1 2 stephen p. clark, metro dade government center … · 2015. 3. 12. · stephen p. clark, metro...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600

1

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.STEPHEN P. CLARK, METRO DADE GOVERNMENT CENTER

111 N.W. 1st Street, 2nd FloorCommission Chambers

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 @ 1:30 p.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARDINTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION

BOARD MEMBERS(Present)

Lynda Bell, ChairwomanJuan C. Zapata, Commissioner

Anibal Duarte-Viera, Citizen MemberCarlos Curbelo, School Board

VAB ATTORNEY

Steven A. Schultz, Esq.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Jorge Martinez-EsteveAssistant County Attorney

STAFF

Honorable Carlos Lopez-Cantera(Property Appraiser)

Lazaro Solis, CFE, Deputy Property AppraiserJoseph Ruiz, General Counsel,

VAB Staff

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

COMMISSIONER BELL: Good evening,

everybody. Good afternoon, everybody.

ALL: Good afternoon.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Well, I think we

should go around the room. And even

though we have our names here, everybody

just go around the room and introduce

ourselves very quickly and who we

represent for the entire group in the

room.

I'm Commissioner Lynda Bell, Vice

Chairman of the Board.

MR. DUARTE-VIERA: Anibal Duarte,

Member.

MR. CURBELO: Carlos Curbelo

representing the School Board.

MR. SCHULTZ: Steven Schultz, the

attorney for the VAB.

MR. ALFARO: Robert Alfaro, VAB

Manager.

MS. LAWHORN-SCHWALM: Value

Adjustment Board, Pamela Lawhorn-Schwalm.

MR. RUIZ: Joseph Ruiz, General

Counsel for the Property Appraiser.

MR. MARTINEZ-ESTEVE: Jorge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

Martinez-Esteve, Assistant County

Attorney.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Carlos

Lopez-Cantera, Property Appraiser.

MR. SOLIS: Lazaro Solis, Deputy

Property Appraiser.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Juan Zapata,

County Commissioner, appointment to the

Board.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Thank you.

Well, I'm going to turn it over to

the attorney to introduce the election of

a new chairperson for the VAB board. And

then once the chairperson is recognized,

then I think the chairperson should then

consider taking over from there.

MR. SCHULTZ: Commissioner, might,

for the record, introduce Commissioner

Zapata and Mr. Curbelo as new members for

the VAB -- of the VAB.

Commissioner Zapata is replacing

Commissioner Edmonson.

Commissioner Curbelo is replacing

Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall.

As you said, the first order of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

business is to elect a new chairperson for

the VAB.

Under the statutes, that chairperson

must be a county commissioner. So it's

got to be either you or Commissioner

Zapata. And I will leave it, you know,

for you to handle the election, I guess,

one way or the other.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Can I nominate

Commissioner Bell?


BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: Second.

COMMISSIONER BELL: There's a motion

and a second on the floor.

All in favor, say aye.

BOARD MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY: Aye.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Any opposed? And

the ayes carry.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

First thing, first item of business,

is a consideration and adoption of

recommendations of special magistrates as

the written decisions of the VAB for the

remaining uncertified property assessments

for the tax year 2011.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

MR. SCHULTZ: Commissioner, we needed

a resolution to be adopted verbally and

for the record. Certainly we'd want you

-- we would recommend that you adopt those

recommendations of the special magistrates

for the 2011 tax roll.


And I have a comment on that, but

let's get a motion on the floor first.

Is there a motion to consider and

adopt the recommendations of the special

magistrates?

BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: So moved.

COMMISSIONER BELL: It's been

properly moved.

Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: I'll second.


The floor is now open for discussion

on this item.

I had something brought to my

attention, I think deserves a lot of

attention, from the Property Appraiser's

Office.

Would you like to address it,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

Mr. Cantera, concerning the state law and

the state regulations requiring the VAB

and requiring that there's a basic

explanation of why someone is either

denied or granted. Would you like the

floor for that, Mr. Cantera?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Sure.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Is that the

letter? Just so I know.

COMMISSIONER BELL: It's the letter.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Is that Mr.

Reese's letter?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Yes, this is a

letter from the Office of the Property

Appraiser to Mr. Schultz, and it's

bringing up a concern and bringing

something to your attention that I believe

is probably being corrected, but I still

think it needs to be addressed.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Yes. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

As you may know, every magistrate,

when they make a finding, they act as a

judge --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Correct.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: -- in the

capacity of hearing cases brought by

property owners when they're appealing the

value of their property and then a

representative from the Office of the

Property Appraiser is there to defend the

value.

