Opinion ID: 1620577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Second Sentence

Text: We also agree with the dissent below that the second sentence of section 193.016 presents a more difficult issue. But, obligated as we are to construe the statute as constitutional if possible, we also find that the requirement in section 193.016 that the appraiser justify his or her decision to upwardly adjust the VAB's assessment does not interfere with the appraiser's discretion because it is simply regulating the procedural method of assessment when there has been a successful appeal to the VAB, rather than interfering with the appraiser's ultimate discretionary act in determining just value. It would appear that the Legislature has concluded that it makes more sense for the property appraiser to consider the recent proceedings before the VAB than to have those proceedings ignored and then, if the taxpayer is aggrieved, to have the taxpayer himself or herself assert the prior VAB proceedings in a subsequent appeal to the VAB or the courts. Again, as Judge Benton notes, a consideration of the just value determination of the VAB appears to be a perfectly reasonable way to proceed, and is no more an impediment to attaining just valuation than considering last year's sales is. Id. at 623. We cannot ignore the fact that VABs exist and that those boards have been given a lawful role to play in the determination of just value. In effect, the Legislature is saying that the appraiser should not ignore those relevant proceedings which may have taken place concerning the assessment of the property in question. See Bystrom, 543 So.2d at 216 (noting that in determining just value, the property appraiser must consider, but not necessarily apply, each of the eight factors set forth in section 193.011); Dist. Sch. Bd. of Lee County v. Askew, 278 So.2d 272, 277 (Fla.1973) (stating that the Legislature has the power to regulate the method of assessments, but not to interfere with the [appraiser]'s discretion). In fact, consideration of the VAB's prior findings should increase efficiency and fairness in the process by making certain that all relevant circumstances are considered and by reducing future appeals to the VAB.