REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax Issue: Contraband ...edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/revenueimpact/archives/2016/_pdf/Impact0421.pdf · Issue: Contraband Forfeiture Bill Number(s):

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Article V Fees Issue: Contraband Forfeiture Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 1044 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sections 3 & 7 Sponsor(s): Fiscal Policy and Criminal Justice and Brandes; Negron; Clemens; Bean; Evers Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2016 Date of Analysis: 04/21/2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: (Section 3): Section 932.704(4), F.S., states during forfeiture proceeding the seizing agency shall promptly proceed

against the contraband article by filing a complaint in the circuit court within the jurisdiction where the seizure or the offense occurred.

(Section 7): Section 322.34 (9) (c), F.S., states, notwithstanding s.932.7055, when the seizing agency obtains a final judgment granting forfeiture of the motor vehicle under this section, 30 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicle shall be retained by the seizing law enforcement agency and 70 percent shall be deposited in the General Revenue Fund for use by regional workforce boards. b. Proposed Change: (Section 3): This bill would add a filing fee of at least $1,000 going to the clerk of the courts for the seizing

agency to file a complaint. (Section 7): This bill reduces the 70 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicle to be deposited in the General Revenue Fund. The 70 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicle shall first be applied to payment of court costs, fine and fees remaining due then any remaining balance of proceeds will be deposited in the General Revenue Fund for use by regional workforce boards. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Office of Program Policy Analysis-- Report No. 15-10 Phone interview with Department of Economic Opportunity staff (4/19/2016) Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Seizing agencies are not currently required to report actions taken under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, so there is no existing statewide data on the frequency of seizure actions, the value of assets forfeited, or the use of forfeiture funds. (Section 3): OPPAGA conducted a survey of 152 local law enforcement agencies regarding seizure actions (local law enforcement are not the only seizing agencies but do make up a majority of them). While they had a 52 % response rate, their findings are illustrative. Over the last 5 fiscal years, these respondents, on average, report approximately 3,800 seizures annually. Not all seizures results in a complaint filed to start the forfeiture process. The survey found that approximately 75% of seizures result in entering the forfeiture process. Taking these factors into consideration, the magnitude of a $1000 filing fee could result in between $3 million and $7 million (see attached). However, taking the bill in its entirety could result in a stark decrease in the number of seizures, which would ultimately result in a lower number of forfeiture filings. Due to unpredictability of the potential behavioral change, this analysis assess a positive indeterminate impact to the Clerk of Courts. (Section 7): According to DEO staff, a total of $67,000 was collected between FY 2003 and FY 2011 under F.S. 322.34, which came in the form of 2 lump sum payments during that time period. Based on these numbers, this law change would have a negative insignificant impact to GR and a positive insignificant impact to either state trusts or locals depending on the various outstanding court costs, fines and fees. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

GR High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

2016-17 (Insignificant) (Insignificant)





X

733

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Article V Fees Issue: Contraband Forfeiture Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 1044

Trust High Middle Low


2016-17 Insignificant Insignificant





Local High Middle Low


2016-17 Indeterminate Indeterminate





List of affected Trust Funds: General Revenue Fine and Forfeiture Funds (Clerks-Local) Trust Funds: State Court Revenue Trust Fund, DFS Administrative Trust Fund, Court Education Trust Fund, Public Defenders Revenue Trust Fund, State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund, andOther State Trust Funds Section 3 - $1,000 Filing Fee to Clerks Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The conference adopted a negative insignificant impact to GR, +/- insignificant impact to Trust, and +/- indeterminate impact to Local.

GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

2016-17 (*) (*) +/- ins. +/- ins. +/- +/- +/- +/- 2017-18 (*) (*) +/- ins. +/- ins. +/- +/- +/- +/- 2018-19 (*) (*) +/- ins. +/- ins. +/- +/- +/- +/- 2019-20 (*) (*) +/- ins. +/- ins. +/- +/- +/- +/- 2020-21 (*) (*) +/- ins. +/- ins. +/- +/- +/- +/-

Section 3 - $1,000 Filing Fee to Clerks Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The conference adopted a positive insignificant impact to local, a negative insignificant impact to GR, and zero for the total impact.



