REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax Issue: Craft ...edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/revenueimpact/... · Spirits $4,000 $4,000 $624-$1,820 75% of on-premises rate N/A Containers

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Beverage Tax Issue: Craft Distilleries Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 596 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Commerce and Tourism Committee, Regulated Industries Committee, and Senator Hays Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: A “distillery” is defined as a manufacturer of distilled spirits and a “craft distillery” is a licensed distillery that produces 75,000 or fewer gallons of distilled spirits each year. Craft distilleries are allowed to sell up to two sealed containers per customer per year of distilled spirits produced on-premise. The containers must be sold in the distillery’s souvenir gift shop to customers for off-premise consumption.

b. Proposed Change: The bill defines “branded product” to mean any distilled spirit product manufactured on site that requires a federally-approved certificate and label. The bill increases the number of sealed containers of distilled spirits that a craft distillery may sell directly to consumers to no more than:

Two containers of each branded product; Three containers of a single branded product and one container of a second branded product; or Four individual containers of a single branded product.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Senate Bill Analysis for SB596, DBPR Bill Analysis for SB596, conversations with department staff.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) There would be a positive indeterminate impact to beverage tax revenues generated from the sale of more containers of spirits at craft distilleries, to the extent that overall volume of distilled spirits increases. There are currently 15 craft distilleries listed on the Florida Craft Distillers Guild website. Liquor is taxed at a rate of $2.25, $6.50, or $9.53 per gallon, depending on alcohol content.

Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

2015-16 indeterminate indeterminate





List of affected Trust Funds: Most beverage tax collections are deposited to General Revenue, but 2% of collections go to the Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Trust Fund. Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.

GR Trust Local/Other Total

Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring Cash Recurring

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

493

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Beverage Taxes Issue: Malt beverage licenses and containers Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB186 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Fiscal Policy Committee, Regulated Industries Committee, Senator Latvala and others Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Licenses – Chapter 561, F.S., regulates alcoholic beverages in Florida. Only licensed vendors are permitted to sell alcoholic beverages directly to consumers. Licensed manufacturers and licensed distributors are prohibited from also being licensed as vendors. However, there are some exceptions to these regulations. Wineries and brew pubs are allowed to manufacture beverages and sell them to customers. There is currently no limit on the number of vendor licenses that these manufacturers may be issued. Beverage license fees vary by type of alcohol (beer, wine, or liquor) and type of license (manufacturer, distributor, or vendor). Vendor license fees vary further depending on county size and whether they are on-premises, off-premises, or both. The table below provides a summary of beverage license fees.

Manufacturer Distributor Vendor (on-premises) Vendor (off-premises) Vendor/Manufacturer

Beer/Malt $3,000 $1,250 $40-$200 50% of on-premises rate $500

Wine $1,000-$2,000 $50-$1,250 $120-$280 50% of on-premises rate N/A

Spirits $4,000 $4,000 $624-$1,820 75% of on-premises rate N/A

Containers – Section 563.06, F.S., requires that all malt beverages be sold in individual containers of no more than 32 ounces. However, malt beverages can also be sold in bulk containers that can hold at least one gallon (128 ounces). Tax Rate – Malt beverages are taxed at a rate of $0.48 per gallon. b. Proposed Change: Licenses – The bill limits the number of vendor’s licenses that may be issued to a malt beverage manufacturer to no more than eight. Containers – The bill allows licensed vendors to sell malt beverages in 64-ounce containers (commonly known as growlers). The bill provides labeling requirements for the 64-ounce containers and authorizes DBPR to impose a fine of up to $250 for a violation of such requirements. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Senate Bill Analysis for SB186; DBPR Bill Analysis for SB186; Ch. 561 & 563, F.S.; 2015 Tax Handbook; conversations with DBPR staff.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Licenses – This bill limits the number of vendor’s licenses that one manufacturer can be issued to eight. This is not expected to have a fiscal impact because the number of vendor’s licenses is currently not limited, and the most that any one manufacturer has today is six vendor’s licenses. Containers – This bill would result in a positive indeterminate impact to beverage taxes generated from sales of malt beverages in 64-ounce containers, to the extent that overall volume increases. According to DBPR, the industry believes that customers will switch from buying 32-ounce growlers to buying 64-ounce growlers. There may also be a positive insignificant impact resulting from fines collected related to improper labeling of the 64-ounce containers.

X

494

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Beverage Taxes Issue: Malt beverage licenses and containers Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB186 Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low







List of affected Trust Funds: Most beverage tax collections are deposited to General Revenue, but 2% of collections go to the Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Trust Fund. Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



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 ** **

495

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: Voluntary Contributions Bill Number(s): SB 676 Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Benacquisto Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2015 Date of Analysis: Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 320.02, Florida Statutes, provides the registration requirements, applications, and forms for the

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Section 322.081, Florida Statutes, provides for the requests to establish voluntary check off on driver license application through the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

b. Proposed Change: SB 676 amends both sections to permit a voluntary contribution of $1 or more per applicant to End Breast

Cancer on motor vehicle registration and registration renewal forms and forms for original, renewal, or replacement driver licenses or identification cards. Such contributions will be distributed by the DHSMV to the Florida Breast Cancer Coalition Research Foundation, Inc. The bill specifies that the contributions collected from the motor vehicle registration forms are to be used for breast cancer research and education.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Senate Fiscal Policy 2015 Legislative Bill Analysis SB 676 (4/2/2015)

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The voluntary contributions collected are distributed to the Florida Breast Cancer Coalition Research Foundation, Inc. ( created by The Florida Breast Cancer Foundation, a not-for-profit statewide organization) by the DHSMV such that are no revenue impacts to General Revenue, State Trusts or Local.


