MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Fernandez, Clerk

Miami-Dade Value Adjustment Board

and

Steven Shultz, Esq.

Value Adjustment Board Attorney

FROM: Sheila M. Anderson

DATE: December 13, 2001

REF.: Improper Use Of "Range of Value(s)"

CC.: Harvey Ruvin

Clerk Of The Courts

Pursuant to the telephone discussion between Frank Fernandez and myself earlier today, I am attaching a copy of a letter sent in 2000 to the Hillsborough County Clerk Of The Court. Please note that Representative Maygarden remains a member of the Florida House of Representatives, and now serves as the Majority Leader of the House.

The reason for this communication is a Special Master's Finding of Fact/Conclusions of Law and Recommendations in which in two decisions, one master is using the following language: "The comp sales support a range of values which includes the subject assessment."

Given the constitutional mandate of "just value", the history of F.S. 194.301, the reality that "range of values" really is a term of propaganda to mislead the true meaning which is "margin of error" and "just value" does not provide for margins of error, I respectfully request that all masters be instructed of the inappropriateness of the term and decisions made within the artificial concept called "range of values".

In our experience, this margin of error, and the term of art invented to describe it, really masks the intent of some property appraisers to undermine the Value Adjustment Board process. The political activities in other parts of the state to that end may be considered a form of corrupt interference in the historical protections intended to protect taxpayers from over-taxation and the threat of confiscation.

Moreover, in practical terms, no buyer or seller ever settle on more than one, precise, exact, specific number. To assess properties within a range results in windfalls for some while others are subject to automatic and continuous tax increases. Neither the Property Appraiser nor the Value Adjustment Board have the authority to change the tax rates, yet inexact assessments create that problem.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

SA/d

Attachment: 10/24/2000 letter for Richard Ake.

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Clancy
To: Sheila Anderson

Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 11:18 AM

You are hereby designated "Watchdog For Citizen/Taxpayer's Rights" in the State of Florida!
Pete

Florida Taxpayers Coalition

October 24, 2000

The Honorable Richard Ake

Clerk Of The Court/Hillsborough County

601 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Special Master Instructions/Value Adjustment Board Hearings

Dear Mr. Ake:

It has come to our attention that Hillsborough County's written instructions to Special Masters contain references to "range of values". Kindly be advised of the following:

During 1997, Governor Lawton Chiles appointed a Governor's Task Force to review the law for purposes of correcting statewide abuses egregiously occurring under the artificial standard of evidence "any reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment". Composition of that Task Force included representatives of the Governor's office, Department of Revenue, Property Appraisers, major taxpayers, and attorneys with specific experience and expertise in ad valorem taxation.

Notably, during the course of its deliberations, the majority of Task Force members specifically considered and knowingly decided to remove references to "range of values" and/or "reasonable range of values" from the resulting text. Subsequently, as the final language proffered by the Task Force moved through the legislative process as HB 445, now in Florida law as F.S. 194.301, specific legislative intent was established upon third reading on the floor of the House, in a customary question and answer dialogue between bill sponsor Bob Starks, then Chairman of the House Finance and Tax Committee, and Jerry Maygarden, then Minority Leader of the House. A question by Mr. Maygarden asked whether "range of values" was included in the bill. The answer from Mr. Starks was "range of values" was NOT; the Florida Constitution says "just value".

Therefore, it is most unsettling to discover any references to the term of art "range of values", let alone instructions to Special Masters to rule within that highly controversial concept. Red flags occur because there are several contradictions to the constitutional mandate of "just value" and its "fair market value" interpretation.

Foremost among concerns are the specific constitutional words. "Just value" is a singular term. The reference is not to value"s".

In addition, "fair market value" - again a singular reference to "value" - refers to "a" willing buyer and "a" willing seller engaging in "an" arms length transaction. "A" but not "any", or "some" or "few" or "several", etc.

The absence of plural references consistently conveys that only one value, applied to one actual or even hypothetical property transaction, actually applies. Inherent in these distinctions is the wisdom that no two properties ever are identical, even if they look alike or appear so.

Moreover, if any property owner is overcharged even one penny in payment of their taxes, the intent of American rights is eroded. Our nation's fundamental principles require all taxpayers to be treated alike, and to have equal protections. And these presumptions established and supersede any other conditions in our national history.

The fundamental flaw of the theoretical "range of values" concept is that it becomes a stealth way to raise taxes, to do so unequally among taxpayers, and without recourse for those who might be negatively affected. Those increases change the tax rates, which then may compound. The entire concept of "just value" is undermined, constitutionally and financially. And, the separation of powers is affected because the Property Appraiser then subliminally assumes the role of County Commissions and the School Boards (through the Legislature) to set millage rates.

In fact, the universality of having Value Adjustment Board or Boards of Equalization across the United States, as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom, speaks to the need for protection of taxpayers. In Quebec, for example, it is common for 100,000 petitions or more to be filed in a cycle, illustrating their awareness of errors which occur in the taxing process.

Our legislature unanimously adopted HB 445 because of rampant abuses in Florida under the old standards which led to loss of taxpayers' rights to "just value". Significantly, in the course of Governor's Task Force and legislative deliberations leading to final adoption of F.S. 194.301, the term of art "range of values" was specifically reviewed and deliberately omitted.

Therefore, we urge you to remove immediately the inappropriately included term "range of values" from the written instructions provided to Special Masters.

Sincerely,

Sheila M. Anderson