Good day.

I'd like to call to order this uh 2020 the value adjustment board meeting for Thursday, September 16th, 2026.

Uh and we will start with introductions.

I'll make the excusals uh after the introductions, but we'll start with introductions to my left.

Oh, good morning, everyone.

My name is Charlotte Joyce, and I'm school board member for District 6.

Good morning, Rockman Johnson, uh City Council District 14 representing Jacksonville City Council.

Good morning.

I'm Shirley Dasher.

I'm the citizen appointed council board member.

And I'd also like to recognize our chair.

I am the temporary chair for this meeting.

Our chair will Lenin is unable to be here today.

His absence is excused.

Also, the school board appointed citizen member, uh, Dominic Cummings uh has also been granted an excuse absence.

So it's just us three here today.

And uh we'll continue down on the other side.

Heather Pellegrin, Chief of Value Adjustment Board.

Jason Teal, Council Secretary and VAB Clerk.

Aaron Thalwitzer, Board Legal Counsel.

Thank you very much.

And we will be going according to the agenda with the orders of business that are there.

Uh I'll entertain a motion for uh by the way, please forgive me.

I did not recognize, and I know since uh she's in the audience, we should uh the property appraiser elected property appraiser Joyce Morgan is here in the audience and her team.

Thank you.

Um and former member of this count of the city council, I should say that.

All right.

Um let's move forward.

The order of business uh entertain a motion for the approval of the February 12th monthly meeting minutes.

It's been moved and seconded that we entered and that we uh uh approve the meeting minutes.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Okay, you guys have it, thank you.

And we'll move forward into public comment.

We have um several public comment cards.

If there are needs for public comment at the end, we will go back.

But at this time, uh we'll start public comments with uh Tiffany.

I believe the last name is Pink Staff.

Tiffany Pink Staff.

Thank you.

Good day.

I'm Tiffany Pink Staff.

I'm with the Office of General Counsel, and I'm the attorney for the property appraiser.

Um we recognize that today's agenda is quite lengthy and is asking a lot of you guys to do some work, and that's in part because of our deferral request.

So um, Mrs.

Morgan and I just wanted to have an opportunity uh to just kind of give you a preview with regard to the uh petitions that were filed by my exemption check.

This is a the scenario is this you you purchase a home in 2025 from an owner that uh claimed homestead.

During the closing, amongst all the other documents, you sign a letter of authorization stating that the previous homeowner can go and petition the just value of the property for the 2025 tax year in your name.

The letter of authorization does not specify that um in fact what you're authorizing them to do is to go and petition to increase the just value of the home.

The seller then petitions the VAB under your name to increase for purposes of increasing their portability to their new homestead.

Our office believes that the petitioners do not have legal standing to request an increase in market value because they're not the current owner of the property.

And they're not the person that's responsible for payment of that year's taxes.

So in this instance, the 2025 taxes.

We're asking the board to consider a policy that was adopted by the Miami Dade VAB board back in 2021.

Where VAB petitioners who are requesting an increase in market value must be the current owner of the subject property, not only on the date of the filing of the petition, but also on the date of the hearing.

And basically that obtaining written authorization from the new property owner, allowing the previous owner to file a VAB petition or to move forward on a previously filed petition, does not cure the situation.

The DR has already issued two opinions directly on point on this.

One is in March of 2017, the other is in May of 2021.

This is in your materials that you received in preparation for today's uh meeting.

Basically, the DOR has found that A, there's no legal basis for a non-owner to continue to maintain a petition on property that they don't currently own.

And two, a previous homeowner homestead owner cannot get written permission from the current owner, allowing them to file a petition for portability purposes.

So normally we would ask the VAB if if they were uncomfortable adopting a policy or denying a petition.

Um, maybe you should go to the to the Florida Department of Revenue and ask for an opinion on this.

Here we take the position that that's actually not necessary because there's already two opinions on point as contained in your materials.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next spee speaker is the Honorable Joyce Morgan.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, and good morning to our VAB uh participants and to our staff.

Good morning to each of you.