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: Other Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted a positive insignificant impact.



2015-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant





X

496

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Insurance Premium Tax Issue: Financial Guaranty Insurance Bill Number(s): CS/CS/CS/SB252 Entire Bill x Partial Bill: Section 6 Sponsor(s): Sen Smith Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: 5/18/2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Existing s. 627.971(1)(a), F.S., defines financial guaranty insurance. It means a surety bond, insurance policy, an

indemnity contract that is issued by an insurer, or any similar guaranty, under which a loss is payable upon proof of the occurrence of financial loss to an insured, obligee, or indemnitee as a result of certain enumerated events. Existing s. 627.971(1)(b), F.S., however, lists 13 categories of what financial guaranty insurance does not include.

b. Proposed Change: The bill amends 627.971(1)(b), F.S. to provide that financial guaranty insurance does not include guarantees

of higher education loans, unless written by a financial guaranty insurance corporation. This language conforms the current definition to the model Financial Guaranty Insurance Guideline of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Office of Insurance Regulation NAIC Data Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Based on 2013 NAIC data the total direct written premiums for financial guaranty insurance was $4,988,402 and at 1.75% tax rate that translates into $87,297 in tax revenue. This bill adds to the NOT included list, higher education loans and would be some subset of the $87,297. The data does not break out what the written premiums apply towards and for the estimate to be significant, more than 57% of the financial guaranty insurance would have to be based on higher education loans. The low estimate assumes $0 and that insurers are already conforming to NAIC guidelines.


High Middle Low


2015-16 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) $0 $0





List of affected Trust Funds: Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the high impact.



2015-16 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Insignificant) (Insignificant)





x

497

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Local Taxes and Fees Issue: County Animal Control Center Fees Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 420 (codified as Chapter 2015-18, L.O.F.) / CS/CS/HB 627 (similar) Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Grimsley / Representatives Sullivan and Pilon Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Chapter 588, F.S., addresses legal fences and livestock at large. The term “livestock at large” refers to all animals

of the equine, bovine, or swine class, including goats, sheep, mules, horses, hogs, cattle, ostriches, and other grazing animals found or being on any public land, or land belonging to a person other than the owner of the livestock, without the landowner’s permission, and posing a threat to public safety. Section 588.17, F.S., addresses the disposition of impounded livestock. Section 588.18, F.S., specifies that the fees for impounding, serving notice, care and feeding, advertising, and disposing of impounded livestock at large shall be determined by the sheriff of each county. Damages done by the sheriff, sheriff’s designees, or any other law enforcement officer in pursuant or in the capture, handling, or care of the livestock are the sole responsibility of the sheriff or other law enforcement agency. Section 828.073, F.S., addresses animals found in distress and when an agent may take charge of an animal and the subsequent hearing and disposition processes. Section 828.27, F.S., addresses local animal control or cruelty ordinances.

b. Proposed Change: Section 1 of the bill amends s. 588.17, F.S., to authorize adoption and humane disposal as options for dealing with impounded livestock (excluding cattle), in addition to the currently authorized options of sale or auction. The bill also provides the county animal control center with notification requirements in an effort to identify the owner of the impounded livestock. The bill provides that impounded livestock may not be auctioned or disposed of until at least three days after impounding. Section 2 amends s. 588.18, F.S., to specify that the fees for impounding, serving notice, care and feeding, advertising, and disposing of impounded livestock at large shall be determined by the sheriff or the county animal control center of each county. This section also specifies that damages done by the sheriff or the county animal control center in pursuant or in the capture, handling, or care of the livestock are the sole responsibility of the sheriff or the county animal control center. Section 3 conforms s. 588.23, F.S., to changes made in the previous sections of the bill. Section 4 amends s. 828.073, F.S., to grant municipalities with certified animal control officers, the same authority that counties and societies or associations currently have, in order to take custody of an animal found neglected or cruelly treated. The bill provides for allocation of proceeds when an animal is offered for auction and conforms this section to changes made in other sections of the bill. Section 5 amends s. 828.27, F.S., to require that any certified animal control officer must complete four hours of post-certification continuing education training every two years in order to maintain certification. The bill deletes obsolete provisions relating to the proceeds collected for civil penalties imposed for violation of an ordinance relating to animal control or cruelty. This section also provides additional, supplemental, and alternative means of enforcing county or municipal codes or ordinances. It does not prohibit a county or municipality from enforcing its codes or ordinances, including but not limited to, the procedures provided in ch. 162, F.S. Section 6 provides an effective date of July 1, 2015.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources E-mail communications and telephone interview with representatives of the Florida Animal Control Association. Representatives of the Florida Sheriffs Association did not respond to a staff e-mail requesting comment/information.

