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