2016-17 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) 0.0 0.0 Insignificant Insignificant 0.0 0.0





734

Estimated Potential Revenues from SB 1044

Fiscal Year

Number of Seizures Reported

(52% Response Rate) 48% True Up

75% of Seizures

Enter Forfeiture

Process

2010-11 4,315 8,298 6,224

2011-12 3,732 7,177 5,383

2012-13 3,780 7,269 5,452

2013-14 4,210 8,096 6,072

2014-15 2,829 5,440 4,080

5-Year Average 3,773 7,256 5,442

$1000 Fee $3,773,200 $7,256,154 $5,442,115

Source: Office of Program Policy Analysis-- Report No. 15-10

735

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Persons with Disabilities Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 936 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Ring and Evers Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2016 Date of Analysis: Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 322.051, F.S., states any person who is 5 years of age or older, or any person who has a disability,

regardless of age, who applies for a disabled parking permit under s. 320.0848, may be issued an identification card by the department upon completion of an application and payment of an application fee.

b. Proposed Change: The bill allows a person with a developmental disability, or the parent or guardian of a child or ward with a developmental disability, to voluntarily request to be issued an identification card exhibiting a “D” designation for the person who has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as having a developmental disability. The DHSMV will issue the identification card upon proof of diagnosis of a developmental disability, acceptable to the department, and an additional fee of $1. The $1 fee will be deposited into the Operations and Maintenance Trust Fund administered by the APD. A replacement identification card that includes the “D” designation may be issued without payment of the required $25 fee. The bill requires the DHSMV to develop rules for implementing the identification card designation.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources HSMV History though 11/31/2015 1/4/2016 HSMV REC results. Senate Appropriations 2/29/2016 staff analysis of CS/CS/SB 718 Identification Cards. Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The Florida Developmental Disabilities Council estimates there are approximately 100,000 individuals living in the state who meet the developmental disability criteria. The analysis uses this as the base of potential transactions. These transactions are spread evenly across the five-year forecast horizon (20% of the 100,000 in each year). While the $25 replacement fee is waived, the Tax Collectors’ $6.25 service charge is not and is applied to each estimated transaction. According the HSMV, the Tax Collector’s manage approximately 80% of these transactions. High: The estimate assumes that all eligible individuals will request the addition of the “D” to their ID cards. Middle: The estimate assumes that 50% eligible individuals will request the addition of the “D” to their ID cards. Low: The estimate assumes that 25% eligible individuals will request the addition of the “D” to their ID cards. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

Trust High Middle Low


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

2020-21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

X

736

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Persons with Disabilities Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 936

Local High Middle Low


2016-17 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

2017-18 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

2018-19 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

2019-20 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

2020-21 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

List of affected Trust Funds: Agency for Persons with Disabilities Operations and Maintenance Trust Fund County Tax Collector Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference assumed that 75% of eligible individuals would request the additional designation on their identification card.



2016-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2017-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2018-19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2019-20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2020-21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

737

Potential Eligible

(FDDC's Estimate) FY201617 FY201718 FY201819 FY201920 FY202021

100,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

APDOMTF

High $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

Middle $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Low $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

LOCAL (80% of Transactions)

High $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Middle $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Low $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

Total

High $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000

Middle $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000

Low $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

738

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other taxes and fees Issue: Merger and Acquisition Broker Registration Exemption Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 286 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Brandes Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2016 Date of Analysis: April 21, 2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Ch. 517, F.S., prohibits dealers, associated persons, and issuers from offering or selling securities in this state

unless registered with the Office of Financial Regulation or specifically exempted. An applicant for registration as a dealer or investment adviser must pay a $200 assessment (s. 517.12 (10) and (11), F.S.), and each branch office from which a dealer or investment adviser conducts business is subject to a $100 fee (517.1202 (2) and (3), F.S.) The $200 assessment and $100 fee must be paid annually. A merger and acquisition (M&A) broker may introduce buyers and sellers, help value the business, recommend terms and structure of a sale and assist with negotiations in the closing sales of privately-held businesses. If such a transaction involves securities, then state and federal securities laws may apply to the parties and the transaction. In 2014, SEC staff issued a no-action letter stating that it would not recommend enforcement action to the SEC if an individual or firm meeting the definition of a “M&A” broker were to effect transactions in connection with the transfer of ownership of a privately held company, subject to certain restrictions. In Sept. 2015, the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., a voluntary association whose membership includes 67 state, provincial, and territorial securities administrators, adopted a model rule, which provides a uniform approach to state-level securities regulation and provides and exemption for M&A brokers if certain conditions are met.

b. Proposed Change: The bill provides that the offer or sale of securities solely in connection with the transfer of ownership of an

eligible privately-held company through an M&A broker is an exempt transaction under ch. 517, F.S. the bill also exempts M&A brokers from registration with the OFR as a dealer if certain conditions are met.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources

Bill analysis for CS/CS/ SB 286 reports that OFR estimates that 10 or fewer M&A brokers will be affected by the bill. This number was confirmed by OFR staff, who also reported that 2 branch offices will also be affected by the bill. Section 517.315, F.S., provides that any fees collected pursuant to ch. 517, F.S., are disbursed to:

The Securities Guaranty Fund, up to $1.5 million (see. S. 517.131, F.S.)