X

498

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Local Taxes and Fees Issue: County Animal Control Center Fees Bill Number(s): CS/CS/SB 420 (codified as Chapter 2015-18, L.O.F.) / CS/CS/HB 627 (similar) Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) The Florida Animal Control Association could not provide historical data on the annual numbers of impounded livestock or the annual costs incurred to impound, serve notice, care and feed, advertise, and dispose of impounded livestock. Under the bill, sheriffs’ offices or county animal control centers will be able to avoid costs associated with the potentially lengthy and expensive, livestock auction process since the bill provides an alternative “fast-track” process for adoption or humane disposal. The Association’s expectation is that these agencies will be better able to collect fees through the livestock adoption/redemption processes, which will be used to offset the costs associated with the care of these animals. Also, a municipality with animal control officers certified pursuant to s. 828.27, F.S., is added to the current list of agents that may be able to receive proceeds of the animal’s auction sale or receive fees associated with the animal’s adoption or humane disposal.

Number of Livestock Adoptions/Redemptions Needed to Satisfy the Statewide $50,000 Significance Threshold Assuming Various Fee Amounts

Amount of Fee # of Adoptions/Redemptions Needed

$100 500

$150 334

$200 250

Representatives of the Florida Animal Control Association indicated that the number of livestock animals impounded annually per county was probably a relatively low number. Assuming the adoption/redemption of 10 impounded livestock animals annually per county, the statewide total would be 670 occurrences. This statewide total exceeds the minimum number needed to surpass the significance threshold at each of the hypothetical adoption/redemption fee amounts listed in the above table. After discussions with the Association’s representatives and consideration of the limited available information, the staff is suggesting the bill’s fiscal impact during the forecast period will be positive indeterminate. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2015-16 ** **

2016-17 ** **

2017-18 ** **

2018-19 ** **

2019-20 ** **

List of Affected Trust Funds: Local funds Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2015-16 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 ** ** ** **

499

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Local Taxes and Fees Issue: Low-Voltage Alarm Systems Bill Number(s): CS/SB 466 /CS/HB 413 (similar) Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Flores / Representatives B. Cortes Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 20, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section 553.793, F.S., addresses streamlined low-voltage alarm system installation permitting. Section

553.793(1)(b), F.S., defines low-voltage alarm system project to mean a project related to the installation, maintenance, inspection, replacement, or service of a new or existing alarm system, as defined in s. 489.505, operating at low voltage, as defined in the National Electrical Code Standard 70, Current Edition, and ancillary components or equipment attached to such a system, including, but not limited to, home-automation equipment, thermostats, and video cameras. Section 553.793(4), F.S., states that a local enforcement agency shall make uniform basic permit labels available for purchase by a contractor to be used for the installation or replacement of a new or existing alarm system at a cost of not more than $55 per label per project per unit. Section 553.71(5), F.S., defines local enforcement agency to mean an agency of local government, a local school board, a community college board of trustees, or a university board of trustees in the State University System with jurisdiction to make inspections of buildings and to enforce the codes which establish standards for design, construction, erection, alteration, repair, modification, or demolition of public or private buildings, structures, or facilities.

b. Proposed Change: Section 1 of the bill amends s. 553.793, F.S., related to streamlined low-voltage alarm system installation permitting. The definition of low-voltage alarm system project is narrowed to specify that any new or existing alarm system must be hardwired. Additionally, the term wireless alarm system is defined to mean a burglar alarm system or smoke detector that is not hardwired. Therefore, a wireless alarm system cannot, by definition, be a low-voltage alarm system project. The bill provides that a local enforcement agency-issued permit is not required to install, maintain, inspect, replace, or service a wireless alarm system, including any ancillary components or equipment attached to the system. Under current law, a local enforcement agency shall make uniform basic permit labels available for purchase by a contractor to be used for the installation or replacement of a new or existing alarm system. The bill lowers the maximum charge per label per project per unit from $55 to $40. Additionally, the bill prohibits a local enforcement agency from requiring the payment of any additional fees, charges, or expenses associated with the installation or replacement of a new or existing alarm system. The bill also deletes permit fee provisions that expired on January 1, 2015. The bill also provides for the following changes. A local enforcement agency may not request any information for issuance of labels for purchase by a contractor other than identification information and proof of registration or licensure as a contractor. A local enforcement agency may coordinate with the owner or customer to inspect a low-voltage alarm system project to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards; however, the legislation leaves intact the requirement that if the project fails inspections, corrective action must be undertaken by the alarm system contractor. A municipality, county, district, or other entity of local government may not adopt or maintain in effect any ordinance or rule regarding a low-voltage alarm system project inconsistent with s. 553.793, F.S. Section 2 provides an effective date of July 1, 2015.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Representatives of the Alarm Association of Florida, Inc., Florida Association of Counties, and Florida League of Cities did not respond to a staff e-mail requesting comment/information. Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) As previously mentioned, a local enforcement agency must make uniform basic permit labels available for purchase by a contractor to be used for the installation or replacement of a new or existing alarm system. Assuming that local enforcement agencies impose the permit label’s maximum charge of $40, which is lowered from the current law maximum charge of $55, then 3,334 labels would need to be sold statewide in order for the revenue loss to exceed the $50,000 significance threshold [i.e., ($50,000) / ($15) = 3,334]. It seems reasonable that the statewide number of installations or replacements of new or existing hardwired, low-voltage alarm systems will exceed 3,334 units annually.

