Finding No. 1:  DOR still has not developed uniform market area guidelines that would establish criteria for the identification of market areas by the county property appraisers.

Finding No. 2:  The DOR procedures manual for the review of county assessment rolls for the 2004 and 2005 in-depth studies was incomplete.

Finding No. 3:  The International Association of Assessing Officers statistical standards were not fully implemented during the audit period.

Finding No. 4:  Problems with the DOR sampling plan caused some in-depth studies to have an inadequate number of samples in certain strata.  The lack of samples made it difficult for DOR to accurately calculate statistical measures for those strata and the overall level of assessment for those counties.

Finding No. 5:  The AVQUAL study would be more representative if the samples were stratified to reflect other processes of the in-depth study.  DOR’s policy relating to decision making in the AVQUAL process should be revised to help insure independent and accurate results.

Finding No. 6:  Some statistical tests indicate that DOR samples may not have been representative of the  county tax rolls.

Finding No. 7:  Appraisal reports and related DOR records were not always adequate to ensure that value estimates for subject properties were reliable and credible.  As a result, to the extent the assessment levels published by DOR for the counties included in our review were based upon appraisal ratio studies, such assessment levels may not be supportable.

Finding No. 8:  DOR does not appear to be adequately addressing property description errors in county property data.  The DOR policy relating to reporting material mistakes of fact appears to conflict with the definition in the Florida Statutes.  DOR’s policy regarding material mistake of fact (MMF) should be revised to provide that any and all MMF relating to physical characteristics of property, if included in the assessment of the property, will result in a deviation or change in the assessed value of the property, consistent with Section 193.1142(2)(c), Florida Statutes.

Finding No. 9:  The DOR's new policy relating to property appraiser "mass updates" during county review did not provide assurance that appropriate changes were made to the county tax rolls. 

Finding No. 10:  It appears that some in-depth study appraisals were not reviewed in accordance with DOR's guidelines.

Finding No. 11:  Contracting for outside appraisal services did not result in improvement in the numbers and quality of DOR appraisals. 

Finding No. 12:  DOR’s policy of allowing 15 percent across the board adjustment for the 8^th (net proceeds of sale after deduction of fees and costs) criterion has no documented basis.  An incorrect adjustment could have a significant fiscal impact on school funding and local government revenues.