12D-9.027. Process of Administrative Review

(1) This section sets forth the sequence of general procedural steps for administrative reviews. This order of steps applies to: the consideration of evidence, the development of conclusions, and the production of written decisions. The board or special magistrate shall follow this general sequence in order to fulfill the procedural requirements of Section 194.301, F.S. The following subsections set forth the steps for administrative reviews of:

(a) Just valuations in subsection (2);

(b) Classified use valuations, and assessed valuations of limited increase property, in subsection (3); and,

(c) Exemptions, classifications, and portability assessment transfers in subsection (4).

(2) In administrative reviews of the just valuation of property, the board or special magistrate shall follow this sequence of general procedural steps:

(a) Determine whether the property appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment, and determine whether the property appraiser’s just valuation methodology is appropriate. The presumption of correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser’s just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate.

(b)1. In administrative reviews of just valuations, if the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness, determine whether the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:

a. The property appraiser’s just valuation does not represent just value; or

b. The property appraiser’s just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property within the same county.

2. If one or both of the conditions in subparagraph (b)1. above, are determined to exist, the property appraiser’s presumption of correctness is overcome.

3. If the property appraiser does not establish a presumption of correctness, or if the presumption of correctness is overcome, the board or special magistrate shall determine whether the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices.

a. If the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or an appraiser special magistrate shall establish a revised just value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised just value, the board or special magistrate is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties.

b. If the hearing record lacks competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised just value, the board or special magistrate shall remand the assessment to the property appraiser with appropriate directions for establishing just value.

4. If the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness and that presumption of correctness is not overcome as described in subparagraph (b)1. above, the assessment stands.

(3) In administrative reviews of the classified use valuation of property or administrative reviews of the assessed valuation of limited increase property, the board or special magistrate shall follow this sequence of general procedural steps:

(a) Identify the statutory criteria that apply to the classified use valuation of the property or to the assessed valuation of limited increase property, as applicable.

(b) Determine whether the property appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment, and determine whether the property appraiser’s classified use or assessed valuation methodology is appropriate. The presumption of correctness is not established unless the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser’s valuation methodology complies with the statutory criteria that apply to the classified use valuation or assessed valuation, as applicable, of the petitioned property.

(c)1. In administrative reviews of classified use valuations, if the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness, determine whether the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:

a. The property appraiser’s classified use valuation does not represent classified use value; or

b. The property appraiser’s classified use valuation is arbitrarily based on classified use valuation practices that are different from the classified use valuation practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property of the same property classification within the same county.

2. If one or both of the conditions in subparagraph (c)1. above, are determined to exist, the property appraiser’s presumption of correctness is overcome.

3. If the property appraiser does not establish a presumption of correctness, or if the presumption of correctness is overcome, the board or special magistrate shall determine whether the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence of classified use value which cumulatively meets the statutory criteria that apply to the classified use valuation of the petitioned property.

a. If the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised classified use value, the board or an appraiser special magistrate shall establish a revised classified use value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised classified use value, the board or special magistrate is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties.

b. If the hearing record lacks competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised classified use value, the board or special magistrate shall remand the assessment to the property appraiser with appropriate directions for establishing classified use value.

4. If the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness and that presumption of correctness is not overcome as described in subparagraph (c)1. above, the assessment stands.

(d)1. In administrative reviews of assessed valuations of limited increase property, if the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness, determine whether the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:

a. The property appraiser’s assessed valuation does not represent assessed value; or

b. The property appraiser’s assessed valuation is arbitrarily based on assessed valuation practices that are different from the assessed valuation practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property within the same county.

2. If one or both of the conditions in subparagraph (d)1. above, are determined to exist, the property appraiser’s presumption of correctness is overcome.

3. If the property appraiser does not establish a presumption of correctness, or if the presumption of correctness is overcome, the board or special magistrate shall determine whether the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence of assessed value which cumulatively meets the statutory criteria that apply to the assessed valuation of the petitioned property.

a. If the hearing record contains competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised assessed value, the board or an appraiser special magistrate shall establish a revised assessed value based only upon such evidence. In establishing a revised assessed value, the board or special magistrate is not restricted to any specific value offered by one of the parties.

b. If the hearing record lacks competent, substantial evidence for establishing a revised assessed value, the board or special magistrate shall remand the assessment to the property appraiser with appropriate directions for establishing assessed value.

4. If the property appraiser establishes a presumption of correctness and that presumption of correctness is not overcome as described in subparagraph (d)1. above, the assessment stands.

(4) In administrative reviews of exemptions, classifications, and portability assessment transfers, the board or special magistrate shall follow this sequence of general procedural steps:

(a) In the case of an exemption, the board or special magistrate shall consider whether the denial was valid or invalid and shall:

1. Review the exemption denial, and compare it to the applicable statutory criteria in Section 196.193(5), F.S.,

2. Determine whether the denial was valid under Section 196.193, F.S., and

3. If the denial is found to be invalid, not give weight to the exemption denial or to any evidence supporting the basis for such denial, but shall instead proceed to dispose of the matter without further consideration in compliance with Section 194.301, F.S.,

4. If the denial is found to be valid, proceed with steps in paragraphs (b) through (g), below.

(b) Consider the admitted evidence presented by the parties.

(c) Identify the particular exemption, property classification, or portability assessment transfer issue that is the subject of the petition.

(d) Identify the statutory criteria that apply to the particular exemption, property classification, or portability assessment difference transfer that was identified as the issue under administrative review.

(e) Identify and consider the essential characteristics of the petitioned property or the property owner, as applicable, based on the statutory criteria that apply to the issue under administrative review.

(f) Identify and consider the basis used by the property appraiser in issuing the denial for the petitioned property.

(g) Determine whether the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser’s denial is incorrect and the exemption, classification, or portability assessment transfer should be granted because all of the applicable statutory criteria are satisfied. Where necessary and where the context will permit in these rules, the term “statutory criteria” includes any constitutional criteria that do not require implementation by legislation.

(5) “Standard of proof” means the level of proof needed by the board or special magistrate to reach a particular conclusion. The standard of proof that applies in administrative reviews is called “preponderance of the evidence,” which means “greater weight of the evidence.”

(6) When applied to evidence, the term “sufficient” is a test of adequacy. Sufficient evidence is admitted evidence that has enough overall weight, in terms of relevance and credibility, to legally justify a particular conclusion. A particular conclusion is justified when the overall weight of the admitted evidence meets the standard of proof that applies to the issue under consideration. The board or special magistrate must determine whether the admitted evidence is sufficiently relevant and credible to reach the standard of proof that applies to the issue under consideration. In determining whether the admitted evidence is sufficient for a particular issue under consideration, the board or special magistrate shall:

(a) Consider the relevance and credibility of the admitted evidence as a whole, regardless of which party presented the evidence;

(b) Determine the relevance and credibility, or overall weight, of the evidence;

(c) Compare the overall weight of the evidence to the standard of proof;

(d) Determine whether the overall weight of the evidence is sufficient to reach the standard of proof; and,

(e) Produce a conclusion of law based on the determination of whether the overall weight of the evidence has reached the standard of proof.

Rulemaking Authority 194.011(5), 194.034(1), 195.027(1), 213.06(1) FS. Law Implemented 193.122, 194.011, 194.015, 194.032, 194.034, 194.036, 194.037, 194.301, 195.002, 195.084, 195.096, 196.011, 196.151, 196.193, 197.122, 213.05 FS. History–New 3-30-10.