X

500

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Local Taxes and Fees Issue: Low-Voltage Alarm Systems Bill Number(s): CS/SB 466 /CS/HB 413 (similar) Additionally, the bill prohibits a local enforcement agency from requiring payment of any additional fees, charges, or expenses associated with the installation or replacement of a new or existing alarm system. Assuming that all or some local enforcement agencies have been requiring the payment of such fees, charges, and expenses in the past, this prohibition will result in an additional unknown amount of revenue loss. After consideration of the limited available information, the staff is suggesting the bill’s fiscal impact during the forecast period will be negative indeterminate. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2015-16 (**) (**)

2016-17 (**) (**)

2017-18 (**) (**)

2018-19 (**) (**)

2019-20 (**) (**)

List of Affected Trust Funds: Local funds Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2015-16 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 (**) (**) (**) (**)

501

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Home Health Agency and Nurse Registries – Satellite Offices Bill Number(s): CS/SB 904, Enrolled Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Senator Bean Month/Year Impact Begins: July 2015 Date of Analysis: May 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: If a licensed Home Health Agency (HHA) operates related offices, each related office outside the county where the

main office is located must be separately licensed. The counties where the related offices are operating must be specified on the license in the main office. Likewise, each operational site of a nurse registry must be licensed, unless there is more than one site within a county. If there is more than one site within a county, only once license per county is required.

b. Proposed Change: If a licensed HHA operates related offices, each related office outside the health service planning district where the main office is located must be separately licensed. The counties where the related offices are operating within the health service planning district must be specified on the license in the main office. Likewise, each operational site of a nurse registry must be licensed, unless there is more than one site within the health service planning district for which a license is issued. In such case, each operational site within the health service planning district must be listed on the license.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Discussions with AHCA Senate Bill Analysis for CS/SB 904, April 8, 2015 Florida Administrative Code, Rules 59A-8.003, 59A-18.004, 59C-1.022

The biennial licensure fee for HHAs is currently $1,705 per license. The Health Care Facility Fee Assessment for HHAs is $150/year. Assessment fees are collected prospectively for a two year period at the time the license is issued initially or renewed. The biennial licensure fee for Nurse Registries is $2,000 per license.

List of HHAs and Nurse Registries from AHCA’s list of Florida health care facilities: http://www.floridahealthfinder.gov/facilitylocator/facloc.aspx, downloaded May 13, 2015

There are 2,049 licensed Home Health Agencies with 1,527 different owners. There are 392 cases where a single owner operates more than one separately licensed HHA in the same district.

There are 554 licensed Nurse Registries with 433 different owners. There are 30 cases where a single owner operates more than one separately licensed Nurse Registry in the same district.

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Home Health Agencies:

Obtained list of Home Health Agencies and identified the health service planning district for each record based on the street address of the facility.

Identified HHAs with multiple offices in a given district. Assumed that facilities in a given district with matching “Owner” fields are “related offices.”

For HHAs with related offices in a given district, the number of licenses under current law is the number of offices operated in distinct counties (e.g. an HHA operating offices in Escambia and Okaloosa, which are both in District 1, is currently required to hold two licenses because the offices are in different counties); under the proposed change, an HHA is required to hold one license for each district in which offices are operated (e.g. an HHA operating offices in Escambia and Okaloosa would be required to hold just one license because the offices are in the same district).

For each district, calculated the number of licenses required under current law and under the proposed change based on the current list of HHA locations. The biennial impact of the proposed change is the difference between the number of licenses required under the proposed change and the number of licenses required under the current law, multiplied by $2,005 (sum of $1,705 biennial licensure fee and 2x the $150 annual assessment fee). This impact was then annualized (assumes the impact will be evenly divided between years).

o There are 31 cases where multiple licenses were issued even though the Owner Field and County match (under the Current Law, each related office in the same county can operate under a single license). It is assumed that these are related offices and, under the proposed change, will be covered by the one license that is required for the entire health district.

x

502

http://www.floridahealthfinder.gov/facilitylocator/facloc.aspx

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Other Taxes and Fees Issue: Home Health Agency and Nurse Registries – Satellite Offices Bill Number(s): CS/SB 904, Enrolled Nurse Registries:

Used the same methodology as shown above for HHAs. The biennial impact of the proposed change is the difference between the number of licenses required under the proposed change and the number of licenses required under the current law, multiplied by $2,000 (biennial licensure fee). This impact was then annualized (assumes the impact will be evenly divided between years).

o There is 1 case where multiple licenses were issued even though the Owner Field and County match (under the Current Law, each related office in the same county can operate under a single license). It is assumed that these are related offices and, under the proposed change, will be covered by the one license that is required for the entire health district.

Total impact is the sum of the impact from each component.


High Middle Low


2015-16 $(0.3 M) $(0.3 M)

2016-17 $(0.3 M) $(0.3 M)

2017-18 $(0.3 M) $(0.3 M)

2018-19 $(0.3 M) $(0.3 M)

2019-20 $(0.3 M) $(0.3 M)

List of affected Trust Funds: Health Care Trust Fund, subject to GR service charge Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the proposed estimate.