30.44% of the $100 assessment fee paid under s. 517.12 (10) and (11) for each office in the state to the Regulatory Trust Fund; and

All remaining fees to the General Revenue Fund. The cross-reference in the second bullet is incorrect, and should refer to s. 517.1202 (2) and (3), F.S.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Based on the OFR estimate of 10 or fewer M&A brokers and 2 branch offices, the maximum fiscal impact is ($2,200) recurring. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2016-17 (*) (*)

2017-18 (*) (*)

2018-19 (*) (*)

2019-20 (*) (*)

2020-21 (*) (*)

List of affected Trust Funds: OFR Regulatory Trust Fund

x

739

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other taxes and fees Issue: Merger and Acquisition Broker Registration Exemption Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 286 Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) 0.0 0.0 (Insignificant) (Insignificant)





740

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Concealed Weapons License Fee Reduction Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 772 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 39 Sponsor(s): Appropriations and Commerce and Tourism and Richter Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2016 Date of Analysis: April 21, 2106 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Concealed weapons license holders are required to pay an initial license fee of $70, and a renewal fee of $60.

b. Proposed Change: The bill lowers the fees for concealed weapons licenses to $60 for the initial license, and $50 for the

renewal.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Department analysis of CS/CS/SB 772 dated 4-18-2016.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Revenue estimate from proposed reduction of new concealed weapon (CW) license fee, from $70.00 to $60.00, is based on 87% of current year (FY 15/16) estimated new CW volume of 259,438 or 225,711, multiplied by $10.00 reduction per license, for FY 16/17. This 87% factor reflects the proportion of new CW applications received in FY 13/14, as a percentage of actual new applications received in the prior year record volume period in FY 12/13. An average of the two most recent years’ volume (FY 13/14 & 14/15) of 155,000 is estimated for all remaining years FY 17/18 through FY 20/21.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2016-17 (3.5) (2.8)

2017-18 (2.8) (2.8)

2018-19 (2.8) (2.8)

2019-20 (2.8) (2.8)

2020-21 (2.8) (2.8)

List of affected Trust Funds: Division of Licensing Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 (0.3) (0.2) (3.2) (2.6) 0.0 0.0 (3.5) (2.8)

2017-18 (0.2) (0.2) (2.6) (2.6) 0.0 0.0 (2.8) (2.8)

2018-19 (0.2) (0.2) (2.6) (2.6) 0.0 0.0 (2.8) (2.8)

2019-20 (0.2) (0.2) (2.6) (2.6) 0.0 0.0 (2.8) (2.8)

2020-21 (0.2) (0.2) (2.6) (2.6) 0.0 0.0 (2.8) (2.8)

SB 772

Reduction of New CW License Fee (from $70.00 to $60.00) (10.00)$ Reduction of Renewal CW License Fee (from $60.00 to $50.00) (10.00)

REVENUE Estimated Est. Revenue Estimated Est. Revenue Estimated Est. Revenue Estimated Est. Revenue Estimated Est. Revenue

Volume FY 16/17 Volume FY 17/18 Volume FY 18/19 Volume FY 19/20 Volume FY 20/21

Estimated Total New CW Apps 225,711 (2,257,111)$ 155,000 (1,550,000)$ 155,000 (1,550,000)$ 155,000 (1,550,000)$ 155,000 (1,550,000)$ Estimated Total CW Renew al Apps 129,401 (1,294,010) 124,026 (1,240,260) 116,223 (1,162,230) 121,459 (1,214,590) 120,446 (1,204,457)

Estimated Revenue Reduction 355,112 (3,551,121)$ 279,026 (2,790,260)$ 271,223 (2,712,230)$ 276,459 (2,764,590)$ 275,446 (2,754,457)$

X

741

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Background Check Fee Issue: Fees for Records Bill Number(s): SB 628 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Richter Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2016 Date of Analysis: April 19, 2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: As of May 25, 2015 the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) began using the Provider Background Screening

Clearinghouse process to request screenings for their vendors at the cost of $24. Previously, APD went through the Department of Children and Families (DCF) when requesting background checks, which cost the Department $8. All background checks are ultimately processed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).

b. Proposed Change:

This legislation requires that the APD be charged $8 instead of $24 per background check by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Florida Department of Law Enforcement Office of External Affairs

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) FDLE reports that they complete approximately 7,200 background checks per year for APD. APD background checks will decrease in cost by $16 per check ($24-$8=$16) as a result of this legislation. As such, FDLE will lose $115,200 in revenue.


