Good day. I'd like to call to order this 2020, the Value Adjustment Board meeting for Thursday, September 16, 2026. And we will start with introductions. I'll make the excusals after the introductions, but we'll start with introductions to my left. Oh, good morning, everyone. My name is Charlotte Joyce, and I'm school board member for District 6. Good morning. Rockman Johnson, City Council, District 14, representing Jacksonville City Council. Good morning. I'm Shirley Dasher. I'm the citizen-appointed council board member. And I'd also like to recognize our chair. I am the temporary chair for this meeting. Our chair, Will Lehnen, is unable to be here today. His absence is excused. Also, the school board-appointed citizen member, Dominic Cummings, has also been granted an excused absence. So it's just us three here today. And we'll continue down on the other side. Heather Pellegrin, Chief of Value Adjustment Board. Jason Teal, Council Secretary and VAB Clerk. Aaron Thalwitzer, Board Legal Counsel. Thank you very much. And we will be going according to the agenda with the orders of business that are there. I'll entertain a motion for... By the way, please forgive me. I did not recognize, and I know since she's in the audience, we should... The property appraiser, elected property appraiser, Joyce Morgan, is here in the audience. And her team. Thank you. And former member of the City Council, I should say that. All right. Let's move forward. The order of business, entertain a motion for the approval of the February 12th monthly meeting minutes. It's been moved in second that we approve the meeting minutes. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. You guys have it. Thank you. And we'll move forward into public comment. We have several public comment cards. If there are needs for public comment at the end, we will go back. But at this time, I will start public comments with Tiffany... I believe the last name is Pinkstaff. Tiffany Pinkstaff. Thank you. Good day. I'm Tiffany Pinkstaff. I'm with the Office of General Counsel, and I'm the attorney for the property appraiser. We recognize that today's agenda is quite lengthy and is asking a lot of you guys to do some work, and that's in part because of our deferral requests. So, Mrs. Morgan and I just wanted to have an opportunity to just kind of give you a preview with regard to the petitions that were filed by my exemption check. This is a... The scenario is this. You purchased a home in 2025 from an owner that claimed homestead. During the closing, amongst all the other documents, you signed a letter of authorization stating that the previous homeowner can go and petition the just value of the property for the 2025 tax year in your name. The letter of authorization does not specify that, in fact, what you're authorizing them to do is to go and petition to increase the just value of the home. The seller then petitions the VAB under your name to increase for purposes of increasing their portability to their new homestead. Our office believes that the petitioners do not have legal standing to request an increase in market value because they're not the current owner of the property, and they're not the person that's responsible for payment of that year's taxes. So, in this instance, the 2025 taxes. We're asking the board to consider a policy that was adopted by the Miami-Dade VAB board back in 2021, where VAB petitioners who are requesting an increase in market value must be the current owner of the subject property, not only on the date of the filing of the petition, but also on the date of the hearing. And basically, that obtaining written authorization from the new property owner allowing the previous owner to file a VAB petition or to move forward on a previously filed petition does not cure the situation. The DOR has already issued two opinions directly on point on this. One is in March of 2017. The other is in May of 2021. This is in your materials that you received in preparation for today's meeting. Basically, the DOR has found that, A, there's no legal basis for a nonowner to continue to maintain a petition on property that they don't currently own. And two, a previous homestead owner cannot get written permission from the current owner, allowing them to file a petition for portability purposes. So, normally, we would ask the VAB if they were uncomfortable adopting a policy or denying a petition. You know, maybe you should go to the Florida Department of Revenue and ask for an opinion on this. Here, we take the position that that's actually not necessary because there's already two opinions on point as contained in your materials. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Honorable Joyce Morgan. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and good morning to our VAB participants and to our staff. Good morning to each of you. It's always good to be back here in the chambers. So, I want to continue what our attorney just talked about, just shedding a little light on this situation from the perspective of property owners, as she said. And please keep in mind that this absolutely has no value to my office and to my staff. These petitions are not brought by the current owners, and that is what we're talking about today, as the petition is actually paid for by the former owner. There is a letter of authorization, and I do have that letter that is being used by my exemption check, and you might have it in some of the information that you have there. But there is a letter of authorization that's signed by the current owner. But this letter is very vague, and it does not specify that the previous owner is actually seeking an increase, which could result in the current owner of the property, not the prior owner, having to pay more taxes. Last but not least, regarding the properties with renovations, that additional value has only been reflected in the just value. The special magistrate did not change the assessed value, which should have gone up over the cap, which would result in taxes. So again, not speaking for value to our office at all, but just speaking about the current owners. