The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 11/02/2007 W Co~r County h Board of County Commissioners Collier County Legislative Delegation Pre 2008 Legislative Session Workshop Friday, November 2,2007 1 to 4 p.m. AJ!enda I. Introductions II. Property Tax Relief & Reform/Special Session Summary - Open Dialogue & Discussion - Representative Garrett Richter, Chairman, Collier County Legislative Delegation III. Collier County's Proposed 2008 State Legislative Priorities - Open Dialogue & Discussion - Collier County Commissioner Jim Coletta, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners IV. Other Topics V. Public Comment VI. Adjourn Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Contact: Sandra Arnold Public Information Coordinator (239) 774-8308 www.collierl?:ov.net October 29, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PRE 2008 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WORKSHOP COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2007 1-4 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County Legislative Delegation will meet for a joint Pre 2008 Legislative Session Workshop on Friday, Nov. 2 from 1 to 4 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, Administration Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Taruiami Trail, Naples. The agenda includes a discussion about Collier County's proposed 2008 State Legislative Priorities as well as the State Legislature's recent Special Session on property tax reform that concluded in Tallahassee Oct. 29. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the meeting. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the Chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi- judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 E. Taruiarui Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 774-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Assistant to the County Manager Debbie Wight at 774-8383. eo18:r Count'\} "f'>'.i.,l,IiIF , :..?' !lilill"I'k'IHHiII:Hliill Collier Countv's Proposed 2008 State Lel!islative Priorities: · Continue Efforts to Decrease Insurance Costs · Affordable Housing - Remove Cap on Sadowski Housing Trust Funds · Support Portability of Homestead Property Assessments Within County (pending outcome of Property Tax Special Session which concluded 10.29.07) · Protect Impact Fees · Real Estate Transfer Fee . Partial-Year Assessments . Protect Home Rule · Transportation Funding Tied to Seat Belt Use · Cameras at Intersections to Catch Red-Light Runners · Request Change in Florida Statutes to Elect Rather than Appoint South Florida Water Management District Governing Board Members · Address Issues of Concern in Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) · Monitor Growth Management Developments · Support Any Attempt to Enforce Immigration Laws * Encourage State to implement statewide the Collier County Sheriff and Tax Collector task force programs * Encourage State to file lawsuit against federal government for failing to enforce immigration laws · Support County Takeover of the Collier County Housing Authority from the State CQttr County %11> "'):;,;:;;111::::': Collier Countv's Proposed 2008 State Lel!islative Priorities: · Continue Efforts to Decrease Insurance Costs In early 2007, the legislature held a special session to address the property insurance crisis in the State of Florida. The Legislature ultimately passed legislation which allows Citizens, the state insurer, to expand insurance products, temporarily freeze rates and cancellations, and to subsidize the re-insurance market theoretically providing for lower insurance premiums. Unfortunately, this has not happened as many companies have filed for rate increases. Just recently, the Attorney General issued subpoenas to insurance companies to justify recent rate requests. · Affordable Housing - Remove Cap on Sadowski Housing Trust Funds HB 1375 passed the last week of session which included the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program, and was later renamed the "Representative Mike Davis Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program" to honor the representative who has lead the work on affordable housing issues for several years. The Legislature allocated $65 million for CWHIPP in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, and $393 million overall for statewide affordable housing programs. However, removal of the Sadowski Cap on Doc Stamps would provide approximately $600 million for affordable housing. The Legislature has been reluctant to remove the cap over the past few years. During the 2007 Special Session D, discussions have included providing for assessment of rent-restricted affordable housing real property using actual rental income for all levies except school district levies. · Support Portability of Homestead Property Assessments Within County (pending outcome of Special Session which concluded 10.29.07) Portability of the Save Our Homes (SOH) benefit has been discussed over the last year in various forms as the Legislature debates on whether to include the provision in the property tax plan. The latest versions of the property tax plans do include portability. It is likely the final constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot in January 2008 will 1 contain SOH portability in some version. Whether it is capped, limited by usage, or within counties is undetermined at this time. The Special Session that ended on Oct. 29 