J.

 Roger Shealy 
                    1724 Smith Drive 
                    Titusville, FL 32780 
 
 
 
August 27, 2010 
 
 
 
Honorable Jim Ford 
Brevard County Property Appraiser 
P.O. Box 429 
Titusville, FL 32781 
 
Dear Mr. Ford, 
 
I have received your letter dated August 16, 2010.  While I had hoped to respond and discuss your 
concerns directly with you, I was informed that on August 23, 2010 you choose to make this a public 
spectacle by posting your letter on the Property Appraiser’s website.  While I find that decision 
disappointing, I was more disappointed by the tone and tenor of your correspondence with me.  In all 
my discussions and economic presentations, or “agenda” as you refer to it, I have sought to maintain a 
high level of professionalism – and that is exactly what I expect from an elected official. 
 
As stated in your letter, you assumed that “the graph was produced to try and alarm taxpayers and 
convince them that their homes have been valued to high for tax purposes for several years.”  With all 
due respect, your assumption is completely incorrect.  The graph in question is titled “Where will 
Taxable Value go?” and that is the single purpose of the graph. 
 
You are correct to note that I originally prepared this graph back in 2008.  As a candidate for the Brevard 
County Commission during that time, I carried a large copy of that chart everywhere I went on the 
campaign trail and it was prominently displayed in email and on my campaign website.  I find it rather 
odd that it took nearly three years for you to gather knowledge of its dissemination considering you 
were on the campaign trail too and our paths most certainly crossed. 
 
Since you are only now becoming familiar with the graph, the following is what it looked like when 
originally prepared.  Keeping in mind that Taxable Value is the primary tax base for our county 
government; the question is rightly asked “Where will Taxable Value go?”  A very legitimate question in 
light of the bursting of the housing bubble.    
 
 

1 of 4 
 
  
 
 
You have asserted that comparing the Median Sales Price of Existing Homes (as reported by the Florida 
Association of Realtors) to the total Taxable Value of real property in Brevard County is “like comparing 
apples to oranges.”  While I certainly agree you cannot compare the two for the purpose of assessed 
value, you most certainly can compare the two for trend analysis.  To restate the purpose of the graph, 
“where will taxable value go?”  Only time will tell the degree of correlation between the two, but since 
the Median Sales Price of Existing Homes is the only data available for such analysis, it is appropriate as 
we shall see. 
 
Please note as well that the information provided in the graph is not a statistical derivative or sampling 
of data.  It is complete information with no adjustment or alteration. 
 
Included with your letter was information prepared by your office reflecting the “median market value 
assessment” for single family homes.  Can you also provide the median market value for vacant land, 
commercial property, and other non‐single family home properties?  This information, plus an overall 
median market value of all real property, would be extremely useful to governmental officials for trend 
analysis – especially if it can be provided on a monthly basis.  This data, combined with permits issued, 
foreclosure filings, and unemployment levels, can help with multi‐year planning on the part of taxing 
authorities. 

2 of 4 
 
Also included with your letter was a projection of Taxable Value over the next four years.  Though you 
accuse me of “alarmist tactics” for simply asking the question “where will taxable values go?” your 
projections most certainly sound an alarm that the tax base is rapidly deteriorating.   
 
By the way, it appears that using the Median Sales Price of Existing Homes as a leading indicator of 
Taxable Value is rather accurate after all.  I believe the record is indeed set straight. 
 
 

 
 
 
You also claim that I “have no understanding of the ad valorem valuation process.”  To correct this 
assertion, I have attached a report prepared by myself and others back in September 2006 (see 
attachment).  Well before officials acknowledged the bursting of the real estate bubble, we warned 
what could happen to Taxable Value as the market value begins to fall.  I draw your attention to page 2 
of the report wherein we projected that a 20% decrease in Just Value (market) could result in a 14% 
drop in Taxable Value.  Nearly four years later, we can test this projection to see the accuracy of our 
understanding.  Using the property valuation data you provided for January 2008 and January 2009, we 
find that the market value (tax roll median market value) decreased 19% (from $156,000 to $126,750) 
while the Taxable Value fell 13% ($38 billion to $33.2 billion).  Indeed, it appears our assessment is quite 
accurate. 
 

