, Sub 6, they also specifically reference January 1st as the date. I mean, January 1st is the trigger point for VAB review throughout the statutes. It does not change anywhere. And I will finalize by advising that from Page 287 to 293, and I'm happy to provide Attorney Draper with a copy of this, this is the -- a memo that I have written and reference all of the laws and rules that cover what Attorney Draper is asking on behalf of his client today, which is that -- on my -- in my position, Value Adjustments Boards have the right to accept the special magistrate recommendations as provided to us. And if you will go to Page 2 -- I don't think I have highlighted it in this one. So, I'm going to point to Page 291 of this packet, and there are two underlying sections. So, section -- the first section is Section 2, as provided in Sections 194.034 Sub 2 and 194.035 Sub 1, Florida Statutes, The board shall consider the recommended decisions of the special magistrates and may act upon the recommended decisions without further hearing. And, three, if the board determines that a recommended decision meets the requirements of Subsect ion 1, that's of Florida Statute 194.0 -- I'm sorry -- 12D-9.031, If the board determines that a recommended decision meets the requirements of Sub 1, the board shall adopt the recommended decision. Recommended -- when a recommended decision is adopted and rendered by the board, it becomes final. And those are the legal bases that I have to provide to our -- to the VAB today with regards to Mr. Draper's statements and requests. It is my opinion, as your board attorney, that while there is absolutely allowed to be afforded sympathy to any taxpayer, we have a duty to Page 32 follow the law. Ms. Earney had a question. Yes, ma'am. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Yeah. So, because of the January 1st rule, that's what really governs this? MS. COSBY: Yes, ma'am. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: If they go to the court that you were talking about, they can go back? MS. COSBY: I'm not sure what exactly the court -- because I represent the VAB, so I know what our jurisdiction is. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Sure. MS. COSBY: But if this was taken to Circuit Court, which is the appropriate place for this to go, then certainly Mr. Draper could make much more extensive arguments, provide case law, and possibly, you know, get -- provide an arguable stance on this at the court level. The problem is that at the VAB level, it's $15, and that's all that it costs, plus whatever attorney's fees that the petitioner has incurred today. In the Circuit Court level, it is much more expensive to discuss and have this issue considered. And so, it's always preferable for the taxpayer to try to get this situation resolved via the VAB session or VAB process, because it's costing $15. But I believe that this is much more extensive, and it's outside of the VAB's jurisdiction, and it really belongs in front of a judge. MR. DRAPER: If I may briefly respond. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You know, this was public comment, so I don't know if we need to keep going back and forth. MR. DRAPER: I can be really quick. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MR. DRAPER: The last section she read to you, it emphasizes the fact that it said, The Value Adjustment Board may -- may -- accept the special magistrate's recommendations. There really is no requirement. Page 33 We all know, I'm outside general counsel to the Charlotte County Property Appraiser. I also represent taxpayers in the other county. We all know that January 1st is an important date in our process, but some of the statutes Attorney Cosby read to you were for that very purpose, to tell the Property Appraiser's Office when you're supposed to value the property. It's not necessarily meant, in my opinion, to limit your jurisdiction. And I think these statutes that I read to you show that your jurisdiction is broad. Even the administrative code provision says that you can hear it so long as it doesn't interfere with the process. Mr. El Masri filed a petition challenging the assessment of his homestead as of 2020. I believe that gives you jurisdiction -- I'm not asking to you go back to 2018 and give him the homestead. I'm asking you that as of 2020 to fix the value. You can either go to 2018, or you can fix the value at 2,343,369, which is what it was in 2018. I think you have that option. I think you have the option to do that, and that's what I would respectfully request that you do based upon the broad interpretation of these statutes and code. And I appreciate the extra time you've given me. Thank you for asking for that, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for granting that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You're welcome. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: So, Ms. Crosby, if he would -- if this would have been within the timeframe that you pointed out, we would have had the ability to pull this? MS. COSBY: Well, if this was in the timeframe that was within the VAB's jurisdiction, it would be my hope that we wouldn't even be here because -- SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I see. MS. COSBY: -- that year -- that appropriate year would have been considered, and the petitioner would have provided enough good information to support his claim and possibly receive that Page 34 exemption for the years that he is having now a problem with. But, ultimately, yes, if the Value Adjustment -- if the special magistrate did something wrong and didn't follow the law, then, yes, you could pull it. But in this case, I can advise you that the special magistrate didn't do anything wrong or did not follow the law. She just did not go back further than the year in review that we have jurisdiction over. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: So, this should have actually been filed in 2018, the petition? MS. COSBY: Yes. Ultimately, that's what should have happened is that the property owner should have dealt with this the year when it was active and applicable, and we're just going too far back. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask one question, if I might. So, the petitioner/applicant was in the hospital in 2018, and there was a mess-up by the postal service. We haven't heard what happened in 2019 and what happened in 2020, and I would assume that there would have been some communication or saw opportunity in those subsequent two years. And that's really a question -- MR. DRAPER: He was granted as of 2020. Mr. El Masri is in the -- is in the gallery here. I mean, if you'd like to hear from him in terms of his 2019 health situation. I understand that we're in public comment, and you don't want to keep going, but -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think we're -- but I think the issue that Commissioner Saunders and the school board member here is bringing up is an important one, and that is, we're talking about -- they were granted -- he was granted his exemption for 2020. So, he prevailed on that argument for 2020, which is -- and what you're saying is that's the timeframe in which -- MS. COSBY: What we have jurisdiction over. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's what we have jurisdiction of. Page 35 So, he's prevailed on that. MS. COSBY: But what he's not -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: But what he's now trying to argue is that what he really should have prevailed on was the exemption i n 2018, because that's the effect of changing -- was there -- was -- I guess the other question -- because now it's not a question really about exemption, it's a question about -- this is really an issue on the valuation in 2018. MS. COSBY: Right. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Really. MS. COSBY: I understand that. But it still falls -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's what we're talking about. MS. COSBY: -- outside of our jurisdiction, because it's 2018, and this is the 2020 VAB session. So, we cannot go back and revalue for more than a year. We are just at this -- we are at this year. That's it. And if we -- if we're revaluing -- we're not on our own volition allowed -- the VAB is not on its own volition allowed to go and do appraisal work. We're supposed to take what's provided to us only. And what we're -- what the VAB is permitted to review at this time is the 2020 exemption. So you can't go back to 2018 and 2019 now and look at that value, because what they're looking for -- what the petitioner is looking for is the petitioner is looking for an exemption granting to change the value back to what it was last year and the year before. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: He prevailed on that already by granting -- SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: See, this is where I get -- I tend to agree with one of his first comments when he said this isn't really a cookie-cutter case here. If he was granted the exemption in 2020, to me, his argument already won. So, it's an equity that it would be -- that you would say, well, if he's prevailing Page 36 in 2020, then the admission has been made that it was an error, it was removed. MS. COSBY: No. The admission is not that an error was removed. The admission was that for 2020, he meets the criteria to receive that exemption. MS. YBACETA: I'm sorry. Can I just make one comment? MS. COSBY: Yes. So, we're just -- MS. YBACETA: I'm Annabel Ybaceta. MS. COSBY: Thank you. MS. YBACETA: I'm the Director of Exemptions with the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. The petition that was filed for exemption only, not for value is what we're discussing right now, for exemption only, was not to grant the 2020 homestead exemption. Application was made timely for the 2020 tax year on January 9th of 2020. So, his homestead exemption for 2020 was granted on January 9th. Oh, sorry. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: That's not what I understood. I thought it wasn't -- MS. YBACETA: No. That's why I just wanted to clarify that. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Okay. That is a very -- MS. YBACETA: When his proposed notice went out in August, it reflected a homestead exemption that a petition was filed -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh. MS. YBACETA: -- as your counsel has advised, because he wants it back for '18 and '19. '20 has always been in place since January 9th when application was made timely. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So, he obtained the homestead exemption just as a matter of course? I mean, he made his application -- MS. YBACETA: He came, made application, and was granted Page 37 application for 2020, as every resident who moves into a new home and comes in and files, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if he had -- if the postal service had not failed to deliver the mailing in 2018, he would have been granted that for 2019, and so it's not a question of the facts did he -- was he entitled to an exemption. The question is whether he, you know, he filed on time, and he didn't, so he lost that, which I think would be somewhat compelling in Circuit Court, if they can go back. But you're telling us we have no jurisdiction to go back? MS. COSBY: Not over the 2018 or '19 years. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that makes it difficult for us. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It does. MS. COSBY: It does. Absolutely, it does. I recognize that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yep. You know, I feel like the board is sympathetic to the situation, but it seems by law we're bound to do what we're bound to do, unfortunately. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You know, I think we would all like to move in some type of direction to help. As Mr. Saunders had pointed out, it's more about the taxpayer than it is about anything else. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Yeah, we're -- I mean, I feel we're administrative in nature, we're not judicial. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Absolutely. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: So, I fear that the proper course is to allow a judge to review it. MS. COSBY: Absolutely, because we just have so many limitations. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'm afraid to act in any other way Page 38 could put this board and the county in some type of legal situation, which I'm not ready to move forward. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just so the petitioner knows, you know, we are compelled to follow the advice of our counsel, unless, of course, it's the county attorney, in which case we're not compelled to follow. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I would dare not say that about John Fishbane. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It would appear that our hands are tied, regrettably, even though, obviously, we're sympathetic. So, if there's anything we could do, I think we would. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Absolutely. This is a really bad situation, but, Erick, have you got anything else? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: I mean, I wish we could pull a rabbit out of our hat on this thing, but I don't see where we can. MR. DRAPER: I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We appreciate your presentation. Thank you. MR. DRAPER: Thank you very much. Once again, I think you have it, based on the statutes I gave you. I understand you want to follow your attorney's advice, but we would still respectfully request that you would do as Mr. El Masri has requested. And we thank you, again, for your consideration. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you, sir. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Thank you, sir. MR. DRAPER: Thank you. MS. COSBY: Do we have any other members of the public that wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Page 39 MS. COSBY: We would be at No. 5. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So, we're on No. 5? MS. COSBY: VAB members and staff comment. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Staff? MS. COSBY: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Nothing? HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Nothing here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Carter? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: No. I'm good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Kezeske? BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: No. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The only comment I have is that's a really tough case. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. COSBY: It is. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I -- wow. That is a tough situation, but we're bound by the law, so -- okay. Moving on then. Or anything from the Property Appraiser, any comments, anything? No. MR. WOOLSEY: I think we -- I think we've made our comments for the day, just to clear it up. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Not on that. I'm just saying any comments. Okay. So, No. 6, adoption of special magistrates' recommendations for 2020 VAB petitions, 206 petitions went to hearing, I guess. So, you'll give us that information. MS. COSBY: I will just advise for the record that I have reviewed every single one of these recommendations, and each are compliant with the law, contain the required information and may be Page 40 approved and accepted by the board. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: A motion to approve. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second to approve the 2020 VAB petitions. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. Number 7, adoption of certification of the Value Adjustment Board Tangible Personal Property DR-488 TPP. MS. COSBY: This is the resulting -- the resulting figures after that action and as of -- well, after the 2020 VAB session, there have been no changes to value for any of the tangible personal property. There were none that were granted that changed the value. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So were there -- is there anything to -- MS. COSBY: You just need to approve the form itself and the signing of the form by the chair. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Motion to approve. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. Page 41 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's approved unanimously. Number 8, adoption of certification of the Value Adjustment Board Real Property, DR-488 RP. MS. COSBY: Same comments as I did for the tangible form, except in this case, we do have a value shift, reduction total of $8,536,885 as a result of the entire VAB session. We just need approval of this form as well. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: Motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: A motion and a second to approve the DR-488 RP. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's approved. Number 9, adoption of Tax Impact of the Value Adjustment Board, DR-529. MS. COSBY: Then this is the form that will actually be filed with the paper. This is the impact of the Value Adjustment Board for the year on everything. So, this lists all of the petitions that Page 42 we've received, whether they've been heard or withdrawn or settled, and it does show the -- a shift in -- a reduction in value and a shift in taxes. So, you have a total reduction of taxes for this year of $112,532. We just need an approval of this form, so we can publish with the paper. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A motion to approve. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's approved unanimously. Number 10, Discussion/Motion to permit VAB counsel to revie w the VAB's website to ensure compliance and consistency. Annual -- MS. COSBY: Just regular checks to make sure that we have everything there that we need and links work. You know, if the Department of Revenue decides to, on a whim, check and see if we 're doing what we're supposed to by our website that we're good. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I motion. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. Page 43 SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's approved unanimously. Okay. And next is Number 11, to set the date for the 2021 VAB Organizational Meeting. MS. COSBY: Friday, July 9th at 9:00 a.m. if anybody -- if anybody is unavailable, we can discuss other times. But I t hink that we have the room reserved for that date if it does work for the board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think I may be -- HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: I have no idea where I'll be in July. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was thinking about I'm going to be on a trip in July. When is our -- our County Commissioner meeting is -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's the 13th in July. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I'll be here then on the 9th for sure. MS. COSBY: Wonderful. Anybody else have any commitment conflicts? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No. Okay. So the 9th. Okay. MS. COSBY: Need a motion. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: A motion. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second to set the 2021 VAB organizational meeting for Friday, July 9th, 2020 (sic) at 9:00 a.m. MS. COSBY: 2021. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 2021 -- sorry -- at 9:00 a.m. All in favor, say aye. Page 44 HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's approved. And anything else for the good of the order? MS. COSBY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion to adjourn? SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CARTER: A motion. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And a second. All in favor, say aye. HOMESTEAD MEMBER EARNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. SCHOOLBOARD MEMBER CARTER: Aye. BUSINESS MEMBER KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We are adjourned. MS. COSBY: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:09 a.m. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD /4•11)/ :-/ee 4 VAB CHAIRMAN ATTEST ' ;.>. r, ., RYS s4 ; ., NZEL, CLERK 4 0`/YuAj _Y - ..:'''' A stast0Cf$ f#f101s signature only. These minutes acce d by the Board on ZCI ( L� q , �a 1 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY ANGELA L. KLEIN, RPR, FPR, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 45