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Morgan. And before we move forward, I do have a question. I think I am in the right posture to do this. Based on what they said to Mr. Thalitzer, is there some kind of action that you recommend that is taken by the board or requested opinion? So, let me just say directly, I generally agree with their legal position. I think they're correct, and that's been the case for at least a few years in Florida. However, I'm familiar with the Miami-Dade memo issued by their attorney. The board could ask me to issue a similar memo, just advising what my legal opinion is, and the board could adopt that and make it sort of a formal legal opinion of the board. If they're asking for more of a local procedure and across the board, something that the clerk essentially would administer, because that's what, practically speaking, would happen, I don't think that's proper. The board has authority to adopt local procedures, but those are more within the discretion, sort of in between the rules, if that makes sense, fleshing out the details of more procedural matters. I don't think it's quite proper for the board to have an across-the-board procedure on a case like this. Really, it comes down to a case-by-case legal issue. When it comes up, and it does pretty much every year, the magistrates should deal with that accordingly, pursuant to the law. And like I said, I generally agree with their position. It's not that I take issue with. So, I'm happy to do that. I can say that it's, since I've been counseled starting last year, it's come up a handful of times at least. I've more or less forwarded the same opinion each time the question's been asked, consistent, again, with the position they're taking. And I'm happy to make that more of a formal thing. I don't think I've issued a formal memo saying that. But beyond that, I don't think it would be quite proper and probably not necessary either. Thank you. Thank you for that. I was going to ask you to the clerk, do you have an opinion or where do you think we should fall here? To the chair, if I could. Please. I'd like to ask Mr. Thalwitzer a question. Mr. Thalwitzer, would it be more appropriate for that type of a procedural analysis to be done at the property appraiser's office on the intake of these types of applications? And in essence, they would deny on the procedural ground that the person asserting the petition doesn't have standing to do it. Now, obviously, that would still come to the VAB, but it would be on a case-by-case basis because they would appeal it to the VAB. But is that really more of where this type of an analysis would need to happen, as it's kind of on the front end with the property appraiser's office? I think that would be within their discretion to, I suppose, reject an application on a standing basis. It's not the right person filing it or entity. So, yes, that I think would be within their discretion. That's outside of the board's purview. Like counsel said, it could still come before the board if or when they appeal that rejection or denial. So, it may not make much difference to the board in that case. But again, I really think this is an important issue. But I don't think it would be quite proper to have a local procedure, which is really the only thing that it could be other than just a standing guidance from counsel that the board has formally adopted. I think the distinction I'm going to make there, if it's a local procedure, that is a defined thing within Chapter 12D9. Those are limited in scope in terms of what the board's allowed to do. Obviously, board counsel can issue legal opinions. That's one of the primary responsibilities and duties of the job. So, I would favor that. According, Mr. Thalwitzer, according to, and I'm not going to prolong this, and I do just have a question for Ms. Pinkstaff and Ms. Morgan, but according to the memo about Rule 12D9, it says that the subject decisions do not comply with that rule. That was one of the things that was stated in the memo that Ms. Pinkstaff provided. So, that's why I just want to make sure that we are doing what we can do to make sure that people's needs are heard as well, but also that we're following the law. So, where it comes up, I guess, on a practical level, and sometimes it can lead to results that, on a policy basis, one person might not agree with. So, there's a few different things that can happen. If a petition is filed by the current owner, and that current owner remains the owner on the day of the VAB hearing, that's really the end of the analysis. That's a proper, that's proper as far as standing is concerned. The underlying purpose of that petition, maybe it's not to the current owner's benefit. They may be seeking, but frankly, that's not the VAB's concern. In this, if the just, whatever the just value is, is what it is, and what the VAB, I think, it should be concerned with, and really all that the VAB can be concerned with, is whether standing is proper on those two dates, and I do agree that those are, it does have, they do have to have standing on both those dates. Mere authorization, in my opinion, is not enough. A letter saying, you can file it, no. But if it's filed in the current owner's