My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/15/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
11/15/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:27 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 2:49:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/15/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chairman Tippin thought it appeared to be a statewide problem, <br />not just. the one issue, and that was his concern. <br />County Attorney Vitunac recommended the simplest route was to <br />ask the DOR to do their statutory job and develop a rule to settle <br />the dilemma statewide at no cost. He was certain Mr. Nolte and <br />every other Property Appraiser would follow the rule. If the DOR <br />failed, then the Board could proceed to determine their next course <br />of action. <br />Commissioner Bird believed the issue must have been in court <br />previously and Attorney O'Brien advised that the Attorney General <br />had addressed it in 1991 and said that if it was a continuing <br />problem, the Department may wish to consider adopting a rule <br />specifying which of its particular forms constitutes return of <br />property. When the DOR sets a rule or regulation, the Property <br />Appraiser is required by law to abide by it and it has more effect <br />than an Attorney General's opinion, which can be accepted or <br />rejected. <br />Property Appraiser David Nolte detailed the rule-making <br />procedure. He understood the DOR has been working on the problem, <br />on and off, for the past two years to classify which documents were <br />confidential and which were not, but they had not finished it yet <br />and had not gotten to the point of a printed draft which could be <br />sent around for perusal. <br />Commissioner Adams reminded everyone why Mr. Zorc raised the <br />issue and that the group he was concerned about was not a Florida <br />corporation. She felt the effort to verify their tax-exempt status <br />had merit. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Nolte how his peers throughout the <br />state handle the problem and Mr. Nolte replied it was a dilemma and <br />either way could be wrong. He concurred there was a need to have <br />the DOR define the rule. He related that it was only an occasional <br />problem; that Mr. Zorc has been asking about this particular group <br />since 1991 and others have inquired about another group. Mr. Nolte <br />affirmed that if the DOR develops a ruling on this, he would <br />following the ruling. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Adams, to inform the Property <br />Appraiser that under Sec. 196.001(9)(a), F.S., <br />there is no annual waiver for applications <br />filed pursuant to Sec. 196.915, F.S. and <br />request him to ask the Department of Revenue <br />25 <br />November 15, 1994 Boa 93 PAGE 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.