Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Tippin wondered if going through the Florida <br />Association of Counties would be beneficial. Commissioner Adams <br />agreed to pursue it with FACo. <br />Commissioner Macht agreed with Attorney Wilson's position and <br />felt that a declaratory judgment was the way to proceed. <br />Commissioner Adams asked Commissioner Bird if he would agree <br />to amend his motion by adding 4): Bring a court action against the <br />Property Appraiser seeking a determination as to whether <br />submissions under Section 196.195, F.S., were confidential. <br />Commissioner Bird declined, wanting to go through steps 1) and 3) <br />first, to see what happened. <br />Commissioner Macht understood the desire to go ahead with 3) <br />and requested the motion be amended to have a period after <br />confidential. <br />COMMISSIONERS BIRD AND ADAMS AMENDED THE <br />MOTION to inform the Property Appraiser that <br />under Sec. 196.001(9)(a), F.S., there is no <br />annual waiver for applications filed pursuant <br />to Sec. 196.915, F.S., and request him to ask <br />the Department of Revenue as to whether an <br />application submitted pursuant to Sec. <br />196.195, F.S., is confidential. <br />In discussing the amended motion, the filing cost of a <br />declaratory judgment ($89.50) was mentioned and Commissioner Bird <br />asked Attorney Vitunac to elaborate on what would happen if the <br />County filed for declaratory judgment. <br />County Attorney Vitunac explained in detail the declaratory <br />action process including the need for appeal to the Fourth District <br />in order for the decision to have statewide standing. His office <br />had made their recommendation based, in part, on the fact that the <br />declaratory action would be a long, involved, and, therefore, <br />costly process. He illustrated why it was an adversarial action <br />and not just an advisory opinion. He suggested they might like to <br />set a time limit for the DOR to rule and, if they didn't rule <br />within the time limit, the Board could readdress the issue and <br />determine the action they then wished to take. <br />The Board discussed the pros and cons of the appeal process <br />and whether or not it mattered that the decision had statewide <br />standing. <br />27 <br />November 15, 1994 <br />BOOK W PAVE 7V <br />