name, that's really the end of the analysis, unless it's found to be fraudulent or something, but we're not really getting into that. Understood. Ms. Morgan, Ms. Pinkstaff, and I know this is a little bit improper, but I wanted to ask someone from your team, is there a recommendation that you have specifically, obviously reading your memo, based on what you've heard from the council and the clerk, is there a recommendation, or is there something we need to maybe meet with offline to come up with some substantive thing that we can do to make sure that we're working properly? Thank you for the question. I understand Mr. Thalwitzer's position as well, I think. Where the confusion, I think, might be coming in is that it's my understanding that when you file a petition, I guess electronically, the petition is auto-populated in some regards from the CAMA system that the property appraiser maintains. So if my exemption check files a petition on behalf of previous owner, the petitioner will be auto-populated with the current owner. So on its face, it looks like the current owner is the petitioner, but in fact, the current owner is not the petitioner. It's the former owner, represented by my exemption check by virtue of this letter of authorization, which is not legal. So that's, I think that's where part of the problem comes in, because we did challenge in advance, or we tried to challenge in advance, these petitions going forward before they were even set for hearing, but that request was denied. So then we went back and said, well, can we have a hearing with both an attorney magistrate and a special magistrate then, because now we have a legal question, and usually these would only be before a special magistrate on the actual valuation issue. And we were denied that request because technically, and I think Mr. Thalwitzer is right, there's nothing in the rules or the statute that says that an attorney magistrate would hear this issue of standing or jurisdiction, if you will. So both of those avenues were not possible for us. And so that's why we've come and said, well, Miami-Dade has this policy where basically they're not setting for hearing these petitions that are in fact filed on behalf of prior owners to increase value. That was really what we were recommending that the board consider, so that in the future we wouldn't kind of have this sort of, you know, cart before the horse issue where the petitioner reflects that it's the current owner, but it's not. Gotcha. Understood. Is there any, I know, Heather, you wanted to out or recognize you, and also if there's anything from the board members. Okay. Ms. Bogren? So we are okay with maybe getting together, proposing something. However, this is more of a discussion for the organizational meeting to kick off the year. We're at the end now. I agree there are issues, but I think that it should start next year in the 2026 year, and when we meet in August, whoever's on the board, this can be something we can maybe try and figure out together and go forward that way. I was just going to, thank you for bringing that up, Ms. Pellegrint. I was just going to say, while it was an interesting question, we're obviously at the end of this year, and with all due respect, I don't think we should wait until August. Whoever's going to be on the board, whether I'm back or not, I believe that's in the essence of continuity so that things are done. If you could get together with the property appraisers team and maybe find something to make a recommendation so that Mr. Thalwitzer and Mr. Thiel, everybody can kind of look at it, tear it apart, put it together, and make sure it works. So, thanks for the discussion, and I think that we found something, yeah, that's a good solution. Moving forward, we are at item number three on the agenda, which is the deferral requests from petitioners. None have been received, so we can move on to item four. Item four are the deferral requests. There are 38 petitions total. The lists are in the agenda, and the representatives for various property owners is on well with that list. I believe I need to move to entertain a motion to accept the list. Mr. Thiel? I apologize, Mr. Chair. Going back to item number two, was those the only two public comment cards that you received? That's all I saw. Are there more somewhere? No, no, no. I just wanted you to confirm that there were. Oh, yes, yes. That is all the public comment cards that have been received. Thank you, sir. And, you know, Mr. Thiel, just to make sure, I will ask again at the end of the meeting. So, on to item number four. I believe, please correct me if I'm in the right posture, if I'm not in the right posture, that we need to have a motion to accept the deferral requests, I think. Mr. Thalwitzer, did you want to weigh in on that? These are essentially new requests that have already been received and briefed. It was done on an expedited basis, so we could get them at least before the board for this meeting. It's up to the board, but I would suggest maybe the property appraiser would like to present on these briefly. Thank you for that. Up to them, of course. Madam Property Appraiser, do you have any presentation, you or your team, any presentation based on the deferral requests? Again, Tiffany Pinkstaff, Office of General Counsel for the Property Appraiser. These deferral requests are in regard to what we consider to be inconsistent decisions that were rendered for similarly situated properties where the same special magistrate found that the property appraiser lost the presumption of correctness without any findings that actually supported that conclusion. We recognize, by the way, that I know we've put