Laserfiche WebLink
L REFERENCE MATERIAL INCLUDED: <br />D. Original Special Magistrate Recommended Decision for Petitions 2013-001 up to <br />and including 2013-008 dated 12-16-2013 19-21 <br />E. Letter of Objection from Petitioner's Attorney <br />F. Letter of Response from VAB Attorney <br />22-28 <br />29-33 <br />VAB Clerk Suesz explained the recommendations had identical text and only one <br />recommendation was submitted to the Board for review. The difference in each recommendation <br />was the petition number, the parcel number, and the values. <br />VAB Attorney Hancock suggested that the VAB consider a second hearing on these <br />Petitions by an Attorney Special Magistrate, as suggested by the Florida Department of Revenue <br />(DOR), and the Petitioners' Attorney Julie Zahniser in their emails addressed to him that were <br />forwarded to the VAB. <br />He believed the VAB took proper action at the last meeting based on the rules. However, <br />he said that the DOR's position is when in doubt send it back to the Special Magistrate for a <br />second hearing. He suggested that the VAB take action on the direction of DOR, and consider <br />sending it back to the Alternate Attorney Special Magistrate. He did not believe that the <br />Attorney Special Magistrate could act fairly and impartially at this point, since she had been <br />copied on some emails from the Petitioner's Attorney Julie Zahniser. He explained that this <br />action will give the Alternate Attorney Special Magistrate the opportunity to consider evidence <br />that has already been submitted, as well as additional evidence and testimony. He was open to <br />questions from the VAB. <br />Chairman Davis inquired if the other option was that this matter be taken to circuit court, <br />and the VAB Attorney Hancock explained that that option was available regardless of what <br />action was taken by the VAB. <br />Chairman Davis believed that we owed it to the Petitioner, as well as the Municipalities, <br />to try to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. He opined that a different Special Magistrate <br />was not going to change the Board's opinion as to what they reviewed at the last meeting, but he <br />did want to do what was appropriate according to the DOR rules. <br />VAB SECOND FINAL MEETING Page - 3 - <br />FEBRUARY 6, 2014 <br />