2015-16 (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0 0.0 (0.3) (0.3)





503

Impact CS/SB 904, Enrolled

Current Law Proposed ChangeHHA licenses in same district 392 153License Fee per biennium $1,705 $1,705Assessment Fee per biennium $300 $300Total per biennium $2,005 $2,005Fee totals $785,960 $306,765Annualized $392,980 $153,383Impact Home Health Agencies ($239,598)

NR licenses in same district 30 15License Fee per biennium $2,000 $2,000Fee totals $60,000 $30,000Annualized $30,000 $15,000Impact Nurse Registries ($15,000)

Total Impact ($254,598)

504

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Discretionary Sales Surtax Issue: Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax Bill Number(s): CS/CS/HB 209 Enrolled Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Representative Artiles Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 19, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: The Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax (s. 212.055(8), F.S.) may be levied at the rate of up to 1

percent pursuant to an ordinance enacted by a majority vote of the county’s governing body and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. However, any county that has imposed two separate discretionary surtaxes without expiration is not eligible to levy this surtax. According to the Department of Revenue, Madison and Miami-Dade counties currently levy two separate discretionary surtaxes without expiration. Madison County levies both the Small County Surtax and Voter-Approved Indigent Care Surtax without expiration dates, and Miami-Dade County levies both the Charter County Transportation System Surtax and County Public Hospital Surtax without expiration dates. Consequently, 65 of 67 county governments are eligible to levy this surtax. No eligible county has levied this surtax since its July 1, 2009, effective date (including during the 2015 calendar year). Additionally, notwithstanding s. 212.054, F.S., if a multicounty independent special district created pursuant to ch. 67-764, L.O.F., levies ad valorem taxes on district property to fund emergency fire rescue service within the district and is required by s. 2, Art. VII of the State Constitution to maintain a uniform ad valorem tax rate throughout the district, the county may not levy this surtax within the district’s boundaries. This provision relates specifically to the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is located within portions of Orange and Osceola counties. The cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista as well as the Walt Disney World Resort Complex are located within the district. This provision prevents either county from levying the surtax within the district’s boundaries if an ad valorem tax is levied to fund emergency fire rescue services. Reedy Creek Improvement District levies such an ad valorem tax and maintains a uniform ad valorem tax rate throughout the district. Consequently, Orange and Osceola counties are prohibited from levying this surtax within the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s boundaries. A required interlocal agreement is a precondition to holding the referendum. The county’s governing body must develop and execute an interlocal agreement with participating jurisdictions (i.e., the governing bodies of municipalities, dependent special districts, independent special districts, or municipal service taxing units) that provide emergency fire and rescue services within the county. The interlocal agreement must include a majority of the county’s service providers. Upon the surtax taking effect and initiation of collections, a county and any participating jurisdiction(s) entering into the interlocal agreement must reduce the ad valorem tax levy or any non-ad valorem assessment for fire control and emergency rescue services in its next and subsequent budgets by the estimated amount of revenue provided by the surtax. Use of the surtax proceeds does not relieve a local government from complying with the provisions of ch. 200, F.S., and any related statutory provisions that establish millage caps or limits undesignated budget reserves and procedures for establishing rollback rates for ad valorem taxes and budget adoption. If the surtax collections exceed projected collections in any fiscal year, any surplus distribution is used to further reduce ad valorem taxes in the next fiscal year. These proceeds are applied as a rebate to the final millage after the TRIM notice is completed. However, municipalities, special fire control and rescue districts, and contract service providers that do not enter into an interlocal agreement are not entitled to receive a portion of the surtax proceeds nor required to reduce ad valorem taxes or non-ad valorem assessments. The surtax proceeds are expended for emergency fire rescue services and facilities. The term emergency fire rescue services includes, but is not limited to, the following meanings. 1. Preventing and extinguishing fires. 2. Protecting and saving life and property from fires, natural or intentional acts, or disasters. 3. Enforcing municipal, county, or state fire protection codes and laws pertaining to the prevention and control of fires. 4. Providing pre-hospital emergency medical treatment.

b. Proposed Change: HB 209 would amend s. 212.055(8), F.S., to delete provisions requiring the county government to develop and execute interlocal agreements with local government entities providing emergency fire and rescue services. Additionally,