High Middle Low


2016-17 $(0.1 M) $(0.1 M)

2017-18 $(0.1 M) $(0.1 M)

2018-19 $(0.1 M) $(0.1 M)

2019-20 $(0.1 M) $(0.1 M)

2020-21 $(0.1 M) $(0.1 M)

List of affected Trust Funds: FDLE’s Operating Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.1) (0.1) 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.1)





742

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Public-private Partnerships, Initial Application Fee to Fully Cover Review Cost Bill Number(s): CS/SB 124

Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Governmental Oversight and Accountability and Evers Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2016 Date of Analysis: 4/21/2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Public-private partnerships (P3s) are contractual agreements formed between public entities and private sector

entities that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery and financing of public building and infrastructure projects. Section 287.05712, F.S., governs the procurement process for P3s for public purpose projects. It authorizes a responsible public entity to enter into a P3 for a specified qualifying project if the responsible public entity determines the project is in the public’s best interest. Responsible public entities may receive unsolicited proposals or may solicit proposals for qualifying projects. Responsible public entities may establish a reasonable application fee for the submission of unsolicited proposals, which must be sufficient to pay the costs of evaluating the proposals (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney fees and fees for financial and technical advisors or consultants and for other necessary advisors or consultants).

b. Proposed Change: The bill provides that when a private entity submits an unsolicited proposal, the private entity must

concurrently submit the initial application fee. The application fee must be paid by cash, cashier’s check, or other non-cancelable instrument. The bill provides that if the initial fee, as determined by the responsible public entity, is not sufficient to cover the costs associated with evaluating the unsolicited proposal, the responsible public entity must request in writing the additional amount required. If the private entity fails to pay the additional amount requested within 30 days of the notice, the responsible public entity may stop reviewing the proposal. The bill requires the responsible public entity to return the application fee if the responsible public entity does not evaluate the unsolicited proposal.

The bill also requires the responsible public entity to retain a licensed professional to evaluate certain unsolicited proposals. However, the entity submitting the unsolicited proposal must pay the full cost of the evaluation.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Department of Management Services, Agency Analysis of House Bill 63, (Feb. 11, 2016). Phone conversation with DMS legislative affairs staff, April 14, 2016.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Because the amount of the initial application fee is established by each responsible public entity, the amount of revenue collected by responsible public entities is unknown. The Department of Management Services does not have data on prior year application fees, nor the cost to review each proposal. Section 287.05712(1)(j), F.S., defines “responsible public entity” as a county, municipality, special districts, school districts, or any other political subdivision of the state; a public body corporate and politic; or a regional entity that serves a public purpose and is authorized to develop or operate a qualifying project.


High Middle Low







List of affected Trust Funds:

X

743

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Public-private Partnerships, Initial Application Fee to Fully Cover Review Cost Bill Number(s): CS/SB 124

Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2017-18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2018-19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2019-20 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2020-21 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

744

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: License Fee Waivers for Veterans Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 772

Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Appropriations and Commerce and Tourism and Richter Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2016 Date of Analysis: 4/21/2016 Section 1: Narrative 1. Current Law:

The Division of Consumer Services within the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) regulates and licenses:

1. surveyors and mappers (s. 472.015, F.S.), 2. health studios (s. 501.015, F.S.), 3. telemarketing (ss. 501.605 and 501.607, F.S.), 4. intrastate movers (s. 507.03, F.S.), 5. sellers of liquefied petroleum gasoline (s. 527.02, F.S.), 6. pawn broking (s. 539.001, F.S.), 7. motor vehicle repair (s. 559.904, F.S.), and 8. sellers of travel (s. 559.928, F.S.).

Currently, individuals (including returning veterans and their spouses) must pay an initial license fee when starting a new business or profession that is regulated by the Division of Consumer Services. The Division of Licensing regulates and licenses private investigation, recovery, and security industries (ss. 493.6105, 493.6107, 493.6202, 493.6302, and 493.6402, F.S.) Currently, individuals (including returning veterans and their spouses) must pay an initial license fee (ranging from $45 to $100) and an application fee ($50, but $0 for class D security officers) when starting a new business or profession that is regulated by the Division of Licensing.