3 of 4 
 
Lastly, you have implied that I have set out to convince taxpayers “that their homes have been valued 
too high for tax purposes for several years.”  If that were my goal, then I would have charted the 
number of petitions filed each year with the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) by those who believe their 
assessment is too high or charted the Level of Assessment by County to compare Brevard County with 
other counties.  Indeed, according to your statement the “overall level of assessment in Brevard County 
has been relatively low.”  You continue by saying, “the assessment level in Brevard County has 
fluctuated between 92.5% and 94.9%.”  Yet as of 2009, Brevard County stands at a 103.4% level of 
assessment – the second highest in the state (see attachment). 
 
I will not banter you with snide comments or silly quotes, but instead appeal to your office with the 
following requests: 
 
1. Can your office release the Assessment Roll Median Market Value each month for single family 
homes, vacant land, commercial property, and other non‐single family home properties? 
2. Would you please provide me with the number of petitions filed with the VAB for each of the 
past ten years? 
3. How has your office qualified short sales over the past three years and what guidance has the 
Florida Department of Revenue provided Property Appraisers pertaining to short sales?  If DOR 
has provided guidance, when was it published? 
4. You have estimated a 17% decrease in taxable value for 2011.  Has your office recently 
implemented a change in the sales qualification for short sale transactions? 
 
Thank you for your assistance with this request.  
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
J. Roger Shealy 
 
 
cc:  Brevard County Commissioners 
  /attachments 

4 of 4 
 
 Clerk of the Circuit Court Brevard County, Florida
400 SOUTH ST., P.O. Box 999, Titusville, Florida 32781
http://www.brevardclerk.us
Scott Ellis, Clerk

September 20, 2006

Scott Ellis
Clerk of Courts
400 South Street
Titusville, FL 32781

Mr. Ellis:

Pursuant to your request, we have evaluated real property records to assess the impact upon Taxable
Value of real property should Brevard County experience a decrease in aggregate property values.

We obtained Real Property Tax Roll data directly from the Property Appraiser as of September 13,
2006. The data file included, but was not limited to, just value, appraised value, and taxable value for all
real property in the county. The data is summarized as follows:

Brevard County - Real Property Tax Roll

Source: Property Appraiser
Just Value Assessed Value Taxable Value
All Real Property $ 62,875,492,474 $ 47,761,260,314 $ 36,979,660,614

Just values and assessed values are determined by the Property Appraiser. The taxable value is the
assessed value reduced by applicable exemptions made available to the property owners. In reviewing
the data, we noted the following regarding records where the assessed value is equal to the just value
and where the assessed value is within 10%, 25%, and 50% of the just value:
% of % of % of
Just Value All Assessed Value All Taxable Value All
All Real Property $ 62,875,492,474 100% $ 47,761,260,314 100% $ 36,979,660,614 100%
Assessed equals Just $ 31,280,729,204 50% $ 31,280,729,204 65% $ 24,140,073,154 65%
Assessed within 10% of Just $ 32,117,429,434 51% $ 32,065,353,634 67% $ 24,840,446,004 67%
Assessed within 25% of Just $ 34,787,785,234 55% $ 34,283,680,954 72% $ 26,729,860,164 72%
Assessed within 50% of Just $ 46,510,885,024 74% $ 41,159,647,774 86% $ 32,224,379,634 87%

In spite of the shield provided by Save Our Homes, it is surprising to see such a large amount (65%) of
taxable value held in properties where the assessed value equals the just value. Should Brevard County
experience a decrease in aggregate property values, the effect upon taxable value will be most dramatic
and immediate for these properties. Since 65% of the taxable value is made up of properties where

Page 1 of 3
assessed value equals just value, Brevard County’s taxable value is subject to a great degree of market
volatility. Most surprising is the number of Single Family Residences (41,526) where the assessed value
equals just value.
% of % of % of
Just Value All Assessed Value All Taxable Value All
Single Family Residence $ 8,649,834,360 14% $ 8,649,834,360 18% $ 8,320,799,550 23%