X

505

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Discretionary Sales Surtax Issue: Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax Bill Number(s): CS/CS/HB 209 Enrolled

the bill would delete the requirement that local government entities enter into an interlocal agreement in order to receive surtax proceeds. In lieu of the interlocal agreement process, the bill would require the county government levying the surtax to distribute the proceeds to each local government entity providing emergency fire rescue services within the county. The surtax proceeds, less a 2% administrative fee, shall be distributed by the county government to each local government entity based on the proportion of each entity’s average annual expenditures for fire control and emergency fire rescue services in the five fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the surtax takes effect in proportion to the average annual total of the expenditures for such entities in the 5 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the surtax takes effect. The county shall revise the distribution proportions to reflect a change in the service area of an entity receiving a distribution of the surtax proceeds. If an entity declines its share of surtax revenue, such revenue shall be redistributed proportionally to the entities that are participating in the sharing of such revenue based on each participating entity's average annual expenditures for fire control and emergency fire rescue services in the preceding 5 fiscal years in proportion to the average annual total of the expenditures for the participating entities in the preceding 5 fiscal years. HB 209 would continue to require each local government entity that receives a share of surtax proceeds to reduce the ad valorem tax levy or any non-ad valorem assessment for fire control and emergency rescue services in its next and subsequent budgets by the estimated amount of revenue provided by the surtax and would continue to require that any surtax collections in excess of projected collections be applied as a rebate to the final millage. The bill adds a new requirement that if the local government entity receiving a share of the surtax is unable to further reduce ad valorem taxes because the millage rate is zero, the funds shall be applied to reduce any non-ad valorem assessments levied for the purposes described in this section. If no ad valorem or non-ad valorem reduction is possible, the surplus surtax collections shall be returned to the county, and the county shall reduce the county millage rates to offset the surplus surtax proceeds. If HB 209 becomes law in its current form, the total number of county governments eligible to levy this surtax would remain unchanged. Madison and Miami-Dade counties would still remain ineligible to levy this surtax due to the continued prohibition found in s. 212.055(8)(a), F.S. (i.e., “The governing authority of a county, other than a county that has imposed two separate discretionary surtaxes without expiration, may, by ordinance, levy a discretionary sales surtax of up to 1 percent for emergency fire rescue services and facilities as provided in this subsection.”)

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources EDR’s 2014 Local Government Financial Information Handbook available at http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/local-government/reports/lgfih14.pdf

1. Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax summary, pp. 193-195. 2. Local Discretionary Sales Surtax Estimates for LFY 2014-15, pp. 159-170.

EDR worksheet: Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax – Estimation of Realized and Unrealized Revenues for the Local Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2015. (see attached table). Communications with M. Christopher Lyon, Attorney, of the Tallahassee office of Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., representing Professional Firefighters/Paramedics of Palm Beach Co. Local 2928 IAFF. Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) HB 209’s fiscal impact is assumed to be positive indeterminate since the number of county governments, if any, levying this surtax in the future is unknown. During the 2014-15 local fiscal year, the 65 eligible counties not currently levying this surtax at the maximum rate will allow an estimated $2.70 billion to go unrealized. Unrealized surtax revenues in LFY 2014-15 range from a low of nearly $340,000 in Liberty County to a high of $409 million in Orange County (not adjusted to account for the Reedy Creek Improvement District exclusion).

506

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/local-government/reports/lgfih14.pdf

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/local-government/reports/lgfih14.pdf

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Discretionary Sales Surtax Issue: Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax Bill Number(s): CS/CS/HB 209 Enrolled Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2015-16 **

2016-17 **

2017-18 **

2018-19 **

2019-20 **

List of Affected Trust Funds: Discretionary Sales Surtax Clearing Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted a zero/positive indeterminate impact.



2015-16 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/**

507

Estimated Estimates of Estimates of

Countywide Countywide Countywide

Distribution @ 2015 Realized Unutilized Unrealized

County 1% Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenues Tax Rate Revenues

Alachua 29,895,995$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 29,895,995$ Baker 2,115,647$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 2,115,647$ Bay 42,758,250$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 42,758,250$ Bradford 2,764,056$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 2,764,056$ Brevard 62,463,798$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 62,463,798$ Broward 296,436,527$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 296,436,527$ Calhoun 883,865$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 883,865$ Charlotte 25,842,819$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 25,842,819$ Citrus 11,475,068$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 11,475,068$ Clay 19,813,022$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 19,813,022$ Collier 64,607,584$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 64,607,584$ Columbia 7,758,635$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 7,758,635$ DeSoto 2,348,582$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 2,348,582$ Dixie 865,590$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 865,590$ Duval 152,408,479$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 152,408,479$ Escambia 45,441,480$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 45,441,480$ Flagler 9,614,522$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 9,614,522$ Franklin 1,695,733$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 1,695,733$ Gadsden 3,148,686$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 3,148,686$ Gilchrist 819,029$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 819,029$ Glades 513,020$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 513,020$ Gulf 1,460,097$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 1,460,097$ Hamilton 763,941$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 763,941$ Hardee 1,876,268$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 1,876,268$ Hendry 3,096,877$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 3,096,877$ Hernando 17,897,056$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 17,897,056$ Highlands 10,059,392$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 10,059,392$ Hillsborough 215,497,317$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 215,497,317$ Holmes 1,073,152$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 1,073,152$ Indian River 21,255,781$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 21,255,781$ Jackson 4,475,634$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 4,475,634$ Jefferson 928,575$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 928,575$ Lafayette 351,404$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 351,404$ Lake 38,094,393$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 38,094,393$ Lee 103,440,297$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 103,440,297$ Leon 39,463,871$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 39,463,871$ Levy 3,324,508$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 3,324,508$ Liberty 339,670$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 339,670$ Madison 1,162,828$ -$ -$ Manatee 54,691,187$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 54,691,187$ Marion 35,554,009$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 35,554,009$ Martin 24,343,265$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 24,343,265$ Miami-Dade 469,058,207$ -$ -$ Monroe 31,984,658$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 31,984,658$ Nassau 9,868,050$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 9,868,050$ Okaloosa 31,286,772$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 31,286,772$ Okeechobee 4,545,966$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 4,545,966$ Orange 408,947,096$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 408,947,096$ Osceola 47,396,118$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 47,396,118$ Palm Beach 220,259,975$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 220,259,975$ Pasco 50,608,840$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 50,608,840$ Pinellas 142,750,073$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 142,750,073$ Polk 73,841,423$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 73,841,423$ Putnam 6,036,245$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 6,036,245$ St. Johns 26,100,099$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 26,100,099$ St. Lucie 29,135,183$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 29,135,183$ Santa Rosa 15,108,181$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 15,108,181$ Sarasota 66,550,792$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 66,550,792$ Seminole 60,366,058$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 60,366,058$ Sumter 11,873,078$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 11,873,078$ Suwannee 3,667,869$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 3,667,869$ Taylor 2,355,845$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 2,355,845$ Union 607,669$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 607,669$ Volusia 74,942,398$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 74,942,398$ Wakulla 2,079,908$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 2,079,908$ Walton 17,718,351$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 17,718,351$ Washington 1,758,295$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 1,758,295$ Statewide 3,171,667,058$ -$ 2,701,446,023$