It's always good to be back here in the chambers.

So I want to continue what our attorney just uh talked about, just uh shedding a little light on this situation uh from the perspective of property owners, as she said.

And uh and please keep in mind that this absolutely has no value to um my office and to my staff.

These petitions are not brought by the current owners, and that is what we're talking about today.

As the petition is actually paid for the former owner.

There is a letter of authorization, and I do have that letter that um is being used by my exemption check, and you might have it in some of the information that you have there, but there is a letter of authorization that's signed by the current owner, but this letter is very vague and it does not specify that the previous owner is actually seeking an increase which could result in the current owner of the property, not the prior owner having to pay more taxes.

Last but not least, regarding the properties with renovations, that additional value has only been reflected in the just value.

The special magistrate did not change the assessed value, which should have gone up over the cap, which would result in taxes.

So again, um not speaking for value to our office at all, but just speaking about the current owners.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Morgan.

And before we move forward, I do have a question.

Uh I think I am in the right posture to do this based on what they said.

Uh it's Mr.

Thalwitzer.

Is there some kind of action that you recommend that is taken by the board or requested opinion?

So let me just say directly, I I generally agree with their legal position.

I I think they're correct, and that's been the case for at least a few years in Florida.

However, I'm familiar with the Miami Dade uh the memo issued by their attorney.

We could the board could ask me to issue a similar memo, uh, just advising what my legal opinion is, and the board could adopt that and make it sort of a formal legal opinion of the board.

If they're asking for more of a local procedure than across the board, something that the clerk essentially would administer, because that's what practically speaking would happen.

I don't think that's proper.

Um the board has authority to adopt local procedures, but those are more within the discretion, sort of in between the rules, if that makes sense, uh fleshing out the details of more procedural matters.

I don't think it's quite proper for the board to have an across the across the board procedure on a case like this.

Really, it comes down to a case-by-case uh legal issue when it comes up, and it does pretty much every year, the magistrates should deal with that accordingly, pursuant to the law.

And like I said, I generally agree with their position.

It's not that it that I take issue with.

So I'm happy to do that.

I can say that it's since I've been counsel starting last year.

It's come up a handful of times at least.

I've more or less forwarded the same opinion uh each time the question's been asked consistent again with with the position they're taking.

And we and I'm happy to make that more of a formal thing.

I don't think I I've issued a formal memo uh uh saying that, but beyond that, I don't think it would be quite proper and probably not necessary either.

Gotcha.

Uh thank you for that.

Do you have I was gonna ask you uh to the clerk, do you have uh an opinion or where do you think we should follow here?

To the chair if I could like to ask Mr.

Thalwitzer a question.

Um Mr.

Thalwazer, would would it be more appropriate for for that type of a procedural analysis to be done at the um at the property appraisers office on the intake of these types of applications, and in essence, they would deny on the procedural ground that the person asserting uh the petition is doesn't have standing to do it.

Now, obviously that would still come to the VAB, but it would be on a case-by-case basis because they would appeal it to the VAB.

But is that really more of where this type of an analysis would need to happen?

Is it kind of on the front end with the um with the the property appraiser's office?

I think that would be within their discretion to I suppose reject an application on a on a standing basis, not the right person filing it or entity.

Um so yes, that that I think would be within their discretion.

That's outside of the board's purview.

Um like counsel said it could still come before the board if or when they appeal that rejection or or denial.

Um so it may not make much difference to the board in that case.

But again, I I really think this is it's an important issue.

Um, but I I I I don't think that there's I don't think it would be quite proper to have a local procedure, which is really the only thing that it could be other than just a you know, standing guidance from counsel that the board has formally adopted.

Which I think I I think the distinction I'm gonna make there, if it's a local procedure, that is a defined thing within chapter 12 D9.

Those are limited in in scope scope is in terms of what the board's allowed to do.

Obviously, board counsel can issue legal opinions, that's one of the primary responsibilities and duties of of the job.

So in favor of that.

According, Mr.

Thalwitzer, according to, and I'm not gonna prolong this, and I do just have a question for Ms.