To project the effect declining property values would have on Taxable Value, many factors must be
considered and certain assumptions must be made. Factors include the difference between assessed
value and just value for personal residences qualifying for protection under Save Our Homes. This
amount, described as the Homestead Assessment Differential (HAD), has grown significantly over the
past six years from $649,598,050 in 2000 to $14,525,783,970 in 2006 (see Exhibit 1). While the just
value of these homes has increased dramatically over the past few years, the assessed value, under Save
Our Homes, has only increased 3% per year. Should just value decrease, the assessed value may still
increase if the reduced just value still exceeds the assessed value (such increase in the assessed value
would be limited to 3%). Other factors include exemptions (new applications made and current
exemptions terminating) and the time lag between decreasing property values and the decrease reflected
by the Property Appraiser’s Office.

Analysis methodology and assumptions were as follows:

1. The just value, assessed value, and taxable value for each tax account were taken directly from
the property tax rolls, tax account by tax account;
2. The exemption was calculated by subtracting the taxable value from the assessed value;
3. The new assessed value for every property was calculated by increasing the current assessed
value by 3%;
4. The new exemption was calculated by either a) keeping the old exemption amount if the
assessed property value was previously greater than or equal to $25,500; or b) increasing the
exemption when the old assessed value was less than $25,500 up to the allowable exemption
amount;
5. The just value decreased was calculated by taking 95%, 90%, 85%, and finally 80% of the
current just value, tax account by tax account; and
6. The new taxable value was calculated by subtracting the new exemption from the lesser of the
assessed value (after being increased by 3%) or the new just value (after being decreased by 5 –
20%).

Results are summarized as follows:

Percent Required %
Percent Decrease in Tax Loss Due to Increase In Required Millage
Decrease in Estimated Taxable Taxable Decline in Taxable Roll Forward To Equal Current
Just Value Value Value Value Millage Tax Revenue
5% $36,220,955,439 2% $4,380,942 2.10% 6.0475
10% $34,946,893,836 5% $10,952,355 5.80% 6.2680
15% $33,089,496,061 11% $24,095,180 11.80% 6.6198
20% $31,755,640,816 14% $30,666,593 16.50% 6.8979

Page 2 of 3
To further demonstrate:

Should Just Value decrease by 5%, the Taxable Value is projected to be $36,220,955,439. This result is a 2%
decrease in Taxable Value from the current level of $36,979,660,614. The result of declining tax values at
current aggregate millage would result in a decrease of tax revenues of $4,380,942. To maintain the current
level of tax revenue would require a 2.1% increase in aggregate millage. This would increase the millage
6.0475.

Results are graphically presented as Exhibit 2.

While we cannot project the likelihood of a decrease in aggregate property values, or the amount of such
decrease, the year-over-year change in median sales price of existing homes in Brevard County for July 2006 is
summarized below:

Brevard County - Residential Sales

Source: Florida Association of Realtors
Year-over-Year Percent
July 2005 July 2006 Change Change
Existing
Home Sales 794 488 (306) -38.5%
Median Price $ 239,800 $ 220,300 $ (19,500) -8.1%

This follows a similar decline reported for June 2006 and is establishing a trend line for aggregate property
values to follow.

The effect of decreasing taxable values will be most profound on voter approved special taxing districts where
tax revenue streams are bonded. Should taxable values decrease, these special districts could see a significant
reduction in tax revenue jeopardizing the cash flow requirements needed for debt service. Depending on the
percentage of current tax revenue dedicated to debt service, a decrease in taxable values could lead to the
inability to meet debt service requirements. In such case, the County will be required to use General Fund
revenues to cover the shortfall. In many of these special taxing districts, the tax revenue is generated to fund
debt service and pay for maintenance and operations. In the event that tax revenues are insufficient to cover
debt service, the maintenance and operation costs of the special districts must be funded elsewhere.