Notes:

4) The estimation of unrealized revenues is based on a hypothetical tax rate that is determined by subtracting the 2015 tax rate from the maximum levy rate. No county has authorized this levy.

Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities SurtaxEstimation of Realized and Unrealized Revenues

Local Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2015

1) Chapter 2009-182, L.O.F., created the Emergency Fire Rescue Services and Facilities Surtax. Any county, except Madison, Miami-Dade, and certain portions of Orange and Osceola, is eligible to levy the surtax. Orange and Osceola counties are prohibited from levying the surtax within the boundaries of the Reedy Creek Improvement District.2) Due to the uncertainty as to the total amount of unrealized local option sales tax revenues attributable to the area within the Reedy Creek Improvement District, no adjustment was made to the estimates for Orange and Osceola counties.3) The shaded cells indicate those counties that have no unutilized tax rate capacity for this surtax due to ineligibility to levy this surtax.

Office of Economic and Demographic Research February 6, 2015508

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Tuition and Fees Issue: Educational Opportunities for Veterans (Tuition Waivers) Bill Number(s): SB 7028 (Enrolled) X Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Military and Veterans Affairs, Space, and Domestic Security Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2015 Date of Analysis: May 19, 2015 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: In 2014, the Legislature approved HB 7015 (Ch. 2014-1, L.O.F.), which created the “Congressman C.W. Bill Young

Veteran Tuition Waiver Program.” The program requires state universities, Florida College System institutions, career centers operated by school districts, and charter technical career centers to waive the out-of-state fee for honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Reserve Forces, or the National Guard who physically reside in Florida while enrolled in the institution. The waiver is capped at 110 percent of the required credit hours to complete a degree or certificate program. The system average tuition and fee rates for Fiscal Year 2014-15 are as follows:

Institution/Level

FY 2014-15 Resident Tuition

and Fees

FY 2014-15 Nonresident

Tuition and Fees Difference

State University System/Undergraduate* $6,169 $20,907 -$14,738

State University System/Graduate* $10,315 $25,261 -$14,946

Florida College System $3,156 $11,605 -$8,449

Career Centers $2,470 $9,506 -$7,036

*Excludes UF Online and Florida Polytechnic. In August 2014, the U.S. Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 which requires the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) to disapprove programs of education for payment of benefits under specified GI Bill programs at public institutions if the schools charge qualifying veterans and dependents tuition and fees in excess of the rate charged for resident students. Public institutions must offer in-state tuition rates to specified veterans and their dependents by July 1, 2015, in order for the institution to be eligible to receive payments from the USDVA.

b. Proposed Change: SB 7028 expands the Congressman C.W. Bill Young Veteran Tuition Waiver Program to include any person (not just honorably discharged veterans) who is entitled to and uses educational assistance provided by the USDVA at Florida public postsecondary educational institutions while physically residing in Florida. The waiver is effective for any quarter, semester, or term beginning after July 1, 2015. The bill also eliminates the 110 percent of required credit hours maximum waiver limitation.

Section 2: Description of Data and Sources 1. State University System tuition and fees from http://www.flbog.edu/about/budget/tuition.php 2. State University System veteran dependent enrollment from Board of Governors 3. Florida College System tuition and fees and veteran enrollment from Department of Education, Division of Florida Colleges 4. Career Center tuition and fees and veteran enrollment from Department of Education, Division of Career and Adult Education 5. Population growth from Florida Demographic Estimating Conference, February 2015

Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Enrollment: For State Universities, the number of students eligible for the expanded waiver is estimated using actual Fall 2014 enrollment data for nonresident dependent students receiving G.I. Bill benefits. For Florida Colleges, the number of students eligible for the expanded waiver is based on the actual number of students enrolled and receiving G.I. Bill benefits in Fiscal Year 2013-14 multiplied by the percentage of State University nonresident dependent students compared to total nonresident students receiving benefits (=30.36%). For Career Centers, the number of students eligible for the expanded waiver is based on the actual number of students receiving a veteran’s out-of-state waiver in Fiscal Year 2014-15. It is assumed a similar number of dependents would be eligible for the expanded waiver. For each type of institution, the base number of eligible students is increased each year by 2.0

