Finding No. 1:   The Legislature should consider the creation of an appeal process at the regional or State level, but only after consideration of the other recommendations in this report and the extent to which those recommendations are adopted by the Legislature, the Department, and the various Boards.

Finding No. 2:   Some written procedures for the conduct of value adjustment board proceedings encompassing statute and rule provisions were in need of improvement.  A procedures manual required to be used by all value adjustment board clerks, board members, special masters, and the public would provide for consistent and uniform procedures Statewide for hearings before the value adjustment boards.

Finding No. 3:   To promote consistency in the conduct of petitioner hearings, consideration should be given to revising Section 194.035(1), Florida Statutes, to require that all counties use special masters. 

Finding No. 4:   Instances were noted where it appeared that attempts were made by a property appraiser to influence the decision-making process of a Board regarding the selection of special masters or the disqualification of a particular special master who has ruled against the property appraiser in past petitioner hearings.

Finding No. 5:   In circumstances where county attorneys represent both the county and the value adjustment boards, there exists the potential for bias.  

Finding No. 6:   To promote consistency and fairness Statewide among all counties, consideration should be given to providing petitioners in all counties the opportunity to have good cause hearings when warranted.  

Finding No. 7:   Written decisions of value adjustment boards and special masters were not always sufficiently detailed and in conformance with applicable statutes and rules.

Finding No. 8:   Rates of petition denial among some categories of appeal, and by some boards, appeared to be inconsistent with other categories of appeal.  

Finding No. 9:   The information pertaining to the qualifications of the special masters, included on the list of special masters compiled by the Department of Revenue pursuant to Section 194.035(1), Florida Statutes, was not verified.

Finding No. 10:   Documentation that was required to be contained in value adjustment board clerk files was sometimes missing.

Finding No. 11:   Published data as to the number of petitions filed versus the number of petitions heard by the board was not always in compliance with statutory requirements, and may be in need of statutory change.

The response can be viewed in its entirety on the Auditor General Web site.