Submitted by:

J. Roger Shealy, CPA

Trudie Infantini, CPA
Eric Munzenmayer, MBA

Exhibit 1: Historical Brevard County Real Property Values

Exhibit 2: Taxable Value with decrease in Just Value
Exhibit 3: Taxable Value to Total Ad Valorem Taxes
Exhibit 4: General Fund Ad Valorem Tax Revenues
Exhibit 5: General Fund Reserves and Unreserved Fund Balance
Exhibit 6: 2007 Tentative Millages
Addendum: Additional Considerations

Page 3 of 3
 Historical Brevard County Real Property Values

Billions
$70

$60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

Tax Year $0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
HAD Homestead Assessment Differential (Just Value less Capped Value) 649,598,050 972,325,990 1,865,651,670 3,160,228,270 5,365,736,420 10,765,177,610 14,525,783,970
Widow, Widower, Disability, Blind Exemptions & Homestead Reduction for 104,303,010 116,463,010 127,047,050 169,228,250 194,666,970 222,987,470 252,456,940
Parents/Grandparents
Agricultural Classified Differential (Just Value Agricultural less Classified 257,757,110 258,419,090 258,665,110 258,973,150 259,406,730 314,764,510 519,467,120
Use Value of Agricultural)
$25K Homestead & $25K Additional Senior Homestead Exemptions 3,304,453,970 3,440,361,270 3,580,103,970 3,700,257,160 3,814,211,570 3,877,113,850 3,913,091,170
Economic, Government, Institutional, Energy Exemptions & Lands Available 4,735,040,420 4,951,943,690 4,990,630,480 5,249,273,672 5,443,010,580 6,205,270,270 6,875,205,530
for Taxes
Taxable Value for Operating Millages 15,099,317,545 16,378,638,457 17,717,727,250 19,806,754,088 23,023,038,730 28,665,540,840 36,830,416,110

Exhibit 1
Billions
Taxable Value with decrease in Just Value (JV)
$40

$36.8
$36.2
$34.9
$35
$33.1

$31.8

$30 $28.7

$25
$23.0

$19.8
$20

$17.7

$16.4
$15.1
$15
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Projected

Historic Taxable Values 5% Decrease in JV 10% Decrease in JV 15% Decrease in JV 20% Decrease in JV

Exhibit 2
 Taxable Value to Total Ad Valorem Taxes

$50,000,000,000 $500,000,000

$45,000,000,000 $450,000,000

$3
7,
6
00
,0
13
$40,000,000,000 $400,000,000

,2
95
$3
1,
0
60
$35,000,000,000 $350,000,000

,2
44
,0
10
$2
5,
3
$30,000,000,000 $300,000,000

34
,9
$2

59
2,

,3
0

40
87
$1

,4
$25,000,000,000
9, $239,220,205 $250,000,000

35
$1

7
43

,9
8,
$1

19
,3
3
16

$210,540,301
08
6,
$1

,3

,0
5,

87

71

09
9

,1

$188,688,707
56

,4

$20,000,000,000 $200,000,000
15

54
,7

$176,269,210
,2
88

27
,3

$157,858,225
03

$143,040,090
$15,000,000,000 $150,000,000
$120,432,958
$113,407,120

$10,000,000,000 $100,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 proj. 2006 proj. 2007
Year

Taxable Value Ad Valorem Tax (ALL)

Exhibit 3
 General Fund Ad Valorem Tax Revenues

160
Millions

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Proj Proj
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 FY FY
2006 2007

Exhibit 4
 General Fund Reserves and Unreserved Fund Balance

$50
Millions

$45

$40

$35

$30

$25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 proj. 2006 proj. 2007
Year
Total Expenditures

Budgeted Reserves Fund Balance

Exhibit 5
 $ FROM MILLAGES MILLAGES
2007 Tentative Millages ROLLED ROLLED Tentative ALLOWING ALLOWING NEW
Aggregate including Voted Operating TAX YEAR NEW ADJUSTED PRIOR YEAR PRIOR YEAR PRIOR YEAR BACK BACK FY 2007 FOR 3% FOR 10% PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROCEEDS INC
2006/07 VALUE CONSTRUCTION 2006/07 VALUE FINAL VALUE MILLAGE PROCEEDS MILLAGE MILLAGE Tax Proceeds INCREASE PROCEEDS INCREASE PROCEEDS MILLAGE PROCEEDS PROCEEDS OVER PRIOR YR