Once the determination is made, they

render a finding on what is commonly known

as a factfinding sheet.

And I believe Mr. Schultz put out a

memo earlier in the year to the

magistrates making it very clear that

statute rules and other information that

is used to render their decision needs to

be part of that sheet.

What we continue to find is several

of these magistrates ignore this and just

put very generic and nebulous statements

as far as how they arrive at their

decision. This makes our job more

difficult, because if we had the more

detailed information, it could help us,

and actually bring things to our attention

that we were not aware of before, which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

could then benefit the property owners.

I've instituted a lot of new

policies, pro property owner policies,

more customer service oriented policies.

And this would just help in that regard to

make sure property owners are getting a

fair shake when it comes to their

valuation.

We value on a per square mile basis.

It's very easy to miss details that are

submitted at the Value Adjustment Board by

individual property owners.

So, to whatever extent the Value

Adjustment Board members, which I believe

is the governing body of this

organization --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Yes.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: -- could hold the

magistrates' feet to the fire, so to

speak, in this regard, because it is the

law. And disregarding it is unlawful, I

think.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Can I just ask

a question?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

Zapata.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: I just have a

question. And if I'm not mistaken, in the

letter I've read, that it would help the

future years' appraisals and lower the

amount of folks who may be just coming

back just because that --

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Possibly.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: -- information

that was provided to you was not, I don't

know, correct?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Yes. There's

specific details on the property that are

-- that the magistrate is made aware of at

the hearing. If he or she would document

it clearly, it would help us, because

there could be things that translate to

the following year's tax rolls.

Although, you know, we're here

talking about '011. About to start '012.

And I'm initiating a lot of policies that

will hopefully shorten the timeframe by

letting property owners come in before the

Value Adjustment Board process entirely,

and just have the conversations directly

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

with the office.

We're going to be posting values

online next week, which is a full --

almost a full three months earlier than it

has ever been done before.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Okay. So how

would we go about doing that then? What's

the mechanics of -- because that makes

absolute sense to me.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Well, we have to

make sure that the magistrates are

complying with the law.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Correct.

COMMISSIONER BELL: I mean, that's

their obligation. And if they can't do

so, then we need to replace them. I mean,

it's as simple as that.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you like me to

respond?

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Please.

MR. SCHULTZ: This is not a new

problem for us. We, as you know, this

year have about 75,000 cases. Last year,

we had about 95,000. The year before that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

140,000.

Sometimes the special magistrates --

well, let me start with the fact that the

factfinding sheets are computerized.

Otherwise, if we had to have people

actually handwrite their findings of fact,

they'd never get through.

So we've got a computerized system.

The factfinding sheets have been approved

by the Department of Revenue, but there's

some that slip through the cracks.

In 75,000 cases, there's going to be

some cases where a magistrate may not put

all the details that he may be required to

do.

The clerk tells me last year, when we

had 90,000 cases, we had about 10 of these

that came back to us for further requests

for additional information to be entered

in the factfinding sheets to determine why

the magistrate ruled one way or the other.

Ten or 15 cases a year is not bad when

you're doing 90,000 cases.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Mr. Schultz, I

mean, I don't think they'd write a letter

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

over 10 cases.

MR. SCHULTZ: Well, there were 10

cases attached here.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: That were

returned, but --

MR. SCHULTZ: Some of which --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner

Zapata.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Let's let Mr.

Schultz finish and then I'll recognize

everybody around the table.

MR. SCHULTZ: Some of which we agree

with. Others we don't agree. I'm just

telling you what the past has been.

As far as the assessment roll is

concerned, each tax year stands on its

own.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: We're doing 2000 --

we're certifying today 2011. We're going

to start the 2012 tax roll very soon,

right?

If our man -- if one of these

magistrates has to furnish additional

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13

information, we will furnish additional

information as requested by the Property

Appraiser, as we've done in prior years.

That should have nothing to do with

adopting these recommendations. We can do

this at anytime and we intend to do that.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Mr. Schultz, I

don't think that -- I don't think that

that's stopping us from adopting these

recommendations. I think it's being

brought up as a valid concern. So I don't

think you need to be concerned about us

not adopting the recommendations because

of it, but that's a perfect segue into a

discussion on this, because that's the

item that's before us.

