Name: Morgan B. Gilreath, Jr.

Age: 64

Contact address: 821 Westchester Drive, DeLand, FL 32724

Contact Phone Number: cell 386-747-4858

Contact email address:

Web site:

Office sought: Volusia County Property Appraiser

Educational Background: BBA – Management, University of Georgia; MA – Real

Estate, University of Georgia

Occupation, training & experience: 16 years as Volusia County Property Appraiser; 6 years as Chief Deputy Property Appraiser; 6 years as Senior Principal and General Manager, OASIS Mass Appraisal Software (Arlington, Va.), with installations all over the US; 8 years faculty, University of Georgia, writing, administering, and teaching Assessor and staff certification courses under grant from Georgia Dept of Revenue; first national appraisal publication, 1974… last one, January, 2007; national article of year 3 times… Past President, Florida Association of Property Appraisers.

Two most important issues: First, the understanding of our citizens as to “what is happening to them” with property taxes becoming more and more burdensome. We are in the midst of our citizens voting on “constitutional fixes” to complex problems and many of them do not fully understand the relationship between budgets, millage rates, and the disparate legal requirements relating to homesteaded, non-homesteaded, agricultural and other types of properties. Second, working innovatively to educate our legislature and public on ways to repair the property tax system .

Position on State Legislature dictating local government taxation and revenue policy? This is dictated by our constitution. “Counties” are an extension of State Government and are subservient to it, under our constitution. Without a constitutional amendment, that cannot change. “Cities” and other taxing authorities exist at the express pleasure of State Government and are also subservient to State Law.

How will Amendment #5 impact taxpayers, local governments and schools? In Volusia County, it will cut property tax bills by 23.4%. The amendment states that it will not impact schools as it requires State Government to find replacement funds for replacing the LRE (Local Required Effort) no longer be funded by local property taxes. No one, as yet, has compiled a detailed list of “replacement-funding-sources” with dollar amounts enumerated.

Do I support amendment #5? I do not like all aspects of Amendment #5, but I get to talk to people who are losing their homes and/or business because tax increases (spending increases by taxing authorities) have become so burdensome. As I supported last January’s Amendment #1 primarily because a lack of “portability” was keeping Floridians from being able to move. Property taxes now are such a great portion of individual and small business incomes that many cannot afford to stay in or locate to Florida. It is a spending problem, government revenues increased by 100% while incomes went up 26% over the past 7 years. Passing Amendment #1 will stop the financial bleeding and force the Legislature to find a financial solution. I do not doubt there is money available to fund the amendment; there has not been a political will. This will force the legislature to act. It is not an optimum solution.

Define “Highest and Best Use,” in determining property values. “Highest and Best Use,” is an appraisal term defined in every appraisal text and has been defined by Florida’s courts many times. No appraiser or “want-to-be” appraiser has the authority to define it any differently than the definition in the Florida Statutes. Having said that, I testified before the Senate Finance and Taxation Subcommittee last year regarding the term and possibly changing the legal interpretation in Florida. The term basically assumes that buyers and sellers “buy and sell” in order to maximum returns from real estate. Most often the use does not change and the existing use if the “highest and best use.” However, when there is an anticipated change in use and it is legal, possible, and even probable in the near future, appraisers are supposed to value based on what the properties in question are actually selling for. There is no speculation on value… value is established by buyers and sellers in the open marketplace. This concept can be legally altered to allow for “current use” as the appraisal basis for highest and best use and there are acceptable ways to value on “current use.” The only “sticky-wicket” here is that, if a legal change were made here, the income used to establish the basis for a “current-use valuation” would need to be specified as either “existing or income” or “market or economic income” (typical income for a particular use). “Existing income” will provide lower values for poorer management and penalize those with better management and incomes, creating inequities immediately in a system re-designed to fix such problems. “Economic/market incomes” is a valid appraisal methodology, but it would need to be substituted and/or written into current statutory definitions. There is absolutely no “discretion” on the part of a county property appraiser as to defining “highest and best use.” A minor legislative change in 2008, however, does allow a little more latitude toward existing use rather than potential use, but we still are required to use “highest and best use.”

Other issue not addressed: I’ve said too much already… thanks for reading if you’ve gotten this far. How about a closing comment? …Government funding problems and taxpayers problems are more one of communication than anything else. Our “system” can work fine if people will engage it, meaning our citizens are not “engaging their governments.” I think government spending is sort of like turning a kid loose in Wal-Mart with a credit card… has one ever left with all they wanted? Taxpayer involvement at the local level is a much needed “parental-control” for our local government needs.