resulted in a tax plan that allows portability of accumulated SOH benefits for homeowners who move from one homestead to another. · Protect Impact Fees Measures to cap and/or prohibit impact fees were introduced last year during the 2007 Legislative Session. As the Legislature continues to move to cap local government ad valorem revenues, there is a belieflocal governments will circumvent the caps by raising assessment fees and impact fees. It is very likely in 2008 that the Legislature will introduce legislation to cap or reduce revenue from assessment fees and impact fees. . Real Estate Transfer Fee This provision was included in a general bill offered during the 2007 Session. Unfortunately the provision was tied to the capping of impact fees in the same bill. SB 532, which contained the real estate transfer fee tied to the cap on impact fees, died in committee last regular Session. The provision has not been filed as a bill for 2008 to date. . Partial-Year Assessments Currently real estate in Collier County is assessed annually on January 1. This means if you purchase your property after January I and make improvements during that year, those improvements are not recognized by the Property Appraiser until the following year. A more effective way to generate the revenues necessary to pay for the services provided would be to appraise property as additions or newly constructed homes are completed. Revenues generated from a partial-year assessment plan if implemented are estimated between $2 and $3 million. During legislative discussions on property tax reform, there has been a concerted effort on behalf of the Legislature to cap and cut local government ad valorem tax revenues over the past year. Recently, during Special Session D, the Legislature did consider further rollback rates and caps on local government revenue. . Protect Home Rule rfrecent past trends are any indication of the direction of this issue in 2008, there will be further efforts to erode Home Rule oflocal governments. Unfunded mandates, restrictions or moratoriums on local ordinances, and capping of local tax revenues have all been passed by the Legislature in recent years. It will be a challenge for individual local governments to slow the further erosion of home rule in 2008. 2 · Transportation Funding Tied to Seat Belt Use Bills addressing this issue, HB 11 and SB 94, have been filed for the 2008 Session already. Currently, the "Florida Safety Belt Law" is enforced as a secondary offense for operators and passengers 18 and older; that is, law enforcement officers cannot stop motorists 18 and older solely for not using safety belts. It is a primary offense to operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 are restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device. Lastly, it was believed that if the proposed bill passed the Legislature, a one-time draw down of$35.5 million in federal funds would be awarded to Florida. However, in a follow-up memorandum dated January 23,2007 by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it was determined that Florida would not be eligible for the grant. The NHTSA determined that because of an existing provision in s. 3l6.6l4(a), Florida Statutes, which exempts all vehicles that exceed 5,000 pounds from coverage under the state's seat belt use law, Florida would not be in compliance with the federal grant program and therefore, would not be eligible for the federal funds even ifit passed a primary safety belt use law. We believe the safety belt legislation bill must say mandatory seat belts for all. · Cameras at Intersections to Catch Red-Light Runners Introduced last year, SB 2558 by Sen. Bennett and HB 1247 by Rep. Reagan, created the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, which authorizes local governments to enact ordinances which establish electronic photo detection devises at specified intersections for the purpose of automatic detection of red light violators. The bills died in committee last year, but will likely be introduced in 2008. There has been opposition to the bills in past sessions based on the perception of government unnecessarily controlling behavior with automatic devices. Commissioners from many counties at the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Conference in Gainesville in September were very supportive of equipment to stop stopping re-light runners. · Requesting Change in Florida Statutes to Elect Rather than Appoint South Florida Water Management District Governing Board Members HB 559 was introduced during the 2006 Session eliminating provisions for appointment of members to water management district governing boards and requiring board members to be elected. The bill aiso directed the governing board of each district to create residence areas of equal population within district for purpose of electing members. The legislation failed to pass. 3 Collier County passed a resolution supporting the amending of state statutes for the election rather than the appointment of the 5 water districts governing boards in 2006. No legislation directly related to the issue was filed in 2007 and it is not known at this time ifFAC supports the election of board members. The issue was brought up by Commissioner Coletta last year at a F AC Conference. · Address Issues of Concern in Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CCNA: This law governs how state and local agencies procure professional (i.e.; Architectural and