OPERATING MILLAGES:
GENERAL FUND 39,152,274,142 1,693,993,577 37,458,280,565 30,887,344,510 3.6249 111,963,535 2.9890 117,026,915 143,702,772 3.0787 120,537,723 3.2879 128,729,607 3.8690 6,554,061.15 151,480,149 39,516,614
BREVARD LIBRARY DISTRICT 39,294,006,872 1,693,993,577 37,600,013,295 31,028,487,900 0.5750 17,841,381 0.4745 18,645,188 19,872,524 0.4887 19,204,544 0.5220 20,509,707 0.5059 856,991.35 19,878,838 2,037,458
BREVARD MOSQUITO CONTROL 39,294,006,872 1,693,993,577 37,600,013,295 31,028,487,900 0.1986 6,162,258 0.1639 6,439,886 7,596,759 0.1688 6,633,082 0.1803 7,083,875 0.1934 327,618.36 7,599,461 1,437,203
FIRE CONTROL - MSTU 17,757,263,718 799,481,022 16,957,782,696 14,329,232,662 2.2035 31,574,464 1.8619 33,063,054 11,581,435 1.9178 34,054,946 2.0481 36,369,360 0.6529 521,981.16 11,593,717 -19,980,747

REC DISTRICT 1 MSTU/TITUSVILLE 4,999,204,185 238,462,571 4,760,741,614 3,931,909,725 0.5637 2,216,418 0.4656 2,327,436 2,305,233 0.4795 2,397,260 0.5121 2,560,180 0.4656 111,028.17 2,327,629 111,212
RECREATION DISTRICT 4 - MAINTENANCE 4,080,259,358 215,289,469 3,864,969,889 3,267,288,474 0.5092 1,663,703 0.4305 1,756,376 1,748,246 0.4434 1,809,067 0.4735 1,932,014 0.4305 92,682.12 1,756,552 92,848
TI-CO AIRPORT AUTHORITY 16,500,416,010 673,922,374 15,826,493,636 13,117,557,817 0.0155 203,322 0.0128 211,980 212,438 0.0132 218,339 0.0141 233,178 0.0128 8,626.21 211,205 7,883
LAW ENFORCEMENT - MSTU 16,430,192,183 699,789,604 15,730,402,579 13,316,258,824 0.9960 13,262,994 0.8431 13,853,017 14,257,284 0.8684 14,268,608 0.9275 15,238,319 0.8680 607,417.38 14,261,407 998,413

ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT - MSTU 1 2,906,889,291 118,719,805 2,788,169,486 2,301,161,692 0.5699 1,311,432 0.4704 1,367,273 1,323,000 0.4845 1,408,291 0.5174 1,504,000 0.4704 55,845.80 1,367,401 55,969
ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT - MSTU 2 4,385,471,762 168,260,356 4,217,211,406 3,638,840,174 0.2871 1,044,711 0.2477 1,086,393 1,077,673 0.2552 1,118,985 0.2725 1,195,033 0.2477 41,678.09 1,086,281 41,570
ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT - MSTU 3 2,482,563,692 76,624,422 2,405,939,270 1,930,820,765 0.3814 736,415 0.3061 759,868 752,874 0.3153 782,664 0.3367 835,855 0.3061 23,454.74 759,913 23,498
ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT - MSTU 4 4,304,581,229 308,294,772 3,996,286,457 3,461,875,986 0.3555 1,230,697 0.3080 1,325,639 1,347,565 0.3172 1,365,409 0.3388 1,458,203 0.3080 94,954.79 1,325,811 95,114

ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT - MSTU 5 1,614,128,296 27,753,967 1,586,374,329 1,365,915,816 0.4918 671,757 0.4235 683,510 676,691 0.4362 704,015 0.4658 751,861 0.4235 11,753.81 683,583 11,826
N BEACH ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT 4 MSTU 612,122,567 4,399,866 607,722,701 513,326,711 0.3873 198,811 0.3271 200,251 200,146 0.3370 206,258 0.3599 220,276 0.3271 1,439.20 200,225 1,414
ROAD & BRIDGE DISTRICT 4 MSTU MI 148,713,326 1,515,947 147,197,379 134,794,360 0.1571 21,176 0.1439 21,394 21,558 0.1482 22,036 0.1582 23,534 0.1439 218.14 21,400 224

Environmental Endangered Lands '91 39,293,881,542 1,693,993,577 37,599,887,965 31,021,429,650 0.0482 1,495,233 0.0398 1,562,598 3,418,885 0.0410 1,609,476 0.0437 1,718,858 0.0398 67,420.94 1,563,896 68,664
Environmental Endangered Lands '04 39,293,881,542 1,693,993,577 37,599,887,965 31,021,429,650 0.0572 1,774,426 0.0472 1,854,369 - 0.0486 1,910,000 0.0519 2,039,806 0.0472 79,956.50 1,854,671 80,245
PSJ / Canaveral Groves Rec Fac MSTU 1,087,321,660 40,531,061 1,046,790,599 853,180,861 0.2449 208,944 0.1996 217,034 - 0.2056 223,545 0.2196 238,738 0.1996 8,090.00 217,029 8,085
N Brevard Special Recreation Distrist 3,436,592,494 169,893,967 3,266,698,527 2,701,154,126 0.2714 733,093 0.2244 771,220 - 0.2311 794,356 0.2469 848,342 0.4449 75,585.83 1,528,940 795,847
MERRITT ISL REC MSTU 3,542,291,490 139,885,465 3,402,406,025 2,962,784,160 0.4088 1,211,186 0.3560 1,260,982 - 0.3667 1,298,812 0.3916 1,387,081 0.4714 65,942.01 1,669,836 458,650
S. BREVARD SPEC. REC 22,355,700,471 1,010,299,728 21,345,400,743 17,581,053,528 0.3230 5,678,680 0.2660 5,947,458 - 0.2740 6,125,882 0.2926 6,542,204 0.4188 423,113.53 9,362,567 3,683,887

TOTAL OPERATING PROPERTY TAXES 12.6700 201,204,637 210,381,844 216,693,299 231,420,028 9,540,804 230,750,513 29,545,877

Fiscal Year 2006 Aggregate Millage 6.5141

Aggregate Roll-Back Millage 5.3714
Adopted Aggregate Millage Levied 5.8937 9.7225% increase

Aggregate Millage, If Raised 10% 5.9108

Aggregate Millage, If Limited to 3% 5.5346

VOTED DEBT (not included in aggregate millage)

Environmental Endangered Lands '91 39,294,006,872 1,693,993,577 37,600,013,295 31,028,487,900 0.2018 6,261,549 0.1665 6,543,650 0.1665 6,543,650 0.1665 6,543,650 0.1665 282,049.93 6,542,452 280,903
Environmental Endangered Lands '04 39,293,881,542 1,693,993,577 37,599,887,965 31,021,429,650 0.1188 3,685,346 0.0980 3,851,382 0.0980 3,851,382 0.0980 3,851,382 0.0980 166,011.37 3,850,800 165,455
PSJ / Canaveral Groves Rec Fac MSTU 1,086,864,169 40,531,061 1,046,333,108 852,579,782 0.4975 424,158 0.4054 440,589 0.4054 440,589 0.4054 440,589 0.4054 16,431.29 440,615 16,456
N Brevard Special Recreation Distrist 3,436,592,494 169,893,967 3,266,698,527 2,702,144,596 0.5078 1,372,149 0.4200 1,443,512 0.4200 1,443,512 0.4200 1,443,512 0.3551 60,329.35 1,220,334 -151,815
Merritt Island Recreation MSTU 3,542,291,490 139,885,465 3,402,406,025 2,962,784,160 0.3909 1,158,152 0.3404 1,205,768 0.3404 1,205,768 0.3404 1,387,081 0.3286 45,966.36 1,163,997 5,845
S Brevard Special Recreation District 22,355,700,471 1,010,299,728 21,345,400,743 17,581,053,528 0.2306 4,054,191 0.1899 4,246,080 0.1899 4,246,080 0.1899 6,542,204 0.1812 183,066.31 4,050,853 -3,338

