revenue estimating conference 1: b.edr.state.fl.us/.../archives/2015/_pdf/impact0320.pdf · the...

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Sales & Use Tax Issue: Water Utility Systems Bill Number(s): SB 776 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 2 Sponsor(s): Senator Hays Month/Year Impact Begins: July 2015 Date of Analysis: Mar 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Chapter 212. There is currently no exemption for investor‐owned water and wastewater utilities.

b. Proposed Change:

Adding a new exemption to Section 212.08(7)(nnn) which provides: “Investor‐owned water and wastewater utilities.—Sales or leases to an investor‐owned water or wastewater utility owned or operated by a Florida corporation are exempt from the tax imposed by this chapter if the sole or primary function of the corporation is to construct, maintain, or operate a water or wastewater system in this state and if the goods or services purchased or leased are used in this state.”

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources List of all water & wastewater utilities companies regulated by the Public Service Commission. Data gathered from Annual Report submitted to the PSC by each individual company. Revenue Estimating Conference March 2015.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) See attached worksheets. Summarize “Utility Plant in Service” values from water and wastewater utilities companies’ Annual Reports to the PSC. Calculate annual depreciation amount for 20‐year and 15‐Year straight‐line depreciation schedules (5% and 6.6% of total, respectively). These values are used as a proxy for value of equipment in need of replacement annually. An additional 10% “repair” value is assumed and added to both of these amounts (20‐year & 15‐year depreciation schedules) to account for general maintenance and repairs conducted each year. These estimated expenditures are distributed as 40% materials and 60% labor, the former being the only one with applicable sales tax. A 6% sales tax is estimated from these figures.

The projected growth rate for Business Investment from the Revenue Estimating Conference in March 2015 is used to forecast future impact on sales tax revenue through FY2019‐2020.

The high estimate increases the effect by 100% to account for the 30 counties not regulated under the Public Service Commission. It is assumed that an equal amount of activity is found in the non‐regulated counties as there is in the regulated counties. A list of these counties can be found in the worksheets.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact The 2014 impact conference adopted the average of high and middle with no growth in the future years. High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (5.2 M)) (5.7 M) (2.6 M) (2.9 M) 2016‐17 (6.0 M) (6.0 M) (3.0 M) (3.0 M) 2017‐18 (6.5 M) (6.5 M) (3.2 M) (3.2 M) 2018‐19 (6.8 M) (6.8 M) (3.4 M) (3.4 M) 2019‐20 (7.1 M) (7.1 M) (3.5 M) (3.5 M)

List of affected Trust Funds: Sales Tax Group

300

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Sales & Use Tax Issue: Water Utility Systems Bill Number(s): SB 776 Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015) The Conference adopted the average of the high and middle estimate. GR Trust Revenue Sharing Local Half Cent

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (3.5) (3.8) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) (0.4)2016‐17 (4.0) (4.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1) (0.4) (0.4)2017‐18 (4.3) (4.3) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1) (0.4) (0.4)2018‐19 (4.5) (4.5) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.4)2019‐20 (4.7) (4.7) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.4)

Local Option Total Local Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (0.3) (0.4) (0.7) (0.9) (4.2) (4.7) 2016‐17 (0.4) (0.4) (0.9) (0.9) (4.9) (4.9) 2017‐18 (0.4) (0.4) (0.9) (0.9) (5.2) (5.2) 2018‐19 (0.4) (0.4) (1.0) (1.0) (5.5) (5.5) 2019‐20 (0.4) (0.4) (1.0) (1.0) (5.7) (5.7)

301

SB776 - Section 2

Water Utility System

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

A B C D E F G H I J

5.0% 6.6%

Wastewater

Utility Plant in Service

20-Year

Depreciation

(5%/year)

15-Year

Depreciation

(6.6%/year)

Assumed 10%

Annual Repair20-Year + Repair 15-Year + Repair 20-Year + Repair 15-Year + Repair

Business

Investment Sales

Tax Growth Rate

2012-2013 $89,499,650 $4,474,983 $5,906,977 $8,949,965 $805,497 $891,417 $322,199 $356,567

2013-2014 $95,675,126 $4,783,756 $6,314,558 $9,567,513 $861,076 $952,924 $344,430 $381,170 6.9%

2014-2015 $103,042,111 $5,152,106 $6,800,779 $10,304,211 $927,379 $1,026,299 $370,952 $410,520 7.7%

2015-2016 $108,400,300 $5,420,015 $7,154,420 $10,840,030 $975,603 $1,079,667 $390,241 $431,867 5.2%

2016-2017 $114,037,116 $5,701,856 $7,526,450 $11,403,712 $1,026,334 $1,135,810 $410,534 $454,324 5.2%

2017-2018 $122,589,900 $6,129,495 $8,090,933 $12,258,990 $1,103,309 $1,220,995 $441,324 $488,398 7.5%

2018-2019 $128,351,625 $6,417,581 $8,471,207 $12,835,162 $1,155,165 $1,278,382 $462,066 $511,353 4.7%2019-2020 $133,999,096 $6,699,955 $8,843,940 $13,399,910 $1,205,992 $1,334,631 $482,397 $533,852 4.4%

Water

Utility Plant in Service

20-Year

Depreciation

(5%/year)

15-Year

Depreciation

(6.6%/year)

Assumed 10%

Annual Repair20-Year + Repair 15-Year + Repair 20-Year + Repair 15-Year + Repair

Business

Investment Sales

Tax Growth Rate

2012-2013 $501,822,280 $25,091,114 $33,120,271 $50,182,228 $4,516,401 $4,998,150 $1,806,560 $1,999,260

2013-2014 $536,448,018 $26,822,401 $35,405,569 $53,644,802 $4,828,032 $5,343,022 $1,931,213 $2,137,209 6.9%

2014-2015 $577,754,515 $28,887,726 $38,131,798 $57,775,452 $5,199,791 $5,754,435 $2,079,916 $2,301,774 7.7%

2015-2016 $607,797,750 $30,389,887 $40,114,651 $60,779,775 $5,470,180 $6,053,666 $2,188,072 $2,421,466 5.2%

2016-2017 $639,403,233 $31,970,162 $42,200,613 $63,940,323 $5,754,629 $6,368,456 $2,301,852 $2,547,382 5.2%

2017-2018 $687,358,475 $34,367,924 $45,365,659 $68,735,848 $6,186,226 $6,846,090 $2,474,491 $2,738,436 7.5%

2018-2019 $719,664,324 $35,983,216 $47,497,845 $71,966,432 $6,476,979 $7,167,857 $2,590,792 $2,867,143 4.7%2019-2020 $751,329,554 $37,566,478 $49,587,751 $75,132,955 $6,761,966 $7,483,242 $2,704,786 $2,993,297 4.4%

High Impact = 2

Wastewater Impact

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

2015-16 ($791,756) ($863,734) ($395,878) ($431,867)

2016-17 ($908,648) ($908,648) ($454,324) ($454,324)

2017-18 ($976,796) ($976,796) ($488,398) ($488,398)

2018-19 ($1,022,706) ($1,022,706) ($511,353) ($511,353)

2019-20 ($1,067,705) ($1,067,705) ($533,852) ($533,852)

Water Impact


2015-16 ($4,439,355) ($4,842,932) ($2,219,677) ($2,421,466)

2016-17 ($5,094,765) ($5,094,765) ($2,547,382) ($2,547,382)

2017-18 ($5,476,872) ($5,476,872) ($2,738,436) ($2,738,436)

2018-19 ($5,734,285) ($5,734,285) ($2,867,143) ($2,867,143)

2019-20 ($5,986,594) ($5,986,594) ($2,993,297) ($2,993,297)

Total Impact


2015-16 ($5,231,111) ($5,706,666) ($2,615,555) ($2,853,333)

2016-17 ($6,003,413) ($6,003,413) ($3,001,706) ($3,001,706)

2017-18 ($6,453,669) ($6,453,669) ($3,226,834) ($3,226,834)

2018-19 ($6,756,991) ($6,756,991) ($3,378,496) ($3,378,496)

2019-20 ($7,054,299) ($7,054,299) ($3,527,149) ($3,527,149)

High Middle Low

High Middle Low

40%

Construction/ Labor Distribution (40%/60%)

Construction/ Labor Distribution (40%/60%)

Sales Tax (6%)

High Middle Low

Sales Tax (6%)

Revenue Estimating Conference February 14, 2014302

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: sales and use tax Issue: Exempt sales & use tax on importation of vehicles for active US Armed Forces Bill Number(s): proposed bills Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: no such exemption on importation of vehicles for active US armed forces b. Proposed Change: create sub paragraph 212.08(7)(nnn) the importation of a motor vehicle purchased and used for 6 months

or longer in a foreign country by an active member of the United States armed forces or that member’s spouse is exempt from tax when imported, registered or titled in this state for personal use by the member or his or her spouse. Proof of the active status of the member, and when applicable, proof of the spouses’s relationship to the member, must be provided when the vehicle is titled and registered in this state.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources https://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/historical-military-troop-data.cfm US total deployment and deployment overseas 2012 US total deployment 2013 and 2014 Florida’s share of US total deployment 10.46% Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Assuming the average price of vehicle $40,000 Assuming 1%, 2% and 3% of the active member will bring back his or her vehicle Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High 3% Middle 2% Low 1%


2015-16 ($1.5m) ($1.0m) ($0.5m)

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

List of affected Trust Funds: Sales and Use Tax Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the middle with $30,000 for the avg. value.

GR Trust Revenue Sharing Local Half Cent

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

2015-16 (0.7) (0.7) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)





Local Option Total Local Total


2014-15 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1) (0.8) (0.8)





x

303

https://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/historical-military-troop-data.cfm

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

B C D E F G H I J K

total active duty

troop levels

total US

deployment

deployment

overseas

%

overseas

Florida

overseas % Florida

2012 1,388,028 231,151 16.65% 24,178 10.46%

2013 1,222,599 203,602 21,297

2014 1,216,690 202,618 21,194

assuming 1% bring back their vehicles 1% 2% 3%

assuming the average value of vehicles 30,000 30,000 30,000

6% Florida state sales tax per vehicle 1,800 1,800 1,800

number of imported vehicles 212 424 636

total tax loss -381,489 -762,977 -1,144,466

total active duty troop stationed overseas by region and certain countries in 2012

Central Asia 58

East Asia & Pacific 80,378 Germany 47,761

Europe 75,202 Italy 10,922

Latin America 2,082 UK 9,846

Middle East & North Africa 4,658 Japan 50,937

Canada 147

South Asia 68,106

Sub-Saharan Africa 520

231,151

10.46% Florida

As of 12/31/14, there were 7,372

(10.46%) deployed service members

with Legal Residence in Florida

Impact Conference March 20, 2015304

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Sales and Use Tax Issue: Gun Clubs Memberships Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): x

Month/Year Impact Begins: 07/01/2015 Date of Analysis: 03/18/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Sales tax is levied on the value of admissions. The term “admissions” is defined in s.212.02, F.S., to include, among

other things, all dues and fees paid to private clubs and membership clubs.

b. Proposed Change: Exempts admissions and membership fees for gun clubs from sales tax. Defines gun clubs as organizations whose primary purpose is to offer members access to one or more shooting ranges for target or skeet shooting.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources IBISWorld Websites of shooting ranges.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) According to DOR: if items of tangible personal property were included with no separate charge as part of an exempt admission, it would not affect the taxability of the admission. The entity providing the TPP would be responsible for paying tax on the purchase of the items included as part of the admission charge. If there is a separate charge for the tangible personal property, then that charge would be taxable. Reviewed websites of clubs, almost all offer members discount on clays, targets or ranges. A few had daily fees to access ranges. Most did not have admission fees. Some had hourly fees to use a range. Rule 12A‐1.005(3), F.A.C. says charges made for the privilege of bowling…and similar sports are admissions subject to tax.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 ($1.7m) ($1.8m) ($.4m) ($.4m)2016‐17 ($1.8m) ($1.8m) ($.4m) ($.4m)2017‐18 ($1.8m) ($1.8m) ($.4m) ($.4m)2018‐19 ($1.7m) ($1.7m) ($.4m) ($.4m)2019‐20 ($1.7m) ($1.7m) ($.4m) ($.4m)

List of affected Trust Funds: Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted an average of the high and middle. GR Trust Revenue Sharing Local Half Cent

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (1.0) (1.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)2016‐17 (1.0) (1.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)2017‐18 (1.0) (1.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)2018‐19 (1.0) (1.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)2019‐20 (1.0) (1.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1)

Option Total Local Total Local

C Recu Recu C Recurring ash rring Cash rring ash 201 (0.1 (0. (0. (0. (1.2 (1.2) 5‐16 ) 1) 2) 2) ) 201 (0.1 (0. (0. (0. (1.2 (1.2) 6‐17 ) 1) 2) 2) ) 201 (0.1 (0. (0. (0. (1.2 (1.2) 7‐18 ) 1) 2) 2) ) 201 (0.1 (0. (0. (0. (1.2 (1.2) 8‐19 ) 1) 2) 2) ) 201 (0.1 (0. (0. (0. (1.2 (1.2) 9‐20 ) 1) 2) 2) )