Engineering) services. The current law requires agencies to select the most qualified firm absent of price considerations. The proposed changes to the law would give agencies discretion to continue to procure these services under a qualifications-based method (the status quo) or, as an alternative procure them using a "best value" method where price (fees) could be competitively compared along with qualitative considerations. In no instance would price considerations outweigh qualitative considerations in making a selection. The proposed changes would also sanction the selection and award of term contracts to multiple firms where appropriate. The proposed changes to this law promote "home rule" governance by allowing local entities to select the most appropriate procurement strategies for every applicable contract. The changes also serve to enhance the public's leverage in these agreements through more open competition. To date, the proposed changes have garnered the formal endorsement of the following groups: o The Florida Association of Public Purchasing Officers (FAPPO) o The SE Florida Chapter of the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) o The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners o The Florida Association of Counties (F AC) Policy Committee o Members of the Florida Governmental Finance Officers Association (FGFOA) o Many practicing purchasing professionals through out Florida During the month of November, staff will be seeking formal endorsement from the FAC and FGFOA executive boards. · Monitor Growth Management Developments Two shell bills have been filed by Senator Garcia related to Growth Management for 2008. It is expected that legislation will be offered by the Department Community Affairs to further address growth management issues. Transportation backlog, concurrency, impact fees, and local comprehensive plan exemptions are some of the issues that are 4 likely to come forward in 2008. Secretary of the DCA Tom Pelham has indicated the department will introduce a significant growth management proposal in 2008. Collier County's position articulated: In the event the State Legislature imposes reductions in property taxes or existing revenue streams (e.g. establishes a statutory cap on the use of impact fees), then said reductions should be associated with an unfunded mandate clause wherein the result would be a finding of compliance by the DCA with respect to a CIE with said CIE being considered financially feasible regardless of the statutory requirements in Chapter 163, F.S., pertaining to the process and criteria for financial feasibility. In no event should a local government be required to establish a long-term concurrency management system as a result of the state-imposed reduction in revenue in conjunction with an unfunded mandate or an existing financially feasible CIE when the resulting condition would be a finding of non compliance which is the result of action taken by the State Legislature that either reduces local government revenue or inhibits said local governments from collecting revenue from sources that had prior funding reliability. Any deficiencies in the ability to maintain the adopted roadway level of service which are a direct or indirect result of a reduced revenue stream caused by State legislative action shall not inhibit the local government from maintaining the existing roadway concurrency requirements as adopted in the local comprehensive plan. Developments that have been approved based on the existing and projected revenue stream and prior to any State legislative funding mandates shall not be eligible for any reductions in impact fees or exemptions that may reduce the ability of the local government to fund capital improvements that were in the existing adopted CIE at the time the development was approved. · Support Any Attempt to Enforce Immigration Laws * Encourage State to implement statewide the Collier County Sheriff and Tax Collector task force programs * Encourage State to file lawsuit against federal government to enforce immigration laws · Support County Takeover of the Collier County Housing Authority from the State 5 MAJORITY MESSAGE POINTS JANUARY PROPERTY TAX PLAN . When we started fighting for property tax relief over ten months ago, we realized that this issue was one of the most important issues we would face. We have worked hard to help make Florida affordable again for families and small business. The ability to re-energize our economy and return Florida to its role as national economic leader depends on it. . The House passed a broad, bi-partisan consensus property tax relief plan 108-2 last week. It was meaningful, balanced and returned some fairness and equity to Florida's tax system. The reality is that the Senate has rejected that plan and has sent us a new tax package as the only option for the January 29th ballot. This was the most meaningful tax relief plan the Senate would pass. They have made clear that this is their final offer, take it or leave it. . The reality of the legislative process requires agreement from both the House and the Senate. The House has a long history of wanting to provide more tax relief. We have a record that demonstrates our continued commitment to providing greater relief. The House would be willing to do more if given the opportunity. The Senate has not given us that option. . If Floridians are to have a chance to vote for property tax relief in January, this is the only option. The