2. Proposed Change: Division of Consumer Services The bill provides that the department shall waive the initial license or registration fees for certain veterans and their spouses that apply for licensure in the above listed professions and industries under the Division of Consumer Services. License applications submitted within 60 months of the veteran’s discharge from any branch of the United States Armed Services, including the initial license or registration fees for business entities where a veteran or their spouse is the majority owner, shall be waived. Division of Licensing The bill further provides the following licenses under the Division of Licensing shall have their fees waived for veterans honorably discharged within the past 24 months:

1. Firearm Instructor (Class K License) 2. Private Security Agency Manager (Class MB License) 3. Private Security Branch Office Manager (Class AB License) 4. Private Security Officer School or Training Facility Instructor (Class DI License) 5. Private Investigation Agency Manager (Class MA License) 6. Private Investigation Branch Office Manager (Class AB License) 7. Private Investigator (Class C License) 8. Private Investigator Intern (Class CC License) 9. Recovery Agency Manager (Class MR License) 10. Recovery Agency School or Training Facility Instructor (Class RI License) 11. Recovery Agent (Class E License) 12. Recovery Agent Intern (Class EE License).

X

745


Veterans must provide the department with a copy of their DD Form 214, discharge papers, as issued by the United States Department of Defense, or other acceptable forms of identification as specified by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to qualify for the waiver.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Agency Bill Analysis, SB 772, April 18, 2016. Division of Consumer Services An estimated 231,000 veterans from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars live in Florida, which is 1.5% of the total population based on 2010 Census data. To estimate the potential loss for initial application fee waivers for licenses issued in the Division of Consumer Services, the department doubled the percentage (3%) to account for spouses of military veterans who may be interested in the waivers. Using FY 2013-2014 data, the department estimated the potential loss for each program and license type by multiplying the total number of applications from each program by 3% to determine the projected total number of applications waived. The number of applications waived was then multiplied by the corresponding fee according to program/license type to determine the loss of revenue. However, the department does not anticipate a loss this significant. The department analysis indicates it is unlikely the fee loss will exceed comparable fee waivers done by DBPR and DOH. Further, the number of the veterans in the 3% of the population may have been discharged over 60 months prior to passage of this bill. Division of Licensing The average number of applications received by the Division of Licensing for the twelve license types identified in Chapter 493, F.S. between FY2013-2015 totaled 33,199. The loss of application fee revenues for these licenses were based on the assumption that 10% of applicants from each license type would qualify for the waiver as veterans honorably discharged within the last 24 months, totaling 3,320 applications. However, the department does not anticipate a loss this significant. Further, the 10% of applications was not based on any prior application data.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Division of Consumer Services The high estimates a negative impact of $51,250 due to fewer fees collected, with the assumption that 3% of applications were from veterans and/or their spouses (DACS analysis). The middle estimate is 50% of the high ($25,625), and the low estimate is $17,868 (comparable fee waiver loss in prior years by other state agency, DBPR). Division of Licensing The high estimates a negative impact of $164,965 due to fewer fees collected, with the assumption that 10% of applications were from veterans (DACS analysis). The middle estimates a negative impact of $82,400, with the assumption that 5% of applications were from veterans (DACS alternative used in the data). The low estimates a negative impact of $24,745, with the assumption that 1.5% of applications were from veterans (note: using 1.5% similar to reasoning in the Division of Consumer Services section). Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact Division of Consumer Services

High Middle Low


2016-17 ($51,250) ($51,250) ($25,625) ($25,625) ($17,868) ($17,868) 2017-18 ($51,250) ($51,250) ($25,625) ($25,625) ($17,868) ($17,868) 2018-19 ($51,250) ($51,250) ($25,625) ($25,625) ($17,868) ($17,868) 2019-20 ($51,250) ($51,250) ($25,625) ($25,625) ($17,868) ($17,868) 2020-21 ($51,250) ($51,250) ($25,625) ($25,625) ($17,868) ($17,868)

746


List of affected Trust Funds: Division of Consumer Services Licensing Trust Fund Division of Licensing

High Middle Low


2016-17 ($164,695) ($164,695) ($82,400) ($82,400) ($24,745) ($24,745) 2017-18 ($164,695) ($164,695) ($82,400) ($82,400) ($24,745) ($24,745) 2018-19 ($164,695) ($164,695) ($82,400) ($82,400) ($24,745) ($24,745) 2019-20 ($164,695) ($164,695) ($82,400) ($82,400) ($24,745) ($24,745) 2020-21 ($164,695) ($164,695) ($82,400) ($82,400) ($24,745) ($24,745)

List of affected Trust Funds: Division of Licensing Licensing Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The conference adopted the low for the Division of Consumer Services impact and the middle for the Division of Licensing impact.