MR. SCHULTZ: Well, let me say this

as far as the future tax rolls are

concerned, if these people put more of an

explanation on their tax -- on the

factfinding sheets for the tax roll for

2011, the Property Appraiser can't really

use that for 2012. He has to make an

independent assessment for 2012,

notwithstanding what the Property

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

Appraiser -- I mean, what the special

magistrate may have ruled for a prior tax

year.

So it's really the reason for this,

is so that when somebody gets their

factfinding sheet, they can determine

whether to file suit in the circuit court

to contest whatever the valuation was.

And for that purpose, that's fine.

I mean, we have, in the past, given

them their additional information or

detail whenever they've asked and we will

continue to do that.


MR. SCHULTZ: That is our system.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Thank you. Thank

you.

But to the point, the average

homeowner, when they don't -- when they

appeal their tax, when they appeal the

valuation of their tax, their property

taxes, and it goes before you, if they get

a letter -- and, by the way, just because

you have 10 in the packet doesn't mean

that there weren't a lot more than 10 that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

were received. That's just the amount of

people that came back and responded. You

know, every one person that comes --

MR. SCHULTZ: I'm just telling you

what the past record has been.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Every one person

that comes and complains to me, I feel --

I always, in my head, say, there's

probably 100 other people that feel the

exact same way, that they're not calling

me and they're not voicing their opinion.

So just because there's 10 in the packet

doesn't mean that there's only 10. So,

you know, let me put that out there.

Also, the level of frustration that

people feel when they don't have a decent

explanation causes them to appeal their

property taxes the following year

regardless.

And so what I'm saying is, I believe

that if this is taken care of and

resolved, you won't see as many challenges

the following year, and I think that's to

Mr. Lopez-Cantera's point.

So I'm not going to defend it any

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

further, but I think we have people around

the table that would like to speak up.

Mr. Curbelo, Mr. Zapata, Mr.

Lopez-Cantera.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Thank you,

Madam Chair.

I think the idea is to implement --

COMMISSIONER BELL: The law.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: -- the

Appraiser's recommendation for future

exercises.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Right.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Meaning 2012.

So I guess my question would be, how

do we go about doing that today?

Do we have to pass an additional

resolution or can we amend a resolution

we're considering today?

MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think you

should amend anything on this. You should

adopt the recommendations as done.

If they want us to follow-up on

particular cases, we can do that, and that

should serve their purpose.

But there shouldn't be any problem

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

with the certification of the roll or the

adoption of the factfinding sheets.


BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Through the

Chair.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Mr. Curbelo, I

believe that what we can do, is we can

bring in a separate item that we can bring

up and put on the floor with a motion and

a second to make sure that this is

complied with per the letter.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: I think that

would be a good idea.

COMMISSIONER BELL: So that maybe

alleviate your concern.

MR. SCHULTZ: Incidentally, Madam

Chair, I would like you to know that we

have actually been holding meetings

individually with these special

magistrates to get them to comply better.

And we're not through with that process,

but it's been in process for a while.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Thank you. Thank

you for that.

Commissioner.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Just along

those lines, how do we implement this?

Because, obviously, I think what we're

trying to do here is raise the bar with

regards to what these magistrates and how

they're filling out these sheets, you

know. And if it's in any way -- you know,

it might be -- it might be some really bad

ones and there might be some questionable

ones, but I think sending a message to the

magistrates that this needs to be done

properly from here forward, it would be

something that's very helpful.

So, you know, we've got to make a

motion then, I guess.

COMMISSIONER BELL: We still have --

we have a motion on the floor, so we'll

take this separately at a later date.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: All right.

That's fine.

COMMISSIONER BELL: And we'll put it

under a new business category.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Okay.


Mr. Lopez-Cantera, did you want to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

speak?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Yes. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

I don't want to have this letter be

misconstrued. It's not making a

recommendation to affect the 2011

certification. It's very important

actually that the 2011 certification be

taken care of today.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Of course.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: It was -- up

until recently it was in jeopardy, but

luckily cooler heads prevailed and it will

be certified and the School Board will not

lose the 10's of millions of dollars that

they may have.

What I am suggesting is

repercussions. What I've learned in my

career in government is, if there are no

repercussions, then people are less

inclined to be concerned about a law.