305

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A B C D E F G H I J

IBISWorld

Shooting Ranges

2013 National Revenue 535.8m

Annual Growth 2013-18 -1%

Revenue Breakout

Equipment Rental 40%

Admission 25%

Classes 35%

Business locations in Florida 5.7%

-1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Admission Revenue in

Florida

($535.8m*25%*5.7%)

7.6$ 7.6$ 7.5$ 7.4$ 7.3$ 7.3$ 7.2$ 7.1$

FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20

7.5$ 7.4$ 7.4$ 7.3$ 7.2$ 7.2$

6% (0.5)$ (0.4)$ (0.4)$ (0.4)$ (0.4)$ (0.4)$

cash (0.4)$

High 30.5$ 30.2$ 29.9$ 29.6$ 29.3$ 29.0$ 28.8$ 28.5$

FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20

30.1$ 29.8$ 29.5$ 29.2$ 28.9$ 28.6$

6% (1.8)$ (1.8)$ (1.8)$ (1.8)$ (1.7)$ (1.7)$

cash (1.7)$

306

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Ad Valorem Issue: Charitable Exemptions Bill Number(s): CS/SB924 and HB/839 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Sen. Hays /Rep. Burton

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 2015 Date of Analysis: 3/19/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 196.012(7), Florida Statutes, defines “Charitable purpose” as “a function or service which is of such a

community service that its discontinuance could legally result in the allocation of public funds for the continuance of the function or service. It is not necessary that public funds be allocated for such function or service but only that any such allocation would be legal.” Section 196.196, F.S., provides: Subsection (2) Only those portions of property used predominantly for charitable, religious, scientific, or literary purposes shall be exempt. In no event shall an incidental use of property either qualify such property for an exemption or impair the exemption of an otherwise exempt property. Subsection (3) Property owned by an exempt organization is used for a religious purpose if the institution has taken affirmative steps to prepare the property for use as a house of public worship. The term “affirmative steps” means environmental or land use permitting activities, creation of architectural plans or schematic drawings, land clearing or site preparation, construction or renovation activities, or other similar activities that demonstrate a commitment of the property to a religious use as a house of public worship. For purposes of this subsection, the term “public worship” means religious worship services and those other activities that are incidental to religious worship services, such as educational activities, parking, recreation, partaking of meals, and fellowship. Subsection (5) a) Property owned by an exempt organization qualified as charitable under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code is used for a charitable purpose if the organization has taken affirmative steps to prepare the property to provide affordable housing to persons or families that meet the extremely‐low‐income, very‐low‐income, low‐income, or moderate‐income limits, as specified in s. 420.0004. The term “affirmative steps” means environmental or land use permitting activities, creation of architectural plans or schematic drawings, land clearing or site preparation, construction or renovation activities, or other similar activities that demonstrate a commitment of the property to providing affordable housing. (b)1. If property owned by an organization granted an exemption under this subsection is transferred for a purpose other than directly providing affordable homeownership or rental housing to persons or families who meet the extremely‐low‐income, very‐low‐income, low‐income, or moderate‐income limits, as specified in s. 420.0004, or is not in actual use to provide such affordable housing within 5 years after the date the organization is granted the exemption, the property appraiser making such determination shall serve upon the organization that illegally or improperly received the exemption a notice of intent to record in the public records of the county a notice of tax lien against any property owned by that organization in the county, and such property shall be identified in the notice of tax lien. The organization owning such property is subject to the taxes otherwise due and owing as a result of the failure to use the property to provide affordable housing plus 15 percent interest per annum and a penalty of 50 percent of the taxes owed. 2. Such lien, when filed, attaches to any property identified in the notice of tax lien owned by the organization that illegally or improperly received the exemption. If such organization no longer owns property in the county but owns property in any other county in the state, the property appraiser shall record in each such other county a notice of tax lien identifying the property owned by such organization in such county which shall become a lien against the identified property. Before any such lien may be filed, the organization so notified must be given 30 days to pay the taxes, penalties, and interest. 3. If an exemption is improperly granted as a result of a clerical mistake or an omission by the property appraiser, the organization improperly receiving the exemption shall not be assessed a penalty or interest. 4. The 5‐year limitation specified in this subsection may be extended if the holder of the exemption continues to take affirmative steps to develop the property for the purposes specified in this subsection.

b. Proposed Change: Creates Section 196.1955 Preparing property for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable use. Provides that property owned by an exempt organization is used for an exempt purpose if the owner has taken affirmative steps

313

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2013/420.0004


REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Ad Valorem Issue: Charitable Exemptions Bill Number(s): CS/SB924 and HB/839

to prepare the property for an exempt educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable use and no portion of the property is being used for a nonexempt purpose. Further provides that the term “affirmative steps” means environmental or land use permitting activities, creation of architectural plans or schematic drawings, land clearing or site preparation, construction or renovation activities, or other similar activities that demonstrate a commitment of the property to prepare the property for an exempt use. Also provides, with the exemption of houses of worship, for a recapture of taxes previously exempted plus 15% interest if the property exemption under this section is transferred for a purpose other than an exempt use or is not in actual exempt use within 5 years. The 5‐year limitation specified in this subsection may be extended if the holder of the exemption continues to take affirmative steps to develop the property for the purposes specified in this subsection. Deletes current law provisions for affirmative steps for Religious, educational and affordable housing.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 tax roll data 2014 statewide average millage rates March 2015 Ad Valorem Conference appreciation rates – all real property

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Two options were developed Option 1‐ Tax rolls were matched for 2011 and 2012, 2012 and 2013, and 2013 and 2014 to identify those parcels that did not have a charitable exemption in year one but did in year two. Those parcels in use code 1, 2, 4, 71, and 72 were excluded from the analysis to remove affordable housing (use code 1, 2, and 4), churches (use code 71), and educational facilities (use code 72). The average of the two years change was calculated. For the high, it was assumed that a five year speed up occurs, and that value equal to five times the two year average would become exempt due to the law change. For the middle, it was assumed there would be a three year speed up and that value equal to three times the two year average would become exempt due to the law change. For the low, it was assumed there would be only a one year effect and that would equal the two year average. Option 2 – assumed ten percent of the amounts from option 2 would be exempted. For all three options, growth was assumed to occur at the real property appreciation rates.

Further Assumption – the effective date of July 1, 2015 operates in such a matter that the first impact will not occur until assessments associated with assessments as of January 1, 2016. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact – Option 1 Option 1 – Speed up of the property that becomes charitable High – 5 year, Middle‐3 year, Low – 1 year High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016‐17 ($24.6 M) ($24.6 M) ($14.8 M) ($14.8 M) ($4.9 M) ($4.9 M) 2017‐18 ($25.6 M) ($25.6 M) ($15.3 M) ($15.3 M) ($5.1 M) ($5.1 M) 2018‐19 ($26.4 M) ($26.4 M) ($15.8 M) ($15.8 M) ($5.3 M) ($5.3 M) 2019‐20 ($27.2 M) ($27.2 M) ($16.3 M) ($16.3 M) ($5.4 M) ($5.4 M)

Option 2 – 10% of Option 2 High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016‐17 ($2.5 M) ($2.5 M) ($1.5 M) ($1.5 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.5 M) 2017‐18 ($2.6 M) ($2.6 M) ($1.5 M) ($1.5 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.5 M) 2018‐19 ($2.6 M) ($2.6 M) ($1.6 M) ($1.6 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.5 M) 2019‐20 ($2.7 M) ($2.7 M) ($1.6 M) ($1.6 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.5 M)

List of affected Trust Funds: Ad Valorem Group

314

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Ad Valorem Issue: Charitable Exemptions Bill Number(s): CS/SB924 and HB/839 Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted an average of the middle and low as an approximation for a 2 year speed up of 10% (Option 2). GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0) 0.0 (1.0)2016‐17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)2017‐18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)2018‐19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1)2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1)

315

SB 924 / HB 839 Charitable Use - Affirmative Steps

Spring 2014 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Real Property Growth Rates 7.09% 5.33% 4.03% 3.13% 2.97%

Option 1 Comparison of 2011 and 2012 taxrolls

Comparison of 2011 and 2012 taxrolls Excludes Use code 1,2,4,71,72

Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics

N Sum N Sum

AV_SD 2036 819,190,159 AV_SD 1165 $501,579,745TV_SD 2036 145,768,520 TV_SD 1165 $141,607,393JV 2036 826,116,288 JV 1165 $508,469,869JV_2011 2036 689,886,658 JV_2011 1165 $485,817,523AV_SD_2011 2036 673,569,688 Per Parcel AV_SD_2011 1165 $470,490,995TV_SD_2011 2036 444,277,424 218,211 TV_SD_2011 1165 $285,461,873Valid N (listwise) 2036 Valid N (listwise) 1165

Comparison of 2012 and 2013 taxrolls

Excludes Use code 1,2,4,71,72



N Sum N Sum

JV 1864 823,520,408 JV 1224 $632,119,277AV_SD 1864 822,555,529 AV_SD 1224 $631,154,398TV_SD 1864 31,384,302 TV_SD 1224 $28,766,964JV_2012 1776 686,064,778 JV_2012 1169 $564,359,268AV_SD_2012 1776 679,908,289 Per Parcel AV_SD_2012 1169 $559,287,956TV_SD_2012 1776 325,131,153 183,069 TV_SD_2012 1169 $221,256,182Valid N (listwise) 1776 Valid N (listwise) 1169


Comparison of 2013 and 2014 taxrolls Excludes Use code 1,2,4,71,72


N Sum N Sum

JV 5331 822,850,309 JV 4620 580,557,997AV_SD 5331 818,491,604 AV_SD 4620 576,199,694TV_SD 5331 39,780,184 TV_SD 4620 39,138,748JV_2013 5167 573,662,967 JV_2013 4502 446,581,853AV_SD_2013 5167 568,203,433 Per Parcel AV_SD_2013 4502 441,811,616TV_SD_2013 5167 309,194,674 59,840 TV_SD_2013 4502 205,003,577Valid N (listwise) 5167 Valid N (listwise) 4502

10% of total impact

10% of total

impact

One year impact - Value $359,534,417 One year impact - value $237,240,544

at 18.3703 mills $6,604,755 $660,476 at 18.3703 mills $4,358,180 $435,818

Five Year speedup $1,797,672,085 Five Year speedup $1,186,202,720

at 18.3703 mills $33,023,776 $3,302,378 at 18.3703 mills $21,790,900 $2,179,090

Three year speedup $1,078,603,251 Three year speedup $711,721,632

at 18.3703 mills $19,814,265 $1,981,427 at 18.3703 mills $13,074,540 $1,307,454

March 20, 2015 Impact Conference 1316

SB 924 / HB 839 Charitable Use - Affirmative Steps

Option 1 - Total 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $21,790,900 $23,335,875 $24,579,677 $25,570,238 $26,370,586 $27,153,793

Middle $13,074,540 $14,001,525 $14,747,806 $15,342,143 $15,822,352 $16,292,276

Low $4,358,180 $4,667,175 $4,915,935 $5,114,048 $5,274,117 $5,430,759

Option 1 - School 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $8,817,519 $9,442,681 $9,945,976 $10,346,799 $10,670,654 $10,987,572

Middle $5,290,512 $5,665,609 $5,967,586 $6,208,080 $6,402,392 $6,592,543

Low $1,763,504 $1,888,536 $1,989,195 $2,069,360 $2,134,131 $2,197,514

Option 1 Non-School 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $12,973,381 $13,893,193 $14,633,700 $15,223,439 $15,699,932 $16,166,220

Middle $7,784,028 $8,335,916 $8,780,220 $9,134,063 $9,419,959 $9,699,732

Low $2,594,676 $2,778,639 $2,926,740 $3,044,688 $3,139,986 $3,233,244

Option 2 - Ten percent of Option 1 Total 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $2,179,090 $2,333,587 $2,457,968 $2,557,024 $2,637,059 $2,715,379

Middle $1,307,454 $1,400,152 $1,474,781 $1,534,214 $1,582,235 $1,629,228

Low $435,818 $466,717 $491,594 $511,405 $527,412 $543,076

Option 2 - Ten percent of Option 1 School 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $881,752 $944,268 $994,598 $1,034,680 $1,067,065 $1,098,757

Middle $529,051 $566,561 $596,759 $620,808 $640,239 $659,254

Low $176,350 $188,854 $198,920 $206,936 $213,413 $219,751

Option 2 - Ten percent of Option 1 NonSchool 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