Pink Staff and Ms.

Morgan, but according to the memo uh about Rule 12 D9, um, it says that the subject decisions do not comply with that rule.

That was one of the things that was stated in the memo that Ms.

Pink Staff provided.

So that's why I just want to make sure that we are doing what we can do to make sure that people's needs are heard as well, but also that we're following the law.

So where it comes up, I guess on a practical level, and sometimes it can lead to results that on a policy basis, um, one person might not agree with.

So there's a few different things that that can happen.

If a petition is filed by the current owner, and that current owner remains the owner on the day of the VAB hearing, that's really the end of the analysis.

That's a proper, that's proper as far as standing is concerned.

The underlying purpose of that petition, maybe it's not to the current owner's benefit.

They may be seeking but frankly, that's not the VAB's concern.

Okay in this in this if if the just whatever the just value is is what it is, um, and what the the VAB I think it should be concerned with, and uh and really all that the the VAB can be concerned with is whether it's standing is proper on those two dates.

And I do agree that those are um it does have they do have to have standing on both those dates.

Mere authorization, in my opinion, is not enough.

A letter saying you can file it, no.

But if it's filed in the current owner's name, that's really the end of the analysis, unless it's found to be fraudulent or something, but I we're not really getting into that.

Understood.

Ms.

Morgan, Ms.

Pinkstaff, and I know this is a little bit improper, but I wanted to ask someone from your team uh is there a recommendation that you have specifically obviously reading your memo based on what you've heard from the council and the clerk, is there a recommendation, or is this something we need to maybe meet with offline for to come up with some substantive thing that we can do uh to make sure that we're working properly?

I think thank you for the for the question.

Um I I understand Mr.

Thalwitzer's position as well, I I think um where the confusion I think might be coming in is that it's my understanding that when you when you file a petition, I guess electronically, the petition is is auto-populated in some regards from the CAMA system that the property appraiser maintains.

So if my exemption check files a petition on behalf of previous owner, the petitioner will be auto-populated with the current owner.

So on its face, it looks like the current owner is the petitioner, but in fact, the current owner is not the petitioner, it's the former owner represented by my exemption check by virtue of this letter of authorization, which is not legal.

So that's I think that's where part of the problem comes in because we did challenge in advance, or we tried to challenge in advance um these petitions going forward um before they were even set for hearing, but that request was denied.

So then we went back and said, well, can we have a hearing with both an attorney magistrate and a special magistrate then?

Because now we have a legal question, and usually these would only be before a special magistrate on the actual valuation issue.

And we were denied that request because technically, and I think Mr.

Thalwitzer is right, there's nothing in the rules or the statute that says that an attorney magistrate would hear this issue of standing or jurisdiction, if you will.

Um so both of those avenues were not possible for us.

And so that's why we've come and said, well, Miami Dade has this policy where basically they're not setting for hearing these um petitions that are in fact filed on behalf of prior owners to increase value.

That was really what we were recommending that the board consider so that in the future we wouldn't kind of have this sort of you know, cart before the horse issue where the petitioner reflects that it's the current owner, but it's not.

Gotcha.

Understood.

Is there any, I know um Heather, you wanted to out or recognize you, and also if there's anything from the board members.

Okay.

Ms.

Pelgrim.

So we are okay with maybe getting together, proposing something.

However, that's this is more of a discussion for the organizational meeting to kick off the year.

We're at the end now.

I I agree there are issues.

But I think that it should start next year in the 2026 year.

And when we meet in August, whoever is on the board, this can be something we can maybe try and figure out together and go forward that way.

I was just gonna thank you for bringing that up, Ms.

Pellegrin.

I was just gonna say, while it was an interesting question, we're obviously at the end of this year.

And with all due respect, I don't think we should wait until August.

Whoever's gonna be on the board, whether I'm back or not.

Um, I believe that's in the essence of continuity so that things are done.

Um, if you could get together with the property appraisers team and maybe find something to make a recommendation so that Mr.

Thalwitzer and Mr.