2016-17 (0.1) (0.1) (1.0) (1.0) 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1)

2017-18 (0.1) (0.1) (1.0) (1.0) 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1)

2018-19 (0.1) (0.1) (1.0) (1.0) 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1)

2019-20 (0.1) (0.1) (1.0) (1.0) 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1)

2020-21 (0.1) (0.1) (1.0) (1.0) 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (1.1)

747

License Fee Concessions to Veterans Honorably Discharged within Past 24 Months

(Includes individual licenses)

% Veterans Discharged % Veterans DischargedWithin Last 24 Months Within Last 24 Months

5.0% Revenue 10.0% Revenue Year Type Population Impact Population ImpactWaive License Fee & Application Fee

Initial License Fee 60.00$ Application Fee 50.00$ Total 110.00$ Annual New Apps

2015 DI 287 2014 DI 249 2013 DI 262

Average 266 13 (1,463) 27 (2,926)

("DI" Security officer instructor)


2015 RI 1 2014 RI 2 2013 RI 1

Average 1 0 - 0 (15)

("RI" Recovery agent instructor)


2015 K 107 2014 K 133 2013 K 117

Average 119 6 (893) 12 (1,785)

("K" Firearms instructor)


2015 M 43 2014 M 41 2013 M 46

Average 43 2 (271) 4 (542)

("M" Manager-private investigative agency & security agency branch office)


2015 MA 13 2014 MA 8 2013 MA 9

Average 10 1 - 1 (125)

("MA" Manager-private investigative agency)


2015 MB 275 2014 MB 228 2013 MB 267

Average 257 13 (1,604) 26 (3,208)

("MB" Manager-private security agency)

Initial License Fee 75.00$ 748

% Veterans Discharged % Veterans DischargedWithin Last 24 Months Within Last 24 Months

5.0% Revenue 10.0% Revenue Year Type Population Impact Population ImpactApplication Fee 50.00$ Total 125.00$ Annual New Apps

2015 MR 3 2014 MR 1 2013 MR 2

Average 2 0 - 0 (25)

("MR" Manager-recovery agency)


2015 C 631 2014 C 642 2013 C 641

Average 638 32 (3,988) 64 (7,975)

("C" Private investigator)


2015 CC 422 2014 CC 379 2013 CC 475

Average 425 21 (2,339) 43 (4,679)

("CC" Private investigator intern)


2015 E 97 2014 E 100 2013 E 113

Average 103 5 (646) 10 (1,292)

("E" Recovery agent)


2015 EE 256 2014 EE 199 2013 EE 185

Average 213 11 (1,173) 21 (2,347)

("EE" Recovery agent intern)

Initial License Fee 45.00$ Application Fee -$ Total 45.00$ Annual New Apps

2015 D 32,662 2014 D 31,436 2013 D 29,267

Average 31,122 1,556 (70,024) 3,112 (140,048)

("D" Security oficer)

Totals (waive license fee and application fee): 1,660 (82,400)$ 3,320 (164,965)$

749

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Medical Care Trust Fund (AHCA) Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB854 Enrolled Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 22 Sponsor(s): Hukill Month/Year Impact Begins: July 2016 Date of Analysis: April 18, 2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: All preneed funeral contracts are cancelable and revocable provided that a preneed contract does not restrict any

contract purchaser who is a qualified applicant for, or a recipient of, supplemental security income, temporary cash assistance, or Medicaid from making her or his contract irrevocable.

b. Proposed Change: A preneed funeral contract that is made irrevocable may not be canceled during the life or after the death

of the contract purchaser or beneficiary. Any unexpended moneys paid on an irrevocable contract shall be remitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration for deposit into the Medical Care Trust Fund after final disposition of the beneficiary.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Discussions with AHCA Senate Bill Analysis for CS/CS/SB 854, January 26, 2016 Other State Statutes

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Data on the amount of unexpended moneys the state should expect to collect from irrevocable pre-need funeral contracts is not available, therefore the proposed impact is indeterminate. Most states allow residents to establish irrevocable preneed funeral contracts, in fact, some require that such contracts are irrevocable for Medicaid/SSI applicant/recipients, but they do not quantify the total amount of unexpended moneys remaining after final disposition of the beneficiary. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2015-16 0/** 0/**

2016-17 0/** 0/**

2017-18 0/** 0/**

2018-19 0/** 0/**

2019-20 0/** 0/**

List of affected Trust Funds: Medical Care Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The conference adopted a positive indeterminate impact.



