Public comments workshop 1

Public comments workshop 1

Public comments workshop 2

Public comments workshop 3

Public comments workshop 4

Public comments workshop 5

Public comments workshop 6

Public comments workshop 7

Public comments workshop 8

Public comments workshop 9

Public comments workshop 10

From: Millares, Rafael (COC) [mailto:rafael.millares@miamidade.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:43 PM To: DORPTO <DORPTO@floridarevenue.com> Cc: Steve Keller <Steve.Keller@floridarevenue.com>; Steve Keller <Steve.Keller@floridarevenue.com>; Alfaro, Robert (COC) <Robert.Alfaro@miamidade.gov>; rm@miamivab.com Subject: PTO Rule Development Workshop Comments Dear Mr. Keller and DOR, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for holding this workshop. I will be listening but will not speak. Please accept my E mailed comments and please note that I am not therein advocating for one side or the other. I am merely bringing up some potential unintended consequences of the proposed rule changes, as a member of the Florida Bar and as an officer of the Court who has sworn an oath to support the US and Florida constitutions. Here are my comments regarding the proposed language to 12D 9.020: 1) I feel obliged to remind everyone that the Miami Dade County VAB ( VAB ) faces unique challenges and conditions on the ground. Many of the taxpayers that appear before the VAB do not speak or read English and are not well versed in VAB/DOR procedures. This is especially true of the evidence exchange rules which are sometimes misunderstood by even seasoned VAB practitioners. If the proposed rule changes are adopted, i.e. eliminating the optional aspect of participating in the evidence exchange, a segment of our population may immediately and consistently be in violation of 12D 9.020 despite our many efforts to educate Miami Dade Taxpayers as to VAB procedure. There will always be a large number of Miami Dade taxpayers that will, unintentionally, not exchange evidence with the PAO and will show their evidence to the PAO for the first time at the VAB hearing. Assuming that the PAO continues to send out a letter in every case, requesting every type of evidence, will the special magistrate then be obliged to exclude the taxpayer s evidence in every case where the TP does not provide the PAO with their evidence a reasonable time before the hearing and the PAO objects to its admission? Would that expose the VAB to equal protection clause litigation? Would that constitute a violation of the Florida Taxpayer s Bill of Rights as codified in F.S. 192.0105(2)(f) and a violation of due process in general? 2) Due to the high volume of cases that the Miami Dade VAB must hear, rescheduling cases due to evidence exchange violations may be unduly burdensome on us if we are required to certify by June 1 st every year. Every reschedule delays us and jeopardizes our ability to finish on time. I fear that this proposed rule change may exacerbate this existing problem. 3) A possible solution or mitigating factor for these problems is modifying the rules to allow a special magistrate to not just exclude taxpayer evidence when there is an evidence exchange violation (in certain circumstances) but also to exclude PAO evidence under the same Public comments workshop 11

circumstances. That seems equitable/fair and it would reduce the number of re schedules, allowing the VAB to mitigate the potentially negative effects that I mention above. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rafael E. Millares Esq. Legal Counsel Miami Dade County Value Adjustment Board 111 NW 1st Street Room 1720 Miami, FL 33128 Office (305) 375 5641 Direct (305) 375 1187 Fax (305) 375 5274 rm@miamivab.com rafaelm@miamidade.gov Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. From: DORPTO [mailto:dorpto@floridarevenue.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 2:09 PM To: Millares, Rafael (COC) Subject: RE: PTO Rule Development Workshop Thank you for your email. The Department acknowledges the receipt of your request for the November 14, 2017 rule workshop. The workshop will begin at 2:00 p.m. EST at the Capital Circle Office Complex (2450 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida) in Building 2, Room 1220. The workshop agenda and other pertinent information are posted on our website. From: Millares, Rafael (COC) [mailto:rafael.millares@miamidade.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:17 PM To: DORPTO <DORPTO@floridarevenue.com> Cc: Steve Keller <Steve.Keller@floridarevenue.com>; Steve Keller <Steve.Keller@floridarevenue.com>; Alfaro, Robert (COC) <Robert.Alfaro@miamidade.gov>; rm@miamivab.com Subject: RE: PTO Rule Development Workshop Dear DOR, This is my formal written request that a workshop be held on November 14, 2017, regarding the rules listed below. Please confirm the sufficiency of my request and your receipt of this E mail. Thank you Public comments workshop 12