VOTED DEBT MILLAGE TOTALS 16,955,545 17,730,981 17,730,981 20,208,418 753,855 17,269,051 313,506

TOTAL ALL MILLAGES 218,160,182 228,112,825 234,424,280 251,628,446 10,294,658 248,019,565 29,859,382

NON AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS:

EMS Ambulance 14,073,173 0
Fire Rescue 0 23,000,000
Solid Waste 21,708,530 22,634,017

TOTAL NON AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 35,781,703 45,634,017

TOTAL ALL MILLAGES & NON AD VALOREM 253,941,885 293,653,582 39,711,696

Increase over prior Years 15.64%

Exhibit 6
 ADDENDUM

Additional Considerations

Factors that would increase the taxable value of real property for operating millages:

1. 3% annual possible increase in tax assessment of homesteads;

2. Step-up in basis upon transfers of ownership of homesteads presently under the 3% annual cap;
3. Loss of exemptions of any type, or expiration of tax abatements;
4. New construction;
5. Change in classified use values of agricultural property; and
6. Upward reassessments of real property uses (other than homesteads, agricultural, or the totally
exempt) in an otherwise declining market, due to special circumstances in a particular market sector.

Factors that would decrease the taxable value of real property for operating millages:

1. Declining just values in general;

2. Demographically/economically based applications for the $25,000 senior low-income additional
exemption;
3. Pending HJR 353, Increased Homestead Exemption, for constitutionally increasing the maximum
additional homestead exemption for low-income seniors from $25,000 to $50,000 effective 1-1-2007;
4. Issuance of tax abatements on commercial or industrial real property; and
5. Petitions to the VAB to lower property assessments.

Discussion of Increases:

In 2005 there were 149,917 actual homesteads per the PA Office. Note that the upward trend in number has
been leveling off. The step-up in basis effect, upon transfer of ownership of homesteads, probably has been
significant in the recent past. Significant future increases in assessments from this effect is doubtful, as
transaction volume has slowed due to buyer resistance to high prices, taxes, insurance, etc., and most recently
seller obstinacy to falling prices. Furthermore, if legislated, SOH portability would lessen step-ups in basis of real
property assessments on homestead transactions.

Tax Year: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Estimated Total
132,178 135,773 139,926 143,009 147,103 149,439 150,854
Homesteads
$25k Homestead
$3.304B $3.394B $3.498B $3.575B $3.678B $3.736B $3.771B
Exemption

Loss of exemptions, such as a widow or widower remarrying, or a private purchase of government or institutional
property, or the expiration of tax abatements issued as economic incentives, would not be a significant factor.
There are 32 companies in Brevard with currently active tax abatements at different levels, all expiring within the
next 10 years. New construction, on the other hand, has been very significant in the past, growing from $0.3B in
1996 to $1.5B in 2005. From the CAFR:
Agricultural economics and world events, e.g. the price of Brazilian frozen orange juice concentrate, can in theory
cause changes in the classified use values of agricultural property and thus the agricultural classified differential,
but this would not be a significant factor as the total agricultural just value is only $0.7B. The effect of upward
reassessments of real property uses (other than homesteads, agricultural, or the totally exempt) in an otherwise
declining market, due to special circumstances in a particular market sector, would be at this point speculative.

Discussion of Decreases:

The effect of declining real property just values in general, as the independent variable, could also be calculated
at a few points under 10% to demonstrate the most instant consequence.