Thiel, everybody can kind of look at it, tear it apart, put it together and make sure it works.

So thanks for the discussion.

And I think that we found something that that's a good solution.

So moving forward, we are at item number three on the agenda, which is the deferral requests from petitioners.

None have been received, so we can move on to item four.

Uh item ref four are the deferral requests.

Uh there are 38 petitions total.

Uh the lists are in the agenda, and uh there the representatives for uh various property owners is on well with that list.

I believe I need to move to uh entertain a motion to accept the list.

Mr.

Teal.

I apologize, Mr.

Chair.

Um back to item number two.

Was that those the only two public comment cards that you received?

That's all I saw.

Are there more somewhere?

No, no, no.

I just wanted you to confirm that there was a.

Oh, yes, yes, that that is all the public comment cards that have been received.

Thank you, sir.

Yes.

And I, you know what, Mr.

Teal, just to make sure I will ask again at the end of the meeting.

So on to item number four.

I believe, please correct me if I'm in the right posture, uh, if I'm not in the right posture, that we need to uh have a motion to accept the deferral requests.

I think uh Mr.

Thalitzer, did you want to weigh in on that?

These are essentially new requests that have already been received and briefed.

Uh it was done on an expedited basis so we could get them at least before the board for this meeting.

Um it's up to the board, but I would suggest um maybe the property appraiser would like to uh present on these briefly.

Thank you.

Madam property appraiser, do you have any presentation?

You or your team, any presentation based on the deferral requests.

Again, Tiffany Pink Staff, Officer General Counsel for the property appraiser.

These um these deferral requests are in regard to what we consider to be inconsistent decisions that were rendered for similarly situated properties where the same special magistrate found that the property appraiser lost the presumption of correctness without any findings that actually supported that uh conclusion.

We recognize, by the way, that that I I know I know we've put a burden on the value adjustment board and in you know requesting the deferral of 38 petitions, but it's all the same exact issue.

Um we're concerned uh not so much about the actual valuation changes themselves because they're pretty much de minimis.

What we're concerned about is a more systemic issue with regard to um these arbitrary value reductions for this one particular special magistrate.

Uh basically there were a hundred and fifty-one petitions that were uh filed by this tax rep ownwell, Inc.

Um, on behalf of 150 different property owners, right?

Um and different properties.

And um of those 151, let's see, it was 57 properties.

The petitions were granted, the remainder were denied.

We are only challenging 38 of those 57 based upon how the decisions were actually rendered.

Um Florida Administrative Code states that for each petition, um, special magistrates shall produce a written recommended decision that contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for upholding or overturning the property appraiser's determination.

Conclusions of law must be based on findings of fact.

For each of the statutory criteria for the issue under administrative review, findings of fact must identify the corresponding admitted evidence or lack thereof.

Each recommended decision shall contain sufficient factual and legal information and reasoning to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision and shall otherwise meet the requirements of law.

We laid out in our memorandum to the board um various examples.

One of the main examples is this idea that we didn't meet the presumption of correctness because we didn't consider present cash value, but the magistrate doesn't in any way explain how by a preponderance of the evidence we didn't meet the presumption of correctness or why are you know what the factual basis was for us not considering uh present cash value.

And generally speaking, you know, considering it is not the same thing as having to do an entire um you know workup of it.

It you can consider that while the property wasn't sold in the previous year and therefore present cash value isn't the appropriate standard.

Instead, we're looking at comps um for market value as a substitute for present cash value.

So basically the it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but uh we're stating that these decisions were improperly um issued, that they're invalid under the law, and so we would ask that the petitions be denied.

So at this point, I do think though, you when we come back.

My question is I I'm assuming that this would be um there'd be a final decision made on the at the on the meeting at the 14th.

At the meeting on the 14th.

Is that correct?

I defer to the if we defer this, and and maybe it's uh to the clerk or Mr.

Dalitzer, uh, if we defer this today based on the recommendation it's made from your office, does this mean that they would come back with a since it's deferred, not denied, that they would have a final recommendation on the at for the meeting on the 14th.