I have been following the Value

Adjustment Board process for many years.

The last rewrite of the law, I sponsored

it in Tallahassee and they were all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

pro-taxpayer initiatives that I put in the

statute. Representative or former

Representative Zapata was there at the

same time. He voted on the same piece of

legislation.

What I'm trying -- what I'm striving

for, and I would hope that this body will

do, is exercise its power as the decision

maker, and not cease, as has been done

sometimes in the past, decision making

authority that you guys, as the Members of

the Board, should take yourselves.

Nothing should happen without this

Board's action or directive. And I think

in the past that may have been happening.

You know, I don't want to talk about

specifics, but I'm excited about this new

Board and what you guys will be doing for

the citizens of this community.


I'm going to make -- yes.

BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: Madam

Chair.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Yes, sir.

BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: One

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

question to the Property Appraiser.

Are you satisfied with the

factfinding form the way it is today or

would you like to see changes to it?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: The form, as it's

designed, is fine. It's the

recommendation, why the decision was made.

That is what's most important.

And the memo that you got from my

general counsel states what the statute

says as far as what it should contain.

As far as the six or seven examples

that we attached to this memo, those were

six or seven out of a sample of a couple

100. So if 2010 had only 10, I find that

very, very hard to believe, considering

what I've seen just since I've taken

office.

And, again, there are characteristics

that can translate on a property from one

year to the next or for multiple years.

BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: Sure.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: And they're

individual characteristics that only the

property owner may know and may bring to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

the attention of the magistrate when

they're appealing their value. That's why

they're appealing their value, because

they're not satisfied.

My goal is to make sure -- to get

people's values where they should be as

soon as possible. Try and do everything

possible to shorten this time frame, which

historically can take from 12 to

16 months. That is unacceptable, as far

as I'm concerned. And that's why we're

going to be bending over backwards to make

it easier for property owners to get their

answer sooner, and hopefully even before

the TRIM notice goes out, so there's even

no need to file an appeal.

BOARD MEMBER DUARTE-VIERA: Sure.

Thank you.


Let's do this. If all hearts are

clear on this item, let's have -- we'll

work on a piece of legislation to bring

back at the next VAB. We'll reconvene

sooner rather than later, so that we can

vote on the recommendation on how to deal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

with the magistrates who don't properly

comply. So let's do that rather than try

to concoct a piece of legislation right

now.

We'll work on that and then we'll

bring it back at the next VAB meeting to

be voted on and we'll put that right on

the top of the agenda.

Is that okay with everybody here?

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Yes. Thank

you, Madam Chair.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Yes, that

works.

COMMISSIONER BELL: That's fine?

Okay. Perfect.

Are there anymore comments or

questions on Item II?

Seeing none, we are voting on the

consideration and adoption of

recommendations of the special magistrates

as written decisions of the VAB for the

remaining uncertified property

assessments, the folios, for tax year

2011.

It's been properly moved and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

seconded. All in favor, say aye.


COMMISSIONER BELL: Any opposed?

The item carries. Thank you.

Next item is the final certification

of the 2011 tax rolls. That's as to all

assessments initially certified on an

unadjusted basis on October 7, 2011, and

for which hearings were held and special

magistrates' recommendations submitted

prior to May 22, 2013.

Is there a motion for -- yes, yes,

ma'am.

MR. ALFARO: The certificates.

COMMISSIONER BELL: The certificates.

Thank you.

MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, I would

recommend that you adopt the resolution

and then sign it.


Is there a motion for adoption?


COMMISSIONER BELL: Is there a

second?

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: I'll second it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

COMMISSIONER BELL: Any discussion on

these items?



COMMISSIONER BELL: Any opposed? The

item carries. Thank you.

Now, such other business as may

properly come before the Board. Is there

any comments or questions before I take

the floor back?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, the tax impact

statement. The clerk has prepared a tax

impact statement for the tax year 2011,

which, under the rules, have to be

published. He's passing them out now.

We'd like you to approve that and permit

the clerk to publish it as required by

law.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Are you giving

everybody a copy, to the Board members.

We'll need to make sure that this is

corrected to substitute Carlos Curbelo

from the School Board.

MR. ALFARO: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Mr. Attorney,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

would you like to give us an explanation

of the tax impact of the value?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, the reduction in

County taxable value due to the VAB

actions are 4 billion -- at the bottom,

4,644,444,080. That translates to a shift

in taxes, reduction in taxes, of

94,768,339.00.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Any other

comments?