High - $1,297,338 $1,389,319 $1,463,370 $1,522,344 $1,569,993 $1,616,622

Middle $778,403 $833,592 $878,022 $913,406 $941,996 $969,973

Low $259,468 $277,864 $292,674 $304,469 $313,999 $323,324

March 20, 2015 Impact Conference 2317

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: aviation fuel tax Issue: exempt aviation fuel tax for universities offering aerospace program and flight training Bill Number(s): Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

x

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: no such exemption currently b. Proposed Change: Any licensed wholesaler or terminal supplier that delivers aviation fuel to a university based in this state

that is accredited by the Aviation Accreditation Board International and offers a graduate program in aeronautical or aerospace engineering and offers flight training through a school of aeronautics or college of aviation may receive a credit or refund as the ultimate vendor of the aviation fuel delivered to such university for the 6.9 cents excise tax previously paid.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources DOR aviation fuel tax data FAA database Embry Riddle has the total flight hours of 67,847 in FY 2012‐13, Embry Riddle has a couple of large aircrafts FIT has the total flight hours of 1,233.23 based on 13 aircrafts Using the ratio of Embry Riddle’s total flight hours to FIT’s total flight hours as the basis for high Using the ratio of Embry Riddle’s hours to the revised FIT’s total hours as the basis for low REC Mar 2015 aviation growth rate Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 ($0.9m) ($0.9m) ($0.7m) 2016‐17 ($1.0m) ($1.0m) ($0.8m) 2017‐18 ($1.0m) ($1.0m) ($0.8m) 2018‐19 ($1.0m) ($1.0m) ($0.8m) 2019‐20 ($1.0m) ($1.0m) ($0.8m)

List of affected Trust Funds: Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the high estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (0.1) (0.1) (0.8) (0.8) 0.0 0.0 (0.9) (0.9)2016‐17 (0.1) (0.1) (0.9) (0.9) 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0)2017‐18 (0.1) (0.1) (0.9) (0.9) 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0)2018‐19 (0.1) (0.1) (0.9) (0.9) 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0)2019‐20 (0.1) (0.1) (0.9) (0.9) 0.0 0.0 (1.0) (1.0)

318

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

A B C D E F G H I J Kgallon purchase information

Florida

Institute of

Technology

(FIT) aviation averageFY 2012 456,234

FY 2013 284,387

FY 2014 345,130

FIT has 22 aircrafts, most are Piper Archer II

Embry Riddle has 90 aircrafts including a couple of large aircrafts

Embry Riddle has the total flight Hours of 67,847 in FY 2012-13

based on 13 FIT aircrafts' total flight hours 1,233.2 High

grow to 22 aircrafts' total flight hours 2,087.0 Low

using the ratio of 67,847 to 2,087 = 32.5

using the ratio times the FIT's gallons

low low High High Mar-15 growth low % high %

FIT Embry R. total gallons 0.069 total gallons 0.069 REC m. rate of REC of REC

2013 284,387 9,245,214 9,529,601 657,542 15,930,134 total total

2014 345,130 11,219,925 11,565,055 797,989 14,754,871 754.4 gallons gallons

2015 10,711,830 739,116 13,666,314 698.7 -7.38%

2016 10,766,253 742,871 13,735,748 947,767 702.2 0.51%

2017 10,925,421 753,854 13,938,816 961,778 712.6 1.48%

2018 11,096,037 765,627 14,156,490 976,798 723.8 1.56%

2019 11,275,118 777,983 14,384,966 992,563 735.4 1.61%

2020 11,469,211 791,376 14,632,592 1,009,649 748.1 1.72% 1.53% 1.96%

319

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Corporate Income Tax Issue: Defense Contractors – 4 year Sunset Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: 3/18/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: No credit against Corporate Income Tax for Defense contractors engaging in subcontract arrangements with

Florida businesses currently exists.

b. Proposed Change: The proposed language creates 288.1046; “Defense Works in Florida” incentive. Defines “Florida Prime contractor” as a business entity operating in the state which is awarded a prime contract. Defines “Florida small business subcontractor” meaning: a business entity that employs up to 250 individuals and maintains its principal place of business in this state, is awarded a subcontract from a Florida prime contractor and has no subsidiary or affiliate business relationship to the Florida prime contractor making the award. “Prime contract” is awarded directly from the federal government. Defines “Qualified defense work” as: manufacturing, engineering, construction, distribution, research, or development of equipment, supplies, technology, or other goods or services that, directly or indirectly, support the United States Armed Forces or that can be reasonably determined by the department to support national security; or aero‐space related activities that directly or indirectly support the United States Armed Forces. “Qualified subcontract award” means qualified defense work, in part or in whole, subcontracted from a Florida small business subcontractor which is executed in this state and is approved by the department. A Florida subcontractor may apply to the department to certify the Florida prime contractor may reduce its computation of adjusted federal income under s. 220.13 by an amount equal to 4 percent of the subcontract award if the Florida prime contractor is: subject to chapter 220, awarded qualified defense work and awards a qualified subcontract. The department may certify, for each Florida prime contractor applicant per tax year, up to $250 million in aggregate qualified subcontract awards, equaling $10 million in reduced taxable income and $550,000 in reduced taxes. The department may certify in total, per tax year, up to $2.5 billion in aggregate qualified subcontract awards, equaling $100 million in reduced taxable income and $5.5 million in reduced taxes. This section is repealed effective July 1, 2019. A Florida prime contractor may not reduce its adjusted federal income pursuant to this section for any tax year that commences on or after January 1, 2019.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Federal Procurement Data: https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports/62‐top‐100‐contractors‐report3.html

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details)

Aggregate qualified subcontract awards

$2,500,000,000

4 percent of total subcontract awards eligible (subtraction from adjust federal income)

$100,000,000 4.0%

CIT rate $5,500,000 5.5%


Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 ($5.5m)2016‐17 ($5.5m)2017‐18 ($5.5m)2018‐19 ($5.5m)2019‐20

List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue

320

https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports/62-top-100-contractors-report3.html

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Corporate Income Tax Issue: Defense Contractors – 4 year Sunset Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (5.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (5.5) 0.0 2016‐17 (5.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (5.5) 0.0 2017‐18 (5.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (5.5) 0.0 2018‐19 (5.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (5.5) 0.0 2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

321

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Corporate Income Tax Issue: Capital Investment Tax Credit for Entertainment Facilities Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

x

Month/Year Impact Begins: After July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 19, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: The capital investment tax credit (CITC) is an annual credit against CIT equal to 5% of eligible capital costs by a

qualifying project, for a period up to 20 years beginning with commencement of operations. Credit granted against CIT or IPT. No credit forwards or backwards. Annual credit shall not exceed percentage of annual liability based on size of project (100% of $100m project, 75% of $50‐$100m, or $25m‐$50m.) Qualifying projects include projects from high impact sectors industries (aviation, aerospace, automotive, silicon and information technology), targeted industries, or in enterprise zone or brownfields.

b. Proposed Change: Adds a facility primarily used for productions with a minimum capital investment of $25 million or a

cumulative investment over multiple locations of $75 million may be eligible for CITC.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources DOR Data DEO Data – Based on their web portal, Univision has already qualified for a CITC. NAICS Data Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) See attached.


Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 0 ($8.8m) 0 ($7.5m) 0 ($5.0m) 2016‐17 0 ($8.8m) 0 ($7.5m) 0 ($5.0m) 2017‐18 0 ($8.8m) 0 ($7.5m) 0 ($5.0m) 2018‐19 ($8.8m) ($8.8m) ($7.5m) ($7.5m) ($5.0m) ($5.0m) 2019‐20 ($8.8m) ($8.8m) ($7.5m) ($7.5m) ($5.0m) ($5.0m)

List of affected Trust Funds: Corporate Income Tax Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the middle estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 (7.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.5)2016‐17 0.0 (7.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.5)2017‐18 0.0 (7.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.5)2018‐19 (7.5) (7.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.5) (7.5)2019‐20 (7.5) (7.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.5) (7.5)

322

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

B C D E F G H I

Current Law Qualifying projects: Minimum jobsMinimum

InvestmentHigh Impact Sector industries (including: aviation, aerospace,

automotive, information technology, and silicon) - new or expanding

facility

100 new

$25 million

(s.220.191(2)(b),F

.S.)

Targeted Industry - new or expanding facility

1,000 jobs created or

retained (with 100 of

those new), pay an

annual wage of at least

130% of average.

$100 million

Enterprise zone or brownfield - new or expanding headquarters

facility.

1,500 jobs, pay an

average of 200% of

average wage

$250 million

Proposed

ChangeFacility primarily used for productions (s.288.1254(1)(g),F.S.).

$25 million/$75

million

NAICS codes 512110, 512191, 512240 and 515120 could already qualify as a high impact sector under information technology.

512110 - Cartoon, commercials, TV, films, Motion picture, video production

512191- Post Production

512240 - Audio, sound recording

515120 - Broadcasting networks, TV broadcasting

Few under above NAICS had enough corporate liability to take advantage of credit

50% of activities directly contributed to productions. Cumulative capital

investment of new or expanded facilities owned by a single qualifying

business may be combined occurring within 36 months and at least $75

million.

s. 288.1254(1)(g) - “Production” means a theatrical or direct-to-video motion picture; a made-for-television motion picture; visual effects or digital animation sequences produced in conjunction with a

motion picture; a commercial; a music video; an industrial or educational film; an infomercial; a documentary film; a television pilot program; a presentation for a television pilot program; a television series,

including, but not limited to, a drama, a reality show, a comedy, a soap opera, a telenovela, a game show, an awards show, or a miniseries production; or a digital media project by the entertainment

industry. One season of a television series is considered one production. The term does not include a weather or market program; a sporting event or a sporting event broadcast; a gala; a production that

solicits funds; a home shopping program; a political program; a political documentary; political advertising; a gambling-related project or production; a concert production; a local, regional, or Internet-

distributed-only news show or current-events show; a sports news or sports recap show; a pornographic production; or any production deemed obscene under chapter 847. A production may be produced

on or by film, tape, or otherwise by means of a motion picture camera; electronic camera or device; tape device; computer; any combination of the foregoing; or any other means, method, or device.

220.191 - Capital Investment Tax credit - An annual credit against CIT equal to 5% of eligible capital costs by a qualifying project, for a period up to 20 years beginning with commencement of operations.

Credit granted against CIT or IPT. No credit forwards or backwards. Annual credit shall not exceed percentage of annual liability based on size of project (100% of $100m project, 75% of $50-$100m, or

$25m-$50m.)

High Impact Sector requirement was temporarily waived 07/01/2011

through 06/30/2014 for Disproportionally Affected Counties.

Notes

Annual credits may not exceed 50% of increased annual CIT liability or

premium tax liability generated by or arising out of a project. May take the

tax credit up to 5 years.

Headquarters facility

323

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

42

B C D E F G H I

Timing Cash - 3 Year Lag

High Assume an investment of 1 per tier (1-$100m, 1-$50m, 1-$25m) 5% of invest. annually

$25,000,000 $1,250,000

$50,000,000 $2,500,000

$100,000,000 $5,000,000

$8,750,000 REC

Middle Assume an investment of $50m and $100m 5% of invest. annually

$50,000,000 $2,500,000

$100,000,000 $5,000,000

$7,500,000 REC

Low Assume an investment of $100m 5% of invest. annually

$100,000,000 $5,000,000

$5,000,000 REC

CASH High Middle Low

2015/16 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

2016/17 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

2017/18 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

2018/19 -$8.8 -$7.5 -$5.0

2019/20 -$8.8 $7.5 -$5.0

324

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: R&D CIT Credit Issue: Corporate Income Tax Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: 3/17/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: 220.196 Research and development tax credit.—

(2) TAX CREDIT. Subject to the limitations contained in paragraph (e), a business enterprise is eligible for a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter if the business enterprise has qualified research expenses in this state in the taxable year exceeding the base amount and, for the same taxable year, claims and is allowed a research credit for such qualified research expenses under 26 U.S.C. s. 41. (a) The tax credit shall be 10 percent of the excess qualified research expenses over the base amount. However, the maximum tax credit for a business enterprise that has not been in existence for at least 4 taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year is reduced by 25 percent for each taxable year for which the business enterprise, or a predecessor corporation that was a business enterprise, did not exist. (b) The credit taken in any taxable year may not exceed 50 percent of the business enterprise's remaining net income tax liability under this chapter after all other credits have been applied under s. 220.02(8). (c) Any unused credit authorized under this section may be carried forward and claimed by the taxpayer for up to 5 years. (d) The combined total amount of tax credits which may be granted to all business enterprises under this section during any calendar year is $9 million.

b. Proposed Change: (d) The combined total amount of tax credits which may be granted to all business enterprises under this

section during any calendar year is $9 million, except that the combined total may not exceed $18 million during each of the calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018. Applications may be filed with the department on or after March 20 and before March 27 for qualified research expenses incurred within the preceding calendar year. If the total, and credits for all applicants exceed the maximum amount allowed pursuant to this paragraph, the credits shall be allocated on a prorated basis.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources


It is assumed the additional cap space will be utilized. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 2016‐17 ($9.0m)2017‐18 ($9.0m)2018‐19 ($9.0m)2019‐20

List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2016‐17 (9.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (9.0) 0.0 2017‐18 (9.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (9.0) 0.0 2018‐19 (9.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (9.0) 0.0 2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

325

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Documentary Stamp Tax Issue: Documentary Stamp Tax distribution Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB586 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Appropriations, Environmental Preservation and Conservation, and Senator Dean X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law:

Refer to 201.15 F.S for distribution of Excise Tax on Documents collection (calculation available on EDR website) b. Proposed Change:

‐ SB 586 implements the Water and Land Conservation Constitutional Amendment by requiring 33 percent of all taxes collected after deducting cost of collection to be deposited to Land Acquisition Trust Fund.