I I think that it could cause delays, is is why we tried to get it before the board today, understanding that it's it's not an ideal, the timing is not ideal.

Um but the board does have both sides positions, their briefs, so the board can take these up today if the board would like to defer it, the board can.

Uh we'd need to have have them taken up at an at a subsequent meeting, though.

All right, I'm looking at the memo that your February 18th memo that says that you recommend was that deferral for the previous meeting.

Yeah, that's the previously deferred ones.

Understood.

That was just a hand, I think three of them maybe.

Understood.

Uh Mr.

Teal, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just to remind the board that uh we're required to be finished uh with this year by June 1st.

Okay.

And so there's one meeting uh between now, and that's the May 14th meeting, but um everything has to be wrapped up by June 1st.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

So uh since it was previously deferred, I will certainly entertain motions from um the other members of the board.

If there are any uh statements you have, please you're recognized.

Steph, Ms.

Pinkstaff, from what I read, it seems that um this magistrate utilizes the property appraiser system sometimes and then sometimes not.

That's accurate, yes.

Okay.

Um because that seems to be a problem.

It does, especially if it's with just one magistrate.

So that's something I guess we can take up later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Talbotzer, you're recognized.

Just a suggestion, it's of course the board's discretion, but uh in my opinion, the the recommended decisions were probably legally compliant.

It's arguable.

That's for that reason.

I don't like arguable.

I'd rather it be clearly compliant, leave no doubt.

My suggestion would be to remand the decisions back to the special magistrate, basically to further develop his findings.

And wherever that leads, uh the outcome is where it where it leads it.

If it changes the outcome, um that's fine.

If not, that's also fine as long as he uh basically supports his conclusions with uh with analysis based on the evidence.

That is my suggestion to the board.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Teal, you have uh something to add?

Mr.

Jarrett, I just wanted to confirm that uh I just checked with Ms.

Pellegrin, and there is sufficient time to do that uh and still meet the June 1st deadline.

So that is uh something that I think is is within the board's um ability uh and still meet the the required statutory deadlines.

I will accept uh I'll entertain a motion if there's one.

Yeah, I'll move to meet so Ms.

Joyce uh has uh Chair Joyce has uh moved to remand this back to the special magistrate.

Um but I want to add I don't know that it's proper for me to add, but I want to make sure that it's on the record that it will be done that we will have that back by the May 14th meeting for the May 14th meeting.

Right?

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Uh please respond by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, the ayes have it, and uh we can move forward.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, on that, let me could just clarify.

Um you're required to give directions to the to the magistrate.

So uh it's the the purpose of the remand is is to further develop the order uh in order to uh um articulate uh the necessary requirements under the the factual basis uh for uh the the to support the decision is required by the Florida statute.

So that's what that would be the directions back to the magistrate.

I would rec uh as as the clerk has said uh to the magistrate, please ensure that we are flushing out those decisions that are made and based on what Mr.

Thalwitzer said, um, which you can review on the meeting, but ensuring that we do have a definitive answer, number one, and number two, it should be able to be on the May 14th agenda of the value adjustment board meeting so that we can stay within compliance and have everything done by the June 1st deadline.

That works.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Mr.

Clerk.

All right, let's move on to item number five, which are the previously deferred recommended decisions.

And I just want to make sure I'm in the right posture.

Uh with this, I need to go through each of the we need to accept the ones that are that are on the spreadsheet, or do we go through each action item?

What is the um each action item?

Uh these are should be basically dealt with the same as the previous one.

Yep.

All right, briefed.

We will run through the action items starting with uh again item number five.

The first one is 2025 277, which is the property tax alliance group.

It is a previously uh deferred decision.

And I think I need to have a motion.

Am I correct, Mr.

Thalwitzer, to accept the recommendation?

This is basically before the board for a decision on the property appraiser's request.

So again, if if the property appraiser uh wishes to present this would be their opportunity.

And then the board would have the decision.

Thank you.

For uh 2025 277 to the property appraiser's office.

Is there a presentation on this parcel or this uh this issue?