Is there a motion to approve?


COMMISSIONER BELL: The item has been

properly moved.

Is there a second? A second?

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Second.

COMMISSIONER BELL: It's been

seconded.

Any comments on the summary of this

year's actions on this report?

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: I have a

question. Is this kind of average?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Go ahead,

Commissioner Zapata, you have the floor.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Is this kind of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

average, these numbers or --

MR. SCHULTZ: As far as I know it is.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: I mean, the 94

million?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Mr.

Lopez-Cantera, the floor.

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: As a matter of

fact, it's not. In 2009, it was 200

million in reduction in refund of taxes to

property owners.

And then with the 90,000 appeals of

'010 lowers about 5 or 6 billion in value

reduction. So, you know, assess 2% to

that. And then with this reduction of

4.6 billion, the 2% of that.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Can you kind

of, more or less, estimate based on the

amount of folks who will appeal their --

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: My calculations

show that 50% -- approximately 50% of

those who appeal are successful.

And if you recall the legislation

that was submitted a couple years back as

far as the 75% prepayment, that 75% was

arrived at, because there was an analysis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

done of what the average reduction in

valuation. And the average reduction

statewide is 25%. That's how that 75% was

applied.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: And that

applies to Dade County, the 25%?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: It was a

statewide average.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: You know, in

Tallahassee, they always say we're kind of

a little different here, so...

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: We definitely

have more appeals than anywhere in the

state. We take longer than anywhere in

the state.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: But the

adjustment is more or less the same, you

think?

MR. LOPEZ-CANTERA: Since we're the

majority, if that analysis was based on

what actually happened, I would have

argued that it's probably consistent.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Thank you.


Any further questions? Comments?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

All in favor of supporting the tax

impact of Value Adjustment Board, say aye?


COMMISSIONER BELL: Any opposed?

And the item carries.

Any other business from the Board

before I speak? I'll speak last.

Thank you.

As we convene for this first time, if

you will, we have new Board members. And

being fairly new to this myself, I thought

I would take a look at the state statutory

requirements and review them in dealing

with the VAB, special VAB of Miami-Dade

County. And I've been listening to

commentary from others on how to conduct

ourselves.

And so I think that I have an item I

would like to bring up. And as a member

of the VAB, it's very, very important that

we have transparency in all of our

processes.

So we have a role here, and our role

as stewards of the public's business

requires no less.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

So the first step, and this is not

personal, this is purely business, I move

that Mr. Schultz, the legal counsel for

the Board, provide a copy of the retainer

agreement or a written summary of any oral

agreements under which you provide

services to the Board, including dates,

terms and amendments. And we'd like to

have that within 30 days.

And, secondly, I move that the Clerk

of the Board or his designee be directed

to prepare for this Board's review an RFP

or an RFQ for the future procurement of

legal counsel for this Board, which Mr.

Schultz is more than welcome to also

participate.

And this RFQ or RFP should include a

proposed retainer agreement to commence

upon the conclusion of any existing

retainer, scope of services and hourly

rate.

In the air of transparency, I'm

understanding that we have not done that

in decades and decades. We've not gone

out to bid. We've not -- we don't have

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

any itemized -- it's my understanding we

don't have any itemization.

So, in this air of transparency, with

many of us new, this is what I move.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Second.

COMMISSIONER BELL: There's a second.

Any comments or questions on what I

have moved before us or put on the floor,

put on the table?



COMMISSIONER BELL: Any opposed? And

the ayes carry. Thank you very much.

Any further comments? Thank you.

BOARD MEMBER CURBELO: Move to

adjourn.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Move to adjourn.

And that's always in order.

And there's a second from

Commissioner Zapata.

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Thank you very

much for your service and your time.

(Thereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the meeting

was adjourned).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, Lorena Ramos, National Registered

Professional Reporter and Florida Professional

Reporter, do hereby certify that I was

authorized to and did report the foregoing

proceeding, and that the transcript, pages 1

through 31, is a true and correct record of my

stenographic notes.

DATED this 30th day of May 2013, at

Miami-Dade County, Florida.

_____________________________

LORENA RAMOS, RPR & FPR

COURT REPORTER

1 2 stephen p. clark, metro dade government center … · 2015. 3. 12. · stephen p. clark, metro...

Documents