a burden on the Value Adjustment Board in requesting the deferral of 38 petitions, but it's all the same exact issue. We're concerned not so much about the actual valuation changes themselves because they're pretty much de minimis. What we're concerned about is a more systemic issue with regard to these arbitrary value reductions for this one particular special magistrate. Basically, there were 151 petitions that were filed by this tax rep, Own Well, Inc., on behalf of 150 different property owners, right, and different properties. And of those 151, let's see, it was 57 properties, the petitions were granted, the remainder were denied. We are only challenging 38 of those 57 based upon how the decisions were actually rendered. Florida Administrative Code states that for each petition, special magistrates shall produce a written recommended decision that contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for upholding or overturning the property appraiser's determination. Conclusions of law must be based on findings of fact. For each of the statutory criteria for the issue under administrative review, findings of fact must identify the corresponding admitted evidence or lack thereof. Each recommended decision shall contain sufficient factual and legal information and reasoning to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision and shall otherwise meet the requirements of law. We laid out in our memorandum to the board various examples. One of the main examples is this idea that we didn't meet the presumption of correctness because we didn't consider present cash value, but the magistrate doesn't in any way explain how by a preponderance of the evidence we didn't meet the presumption of correctness or why or, you know, what the factual basis was for us not considering present cash value. And generally speaking, you know, considering it is not the same thing as having to do an entire, you know, workup of it. You can consider that while the property wasn't sold in the previous year and therefore present cash value isn't the appropriate standard, instead we're looking at comps for market value as a substitute for present cash value. So basically it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but we're stating that these decisions were improperly issued, that they're invalid under the law, and so we would ask that the petitions be denied. So at this point, I do think, though, when we come back, my question is, I'm assuming that this would be a final decision made on the meeting at the 14th? At the meeting on the 14th? Is that correct? I defer to the clerk. If we defer this, and maybe it's to the clerk or Mr. Thalitzer, if we defer this today based on the recommendation that's made from your office, does this mean that they would come back with a, since it's deferred, not denied, that they would have a final recommendation for the meeting on the 14th? I think that it could cause delays, is why we tried to get it before the board today. Understanding that it's not an ideal, the timing's not ideal, but the board does have both sides' positions, their briefs, so the board can take these up today. If the board would like to defer it, the board can. We'd need to have them taken up at a subsequent meeting, though. All right, I'm looking at the memo that, your February 18th memo, that says that you recommend, was that deferral for the previous meeting? Yeah, that's the previously deferred ones. Understood. That was just a hand, I think three of them, maybe. Understood. Mr. Thiel, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to remind the board that we're required to be finished with this year by June 1st, and so there's one meeting between now, and it's the May 14th meeting, but everything has to be wrapped up by June 1st. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So, since it was previously deferred, I will certainly entertain motions from the other members of the board if there are any statements you have. Please, you're recognized. Ms. Pinkstaff, from what I read, it seems that this magistrate utilizes the property appraiser system sometimes and then sometimes not. That's accurate, yes. Okay, because that seems to be a problem. It does. Yes, especially if it's with just one magistrate, so that's something I guess we can take up later. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Thalwater, you're recognized. Just a suggestion. It's, of course, the board's discretion, but in my opinion, the recommended decisions were probably legally compliant. It's arguable. For that reason, I don't like arguable. I'd rather it be clearly compliant, leave no doubt. My suggestion would be to remand the decisions back to the special magistrate, basically to further develop his findings. And wherever that leads, the outcome is where it leads it. If it changes the outcome, that's fine. If not, that's also fine, as long as he basically supports his conclusions with analysis based on the evidence. That is my suggestion to the board. Thank you. Mr. Thalwater, you have something to add? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to confirm that I just checked with Ms. Pellegrin, and there is sufficient time to do that and still meet the June 1st deadline. So that is something that I think is within the board's ability to still meet the required statutory deadlines. I will accept, I'll entertain a motion if there's one. So Ms. Joyce has, Chair Joyce has moved to remand this back to the special magistrate. But I want to add, I don't know that it's proper for me to add, but I want to make sure that it's on the record that it will be done, that we will have that back by the May 14th meeting, for the May 14th meeting. All right. All in favor, please respond by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. All right, the ayes have it, and we can move forward. Thank you. Mr. Chair, on that, if we could just clarify, you're required to give directions to the magistrate. So the purpose of the remand is to further develop the order in order to articulate the necessary requirements under the factual basis for the support of the decision as required by the Florida statute. So that would be the directions back to the magistrate. I would, as the clerk has said to the magistrate, please ensure that we are flushing out those decisions that are made, and based on what Mr. Thalwitzer said, which you can review on the meeting, but ensuring that we do have a definitive answer, number one. And number two, it should be able to be on the May 14th agenda of the value adjustment board meeting so that we can stay within compliance and have everything done by the June 1st deadline. Does that work? Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All right, let's move on to item number five, which are the previously deferred recommended decisions. And I just want to make sure I'm in the right posture. With this, I need to go through each of the, we need to accept the ones that are on the spreadsheet, or do we go through each action item? What is the... Each action item. These should be basically dealt with the same as the previous one. These are, yeah, in brief. We will run through the action items, starting with, again, item number five. The first one is 2025-277, which is the Property Tax Alliance Group. It is a previously deferred decision, and I think I need to have a motion. Am I correct, Mr. Thalwood, sir, to accept the recommendation? This is basically before the board for a decision on the property appraiser's request. So, again, if the property appraiser wishes to present, this would be their opportunity, and then the board would have the decision. Thank you. For 2025-277 to the property appraiser's office, is there a presentation on this parcel? For this issue. Tiffany Pinkstaff, OGC, on behalf of the property appraiser. No, Mr. Chair, we are in agreement with Mr. Thalwood, sir's recommendation to the board on this particular petition, 277. If I'm not mistaken, it is... The recommended decision is for it to be granted, so I need a motion from the board to the... Yes, Mr. Thalwood. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I think you want to at least ask if there's a representative from the Property Tax Alliance Group in order to be able to give them an opportunity to respond to the property appraiser. Thank you for giving me your right posture. Is there someone here from the Property Tax Alliance Group? A representative going once, going twice? No one here from that group? So at this point, I believe I can entertain a motion to accept the recommendation. Moved and seconded that we accept the recommendation for number 277. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? There are none, and the ayes have it, so we're moving on. Our next one is 2025-972. Is there... This is from my exemption check. Is there a presentation from the Property Appraisers Office? Mr. Chair, we've already done the presentation for the my exemption check. This is the one that you were going to go ahead and grant the petitions for the 2025 tax year that are the subject of our deferral request, and then readdress this in the fall at the organizational meeting. Thank you for that. Mr. Thalwood, sir, are we able to take all these, since they're all with at least the ones 972 through 999? Can we do them en masse? Yes. You don't need to list out the numbers. Cool. All right. So clearly they're printed on the agenda, so from 2025-972 to 982, which are all with... I can only do the ones with my exemption check en masse, correct? No, you can do more than that. I would suggest going from 972 through 150017. Okay. We recognize them as program. So 972 through 982, 999, and 15017 are all together. 15011 is a part of them as well. However, they are on a separate list, which is notated on your agenda for nonpayment of taxes, so that decision cannot be approved. Understood. But they are all the same petitioner. But we can still... But you can do it in bulk. Just list those numbers that I just stated. Right. Minus 15001. Those can be a blanket approval. That's fine. All right. So I will take up that one separately. Thanks for the recommendation. And, of course, 15017 would also then be separate as well, correct? Thank you. I'm sorry. Gotcha. Mr. Thiel? And then, Mr. Chair, what you want to do is to see if there's anyone here from my exemption check or Stephen Buckel or Steve Goldwasser. Okay. They're all the same, but they file under different names. But the check... I'll still ask... Yeah. Ask anyway publicly. So is there anyone that wants to present from my exemption check as it relates to those parcels? And I just feel... I think I'd feel more comfortable just making sure. 2025 972, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 99, 2025 15001, and 2025 15017. I can't do those together. Just... I have to stop at 99? You have to skip 15001. That's right. My apologies. I got it noted here and I skipped it. All right. So, 77 through 99 and 2025 15017. All right. Is there anyone here for my exemption check again? Okay. Is anyone... Steve Buckel, Casey Buckel? And that's a separate one, so forgive me for that. Next one. Steve Goldwasser. Okay. I'll accept a recommendation from the board. It's been moved and seconded. The petition numbers of the recommendations, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. The ayes have it, and we can move forward. Our next item is 2025 15001. Property appraiser, do you have a presentation on this particular matter? The next two are the identical issue with regard to exemption shots. I think I need to put them on the record. Am I correct in that? Going in this way? Yes, separately. Okay. Thank you. And Steve... Casey Buckel. No Casey Buckel. All right. And can I combine those two? Okay. So, and the other one was 2025 15017. I'm assuming the same. You can just nod from the property appraiser's office. I'm assuming there's no presentation on that one either, because we're dealing with the same thing. So, and they did affirm that. Steve Goldwasser, are you here? No. Okay. We're moving forward. I'll entertain a motion to accept the recommendation. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. All opposed, which are none, and the ayes have it. All right. We've gotten through the previously deferred recommendation, recommended decisions. Item number six is the consideration of the special magistrate recommended decisions. There are a list of those recommended decisions. I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, and I'll recognize you, Ms. Pellegrin, that we can take them en masse if you could give us some instructions. Yes, your motion should be to approve all petitions, all recommended decisions on the spreadsheet, minus petition 277, and the 38 own well petitions that you previously took up. Previously deferred. Removed and seconded. All in favor, respond by saying aye. Aye. Okay. The ayes have it. And we're on to item number seven. This one is mandatory. It's mandatory denial by April 2026 of non-finalized petitions for delinquent taxes. Could you give an explanation of that, Mr. Thalwood, sir? And then we'll move forward into that. Yes. Thank you. Basically, the law requires the board to deny these petitions if they don't timely pay a reasonable amount of property taxes by April. I believe it's April 1st, and we have to deny it by April 20th, and that's the case with these. So I do recommend denying each of the listed petitions. Mr. Thalwood, sir, and Mr. Teal, am I able to do this en masse or by law do I need to do each one? En masse is fine. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. So this will be the VAB petitions that are on record, which is 2025, 1383, 1561, 1574, 1872, 2051, 2007, 2783, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, 2789, 2791, 2792, 2793, 2025, 4367, 2025, 1-5001, and 2025, 1-5001. 1-5001, and 2025, 1-5003, and I will entertain a motion to deny these. It's been moved and seconded to deny these mandatorily. All in favor, say aye. Aye. And the ayes have it. So we can move on to other business. Proposed amendments to Chapter 120. I know I had some questions about this. If, Mr. Teal, you could give us an update on this administrative code update information. I know there were some things that came through, so I reached out to you, Mr. Teal, and Mr. Thalwood, sir, whichever one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've asked Mr. Thalwood, sir, to prepare a short summary of the changes at the state level, and so he's done that, and he can give you a little synopsis. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. This, I think, is the last item in the agenda packet, my short memo. There were a handful of changes. I'll just go through the highlights. I'm happy to take questions. If there's any, 12D9.001 basically updates some terminology, includes some updated cross-references, clarifies taxpayer rights. 12D9.013, it really just conforms the rule to the statutory increase in the max filing fee that we're all quite familiar with. 12D9.014 updated the pre-hearing checklist requirements, including the new electronic hearing legislation. Requires the clerk to ensure that the board has the appropriate communication equipment to enable it. Updates the petition form, 9.015, to a maximum of the $50 filing fee. There's updates to the notice of hearing. Again, this is really just to conform to the electronic hearing requirements. Evidence exchange rules, another update to conform to the changes in the evidence exchange statute. 9.025, it's really a pretty technical change on that one. It clarifies when the procedures, when a petition's amended or when recommended value differs from what's stated in the petition. 9.026, again, it conforms the rule to the new remote hearing requirements. And then 16.002 is just the index to forms. It really just conforms that to the changes in the forms and some new forms. So really this just brings the rules up to speed with last year's legislation changes. Thank you for that explanation. And Mr. Teal, I must say on the record, I appreciate your explanation to me because it was a little confusing when I saw the emails coming through from the state. Are there any questions from the other board members about that? I think it was a good explanation. You're good? We're good? Okay. The next day, and I will do this, and actually I should ask again. I said I would, so I want to do it before I give the date of the next meeting. Are there any other public comments? Even though there's a public comment card and none have been received, I want to put it on the record. If anyone wants to make a public comment, we can get you a card. Just want to make sure we have that option, okay, or that opportunity. The date of our next value adjustment board meeting will be Thursday, May 14th at 1130, right here in this council chamber. Are there any other items that we need to discuss before we get out of here? If not, it is 12-12, and I will call this meeting adjourned. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.