Tiffany Pinkstaff, OGC, on behalf of the property appraiser.

Uh no, Mr.

Chair.

Um, we are in agreement with Mr.

Thalitzer's recommendation to the board on this particular petition 277.

If I'm not mistaken, uh it is uh the recommended decision is for it to be granted.

So I'd need a motion from the board to the yes, Mr.

Teal.

I apologize, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I think you want to at least ask uh if there's a representative from the property tax alliance group in order to be able to give them an opportunity to uh respond to the property appraiser.

Thank you for giving me the right posture.

Uh is there someone here from the property tax alliance group?

A representative going once, going twice.

No one here from that group.

So at this point, I believe I can entertain a motion to accept the recommendation.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded that we accept the recommendation for number 27.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

There will there are none, and the ayes have it.

So we're moving on.

Our next one is 2025 972.

Uh is there this is from my exemption check.

Is there a presentation from the property appraiser's office?

Um, Mr.

Chair, we've already done the presentation for the my exemption check.

This is the one that you were going to go ahead and grant the petitions for the 2025 tax share that the subject of our deferral request and then address readdress this in the fall at the organizational meeting.

Ms.

Thank you for that.

Mr.

Uh Thalwitzer, are we able to take all these since they're all with at least the ones 972 through 999?

Can we do them in mass?

Yes.

You don't need to list out the numbers.

Cool.

All right.

So uh clearly they're printed on the agenda.

So from 2025 972 to 999, excuse me, 982, which are all with I can only do the ones with my exemption check in mass, correct?

No, you can do it.

You can do more than that.

I I would I would suggest going from 972 through 150017.

Okay.

Uh we recognize the Ms.

Power.

So 972 through 982, 999, and 15017 are all together.

15011 is a part of them as well.

However, they are on a separate list, which is notated on your agenda for non-payment of taxes, so that decision cannot be approved.

Understood.

But they are all the same petitioner.

But we can still but you can do it in bulk.

Just list those numbers that I just stated.

Right.

Minus 1501.

Those can be a blanket approval.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

All right.

So I will take up that one separately.

Thanks for the recommendation.

And of course, 15017 would also then be separate as well, correct?

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Gotcha.

Mr.

Teal.

And then Mr.

Chair, what you want to do is to see if there's anyone here from my exemption check or Stephen Vacel or Steve Goldwasser.

Uh oh.

Okay, they're all the same, but they filed under different names.

But um the check and I'll still ask, yeah, ask anyway publicly.

So is there anyone that wants to present from my exemption check as it relates to those parcels?

And I just feel I think I'd feel more comfortable just making sure 2025 972 73747576 777879 80818299 2025 1501 and uh 2025 15017.

I can't do those together.

Just I have to stop at 99.

You have to skip 1501.

That's right.

My apologies.

I got it noted here, and I'm skipped.

All right, so 77 through 99, and 2025 15017.

All right.

Is there anyone here for my exemption check again?

Okay.

Is uh anyone Steve Vacel?

Casey Vacel.

Sorry, and that's a separate one, so forgive me for that.

The next one, Steve Goldwasser.

Okay.

Um I'll accept a recommendation from the board.

It's been moved and seconded.

Um the petition numbers of the recommendations, all on favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The ayes have it, and we can move forward.

Our next item is 2025 15001.

Um property appraiser, do you have a presentation on this particular matter?

The next two are the identical issue with regard to exemption shot.

But I think I need to put them on the record.

Am I correct in that?

Going in this way, yes, separately.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and Steve Casey Vackel, no KC Vackl.

Right.

Uh and can I combine those two?

Okay.

So that and the other one was 2025-15017.

I'm assuming the same.

You can just nod from the property appraiser's office.

I'm assuming there's no presentation on that one either, because we're dealing with the same thing.

So and they did affirm that.

Uh Steve Goldwasser, are you here?

No.

Okay.

We're moving forward.

Uh I'll entertain a motion to accept the recommendation.

Uh it's been moved and seconded.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed, which are none, and the ayes have it.

All right.

We've gotten through the previously deferred recommendation, recommended decisions.