2015-16 ** ** ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

2016-17 ** ** ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

2017-18 ** ** ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

2018-19 ** ** ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

2019-20 ** ** ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

x

750

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes & Fees Issue: Amusement Ride Registration Fee Exemptions Bill Number(s): SB772

Entire Bill Partial Bill: Section 37 Sponsor(s): Sen. Richter Month/Year Impact Begins: Date of Analysis: 4/19/2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Florida has approximately 245 amusement parks and 190 traveling amusement companies that are subject to

inspection by the DACS. These parks include carnivals, water parks, go-kart courses, and bungee-jumping parks. A temporary amusement ride must be inspected by the DACS each time it is moved or set up in a new location; permanent rides are inspected semi-annually. Additionally, parks subject to the DACS’ regulations must show proof of sufficient employee training and insurance.

b. Proposed Change: The bill amends s. 616.242, F.S., to exempt the following venues from the permitting, inspection, and

insurance requirements for amusement rides: a. A water-related amusement ride operated as an incidental amenity to the core business of a lodging or food service

establishment, or membership campground that does not offer a day rate. b. An amusement ride operated as an incidental amenity to the primary business of a membership-only facility that does

not offer a day rate. c. A permanent facility that is not open to the general public, and that is operated by a nonprofit corporation registered

under ch. 496, F.S. These exemptions are targeted at generally smaller water attractions or rides at hotels or campsites, private country clubs or playgrounds, and facilities run by, e.g., the YMCA (two non-profit facilities currently qualify for this exemption).

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services provided data on the number of entities affected by the new exemptions.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Current administration by the Department has been not to require facilities described in the bullet points labeled a. and b. above to register and pay a fee. There are two facilities which meet the description in c. above which will now be exempt. The total impact is estimated to be -$2,280 recurring.


High Middle Low


2016-17 (*) (*)

2017-18 (*) (*)

2018-19 (*) (*)

2019-20 (*) (*)

2020-21 (*) (*)

List of affected Trust Funds: General Inspection Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0.0 0.0 (*) (*)

2017-18 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0.0 0.0 (*) (*)

2018-19 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0.0 0.0 (*) (*)

2019-20 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0.0 0.0 (*) (*)

2020-21 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0.0 0.0 (*) (*)

X

751

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Office of Financial Regulation Renewal Fees Issue: Family Trust Company Bill Number(s): SB 80 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Sen. Richter, Sen. Soto Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2017 Date of Analysis: March 10, 2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Chapter 662.144, F.S., requires Family Trust Companies (FTCs) to pay a fine of $100 per day when failing to submit annual renewal within the prescribed time period.

b. Proposed Change: The bill creates additional reinstatement fee of $500 to be imposed upon FTCs that do not file annual renewal within the prescribed time period.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Discussions with OFR staff/recommendations from industry

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Based on the number of late renewals for other types of financial institutions that pay renewal fees, it is estimated that approximately 5% of family trust company renewals would be received late and would therefore incur a $500 late fee. OFR currently estimates receiving approximately 45 FTC initial applications in year one and two to four initial applications each subsequent year. No late fees will be collected in year one (initial licensure and registration occurs during year one). Late fees are not expected to exceed the $50,000 during the forecast horizon (which would require 100 or more filers incur the late fee). Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2016-17 0.0 * 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

2020-21 * * 0.0/* 0.0/* 0.0 0.0

List of affected Trust Funds: Financial Institutions’ Regulatory Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the high estimate.



2016-17 Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant 0.0 0.0 Insignificant Insignificant





X

752

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees/ Unclaimed Property Issue: Life Insurance Bill Number(s): CS/SB 966 (Ch. 2016-219, L.O.F.) Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Benacquisto Month/Year Impact Begins: Although the bill became law on April 12, 2016, the impact would begin in the 2016-17 fiscal year. Date of Analysis: April 19, 2016 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law:

Under section 717.107, F.S., funds held under any life or endowment insurance policy or annuity contract which has matured or terminated are presumed unclaimed if unclaimed for more than five years after the funds became due and payable, as established from the records of the insurance company. There is no requirement for insurance companies to take proactive steps to determine if they owe benefits to individuals. According to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), an insurance company typically waits until a party with an interest in a policy provides a death certificate and files a claim. If no such person comes forward, the insurance company keeps the benefits. Often, the insurance company uses retained asset accounts to hold funds until the company receives proof of the insured’s death and the beneficiaries withdraw the cash.

In 2008, Florida, along with 43 other states, began auditing life insurance companies for compliance with state unclaimed property laws. The audits covered policies that were in force at any time on or after January 1, 1992. As a result of the audits, the state entered into settlement agreements with 22 large life insurance companies. These agreements were often part of multi-state regulatory settlement agreements. Pursuant to these settlements, the affected life insurance companies now must routinely compare their policy holders against the U.S. Social Security Administration Death Master File. This file is an extract of death information from the electronic database that contains records of Social Security Numbers assigned to individuals since 1936 and includes the deceased individual’s first, middle, and last names, date of birth, and date of death. Once the insurance company obtains notice of the death of the insured, it must attempt to locate the beneficiaries.