Rafael E. Millares Esq. Legal Counsel Miami Dade County Value Adjustment Board 111 NW 1st Street Room 1720 Miami, FL 33128 Office (305) 375 5641 Direct (305) 375 1187 Fax (305) 375 5274 rm@miamivab.com rafaelm@miamidade.gov Florida has a very broad Public Records Law. Most written communications to or from State and Local Officials regarding State or Local business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your email communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. From: DORPTO [mailto:dorpto@floridarevenue.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:10 AM To: DORPTO Subject: PTO Rule Development Workshop Property Tax Rule Development Workshop 2:00pm November 14, 2017 The Department of Revenue has added to its website for Proposed Rules an announcement for a Rule Development Workshop to be held, if requested in writing, at 2:00 pm on November 14, 2017, in Room 1220, Building 2, 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard in Tallahassee, for the following rule sections: PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT Rule 12D 9.020, F.A.C. Exchange of Evidence Rule 12D 16.002, F.A.C. Index to Forms Public comments workshop 13

From: Rubert, Veronica (PA) <Veronica.Rubert@miamidade.gov> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:34 PM To: DORPTO Cc: Solis, Lazaro (PA); Llerena, Victoria (PA); Martinez-Esteve, Jorge (CAO) Subject: November 14, 2017 PTO Rules Workshop - PA Input Please see attached public comments from the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office. Thank you. Veronica Rubert Assistant to the Deputy PA Phone: 305-375-4004 How may we help YOU? Miami-Dade Property Appraiser facebook.com/miam idadepa twitter.com/miamidadepa www.miamidade.gov/pa 0 We'd like to know how we can improve our office and the service we provide. Please click here to send us your comments. Public comments workshop 14

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION PEDRO J. GARCIA PROPERTY APPRAISER November 17, 2017 Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Oversight 5050 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 DORPTO@floridarevenue.com Re: November 14, 2017 PTO Rules Workshop Dear Sir or Madam: The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser appreciates the Department's continuous efforts to receive public input when updating the administrative rules to ensure that the rules conform with the requirements of law. Below are two comments and suggestions regarding the proposed changes to 12D-9.020, which was the subject of the November 14, 2017, PTO rules public workshop. 12D-9.020(1)(b) o The current proposed language references section 194.032(2)(a). This subsection refers to multiple items not related to the property record card. For clarification purposes, the rule should perhaps reference instead 12D-9.015(16), which implements specific provisions regarding the requirements for providing property record cards. 12D-9.2020(1 )(2)(c) o We reiterate our concerns conveyed to the Department in our letter dated May 19, 2015, in connection with the public workshop held on May 19, 2015, regarding the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs v. Good. 813 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). (See letter attached). In Higgs, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a taxpayer who denied the property appraiser's prior request for income data information cannot later submit that data to demand a reduction of his property taxes. The court specifically stated that the defendant may not "defer the submission of the income data until it pleased him to submit it (tardily), then use the data to demand either administrative or judicial reduction of his property's tax assessment valuation." Id. at 179. Thus, allowing the evidence to be submitted a reasonable time before the hearing enlarges the time allowed under section 194.034(1 )(h) and contradicts the ruling in Higgs. o For this reason, we believe the rule should instead more closely track the language in the statute and state: "However, under Section 194.034(1)(h), F.S., 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 and considered by the special magistrate." Thank you for considering these comments. / 111 NW \ST STREET, SlJl'l'E 710 MIAMI, FLORIDA JJl28 PHONE: 305-375-4712 l'ax: 305-375-3024 WEB SITE: \V W \V,M I AM! QAQE GQV/ P A Public comments workshop 15

- MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION. PEDRO J. GARCIA PROPERTY APPRAISER May 19, 2015 Florida Department of Revenue Property Tax Oversight 5050 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 DORPTO@dor.state.fl.us Dear Sir or Madam: The Miami-Dade County Prope11y Appraiser's Office appreciates the Department of Revenue's continued effo11s to amend the administrative rules and provide oppodunity to review and comment. Below are three critical areas which the proposed rules do not accurately or sufficiently address. Reschedules: The cunent and proposed administrative rules do not accurately reflect the legislative directive concerning VAB reschedules. Pursuant to section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, administrative rules may not go beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. According to controlling statute on reschedules, "Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner may reschedule the hearing a single time by submitting to the clerk a written request to reschedule, at least 5 calendar days before the day of the originally scheduled hearing." 194.032, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Plain reading of the statute indicates that a petitioner is only entitled to reschedule a hearing one time. Any reschedule beyond the single reschedule contemplated by the Legislature would be considered an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The curl'ent administrative rules already enlarge, modify, and contravene this statute by allowing a petitioner to l'eschedule a single time without good cause and essentially an unlimited number of times for showing good cause. See PAC 120-9.019. Now the proposed change to 12D-9.020(1)(a)(2) threatens to add an additional reschedule beyond the Legislature's expressed intent. The proposed rule adds that a reschedule is permitted, beyond the one time reschedule, if the petitioner fails to meet his or her fifteen (15) day evidence exchange requirement. Not only should this not be considered good cause considering the ample time petitioners have between the time they file petitions and the time their hearing is scheduled particularly in counties where hearings can last a year or more, but also it is clear example of an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. 111 NW 1..,. STllHb:T, SUL'l'li 710 MIAMI, FLOltlOA 33128 l'jioni:!. : JOS - 375-4712 FAX: JOS-375-3024 WEii SITT\: }-nl/.w. llt!a M I DAQB GO~ Public comments workshop 16

Dep't of Revenue Draft Rule Comments May 19, 2015 Workshop Page 2 of2 Higgs v. Go~d, 813 So. 2d 178 (}'la. 3d DCA 2002): Despite the proposed rule described above allowing petitioners an additional reschedule for not submitting their evidence timely, petitioners still have the opportunity to submit their evidence past the exchange due date if the evidence is submitted within a reasonable time. This "reasonable time" provision is not contemplated by the implementing statute and it contradicts the decision reached in JJ;ggs v. Good, 813 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In Higgs, the Third District Comt of Appeal held that a taxpayer who denied the prnperty appraiser's prior request for income and data information cannot later submit the data to demand a reduction of his prnperty taxes. The com1 specifically stated that the defendant may not "defer the submission of the income data until it pleased him to submit it (tardily), then use the data to demand either administrative or judicial reduction of his prope1ty's tax assessment valuation." Id. at 179 (emphasis added). Florida's value adjustment boards are quasi-judicial administrative entities created pursuant to section 194.015, Florida Statutes, and subject to Florida's Administrative Code. As such, the board should be bound by rulings from the district courts of appeal. When there is no controlling decision by the Florida Supreme Court or the district court having jurisdiction over the matter on a point of law, a decision by another district is binding. See Brannon v. Stale, 850 So. 2d 452, 458 n. 4 (Fla. 2003). Therefore, we respectfully request that the Department of Revenue reevaluate its position on the appjicability of Higgs to VAB hearings and how it would affect the administrative rules. Reasonable time to provide property record cards: Proposed changes to Rule 12D-9.015 would require that the prope1ty appraiser provide to the petitioner within five business days, the property record card in counties where the prope1ty record is not available online or where the online version is different from the hard copy. Despite suggestions from prior public comments, five business days after receiving the petition from the clerk, is not a reasonable time. It would be more reasonable, particularly in light of the above rules, to require the property record to be received at the same time as the notice of hearing, 25 days before the hearing. Thank you for reviewing these concerns. I look forward to continuing to work with the department implementing these rules. Sincerely, L<izar Solis Deputy Property Appraiser 111 NW I" S'l'lll\r.T, SUTTE 710 MIAMI, l'l.oltldr\ 33126 PHONE: 305-375-4712 l'ax: 305-375-3024 WEB SITll: WWW.M!AMIDADB.GOV/PA Public comments workshop 17