X

509

http://www.flbog.edu/about/budget/tuition.php

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Tuition and Fees Issue: Educational Opportunities for Veterans (Tuition Waivers) Bill Number(s): SB 7028 (Enrolled) times Florida population growth to account for growth in eligible students as well as students who may continue taking courses beyond 110 percent of required credit hours to complete a program. Tuition and Fees: Rates are held constant at the Fiscal Year 2014-15 levels for all three types of institutions. Credit Hours: Different credit hour enrollments are used to provide high, middle, and low estimates as follows: high – 30 hours for undergraduate/career education programs and 24 hours for graduate programs; middle – 15 hours for undergraduate/career education programs and 12 hours for graduate programs; and low – 9 hours for undergraduate/career education programs and 6 hours for graduate programs. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact

High Middle Low


2015-16 ($5.0 M) ($5.0 M) ($2.5 M) ($2.5 M) ($1.5 M) ($1.5 M) 2016-17 ($5.1 M) ($5.1 M) ($2.6 M) ($2.6 M) ($1.5 M) ($1.5 M) 2017-18 ($5.2 M) ($5.2 M) ($2.6 M) ($2.6 M) ($1.5 M) ($1.5 M) 2018-19 ($5.4 M) ($5.4 M) ($2.7 M) ($2.7 M) ($1.6 M) ($1.6 M) 2019-20 ($5.5 M) ($5.5 M) ($2.8 M) ($2.8 M) ($1.6 M) ($1.6 M)

List of affected Trust Funds: None. Tuition and fee revenue is maintained locally by each college, state university, and career center and is not included in a state trust fund. Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 05/20/2015): The Conference adopted the middle estimate.



2015-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5)

2016-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (2.6) (2.6) (2.6) (2.6)

2017-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (2.6) (2.6) (2.6) (2.6)

2018-19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7)

2019-20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (2.8) (2.8) (2.8) (2.8)

510

SB 7028 - Veteran Tuition Waiver Program

Institution/Level # Eligible Students

Current Tuition &

Fees per C.H.

Tuition & Fees

with Waiver Difference

HIGH

($ millions)

MIDDLE

($ millions)

LOW

($ millions)

State University System/Undergraduate 30 Credit Hours 15 Credit Hours 9 Credit Hours

2014-15 183 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28)

2015-16 188 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28) ($2.8) ($1.4) ($0.8)

2016-17 193 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28) ($2.8) ($1.4) ($0.9)

2017-18 198 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28) ($2.9) ($1.5) ($0.9)

2018-19 204 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28) ($3.0) ($1.5) ($0.9)

2019-20 210 $696.91 $205.63 ($491.28) ($3.1) ($1.5) ($0.9)

State University System/Graduate 24 Credit Hours 12 Credit Hours 6 Credit Hours

2014-15 49 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73)

2015-16 50 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73) ($0.7) ($0.4) ($0.2)

2016-17 51 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73) ($0.8) ($0.4) ($0.2)

2017-18 52 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73) ($0.8) ($0.4) ($0.2)

2018-19 53 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73) ($0.8) ($0.4) ($0.2)

2019-20 54 $1,052.54 $429.81 ($622.73) ($0.8) ($0.4) ($0.2)$1,057.04 $433.10

Florida College System 30 Credit Hours 15 Credit Hours 9 Credit Hours

2014-15 162 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61)

2015-16 167 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61) ($1.4) ($0.7) ($0.4)

2016-17 172 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61) ($1.5) ($0.7) ($0.4)

2017-18 177 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61) ($1.5) ($0.7) ($0.4)

2018-19 182 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61) ($1.5) ($0.8) ($0.5)

2019-20 187 $386.82 $105.21 ($281.61) ($1.6) ($0.8) ($0.5)$386.82 $105.21

Career Centers 30 Credit Hours 15 Credit Hours 9 Credit Hours

2014-15 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60)

2015-16 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60) ($0.1) ($0.0) ($0.0)

2016-17 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60) ($0.1) ($0.0) ($0.0)

2017-18 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60) ($0.1) ($0.0) ($0.0)

2018-19 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60) ($0.1) ($0.0) ($0.0)

2019-20 8 $316.80 $82.20 ($234.60) ($0.1) ($0.0) ($0.0)

TOTAL

HIGH

($ millions)

MIDDLE

($ millions)

LOW

($ millions)

2015-16 ($5.0) ($2.5) ($1.5)

2016-17 ($5.1) ($2.6) ($1.5)

2017-18 ($5.2) ($2.6) ($1.5)

2018-19 ($5.4) ($2.7) ($1.6)

2019-20 ($5.5) ($2.8) ($1.6)

511

Documents

REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax Issue: Craft ...edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/revenueimpact/... · Spirits $4,000 $4,000 $624-$1,820 75% of on-premises rate N/A Containers