‐ Changes distribution formula under 201.15 F.S Section 2: Description of Data and Sources

‐ 201.15 F.S for current law ‐ General Revenue Estimating Conference – Spring 2015 (March 10, 2015)

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) ‐ Relating to SB 584 (2015), total of $8 million transfer according to 373.59(8)(a)(b)(c) is ignored. SB 584 amends 373.59

F.S to delete 373.59(8) F.S ‐ Based on stricken language on line 221, $4.3 million transfer (2014‐15 GAA proviso for 1626A) to General Revenue

Fund will not occur.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact General Revenue (Total) High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (174.8) (174.8)2016‐17 (210.8) (210.8)2017‐18 (240.1) (240.1)2018‐19 (259.6) (259.6)2019‐20 (277.8) (277.8)

List of affected Trust Funds: Total Trust Fund Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 174.8 174.82016‐17 210.8 210.82017‐18 240.1 240.12018‐19 259.6 259.62019‐20 277.8 277.8

Land Acquisition Trust Fund Grants and Donations Trust Fund State Transportation Trust Fund Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund General Inspection Trust Fund Water Management Lands Trust Fund Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund State Game Trust Fund Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund Internal Improvement Trust Fund

326

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Documentary Stamp Tax Issue: Documentary Stamp Tax distribution Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB586 Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (174.8) (174.8) 174.8 174.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2016‐17 (210.8) (210.8) 210.8 210.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2017‐18 (240.1) (240.1) 240.1 240.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018‐19 (259.6) (259.6) 259.6 259.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2019‐20 (277.8) (277.8) 277.8 277.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

327

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

E F G H I J AH AI AJ AK AL

Statutory%'s $ Caps F.S. Statutory % Distributions 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Total Documentary Stamp Tax Collections 2,257.6 2,430.2 2,569.7 2,661.0 2,746.2

201.15 DOR Administrative Costs 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.88.00% 201.15 Less: General Revenue Service Charge 180.6 194.4 205.6 212.9 219.7

Net Available for Distribution 2,067.2 2,226.0 2,354.3 2,438.3 2,516.7

63.31% 201.15(1) Distribution for General Revenue and Debt Service 1,308.7 1,409.3 1,490.5 1,543.7 1,593.3

201.15(1)(a)&(b) P2000/Florida Forever/Everglades Restoration Debt Service 173.3 173.5 173.6 173.6 173.8New % GR Share Available for Distribution After Debt Service 1,135.4 1,235.8 1,316.9 1,370.1 1,419.5Share $ Caps0.2300% 3.25 201.15(1)(c) Dept. of Economic Opportunity Grants & Donations Trust Fund 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.30.0000% 201.15(1)(c) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

38.2000% 541.75 201.15(1)(c) State Transportation Trust Fund 358.7 397.1 428.1 448.4 466.8

2.1200% 30.0 201.15(1)(c) Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund 24.1 26.2 27.9 29.1 30.00.0200% 0.3 201.15(1)(c) General Inspection Trust Fund, oyster management and restoration 0.230 0.250 0.260 0.270 0.28040.57% 657.3 201.15(1)(c) Total Distributions From GR Share After Debt Service 460.6 501.4 534.3 555.8 575.3

201.15(1)(d) General Revenue by Formula After Other Distributions 674.8 734.4 782.7 814.2 844.2201.15(16) Additional General Revenue due to Trust Fund Caps 140.5 167.0 188.6 203.1 216.1

373.59(8)(a),(b),(c) Transfer from Water Management Lands Trust Fund 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Transfer from Water Management Lands Trust Fund (HB5501-2014) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3Total General Revenue 827.5 913.7 983.5 1,029.6 1,072.6

Available for Other Distributions to Other Trust Funds 758.5 816.7 863.8 894.6 923.410% Growth From Prior Year 19.0 15.9 12.8 8.4 7.8

Statutory% Caps *

7.56000% 84.9 201.15(2) Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) 80.0 79.8 79.6 79.2 79.21.94000% 26.0 201.15(3) LATF - Coastal Lands Acquisition & Debt Service 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.04.20000% 60.5 201.15(4) Water Management Lands Trust Fund 61.3 61.2 61.0 60.9 60.83.12752% na 201.15(5) Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund 64.7 69.6 73.6 76.3 78.70.39248% na 201.15(5) State Game Trust Fund (from CARL) - Land Management 8.1 8.7 9.2 9.6 9.92.28000% 34.1 201.15(6) Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.3 34.30.50000% 9.3 201.15(7) State Game Trust Fund - Lake Restoration 2020 Program 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.30.25000% na 201.15(8) Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.30.25000% na 201.15(8) General Inspection Trust Fund 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.30.00000% na 201.15(9) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.03.76500% na 201.15(9)(a) State Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.253.76500% na 201.15(9)(b) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.250.00000% na 201.15(10) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.01.08250% na 201.15(10)(a) State Housing Trust Fund 17.38 19.10 20.49 21.39 22.247.57750% na 201.15(10)(b) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 121.64 133.68 143.40 149.76 155.70

36.69% Subtotal Statutory % Distributions 618.0 649.7 675.2 691.5 707.3Effective % 29.9% 29.2% 28.7% 28.4% 28.1%

Documentary Stamp Tax Collections and DistributionsGeneral Revenue Conference - Spring 2015 Adopted - March 10, 2015

328

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R

Statutory

%s$ Cap

F.S

ReferenceDescription 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Total Collection 2257.60 2430.20 2569.70 2661.00 2746.20 From GR Conf. December 2014

201.15 DOR Admin Cost 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 From GR Conf. December 2014

Remainder available for distribution 2247.80 2420.40 2559.90 2651.20 2736.40 Total collection less Admin Cost

(1) Debt Service (deposited to LATF) 173.31 173.51 173.58 173.65 173.79 Debt service schedule

Land Acquisition Trust Fund 568.46 625.22 671.19 701.25 729.22 Remainder of 33% less Debt Service

33.00% (2) Total to Land Acquisition Trust Fund 741.77 798.73 844.77 874.90 903.01 33% of row 8

Remainder 1506.03 1621.67 1715.13 1776.30 1833.39 Available after distribution to LATF

8.00% 215.20(1) General Revenue Service Charge 121.27 130.52 137.99 142.89 147.46 8% of remainder (row 14) and Admin Cost

(4) Net Available for Distribution 1384.76 1491.15 1577.14 1633.41 1685.93 Available for distribution to all other trust funds

75.00 (a) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 $75m to SEED from STTF distribution

24.18% 541.75 (a) State Transportation Trust Fund 259.90 285.63 306.42 320.03 332.73 Remainder after $75m to SEED

0.15% 3.25 (b) Grants and Donations Trust Fund (DEO) 2.02 2.17 2.30 2.38 2.45

35.00 ( c ) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 First $35m from SHTF

11.24% 5.62% ( c ) State Housing Trust Fund 60.32 66.30 71.14 74.30 77.25

5.62% ( c ) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 60.32 66.30 71.14 74.30 77.25 Half of SHTF to LGHTF (c ) 2.

40.00 (d) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 First $40m from SHTF

12.93% 1.62% (d) State Housing Trust Fund 17.38 19.10 20.49 21.40 22.25 (d)1.

11.31% (d) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 121.67 133.70 143.43 149.80 155.74 (d)2.

1.16 (e) Internal Improvement Trust Fund 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16

Total to Trust Funds (Except LATF) 672.77 724.36 766.08 793.37 818.83 Sum of all other trust funds group

(6) Remainder To General Revenue Fund 711.99 766.79 811.06 840.04 867.10 Row 16 less row 28

1. Relating to SB 584 (2015), $8million transfer from WMLTF 373.59(8)(a)(b)(c ) to General Revenue Fund is ignored

2. Values are rounded to neartest hundreth decimal point

Documentary Stamp Tax Collections and Distributions (Millions)

SB 586 (2015) - EDR 3/13/2015

329

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

B C D E F G H I J K L

Description

Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed

Total Collection 2,257.6 2,257.6 2,430.2 2,430.2 2,569.7 2,569.7 2,661.0 2,661.0 2,746.2 2,746.2

DOR Admin Cost 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8

GR Service Charge 180.6 121.3 194.4 130.5 205.6 138.0 212.9 142.9 219.7 147.5

(59.3) (63.9) (67.6) (70.0) (72.2)

Debt Service 173.3 173.3 173.5 173.5 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.8 173.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grants and Donations Trust Fund 2.6 2.0 2.8 2.2 3.0 2.3 3.2 2.4 3.3 2.5

(0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8)

State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

State Transportation Trust Fund 358.7 259.9 397.1 285.6 428.1 306.4 448.4 320.0 466.8 332.7

(98.8) (111.4) (121.6) (128.3) (134.0)

Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund 24.1 26.2 27.9 29.1 30.0

(24.1) (26.2) (27.9) (29.1) (30.0)

General Inspection Trust Fund 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.4 6.6

(5.4) (5.8) (6.2) (6.4) (6.6)

Land Acquisition Trust Fund (Except Debt Service) 95.0 568.5 94.8 625.2 94.6 671.2 94.2 701.3 94.2 729.2

473.4 530.4 576.6 607.0 635.0

Water Management Lands Trust Fund 49.0 48.9 48.8 48.6 48.6

(49.0) (48.9) (48.8) (48.6) (48.6)

Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund 64.7 69.6 73.6 76.3 78.7

(64.7) (69.6) (73.6) (76.3) (78.7)

State Game Trust Fund (from CARL) - Land Management 17.5 18.1 18.6 18.9 19.2

(17.5) (18.1) (18.6) (18.9) (19.2)

Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.3 34.3

(34.5) (34.5) (34.4) (34.3) (34.3)

Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.3

(5.2) (5.6) (5.9) (6.1) (6.3)

State Housing Trust Fund 77.7 77.7 85.4 85.4 91.6 91.6 95.7 95.7 99.5 99.5

(0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Local Government Housing Trust Fund 182.0 182.0 200.0 200.0 214.5 214.6 224.1 224.1 233.0 233.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Internal Improvement Trust Fund 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Total Trust Funds 1,066.4 1,241.2 1,138.8 1,349.6 1,197.2 1,437.3 1,235.1 1,494.6 1,270.3 1,548.1

174.8 210.8 240.1 259.6 277.8

General Revenue 827.5 712.0 913.7 766.8 983.5 811.1 1,029.6 840.0 1,072.6 867.1

(115.5) (146.9) (172.5) (189.6) (205.5)

GR + Service Charge 1,008.1 833.3 1,108.1 897.3 1,189.1 949.1 1,242.5 982.9 1,292.3 1,014.6

(174.8) (210.8) (240.1) (259.6) (277.8)

* Water Management Lands Trust Fund Transfer to GR 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

330

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Various Trust Fund Balances Issue: Amendment 1 Implementation Bill Number(s): HB1291 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 1 Sponsor(s): Representative Boyd X


b. Proposed Change: Section 1 of HB1291 terminates several trust funds within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). It also provides that the remaining balances in those trust funds be transferred to General Revenue, the Land Acquisition Trust Fund, or the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources: House Staff Analysis for HB1291

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee worked with DEP, DACS, and FWCC in order to determine estimated fund balances for the terminated trust funds as of June 30, 2015. Terminated Trust Funds

Estimated June 30, 2015 Fund Balances Recipient Funds

DEP Conservation & Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund 11.26 General Revenue DEP Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund 4.53 General Revenue DEP Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund 1.40 Water Quality Assurance Trust FundDEP Florida Communities Trust Fund 0.24 Land Acquisition Trust FundDEP Florida Preservation 2000 Trust Fund 0.43 Land Acquisition Trust FundDEP Water Management Lands Trust Fund 13.39 Land Acquisition Trust FundDEP Water Management Lands Trust Fund 1.65 General Revenue DACS CARL Trust Fund 3.36 General Revenue FWCC CARL Trust Fund 0.07 General Revenue

Total Estimated Fund Balances 36.33 The following tables represent the one‐time impact resulting from terminating the trust funds and transferring their balances.

Cash Impact 2015‐16

Cash Impact 2015‐16

Conservation & Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund (DEP, DACS, FWCC)

(14.69) General Revenue 20.87

Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund

(5.93) Trust Fund (20.87)

Florida Communities Trust Fund (0.24) Total Cash Impact 0.0Florida Preservation 2000 Trust Fund (0.43) Water Management Lands Trust Fund (15.04) General Revenue 20.87 Land Acquisition Trust Fund 14.06 Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund 1.40

Total Cash Impact 0.0

331

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Various Trust Fund Balances Issue: Amendment 1 Implementation Bill Number(s): HB1291 Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 0.02016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

List of affected Trust Funds: Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund (in DEP, DACS, & FWCC) Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund Florida Communities Trust Fund Florida Preservation 2000 Trust Fund Water Management Lands Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2016‐17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2017‐18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018‐19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

332

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Documentary Stamp Tax Issue: Documentary Stamp Tax distribution Bill Number(s): HB 1291 (Section 8) Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 8 of HB 1291 Sponsor(s): Rep. Boyd X


Refer to 201.15 F.S for distribution of Excise Tax on Documents collection (calculation available on EDR website) b. Proposed Change:

‐ HB1291 implements the Water and Land Conservation Constitutional Amendment by requiring 33 percent of all taxes collected after deducting cost of collection to be deposited to Land Acquisition Trust Fund.