Uh item number six is the consideration of the special magistrate recommended decisions.

Um there are a list of those recommended decisions.

I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, I'll recognize you, Miss Pellegrin, that we can take them on mass if you could give us some instructions.

Yes, your motion should be to approve all petition, all recommended decisions on the spreadsheet, minus petition two seven seven.

And the 38 own well petitions that you previously previously took up.

Uh except all the recommendations.

Previously deferred.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor, respond by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The ayes have it.

And we're on to item number seven.

This one is mandates here mandatory uh denial by April 2026 of non-finalized petitions for delinquent taxes.

Uh could you give an explanation of that, Mr.

Thalwitzer, and then we'll move forward into that.

Yes, thank you.

That basically the law requires the board to deny these petitions if they don't timely pay a reasonable amount of property taxes uh by April.

Uh I believe it's April 1st, but and we have to deny it by April 20th.

And that's the case with these.

So I do recommend denying each of the listed petitions.

Mr.

Thalwitzer and uh Mr.

Teal, am I able to do this on mass or do by law do I need to do each one?

On mass is fine.

Cool.

Thank you.

Uh so this will be uh the VAB petitions that are on record, which is 2025, 1383, 1561, 1574, 1872, 2051, 2007, 2783, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, 2789, 2791, 2792, 2793, uh 2025 4367, 2025 15001, and 2025 15034.

And I will entertain a motion to deny these.

It's been moved and seconded to deny uh these mandatorily.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

And the ayes have it.

So we can move on to other business.

Uh proposed amendments to chapter 120.

I know I had some questions about this.

If Mr.

Teal, you could give us a an update on this uh administrative code update information.

I know there were some things that came through, so I reached out to you, Mr.

Teal and Mr.

Thalwitzer.

Uh whichever one.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I've asked Mr.

Thalitzer to uh to uh prepare a short summary of the the changes at the state level.

Uh and so he's he's done that and he can give you a little synopsis.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

This I think is the last item in the agenda packet, my short memo.

Uh there were a handful of changes.

Um I'll just go through the highlights.

I'm happy to take questions if there's any.

Uh 129.001 basically updates some terminology, includes some updated cross references, clarifies taxpayer rights.

129.013.

Uh it really just conforms the rule to the statutory increase in the uh max filing fee uh that we're all quite familiar with.

Uh 9.014 updated the prehearing checklist requirements, including the new electronic hearing uh legislation, um requires the clerk to ensure that the board has the appropriate communication equipment to enable it.

Uh updates the petition form 9.015 to a maximum of the $50 filing fee.

There's updates to the notice of hearing.

Again, this is really just to conform to the electronic hearing requirements.

Um evidence exchange rules, another update to uh conform to the the changes in the evidence exchange statute.

Um two five uh it's really a a pretty technical change on that one.

It it clarifies what when the uh the procedures when a petition is amended or when recommended value differs from what's stated in the petition.

Uh 9.026, uh again, it's it's an it's a it conforms the rule to the new remote hearing requirements, and then 16.002 is just the index to forms.

It really just conforms that to the changes in the forms and some new forms.

Um so really this just brings the rules up to speed with last year's legislation uh changes.

Thank you for that uh explanation.

And uh Mr.

Thiel, I must say on the record I appreciate your explanation to me because it was a little confusing when I saw the emails coming through from the state.

Uh are there any questions from the other board members about that?

I think it was a good explanation.

You're good?

We're good?

Okay.

Um the next day, and I will do this, and actually I should ask again, I said I would, so I want to do it before I give the date of the next meeting.

Are there any other public comments?

Even though you have there's a public comment card and I have been received.

I want to put it on the record.

If anyone wants to make a public comment, we can get you a card.

Just want to make sure we have that option, okay, or that opportunity.

Uh the date of our next value adjustment board meeting will be Thursday, May 14th at 11 30, uh, right here in this council chamber.

Uh are there any other items that we need to discuss before we get out of here?

If not, uh it is 1212, and I will call this meeting adjourned.

Thank you.