The most contentious topic was the deliberation over the agricultural classification of Romeilia Farms, owned by Watermill Holdings. The board was tasked with deciding on a request for reconsideration of the property’s classification, which had been previously granted based on substantial evidence of ongoing agricultural activities. Attorney Anna Long and Shay Dollar, representing Watermill Holdings, raised substantial legal concerns about the reconsideration process. Long questioned the board’s authority and the legal provisions that allowed it to direct the special magistrate to amend findings. The board’s general counsel clarified their discretion under rule 12D9.030 to adopt final decisions. However, Long disagreed, asserting that alerting the magistrate to discrepancies did not equate to instructing them how to rewrite findings.

Shay Dollar highlighted procedural and evidentiary errors in the board’s approach, noting that their request for reconsideration was granted through a reweighing of evidence already presented. Dollar argued that Watermill Holdings had provided substantial evidence supporting their agricultural classification, which was initially granted following a full evidentiary hearing in 2023. She criticized the property appraiser’s decision to remove the classification, claiming it was based on assumptions and unverified claims, without a formal inspection of the property.

The board discussed comprehensive evidence presented by Watermill Holdings, including photographs, receipts for animal feed, farm equipment, and materials for pasture improvements, as well as a sworn testimony confirming an active aquaculture license as of January 1, 2025. A detailed farm plan outlined ongoing agricultural activities, emphasizing the farm’s diverse uses and continued operation. Despite the special magistrate’s recommendation affirming the agricultural use, the property appraiser’s office contested the findings, leading to a significant legal disagreement over the finality and procedural correctness of the board’s decisions.

Further complicating matters, the board faced procedural challenges with a property assessment issue presented by petitioner Kelly Grantland. She explained that the “Save Our Homes” cap had been removed from her property following her husband’s death and her subsequent return to her family home. Despite the board’s sympathy, they noted that statutory limitations prevented them from granting her the sought exemption. This highlighted the broader issue of procedural complexities and the need for improved communication and documentation for petitioners.

Board members acknowledged these procedural challenges and discussed the need for a formal document outlining the petition process. This initiative aimed to ensure that future petitioners have the necessary information to navigate the process effectively, potentially reducing procedural errors and misunderstandings.