‐ Changes distribution formula under 201.15 F.S Section 2: Description of Data and Sources

‐ 201.15 F.S for current law ‐ General Revenue Estimating Conference – Spring 2015 (March 10, 2015)

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) ‐ After consulting with House staff, definition of ‘unadjusted remainder’ is assumed as 92 percent of total documentary

stamps tax collection, then subtracting cost of administration.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact General Revenue (section 8) High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (273.3) (273.3)2016‐17 (322.0) (322.0)2017‐18 (361.5) (361.5)2018‐19 (387.7) (387.7)2019‐20 (411.7) (411.7)

List of affected Trust Funds: Total Trust Fund Impact High Middle Low


Land Acquisition Trust Fund Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund General Inspection Trust Fund Water Management Lands Trust Fund Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund State Game Trust Fund Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund

333

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Documentary Stamp Tax Issue: Documentary Stamp Tax distribution Bill Number(s): HB 1291 (Section 8) Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total


334

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

89

A C D E G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

Reference Description 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Formula

Sec 8 % Dist. Cap

Total Collection 2257.60 2430.20 2569.70 2661.00 2746.20 From GR Conference

(1) Debt Service (to LATF) 173.31 173.51 173.58 173.65 173.79 Debt Service Schedule

Remainder for Distribution and Admin Cost 2084.29 2256.69 2396.12 2487.35 2572.41 Row 3 minus Row 4

(2) DOR Admin Cost 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 From GR Conference

Remainder available for Distribution 2074.49 2246.89 2386.32 2477.55 2562.61 Row 6 minus Row 8

Land Acquisition Trust Fund 568.46 625.22 671.19 701.25 729.22 Total (row12) less Debt service (row 4)

(3) Total to LATF 741.77 798.73 844.77 874.90 903.01 33% of Total (row 3) minus Admin cost (row 8)

(4) 8.00% General Revenue Service Charge 121.27 130.52 137.99 142.89 147.46 8% of Total minus LATF

Available for Distribution and GR 1384.76 1491.15 1577.14 1633.41 1685.93 Total less (LATF, Svc Charge, Admin cost)

(5) 92.00% Unadjusted Remainder 2067.19 2225.98 2354.32 2438.32 2516.70 92% of Total collection, minus admin cost

(5) 63.31% Adjusted Remainder 1135.43 1235.76 1316.94 1370.05 1419.53 63.31% of UR (row17), less debt service (row4)

(5) (a) 75.00 State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 $75m to SEED from STTF (row21)

(5) (a) 38.20% 541.75 State Transportation Trust Fund 358.73 397.06 428.07 448.36 466.75 Remainder after 75m to SEED

(5) (b) 0.23% 3.25 Grants and Donations Trust Fund (DEO) 2.61 2.84 3.03 3.15 3.25

(5) (c ) 0.02% 0.30 General Inspection Trust Fund (DACS), Oyster Management and Restoration 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28

(5) (d) 35.00 State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 Note: From Unadjusted Remainder

(5) (d) 1. 3.77% State Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.25

(5) (d) 2. 3.77% Local Government Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.25

(5) (e) 40.00 State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund (DEO) 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Note: From Unadjusted Remainder

(5) (e) 1. 1.08% State Housing Trust Fund 17.38 19.10 20.49 21.39 22.24

(5) (e) 2. 7.58% Local Government Housing Trust Fund 121.64 133.67 143.40 149.76 155.70

Total to Trust Funds (Except LATF) 771.25 835.54 887.53 921.53 952.72 Sum of row20-29

(7) Remainder to General Revenue 613.51 655.61 689.61 711.88 733.21 Total minus (Admin Cost, LATF, Service Charge, Other Trust (row30))

Note: This worksheet determines only the impact of section 8 of HB1291

Documentary Stamp Tax Distribution (HB 1291 - March 20, 2015)

335

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

A E F G H I J AH AI AJ AK AL

Statutory%'s $ Caps F.S. Statutory % Distributions 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Total Documentary Stamp Tax Collections 2,257.6 2,430.2 2,569.7 2,661.0 2,746.2

201.15 DOR Administrative Costs 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.88.00% 201.15 Less: General Revenue Service Charge 180.6 194.4 205.6 212.9 219.7

Net Available for Distribution 2,067.2 2,226.0 2,354.3 2,438.3 2,516.7

63.31% 201.15(1) Distribution for General Revenue and Debt Service 1,308.7 1,409.3 1,490.5 1,543.7 1,593.3

201.15(1)(a)&(b) P2000/Florida Forever/Everglades Restoration Debt Service 173.3 173.5 173.6 173.6 173.8New % GR Share Available for Distribution After Debt Service 1,135.4 1,235.8 1,316.9 1,370.1 1,419.5Share $ Caps

0.2300% 3.25 201.15(1)(c) Dept. of Economic Opportunity Grants & Donations Trust Fund 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.30.0000% 201.15(1)(c) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

38.2000% 541.75 201.15(1)(c) State Transportation Trust Fund 358.7 397.1 428.1 448.4 466.8

2.1200% 30.0 201.15(1)(c) Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund 24.1 26.2 27.9 29.1 30.00.0200% 0.3 201.15(1)(c) General Inspection Trust Fund, oyster management and restoration 0.230 0.250 0.260 0.270 0.28040.57% 657.3 201.15(1)(c) Total Distributions From GR Share After Debt Service 460.6 501.4 534.3 555.8 575.3

201.15(1)(d) General Revenue by Formula After Other Distributions 674.8 734.4 782.7 814.2 844.2201.15(16) Additional General Revenue due to Trust Fund Caps 140.5 167.0 188.6 203.1 216.1

373.59(8)(a),(b),(c) Transfer from Water Management Lands Trust Fund 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Transfer from Water Management Lands Trust Fund (HB5501-2014) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3Total General Revenue 827.5 913.7 983.5 1,029.6 1,072.6

Available for Other Distributions to Other Trust Funds 758.5 816.7 863.8 894.6 923.410% Growth From Prior Year 19.0 15.9 12.8 8.4 7.8

Statutory% Caps *

7.56000% 84.9 201.15(2) Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) 80.0 79.8 79.6 79.2 79.21.94000% 26.0 201.15(3) LATF - Coastal Lands Acquisition & Debt Service 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.04.20000% 60.5 201.15(4) Water Management Lands Trust Fund 61.3 61.2 61.0 60.9 60.83.12752% na 201.15(5) Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund 64.7 69.6 73.6 76.3 78.70.39248% na 201.15(5) State Game Trust Fund (from CARL) - Land Management 8.1 8.7 9.2 9.6 9.92.28000% 34.1 201.15(6) Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.3 34.30.50000% 9.3 201.15(7) State Game Trust Fund - Lake Restoration 2020 Program 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.30.25000% na 201.15(8) Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.30.25000% na 201.15(8) General Inspection Trust Fund 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.30.00000% na 201.15(9) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.03.76500% na 201.15(9)(a) State Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.253.76500% na 201.15(9)(b) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 60.33 66.31 71.14 74.30 77.250.00000% na 201.15(10) State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.01.08250% na 201.15(10)(a) State Housing Trust Fund 17.38 19.10 20.49 21.39 22.247.57750% na 201.15(10)(b) Local Government Housing Trust Fund 121.64 133.68 143.40 149.76 155.70

36.69% Subtotal Statutory % Distributions 618.0 649.7 675.2 691.5 707.3Effective % 29.9% 29.2% 28.7% 28.4% 28.1%

Documentary Stamp Tax Collections and DistributionsGeneral Revenue Conference - Spring 2015 Adopted

336

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

B C D E F G

Difference (HB1291 - CurrentLaw)

Description 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Total Collection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DOR Admin Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GR Service Charge (59.3) (63.9) (67.6) (70.0) (72.2)

Debt Service 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grants and Donations Trust Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

State Transportation Trust Fund 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund (24.1) (26.2) (27.9) (29.1) (30.0)

General Inspection Trust Fund (5.2) (5.6) (5.9) (6.1) (6.3)

Land Acquisition Trust Fund (Except Debt Service) 473.4 530.4 576.6 607.0 635.0

Water Management Lands Trust Fund (49.0) (48.9) (48.8) (48.6) (48.6)

Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund (64.7) (69.6) (73.6) (76.3) (78.7)

State Game Trust Fund (from CARL) - Land Management (17.5) (18.1) (18.6) (18.9) (19.2)

Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund (34.5) (34.5) (34.4) (34.3) (34.3)

Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund (5.2) (5.6) (5.9) (6.1) (6.3)

State Housing Trust Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Local Government Housing Trust Fund 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Trust Funds 273.3 322.0 361.5 387.7 411.7

General Revenue Impact (distribution) (214.0) (258.1) (293.9) (317.7) (339.4)

Total General Revenue Impact (GR + Service Charge) (273.3) (322.0) (361.5) (387.7) (411.7)

1. CARL(27), EMRTF(19), WMLTF(25) are terminated in HB1291 (section 1)

2. This worksheet only analyzes impact of section 8 of HB1291

337

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Severance Tax Issue: Distribution of Phosphate Severance Tax Bill Number(s): HB1291 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 9 Sponsor(s): Representative Boyd X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: From January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2022, 22.8% of the severance tax on phosphate is distributed to the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Trust Fund. Section 1 of HB 1291 terminates the CARL Trust Fund. b. Proposed Change: Section 9 of HB 1291 re‐distributes the phosphate severance tax collections, beginning July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2022. The distributions will change again on January 1, 2023, but that is outside of the five‐year forecast window.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources March 2015 General Revenue Estimating Conference, Severance Tax Forecast House Staff Analysis for HB 1291

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) See attached for differences in current and proposed phosphate severance tax distributions and the impacts to GR, TF, and locals.



List of affected Trust Funds: Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund Non‐mandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund Phosphate Research Trust Fund Minerals Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 3.4 3.4 (5.5) (5.5) 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2016‐17 3.4 3.4 (5.5) (5.5) 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2017‐18 3.4 3.4 (5.5) (5.5) 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2018‐19 3.4 3.4 (5.5) (5.5) 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2019‐20 3.3 3.3 (5.5) (5.5) 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0

338

current law distribution of severance tax on phosphate

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

22.8% CARL TF 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0

31.9% GR 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.2

11.5% Counties 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0

8.9% Counties 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1

16.1%

Nonmandatory Land

Reclamation TF 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7

5.6% Phosphate Research TF 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3.2% Minerals TF 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1

100.0% Total 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.9 35.1

HB1291 distribution of severance tax on phosphate

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

0.0% CARL TF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

41.3% GR 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.5

14.9% Counties 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.2

11.5% Counties 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0

20.9%

Nonmandatory Land

Reclamation TF 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3

7.3% Phosphate Research TF 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

4.1% Minerals TF 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4

100.0% Total 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.9 35.1

difference

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

CARL TF (8.2) (8.2) (8.2) (8.2) (8.0)

GR 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3

Counties 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Counties 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Nonmandatory Land

Reclamation TF 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Phosphate Research TF 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Minerals TF 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Impact

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

General Revenue 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3

Trust Fund (5.5) (5.5) (5.5) (5.5) (5.4)

Local 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1

Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

339

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Initial Registration Distribution Bill Number(s): SPB7054 X Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Appropriations

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2015 Date of Analysis: 3/20/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Chapter 320 section 072 provides an additional fee imposed on certain motor vehicle registration transactions

b. Proposed Change: The proposed amendment would add the 41.2 percent distribution of the $225 fee collected from General

Revenue to the 44.5 percent distribution that the State Transportation Trust Fund already receives. This change would have 85.7 percent of the fee collected going to the State Transportation Trust Fund.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources HSMV Data HSMV Adopted forecast from February, 2015

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Using the adopted results from the 2/27/2015 HSMV Revenue Estimating Conference, the analysis calculates the revenue impact based on the distribution stated in SPB7054 (see attached).

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact GR

High Middle Low


2015‐16 (99.1) (99.1)

2016‐17 (101.3) (101.3)

2017‐18 (103.4) (103.4)

2018‐19 (105.4) (105.4)

2019‐20 (107.3) (107.3)

STTF

High Middle Low


2015‐16 99.1 99.1

2016‐17 101.3 101.3

2017‐18 103.4 103.4

2018‐19 105.4 105.4

2019‐20 107.3 107.3 List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue Fund State Transportation Trust Fund

340

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Initial Registration Distribution Bill Number(s): SPB7054 Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total


341

Initital Registration: GR (41.2%)

15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

320.072 Initial Registration Fee 99.05 101.29 103.44 105.44 107.26

342

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Insurance Premium Tax Issue: Direct Primary Care Bill Number(s): HB7047 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Rep. Costello

x

Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2015 Date of Analysis: 3/17/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Currently Direct Primary Care Agreements do not exist. b. Proposed Change: Allows for patients, legal representatives or an employer and primary care providers to enter into an

agreement to provide primary care service. Direct Primary Care Agreements do not constitute as insurance and are not subject to code.


Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The Affordable Care Act allows for individuals and primary care providers to enter an agreement of primary care service that does not constitute as insurance but satisfies the requirement for healthcare as long as the Direct primary Care Agreement is coupled with a catastrophic insurance policy. There are currently seven states across the country that have passed legislation allowing for the creation of these agreements and another nine states beyond Florida that maintain pending legislation. The impact from the bill is indeterminate and the number of doctors under such an arrangement nationwide is small. Out of 600,000 doctors nationwide, there are 4,400 private physicians in 2012. That number however was up 25% from 2011. With the Affordable Care Act now in place, it’s reasonable to assume that a cheaper option such as Direct Primary Care will be a viable an attractive alternative to high insurance premiums for those who had previously been uninsured. Qliance, a Direct Primary Care group near Seattle maintains monthly fees ranging from $54 to $89 dollars a month. Currently there are few Direct Primary Care arrangements in the state. If enough are created or grow larger as a result of the ACA then OIR may make the determination on a case by case basis as to whether these qualify for either a prepaid health clinic plan or a prepaid limited health service organization. Both groups are to be licensed and subject to the previsions of insurance code. The prepaid limited health service organization is also privy to a 1.75% insurance premium tax. The impact would be these agreements not becoming one of these two groups thus not remitting any revenue in the future.


Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2016‐17 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2017‐18 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2018‐19 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2019‐20 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate)

List of affected Trust Funds: Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference chose the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (**) (**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**)2016‐17 (**) (**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**)2017‐18 (**) (**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**)2018‐19 (**) (**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**)2019‐20 (**) (**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**)

343

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Insurance Premium Tax Issue: Local Pension Reform Bill Number(s): CS/HB 341 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Rep. Cummings

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2015 Date of Analysis: 3/19/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, provides in part that For any municipality, special fire control district, local law

municipality, local law special fire control district, or local law plan under this chapter, in order for municipalities and special fire control district s with their own pension plan for firefighters , or for fire fighters and police officers if included, to participate in the distribution of the tax fund established under 175.101, a local law plan must meet the minimum benefits and minimum standards and income from the premium tax shall be used to pay extra benefits. Further defines extra benefits and additional premium tax revenues. Section 185.35 reads similarly.

b. Proposed Change: revises section 175.351 and section 185.35 to eliminate the definitions of extra benefits and additional premium tax revenues. Deletes the requirement that additional revenues must be used to provide for extra benefits. Defines base premium tax revenues to be mean: (a) The revenues received by a municipality or special fire control district pursuant to s. 175.121 for the 2013 calendar year; or (b) For a municipality or special fire control district that did not receive premium tax revenues for the 2013 calendar year, the revenues received during the second calendar year of participation. Defines “Special benefits” means benefits provided in a defined contribution plan for firefighters and police officers, respectively. Provides that the base premium tax revenues must be used to fund minimum benefits or other retirement benefits in excess of the minimum benefits as determined by the municipality or special fire control district and that fifty percent of additional premium revenues must be used to fund minimum benefits or other retirement benefits in excess of the minimum benefits as determined by the municipality or special fire control district, and 50 percent must be placed in a defined contribution plan to fund special benefits.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Currently 190 municipalities or special districts receive premium tax revenues pursuant to chapters 175 and 185. This premium tax operates as a direct credit against the state insurance premium tax. Currently the credit for chapters 175 and 185 premium tax is $223.3 M. Impact would only occur is more municipalities or special districts that were eligible to impose the tax and were induced by the changes in the bill. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue only Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted a zero to negative indeterminate impact. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0/(**) 0/(**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0/(**) 0/(**)2016‐17 0/(**) 0/(**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0/(**) 0/(**)2017‐18 0/(**) 0/(**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0/(**) 0/(**)2018‐19 0/(**) 0/(**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0/(**) 0/(**)2019‐20 0/(**) 0/(**) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0/(**) 0/(**)

344

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Insurance Premium Tax Issue: Title Insurance Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Under current law, the gross amount of title insurance premium received by title insurers and their agents is

subject to premium tax. F.S. 627.782 (1) …for policies issued through agents or agencies, the percentage of such premium required to be retained by the title insurer which shall not be less than 30 percent. 624.509 (8): The premium tax authorized by this section may not be imposed on: Any portion of premium retained by a title insurance agent or agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that the continuation of this exemption be contingent on title insurers adding employees to their payroll. Between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2016, title insurers currently holding a valid certificate of authority from this state shall, in the aggregate, add a minimum of 600 Florida‐based employees to their payroll, as verified by the Department of Economic Opportunity. This paragraph expires December 31, 2017.

b. Proposed Change: 624.509 (8): The premium tax authorized by this section may not be imposed on: Any portion of premium

retained by a title insurance agent or agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that the continuation of this exemption be contingent on title insurers adding employees to their payroll. Between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2016, title insurers currently holding a valid certificate of authority from this state shall, in the aggregate, add a minimum of 600 Florida‐based employees to their payroll, as verified by the Department of Economic Opportunity. This paragraph expires December 31, 2017.


Insurance Premium Tax Returns (CY 2012 & 2013) INT‐C Growth % ‐ REC GR March 2015

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The insurance premium tax returns are recast to reflect the level of activity occurring in the title insurance market. In our simulation, 70% of the premium tax due before credits is subtracted. The credits against the tax are then scaled to the new level of premium tax due, adhering to the 65% cumulative cap of salary plus corporate income tax credits taken against the source. The high estimate reflects CY 2012 return data and nets out prior estimates effecting revenue. The low estimate reflects CY 2013 return data and nets out prior estimates effecting revenue.


Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 ($6.0m) ($3.2m) 2016‐17 ($6.0m) ($3.2m) 2017‐18 ($6.0m) ($3.2m) 2018‐19 ($9.0m) ($6.0m) ($4.8m) ($3.2m) 2019‐20 ($6.2m) ($6.2m) ($3.3m) ($3.2m)

List of affected Trust Funds: Insurance Premium Tax Grouping Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted an average of the high and low. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 (4.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.6)2016‐17 0.0 (4.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.6)2017‐18 0.0 (4.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.6)2018‐19 (6.9) (4.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.9) (4.6)2019‐20 (4.8) (4.7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.8) (4.7)

345

Proposed Language: Title Insurance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

A B C D E F G H I J

Title Insurance

High Estimate (CY 2012 Return Data)

Total Premium Credit Against Net Premium Retaliatory Tax Other Charges Total Tax Due

Tax Due the Tax Tax Due and Fees

Current Law 15,444,972 5,478,790 10,055,215 1,911,041 79,740 12,045,997

Proposed Change 4,633,491 1,985,241 2,653,378 4,924,244 79,740 7,657,362

4,388,635

Low Estimate (CY 2013 Return Data)



Current Law 15,954,757 7,356,308 8,598,450 2,245,934 73,950 10,918,333

Proposed Change 4,786,427 2,763,733 2,022,694 6,486,929 73,950 8,583,573

2,334,760

High Estimate (CY 2012 Return Data) Low Estimate (CY 2013 Return Data)

2012 ($4,388,635) Intangibles C % growth

2013 ($4,063,876) ($2,161,988) -7.4%

2014 ($4,600,307) ($2,447,370) 13.2%

2015 ($4,986,733) ($2,652,949) 8.4%

2016 ($5,390,659) ($2,867,838) 8.1%

2017 ($5,627,848) ($2,994,023) 4.4%

2018 ($5,881,101) ($3,128,754) 4.5%

2019 ($6,116,345) ($3,253,904) 4.0%

2020 ($6,360,998) ($3,384,060) 4.0%


Payment schedule Payment Basis Payment amount State Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Impact

Apr-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2015-16 2015-16

Jun-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2015-16 2016-17

Oct-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2016-17 2017-18 Additional cash impact

Mar-17 2016 true-up ($1,460,868) 2016-17 2018-19 ($6,017,857) 2,976,231 (8,994,088)

Apr-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2016-17 2019-20 ($6,243,376)

Jun-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2016-17

Oct-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2017-18

Mar-18 2017 True-up ($1,261,414) 2017-18

Apr-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2017-18

Jun-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2017-18

Oct-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2018-19

Mar-19 2018 true-up ($1,322,544) 2018-19

Apr-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2018-19

Jun-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2018-19

Oct-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2019-20

Mar-20 2019 true-up ($1,352,653) 2019-20

Apr-20 27% of 2019 liability ($1,651,413) 2019-20

Jun-20 27% of 2019 liability ($1,651,413) 2019-20


Payment schedule Payment Basis Payment amount State Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Impact

Apr-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2015-16 2015-16

Jun-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2015-16 2016-17

Oct-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2016-17 2017-18 Additional cash impact

Mar-17 2016 true-up ($777,184) 2016-17 2018-19 ($3,201,509) 1,616,772 (4,818,281)

Apr-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2016-17 2019-20 ($3,321,485)

Jun-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2016-17

Oct-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2017-18

Mar-18 2017 True-up ($671,074) 2017-18

Apr-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2017-18

Jun-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2017-18

Oct-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2018-19

Mar-19 2018 true-up ($703,595) 2018-19

Apr-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2018-19

Jun-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2018-19

Oct-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2019-20

Mar-20 2019 true-up ($719,613) 2019-20

Apr-20 27% of 2019 liability ($878,554) 2019-20

Jun-20 27% of 2019 liability ($878,554) 2019-20

Adopted impact from last year

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/revenueimpact/archives/2014/pdf/page627-629.pdf

Fiscal Year Impact

2014-15 ($2,427,269)

2015-16 ($5,264,078)

2016-17 ($5,394,331)

2017-18 ($5,650,562)

2018-19 $2,976,231

REC Impact Conference - 3/20/2015346

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Insurance Premium Tax Issue: Title Insurance ‐ Extension Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s):

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Under current law, the gross amount of title insurance premium received by title insurers and their agents is

subject to premium tax. F.S. 627.782 (1) …for policies issued through agents or agencies, the percentage of such premium required to be retained by the title insurer which shall not be less than 30 percent. 624.509 (8): The premium tax authorized by this section may not be imposed on: Any portion of premium retained by a title insurance agent or agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that the continuation of this exemption be contingent on title insurers adding employees to their payroll. Between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2016, title insurers currently holding a valid certificate of authority from this state shall, in the aggregate, add a minimum of 600 Florida‐based employees to their payroll, as verified by the Department of Economic Opportunity. This paragraph expires December 31, 2017.

b. Proposed Change: 624.509 (8): The premium tax authorized by this section may not be imposed on: Any portion of premium

retained by a title insurance agent or agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that the continuation of this exemption be contingent on title insurers adding employees to their payroll. Between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2016, title insurers currently holding a valid certificate of authority from this state shall, in the aggregate, add a minimum of 600 Florida‐based employees to their payroll, as verified by the Department of Economic Opportunity. This paragraph expires December 31, 2018 2017,unless reenacted by the Legislature before that date;


Insurance Premium Tax Returns (CY 2012 & 2013) INT‐C Growth % ‐ REC GR March 2015


The insurance premium tax returns are recast to reflect the level of activity occurring in the title insurance market. In our simulation, 70% of the premium tax due before credits is subtracted. The credits against the tax are then scaled to the new level of premium tax due, adhering to the 65% cumulative cap of salary plus corporate income tax credits taken against the source. The high estimate reflects CY 2012 return data and nets out prior estimates effecting revenue. The low estimate reflects CY 2013 return data and nets out prior estimates effecting revenue.


Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 ($9.0m) ($4.8m)2019‐20 $3.2m $1.7m

List of affected Trust Funds: Insurance Premium Tax Grouping Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the average of the high and low estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2016‐17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2017‐18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018‐19 (6.9) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.9) 0.0 2019‐20 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0

347

Proposed Language: Title Insurance - Extension

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

6061

62

63

6465

6667

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

A B C D E F G H I

Title Insurance - Extension




Current Law 15,444,972 5,478,790 10,055,215 1,911,041 79,740 12,045,997

Proposed Change 4,633,491 1,985,241 2,653,378 4,924,244 79,740 7,657,362

4,388,635




Current Law 15,954,757 7,356,308 8,598,450 2,245,934 73,950 10,918,333

Proposed Change 4,786,427 2,763,733 2,022,694 6,486,929 73,950 8,583,573

2,334,760

High Low

2012 ($4,388,635) Intangibles C % growth

2013 ($4,063,876) ($2,161,988) -7.4%

2014 ($4,600,307) ($2,447,370) 13.2%

2015 ($4,986,733) ($2,652,949) 8.4%

2016 ($5,390,659) ($2,867,838) 8.1%

2017 ($5,627,848) ($2,994,023) 4.4%

2018 ($5,881,101) ($3,128,754) 4.5%

2019 4.0%

2020 4.0%


Payment schedule Payment Basis Payment amount State Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Impact High

Apr-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2015-16 2015-16

Jun-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2015-16 2016-17

Oct-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($1,309,930) 2016-17 2017-18 Additional cash impact**

Mar-17 2016 true-up ($1,460,868) 2016-17 2018-19 (6,017,857) 2,976,231 (8,994,088)

Apr-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2016-17 2019-20 3,175,794

Jun-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2016-17

Oct-17 27% of 2016 liability ($1,455,478) 2017-18

Mar-18 2017 True-up ($1,261,414) 2017-18

Apr-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2017-18

Jun-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2017-18

Oct-18 27% of 2017 liability ($1,519,519) 2018-19

Mar-19 2018 true-up ($1,322,544) 2018-19

Apr-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2018-19

Jun-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2018-19

Oct-19 27% of 2018 liability ($1,587,897) 2019-20

Mar-20 2019 true-up $4,763,692 2019-20


Payment schedule Payment Basis Payment amount State Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Impact Low