b. Proposed Change:

The bill essentially codifies the provisions of the regulatory settlement agreements for all life insurance policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts that were in force at any time on or after January 1, 1992, and applies those provisions to all life insurance companies. The bill requires the insurance companies to conduct an initial match of all such policies against the Death Master File once to determine whether the death of an insured, annuitant, or retained asset account holder is indicated. After the first search, the company must make the comparisons to the Death Master File (or a comparable database/service as determined by DFS) at least annually before August 31 of each year. Additionally, certain specified insurers must make the initial comparison to the Death Master File for all in-force policies. The bill also changes the start of the dormancy period from the date the “funds became due and payable as established from the records of the insurance company” to the “date of death of the insured, the annuitant, or the retained asset account holder.” The bill provides a five-year compliance window by allowing insurance companies to report and remit proceeds from an unclaimed life or endowment insurance policy, retained asset account, or annuity contract on or before May 1, 2021, without penalty.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources

Department of Financial Services, Bureau of Unclaimed Property Database

Discussions with Department of Financial Services, Bureau of Unclaimed Property Staff

House of Representatives, Final Bill Analysis for CS/SB 966 available at http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h1041z1.IBS.DOCX&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=1041&Session=2016. Accessed 4/18/2016.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Retroactive Payments Resulting from Initial Match: As of April 19, 2016, the 22 life insurance companies under settlement agreements have reported and remitted 128,004 accounts totaling $170.4 million in unclaimed funds. The breakout by fiscal year is on the following table:

X

753

http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h1041z1.IBS.DOCX&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=1041&Session=2016

http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h1041z1.IBS.DOCX&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=1041&Session=2016

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees/ Unclaimed Property Issue: Life Insurance Bill Number(s): CS/SB 966 (Ch. 2016-219, L.O.F.)

TABLE 1 – UNCLAIMED PROPERTY RECEIPTS FROM INSURANCE COMPANY AUDITS

Fiscal Year Number of Accounts Total Amount Reported

2011-12 755 $1,300,444

2012-13 70,661 $47,986,747

2013-14 17,531 $45,432,279

2014-15 17,048 $49,200,073

2015-16 YTD 22,009 $26,481,997

TOTAL 128,004 $170,401,539

According to DFS staff, these companies represent approximately 70% of the insurance market. Assuming the remaining companies that have not been audited and will now have to perform the initial match against the Death Master File represent 30% of the market, it could be assumed that an additional $73.0 million may be reported to the state as unclaimed within the five-year window. However, it is unknown which companies will complete the initial match in which year, or how much will be reported to the state in a given fiscal year. These revenues would be nonrecurring. Ongoing Payments Resulting from Annual Match: In addition to the nonrecurring revenues the state will receive from the initial match process, all companies will now have to match their policies against the Death Master File at least annually, which will result in additional recurring revenues each year. Based on the assumed total unclaimed revenues of approximately $243 million covering the period 1992-2021 [=$170.4 M received + $73.0 M assumed (see above)], the calculated annual average of unclaimed funds is approximately $8.0 million. It could be assumed that a similar amount will be remitted annually beginning in FY 2016-17. However, an exact amount for each fiscal year cannot be determined because of several unknown factors, including when the newly affected companies will complete the initial match, thus triggering the annual match requirement. It is also unknown how many unclaimed policies may be discovered and reported by the insurance companies required to match all in-force policies. Change in Start of Dormancy Period: The change in the start date for the 5-year dormancy period will likely speed up the receipt of unclaimed accounts; however, the number and value of affected accounts cannot be determined from the data available. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact Impact on Unclaimed Property Receipts

High Middle Low


2016-17 0/** **

2017-18 0/** **

2018-19 0/** **

2019-20 0/** **

2020-21 ** **

Impact on State School Trust Fund Transfers

High Middle Low


2016-17 0/** **

2017-18 0/** **

2018-19 0/** **

2019-20 0/** **

2020-21 ** **

List of affected Trust Funds: Unclaimed Property Trust Fund/ State School Trust Fund There is no impact to GR Service Charges.

754

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees/ Unclaimed Property Issue: Life Insurance Bill Number(s): CS/SB 966 (Ch. 2016-219, L.O.F.) Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/21/2016): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2016-17 0.0 0.0 0/** ** 0.0 0.0 0/** **

2017-18 0.0 0.0 0/** ** 0.0 0.0 0/** **

2018-19 0.0 0.0 0/** ** 0.0 0.0 0/** **

2019-20 0.0 0.0 0/** ** 0.0 0.0 0/** **

2020-21 0.0 0.0 ** ** 0.0 0.0 ** **

755