A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the potential increase in the maximum allowable filing fee for petitions, which has risen from $15 to $50 under new legislation. The board engaged in a conversation about the implications of raising the fee, considering both the financial burden on petitioners and the operational costs of the board, such as the compensation of special magistrates who conduct hearings. Concerns were raised that a higher fee might deter individuals from filing petitions, although some argued that it could encourage more serious applications and reduce the number of no-shows. Ultimately, the board unanimously decided to maintain the $15 fee until further discussions could clarify the budget and ensure the board’s operations are not disrupted.

In conjunction with the filing fee discussion, the board addressed the adoption of electronic hearing procedures. A recommendation was made to formalize local procedures that support electronic attendance for petitioners. Having conducted electronic hearings particularly during the pandemic, the board anticipated minimal logistical changes. A motion to accept these procedures was unanimously passed, aligning with new legislative requirements.

Training for board members emerged as a topic, with concerns voiced about the lack of mandatory training for members compared to the obligatory training for magistrates. The speaker highlighted past challenges, particularly a case where a petition was sent back to the magistrate for further review after significant testimony, drawing scrutiny for procedural missteps. The need for a structured onboarding packet and collaboration with the Department of Revenue to create a tailored training program were proposed to enhance the board’s effectiveness and ensure members are well-informed about their roles and limitations.

The meeting also brought attention to the board’s independence from the property appraiser and tax collector, emphasizing restrictions on ex parte communications. A specific case from the previous year was discussed, where the board faced challenges after a magistrate denied a petition for reduction. The incident led to a lawsuit to protect petitioners’ constitutional rights, highlighting procedural issues such as the lack of cross-examination opportunities.

Dana Blakeley, representing the Brevard County Property Appraiser, addressed the board to emphasize the importance of a fair process for all petitioners. She reiterated that property owners have year-round access to communicate with the property appraiser and that many disputes are resolved informally before reaching the VAB. Blakeley underscored that the appraiser’s budget is not dependent on appraisals and that the process is intended to be collaborative.

The board also considered the adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order to formalize meeting processes, particularly to address tie votes by deferring the decision to the chair. This motion was approved unanimously.

Discussion of the board’s tentative schedule for upcoming hearings highlighted a focus on exemptions in the initial weeks, with clarification that any fee changes would not impact current petitions. The approval of good cause decisions for late petitions and rescheduling, traditionally managed by the VAB council and clerk, continued as standard practice through unanimous motions.