Apr-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2015-16 2015-16

Jun-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2015-16 2016-17

Oct-16 90% of 27% of 2016 Liability ($696,885) 2016-17 2017-18 Additional cash impact**

Mar-17 2016 true-up ($777,184) 2016-17 2018-19 (3,201,509) 1,616,772 (4,818,281)

Apr-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2016-17 2019-20 1,689,527

Jun-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2016-17

Oct-17 27% of 2016 liability ($774,316) 2017-18

Mar-18 2017 True-up ($671,074) 2017-18

Apr-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2017-18

Jun-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2017-18

Oct-18 27% of 2017 liability ($808,386) 2018-19Mar-19 2018 true-up ($703,595) 2018-19

Apr-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2018-19

Jun-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2018-19

Oct-19 27% of 2018 liability ($844,764) 2019-20Mar-20 2019 true-up $2,534,291 2019-20

** Adopted impact from last year

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/revenueimpact/archives/2014/pdf/page627-629.pdf

Fiscal Year Impact

2014-15 ($2,427,269)

2015-16 ($5,264,078)

2016-17 ($5,394,331)

2017-18 ($5,650,562)

2018-19 $2,976,231

REC Impact Conference - 3/20/2015348

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Discounts on Transportation Fares Issue: Requires regional transportation authorities to provide partial or full discount on fares and on other charges for the use of a transportation system or a transportation facilities to a disabled veteran, who can present satisfactory evidence of eligibility for the discount. Bill Number(s): HB 1095 (SB 1430 similar)

Page 1 of 3

Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 2 Sponsor(s): Representative Rooney X

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Part V of Chapter 163, F.S., provides for the governance of Regional Transportation Authorities. The law defines

“authority” as a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the law, which may include any two or more contiguous counties, municipalities, other political subdivisions, or combinations in the state. Section 163.568, F.S., authorizes these authorities to purchase, own, operate, or provide for the operation of transportation facilities. In doing so, the authorities are authorized to establish equitable and just rates, fees and charges; and acquire and operate, or provide for the operation of, local transportation systems, public or private, within the area. Currently, regional transportation authorities, created pursuant to Part V of Chapter 163, F.S., are not required by Florida law to provide discounts on fares and other charges to disabled veterans.

b. Proposed Change: Section 2 of the bill creates s. 163.58, F.S., to require regional transportation authorities to a full or partial discount on fares and on other charges for the use of a transportation system or a transportation facility owned or operated by the authority to a disabled veteran, as described in s. 295.07(1)(a), F.S., who presents written documentation satisfactory to the authority that evidences eligibility for the discount. The bill does not require eligible disabled veterans to demonstrate Florida residency. Section 295.07(1)(a), F.S., defines disabled veterans as those: 1. Who have served on active duty in any branch of the United States Armed Forces, have received an honorable discharge,

and have established the present existence of a service‐connected disability that is compensable under public laws administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; or,

2. Who are receiving compensation, disability retirement benefits, or pension by reason of public laws administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Department of Defense.

Some key statutory definitions, relevant to this analysis, are as follows: Section 163.566(11), F.S., defines “transportation facility” or “transportation facilities” as the property or property rights, both real and personal, of a type used for the establishment of public transportation systems which have heretofore been, or may hereafter be, established by public bodies for the transportation of people and property from place to place. Section 163.566(8), F.S., defines “public transportation” as transportation of passengers by means, without limitation, of a street railway, elevated railway or guideway, subway, motor vehicle, motor bus, or any bus or other means of conveyance operating as a common carrier within the regional transportation area, including charter service therein. Section 341.031(6), F.S., defines “public transit” as the transporting of people by conveyances, or systems of conveyances, traveling on land or water, local or regional in nature, and available for use by the public. Public transit systems may be either governmentally owned or privately owned. Public transit specifically includes those forms of transportation commonly known as “paratransit.” Finally, section 341.031(5), F.S., defines “paratransit” as those elements of public transit which provide service between specific origins and destinations selected by the individual user with such service being provided at a time that is agreed upon by the user and the provider of the service. Paratransit service is provided by taxis, limousines, “dial‐a‐ride” buses, and other demand‐responsive operations that are characterized by their nonscheduled, nonfixed route nature.

349


Page 2 of 3

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Annual Benefits Report: Fiscal Year 2013, pp. 19 and 29 of 80; available at http://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/ABR‐Combined‐FY13‐09262014.pdf Veterans Receiving Service‐Connected Compensation Benefits (as of 9/30/2013)

State Totals Florida

Number of Veterans 3,743,259 284,986 E‐mail communication with Ed Coven, State Transit Manager, Public Transit Office, Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Department of Transportation, Public Transit Office website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/ Mr. Coven stated that according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration’s rules and regulations, transit agencies receiving federal formula funding must provide a discounted fare (i.e., maximum 50% of full fare during peak hours) to seniors and those persons with disabilities. Consequently, all of the nation’s, and Florida’s, transit agencies currently offer these discounts. Mr. Coven stated his belief that most, if not all, transit agencies extend these discounted fare benefits throughout the day, not just during the peak hours. Therefore, according to Mr. Coven, disabled veterans would already be eligible for reduced fares on all of Florida’s transit system, not just transit authorities. (Note: Most of Florida’s transit agencies are agencies of city or county government.) Because disabled veterans are already eligible for fare discounts, Mr. Coven sees little to no additional fiscal impact resulting from the proposed change. Telephone conversations with Lisa Bacot, Executive Director, Florida Public Transportation Association (FPTA). Florida Public Transportation Association website: http://www.floridatransit.org/ The Florida Public Transportation Association (FPTA) is a nonprofit association whose membership includes every major public transit agency in Florida. From the FPTA’s list of public transit agencies, Ms. Bacot identified those authorities created pursuant to Part V of Chapter 163, F.S. Those authorities are as follows: Public Transit Agencies Authorized Pursuant to Part V of Chapter 163, F.S.

Counties Served

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) HillsboroughLakeland Area Mass Transit District PolkPinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) PinellasSuwannee Valley Transit Authority (SVTA) Columbia, Hamilton, and Suwannee Ms. Bacot noted that the applicability of the proposed change seems unclear since several regional transportation authorities (i.e., Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), which serves Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties; Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA), which serves Clay, Duval, and St. Johns counties; and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri‐Rail), which serves Broward, Miami‐Dade, and Palm Beach counties) do not consider themselves to be Part V, Chapter 163 entities since their authorization originates from other chapters of Florida Statutes (i.e., Chapters 343 and 349). Ms. Bacot also noted that most, if not all, regional transportation authorities already offer discounted fares to disabled persons, so the proposed change would have little to no fiscal impact on fare revenues. However, other services, such as paratransit, are not typically discounted. Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Since the bill language creates a new section within Part V of Chapter 163, F.S. (i.e., Regional Transportation Authorities), this analysis assumes that the proposed change impacts only those authorities defined pursuant to this Part. Additionally, this analysis assumes that the language of the proposed change (i.e., “… a partial or full discount on fares and on other charges for the use …”) includes charges for services such as paratransit.

350

http://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/ABR-Combined-FY13-09262014.pdf

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/

http://www.floridatransit.org/


Page 3 of 3

Since Florida residency is not a requirement for the receipt of a discount, the proposed full or partial discount would extend not only to eligible disabled veterans living and working in Florida, but also to those eligible disabled veterans visiting the state. However, as previously mentioned, regional transportation authorities already offer discounted fares to disabled persons. Consequently, the discounted fare portion of the proposed change would seem to have little to no fiscal impact. However, if a partial or full discount is extended to other services such as paratransit that are not typically discounted at the present time, then the fiscal impact could potentially become more significant. Although there are no ridership data pertaining to the use of authorities’ transportation systems or facilities by disabled veterans, it seems possible that the total value of such “partial or full discount on fares and other charges for the use of a transportation system or a transportation facility owned or operated by the authority” could exceed the statewide insignificance threshold of $50,000, particularly if discounts on “other charges” include services such as paratransit. For these reasons, the EDR staff is recommending a negative indeterminate fiscal impact for each year in the forecast period. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2016‐17 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2017‐18 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2018‐19 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate) 2019‐20 (Indeterminate) (Indeterminate)

List of Affected Trust Funds: Local funds Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**) (**) (**)2016‐17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**) (**) (**)2017‐18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**) (**) (**)2018‐19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**) (**) (**)2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (**) (**) (**) (**)

351

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Local Taxes and Fees Issue: Non‐residential farm buildings assessments Bill Number(s): SB142 – Proposed Amendment Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Dean, Representative Porter

x

Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: March 19, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Currently, s.604.50 (F.S.) reads: “….Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any nonresidential farm

building, farm fence, or farm sign that is located on lands used for bona fide agricultural purposes is exempt from the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee, except for code provisions implementing local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations….”

b. Proposed Change: Amends s. 604.50, F.S., and exempts nonresidential farm buildings, farm fences and farm signs that is

located on land used for bona fide agricultural purposes from county or municipal special assessments, including assessments by a dependent special district, except for code provisions that implement local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources DOR Property Tax Data

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) S. 190.021 (8), F.S., reads: “Benefit special assessments, maintenance special assessments, and special assessments are non‐ad valorem assessments as defined by s. 197.3632.” Data from DOR contains agricultural parcels with a non‐residential building that received a non ad‐valorem assessment on their tax bill and the amount of that assessment. It excluded levies that were based on acreage, square feet of land area, front footage and per parcel. The analysis also excludes levies from independent special districts. An indeterminate amount of non ad‐valorem may be levied through a mechanism other than the tax bill. This amount may be insignificant. Analysis assumes the level of non‐ad valorem assessments and number of non‐residential agricultural buildings will stay flat. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 ($6.6m) ($6.6m)2016‐17 ($6.6m) ($6.6m)2017‐18 ($6.6m) ($6.6m)2018‐19 ($6.6m) ($6.6m)2019‐20 ($6.6m) ($6.6m)

List of affected Trust Funds: Local Impact Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.6) (6.6) (6.6) (6.6)2016‐17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.6) (6.6) (6.6) (6.6)2017‐18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.6) (6.6) (6.6) (6.6)2018‐19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.6) (6.6) (6.6) (6.6)2019‐20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.6) (6.6) (6.6) (6.6)

352


Agricultural Parcels with Non Residential AG buildingsExcluding independent special districts, and levies based on acreage, square feet of land area, front footage and per parcel

2014 Assessments by Function

County

AG Parcels with

Non Residential

Buildings -

Estimate

Unique number

of parcels with

NAV assessment

Total NAV

assessments

Community

Development

Drainage &

Water Control/

Management

Fire ControlEmergency

MedicalLighting

Mosquito

ControlWater & Sewer Solid Waste

Road

ImprovementsOther

Alachua 1,035 973 125,224$ 868$ 25,799$ 98,556$

Baker 300 278 32,588$ 12,265$ 20,323$

Bay 65 1 904$ 904$

Bradford 333 311 34,875$ 34,875$

Brevard 270 261 113,668$ 26,933$ 47,860$ 38,875$

Broward 205 126 234,666$ 222,201$ 339$ 1,737$ 9,658$ 730$

Calhoun 293 - -$

Charlotte 291 242 192,086$ 665$ 172,160$ 14,064$ 5,198$

Citrus 241 234 42,642$ 42,642$

Clay 207 - -$

Collier 338 216 41,748$ 41,748$

Columbia 604 - -$ -$

Miami-Dade 1,529 866 394,829$ 7,297$ 387,532$

DeSoto 661 657 278,074$ 121,260$ 155,979$ 835$

Dixie 120 -$

Duval 255 251 216,882$ 168,913$ 47,969$

Escambia 238 234 22,190$ 22,190$

Flagler 68 31 7,914$ 7,914$

Franklin 7 3 70$ 70$

Gadsden 557 - -$

Gilchrist 397 391 88,508$ 45,966$ 42,541$

Glades 383 -$

Gulf 36 - -$

Hamilton 269 - -$

Hardee 642 638 291,258$ 168,151$ 123,107$

Hendry 534 463 247,970$ 81,820$ 106,212$ 2,463$ 2,568$ 16,026$ 1,173$ 37,709$

Hernando 810 618 177,670$ 134,522$ 57$ 41,591$ 575$ 925$

Highlands 1,753 15 1,408$ 1,408$

Hillsborough 1,601 210 149,122$ -$ 16,429$ 132,693$

Holmes 564 - -$

Indian River 169 137 126,983$ 3,765$ 123,218$

Jackson 1,059 - -$

Jefferson 669 657 277,191$ 135,091$ 142,100$

Lafayette 888 - -$

Lake 1,409 -$ -$

Lee 326 306 77,069$ 8,589$ 385$ 2,392$ 59,747$ 5,956$

Leon 383 321 33,859$ 323$ 13,816$ 19,720$

Levy 835 828 246,268$ 115,745$ 127,207$ 3,316$

Liberty 146 - -$

Madison 613 609 186,948$ 39,496$ 147,452$

Manatee 633 - -$ -$

Marion 2,284 2,260 1,228,227$ 867,021$ 33,564$ 327,642$

Martin 359 16 46,670$ 46,670$

Monroe - -$

Nassau 400 - -$

Okaloosa 373 -$

Okeechobee 644 643 280,203$ 209,216$ 70,986$

Orange 789 163 41,652$ 41,652$

Osceola 313 1 149$ 149$

353

Palm Beach 1,756 467 192,333$ 5,641$ 115,608$ 8,011$ 63,073$

Pasco 1,222 1,064 112,075$ 55,925$ 118$ 56,033$

Pinellas 29 - -$

Polk 73 59 183,052$ 4,150$ 176,903$ 1,999$

Putnam 94 3 1,975$ 1,975$

Saint Johns 250 120 40,711$ -$ 40,626$ 85$

Saint Lucie 397 - -$

Santa Rosa 723 710 85,715$ 393$ 85,321$

Sarasota 128 75 99,013$ 27,941$ 52,881$ 18,011$ 180$

Seminole 235 103 18,315$ 18,225$ 90$

Sumter 614 - -$

Suwannee 646 633 170,021$ 68,090$ 101,931$

Taylor 181 142 24,360$ 24,360$

Union 309 - -$

Volusia 1,946 1,710 286,530$ 87,423$ 96$ 199,010$

Wakulla 216 212 66,270$ 20,994$ 45,276$

Walton 730 701 75,981$ 75,981$

Washington 731 - -$

Statewide 37,178 18,959 6,595,863$ 82,213$ 271,173$ 2,133,959$ 1,068,016$ 2,838$ 16,026$ 340,472$ 2,545,373$ 17,943$ 117,850$

Percent of Assessment Value 1% 4% 32% 16% 0% 0% 5% 39% 0% 2%

354

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Red Light Camera Violation Revenues Bill Number(s): HB 7071 X Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Highway & Waterway Safety Subcommittee and Avila

X

Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2015 Date of Analysis: 3/20/15 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, provides for administration of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program.