A preliminary figure from the PA is 6,267 for existing low-income senior additional $25,000 homestead
exemptions in 2006 in Brevard County. This exemption has not been granted by all taxing authorities, applies
mainly to the general fund, and as a maximum may not be fully utilized by all applicants if their assessed
homestead value is less than $50,000. The same would apply to Pending HJR 353, intention which is to increase
this additional homestead exemption for low-income seniors from $25,000 to $50,000 – the case then being the
maximum exemption not fully utilized if the assessed homestead value is less than $75,000. The impact of this
likely would be less than the current $142M in property exemptions (reduction of about $0.6M in tax revenue) and
therefore not significant, even should the numbers of qualifiers increase for demographic or economic reasons.

Tax Year: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Estimated Senior Exemptions 0 1,842 3,278 5,001 5,465 5,646 5,669

Additional Senior $25k

0 $46M $82M $125M $137M $141M $142M
Homestead Exemption

The issuance of new tax abatements on commercial and industrial real property I’m estimating won’t be material,
as future proposals to lure for businesses to a weakening economic climate may be overshadowed by the
growing issues of fairness and effectiveness. The Supreme Court might rule on the legality of these tax credits
(Daimler-Chrysler).

Across the state, the number of petitions to VABs to lower property assessments is up sharply; however, at this
time the local quantitative effect is unknown.
Appraiser's Job Page 1 of 1

For the last five (5) years, the overall level of assessment in Brevard County
has been relatively low. It has fluctuated between 92.5% and 94.9%. The
Department of Revenue allows some tolerance and this figure can fluctuate
each year between 90% and 100%. Maintaining a level of assessment
between 90% and 95% helps to ensure that few, if any, properties are over-
assessed and still complies with minimum State requirements.
Click here to view the 2009 Level of Assessment by County.

http://brevardpropertyappraiser.com/mainhtml/appraiser_job.asp 8/27/2010
2009 Level of Assessment by County Page 1 of 2

2009 Level of Assessment by County

Return to Appraiser's Job Page

COUNTY NAME PERCENT METHOD COUNTY NAME PERCENT METHOD

Alachua 94.6 I Lake 99.4 I
Baker 98.7 I Lee 90.8 N
Bay 96.5 N Leon 94.4 N
Bradford 94.8 I Levy 102.2 N
Brevard 103.4 N Liberty 93.8 N
Broward 102.9 I Madison 93.9 N
Calhoun 91.5 N Manatee 97.3 I
Charlotte 99.7 N Marion 99.9 N
Citrus 98.9 N Martin 95.1 N
Clay 98.5 N Monroe 96.1 I
Collier 98.1 I Nassau 93.1 I
Columbia 96.3 N Okaloosa 98.8 N
Dade 95.8 I Okeechobee 92.6 N
Desoto 103.7 I Orange 97.8 I
Dixie 98.6 I Osceola 100.7 I
Duval 97.6 I Palm Beach 91.9 N
Escambia 92.1 I Pasco 99.2 I
Flagler 95.4 I Pinellas 98.9 N
Franklin 99.6 I Polk 98.2 N
Gadsden 92.3 I Putnam 97.3 N
Gilchrist 93.8 N St. Johns 92.6 I
Glades 101.8 I St Lucie 93.3 N
Gulf 102.4 N Santa Rosa 92.5 I
Hamilton 96.9 I Sarasota 95.4 I
Hardee 96.8 I Seminole 98.5 N
Hendry 92.9 N Sumter 97.7 I
Hernando 102.3 I Suwannee 95.5 N
Highlands 103.3 N Taylor 100.5 I
Hillsborough 98.2 N Union 95.4 N
Holmes 93.3 N Volusia 90.4 N
Indian River 96.4 I Wakulla 94.7 I
Jackson 94.0 I Walton 94.0 I
Jefferson 100.3 I Washington 98.4 I
Lafayette 97.6 N
2009 Statewide (Weighted) Average Level of Assessment is 96.8 *

Methods:
I = Current Year In-Depth Study Results ..........................35
N = Net Assessed Value Results ....................................32
* : This estimate is subject to slight change as revised recaps (including finals) are received

Source: Florida Department of Revenue

http://brevardpropertyappraiser.com/mainhtml/level_of_assessment.htm 8/27/2010