Subsection (1) (a) states, “(a) notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right‐hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right‐hand turns are permissible.” Subsection (4) (a) states, “(e)ach county or municipality that operates a traffic infraction detector shall submit a report by October 1, 2012, and annually thereafter, to the department which details the results of using the traffic infraction detector and the procedures for enforcement for the preceding state fiscal year. The information submitted by the counties and municipalities must include statistical data and information required by the department to complete the report required under paragraph.”

b. Proposed Change: The proposed amendment precludes the issuance of notice of violations for failure to stop at a red light at

an intersection where right hand turns on red signal are permissible if the driver is making a right‐hand turn by removing the careful and prudent standard. It also introduces noncompliance language regarding the submission of annual reports that would need to contain “statistical data … and required information” as well as a new provision to include “a summary of contract provisions if any aspect of the traffic infraction detector program is managed by a private vendor.”

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources February 27, 2015 HSMV REC revenue and transactions forecast through FY 2019‐20. Sample Florida RLC Violations 01‐01‐14– 12‐31‐14, ATS Projection of Secondary RHT Impacts from adopted Impact REC for HB 1061 prepared 3/27/13 and HB 7005 prepared on 3/5/14. Telephone interview with ATS representative Distribution Schedule of Court‐Related Filing Fees, Service Charges, Costs, and Fines, including a Recording Fee Schedule, Updated October 2014 Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The primary impact of precluding violations for right hand turns is based off of a sample of 816,944 violations between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2014 of which 256,158 were issued for right on red violations (31.36% of the sample). The secondary impact would be the loss of intersections that would no longer be economically viable due the preclusion of right hand turn violations. Previous impact conferences have estimated this loss at 10 percent. However, since those estimates were made the number of programs issuing notice of violation for right hand turns has increased (previously the share of all violations issued for right hand turn violations was 24%) the analysis offers a broader range of secondary impacts ( in addition to the 10 percent, this analysis offers 15 and 20 percent impacts). The tertiary impact of this bill is related to the loss of Uniform traffic Citations that result from late or non‐payments of a NOV. When a NOV becomes a UTC, the fee is increased from $158 to $264. Because each of the specifically derived revenue impacts would have the effect of reducing the forecast for each fiscal year, they were calculated using the following order of operation: 1. Primary right‐hand turn impacts; 2. Secondary right‐hand turn impacts; and 3. Loss of UTC add‐on revenues. The primary and secondary impacts of the loss of right‐hand turn violations was established using a similar methodology in determining the impact of this issue for CS/HB 1061 during the 2013 Legislative session 13 and HB 7005 during the 2014 Legislative session (see attached). New data regarding the number of RLC violations due to right hand turns and the number of programs issuing RHT RLC violations were provided, which were then used to update the assumptions used in previous analyses. Based on these new data, this analysis offers a range of impacts based on the secondary impact of precluding right hand turn RLC violations. The extent to which counties and municipalities will submit required information, including details of contract provisions if any aspect of the traffic infraction detector program is managed by a private vendor is unknown. Failure to do so will result in the

355

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Red Light Camera Violation Revenues Bill Number(s): HB 7071 permit of all traffic infraction detectors within the county or municipality being immediately nullified and the issuance of notices of violation will cease. Therefore, the impact of this issue was assumed to be ultimately negative indeterminate. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact GR

High Middle Low


TRUST

High Middle Low


Local

High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring 2015‐16 (28.0) (30.6) (25.9) (28.3) (23.8) (25.9) 2016‐17 (31.0) (31.0) (28.6) (28.6) (26.3) (26.3) 2017‐18 (31.4) (31.4) (29.0) (29.0) (26.6) (26.6) 2018‐19 (31.8) (31.8) (29.4) (29.4) (26.9) (26.9) 2019‐20 (32.2) (32.2) (29.7) (29.7) (27.3) (27.3) List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue Funds Department of Health Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund Brain & Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund State Courts Revenue Trust Fund State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund Public Defenders Revenue Trust Fund State Radio Systems Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 03/20/2015): The Conference adopted the middle estimate. GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring2015‐16 (20.4) (24.4) (3.9) (4.7) (25.9) (28.3) (50.2) (57.4)2016‐17 (24.8) (24.8) (4.7) (4.7) (28.6) (28.6) (58.1) (58.1)2017‐18 (25.1) (25.1) (4.8) (4.8) (29.0) (29.0) (58.9) (58.9)2018‐19 (25.4) (25.4) (4.8) (4.8) (29.4) (29.4) (59.6) (59.6)2019‐20 (25.7) (25.7) (4.9) (4.9) (29.7) (29.7) (60.3) (60.3)

356

RHT Impacts

RLC RHT Limitation Impacts: Primary & Secondary

FL Violations # RHT % RHT

816,944 256,158 31.36%

RLC & Add On Primary Forecast Secondary RLC State RLC Local UTC Add On

Revenues Impact Adjusted for Impact Impact Impact Revenue

Impact Calculation HSMV REC 31.36% Primary 10.00% 52.5316% 47.4684% 14.11%

FY RLC Forecast Violations Impact Violations Fine Amt. Fine Amt. Transactions

15-16 66.1 (20.7) 45.4 (4.5) (25.3) (22.8) (4.6)

16-17 67.0 (21.0) 46.0 (4.6) (25.6) (23.1) (4.6)

17-18 67.8 (21.3) 46.6 (4.7) (25.9) (23.4) (4.7)

18-19 68.6 (21.5) 47.1 (4.7) (26.2) (23.7) (4.7)

19-20 69.5 (21.8) 47.7 (4.8) (26.6) (24.0) (4.8)

RLC RLC State RLC Local GR DOH B&SCITF

Revenues Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact

Impact Distribution 52.5316% 47.4684% 84.34% 12.05% 3.61%

FY Fine Amt. Fine Amt. State RLC State RLC State RLC

15-16 (25.3) (22.8) (21.3) (3.0) (0.9)

16-17 (25.6) (23.1) (21.6) (3.1) (0.9)

17-18 (25.9) (23.4) (21.9) (3.1) (0.9)

18-19 (26.2) (23.7) (22.1) (3.2) (0.9)

19-20 (26.6) (24.0) (22.4) (3.2) (1.0)

UTC Add On UTC Add On GR State TF Local UTC Add On

Revenues Revenue Impact Impact Impact Revenue


FY Transactions Add On Rev. Add On Rev. Add On Rev. Add On Rev.

15-16 (4.6) (0.8) (0.7) (3.1) (4.6)

16-17 (4.6) (0.8) (0.7) (3.2) (4.6)

17-18 (4.7) (0.8) (0.7) (3.2) (4.7)

18-19 (4.7) (0.8) (0.7) (3.2) (4.7)

19-20 (4.8) (0.8) (0.7) (3.3) (4.8)

Sum RLC & Add On

Revenues GR GR SC State TF Local

Impact Distribution FY (18.4) (0.3) (3.6) (23.8) Cash

15-16 (22.1) (0.4) (4.3) (25.9)

16-17 (22.3) (0.4) (4.3) (26.3)

17-18 (22.6) (0.4) (4.4) (26.6)

18-19 (22.9) (0.4) (4.4) (26.9)

19-20 (23.2) (0.4) (4.5) (27.3)

Notes:

The state cash amount is based on 10 months impact and local on 11 months.

The provider estimated the secondary loss of non-right hand turn violations resulting from decommissioning RLC equipment at intersections

that are no longer financially viable as a result of the loss of right hand turn violations to be approximately between 10% and 20% of the

remaining violations.

TOTAL RLC & UTC Add On Impacts

Sample 01/01/2014 - 12/31/14

The largest provider of Florida RLC Program services conducted a sample from 01/01/14 to 12/31/14 regarding the number of right hand turn

violations at intersections where right hand turns are allowed after a stop to total violations resulting in 31.36% of all violations during the

sample period.

357

RHT Impacts



816,944 256,158 31.36%





15-16 66.1 (20.7) 45.4 (6.8) (27.5) (24.9) (5.0)

16-17 67.0 (21.0) 46.0 (6.9) (27.9) (25.2) (5.0)

17-18 67.8 (21.3) 46.6 (7.0) (28.2) (25.5) (5.1)

18-19 68.6 (21.5) 47.1 (7.1) (28.6) (25.8) (5.2)

19-20 69.5 (21.8) 47.7 (7.2) (28.9) (26.1) (5.2)





15-16 (27.5) (24.9) (23.2) (3.3) (1.0)

16-17 (27.9) (25.2) (23.5) (3.4) (1.0)

17-18 (28.2) (25.5) (23.8) (3.4) (1.0)

18-19 (28.6) (25.8) (24.1) (3.4) (1.0)

19-20 (28.9) (26.1) (24.4) (3.5) (1.0)





15-16 (5.0) (0.8) (0.7) (3.4) (5.0)

16-17 (5.0) (0.8) (0.8) (3.4) (5.0)

17-18 (5.1) (0.8) (0.8) (3.5) (5.1)

18-19 (5.2) (0.9) (0.8) (3.5) (5.2)

19-20 (5.2) (0.9) (0.8) (3.6) (5.2)

Sum RLC & Add On



15-16 (24.0) (0.4) (4.7) (28.3)

16-17 (24.4) (0.4) (4.7) (28.6)

17-18 (24.7) (0.4) (4.8) (29.0)

18-19 (25.0) (0.4) (4.8) (29.4)

19-20 (25.3) (0.4) (4.9) (29.7)

Notes:


Sample 10-15-12 - 1/15/13




sample period.The provider estimated the secondary loss of non-right hand turn violations resulting from decommissioning RLC equipment at intersections


358

RHT Impacts



816,944 256,158 31.36%





15-16 66.1 (20.7) 45.4 (9.1) (29.8) (26.9) (5.4)

16-17 67.0 (21.0) 46.0 (9.2) (30.2) (27.3) (5.4)

17-18 67.8 (21.3) 46.6 (9.3) (30.6) (27.6) (5.5)

18-19 68.6 (21.5) 47.1 (9.4) (31.0) (28.0) (5.6)

19-20 69.5 (21.8) 47.7 (9.5) (31.3) (28.3) (5.6)





15-16 (29.8) (26.9) (25.1) (3.6) (1.1)

16-17 (30.2) (27.3) (25.5) (3.6) (1.1)

17-18 (30.6) (27.6) (25.8) (3.7) (1.1)

18-19 (31.0) (28.0) (26.1) (3.7) (1.1)

19-20 (31.3) (28.3) (26.4) (3.8) (1.1)





15-16 (5.4) (0.9) (0.8) (3.7) (5.4)

16-17 (5.4) (0.9) (0.8) (3.7) (5.4)

17-18 (5.5) (0.9) (0.8) (3.8) (5.5)

18-19 (5.6) (0.9) (0.8) (3.8) (5.6)

19-20 (5.6) (0.9) (0.9) (3.9) (5.6)

Sum RLC & Add On



15-16 (26.0) (0.4) (5.0) (30.6)

16-17 (26.4) (0.4) (5.1) (31.0)

17-18 (26.7) (0.4) (5.2) (31.4)

18-19 (27.0) (0.5) (5.2) (31.8)

19-20 (27.3) (0.5) (5.3) (32.2)

Notes:


Sample 10-15-12 - 1/15/13




sample period.

The provider estimated the secondary loss of non-right hand turn violations resulting from decommissioning RLC equipment at intersections


remaining violations.

359