people of Florida deserve more relief. But walking away from the Senate plan at this point means that property owners likely would not see any relief until 2009 at the earliest. . There are some positive elements for taxpayers in this package - things that Floridians have told us they wanted and items the Governor campaigned on last fall: . Expanding the Homestead Exemption: Every homeowner will see a larger Homestead Exemption on their non-school taxes. This will result in savings for every homestead property owner in the state. . Full Portability: A universally agreed upon aspect of the plan. Almost every Florida homeowner will now be able to carry their full current Save Our Homes savings with them to a new home. Floridians will no longer be trapped in their homes and will be able to afford to move again. This is a major step forward for Floridians. . Cap on Assessments for Non-Homesteaded Properties: Just a week ago, the Senate was saying "NO" to any cap on non-homesteaded properties at all. Florida property owners who have seen their property assessments double and triple in a single year will now see a cap on at least some of their property assessments. . Providing a cap in any form is a realization that government spending has grown too fast and is too heavy a burden on small business, renters and snowbirds and must be contained if we are going to have a chance to revive Florida's economy. . A cap bring some predictability and stability for non-homestead property owners and allows them to make investments and hiring decisions knowing with some certainty that their tax bills will not be unaffordable next year. While certainly not the cap we proposed, the House's leadership on this issue is the primary reason that any cap at all made it into the final package. . This Senate plan does not go far enough. The people of Florida deserve more relief. While the House has continued to push for more relief, others in the process have been unwilling to provide further savings for Florida taxpayers. . The fact that the Constitution calls for super majority votes to place items before the voters has empowered those opposed to tax relief to water this package down to the bare minimum. We believe that our partners in this process have missed a major opportunity to provide truly meaningful relief to all Floridians and to reinvigorate our state's economy. . Working with the Senate and the Governor, there will be more opportunities for further property tax relief over the next 12 months. The Tax and Budget Reform Commission is considering property tax reform as part of their agenda for the November 2008 ballot. This is not the end of the debate to reduce property taxes. Our dedication to fighting for property tax relief continues. We will not lose sight of the fact that these tax cuts are a small step toward getting Florida's economy back on track. It's the people's money, and we will keep fighting to let them keep more of it. Property Tax Reform Introduction This Policy Brief explains the provisions of the proposed constitutional amendment for property tax reform (5JR 2D), its implementing bill (5B 4D), and the special election authorization bill (5B 6D) as of final passage. Florida voters will consider the proposed constitutional amendment on January 29, 2008. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The Property Tax Reform Plan - SJR 20 and SB 40 2 Authorizing a Special Election - SB 60 7 Appendix A - First Year Tax Savings by County 8 The ProDerty Tax Reform Plan SJR 20 & S8 40 The Bottom Line The 5JR eliminates the "lock-in effect" of Save Our Homes by allowing statewide portability for a period of two years after leaving the former homestead. It provides savings for every homestead owner by creating a new, additional $25,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes. The Joint Resolution creates a new 10% assessment cap for all non-homestead properties (i.e. business properties, apartments, and second homes) for non-school taxes. It also creates a Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption of $25,000 to lower administrative and tax costs for businesses. 5B 4D provides implementing language for the constitutional amendment. 5B 6D authorizes the proposed amendment to appear on the January 29, 2008 presidential primary ballot. The total fiscal impact is $8.746 billion over four years ($1.859 billion for school tax levies). Summary of SJR 20 & SB 40 1. Allows "portability" of accumulated Save Our Homes (SOH) benefits from one homestead to another. . The Joint Resolution allows homestead owners with an accumulated SOH benefit to transfer 100% of the benefit (up to a $500,000 benefit) to a new homestead if they "upsize" to a home with a greater or equal just value. . If "downsizing" to a home with a lower just value, the homestead owner can transfer a SOH benefit that protects the same percentage of value as it did the former homestead, up to a $500,000 benefit. o In other words, if the SOH benefit equaled 25% of the just value of the former home, the new SOH benefit will equal to 25% of the just value ofthe new home. . The new homestead must be established within two years of the sale of the former homestead in order to transfer the SOH benefit. 2 . This provision is retroactive to 2007, so those who sold a homestead in 2007 will be eligible to transfer their benefit from the former home if they establish a new homestead by January 1,2009. . A homestead owner may transfer the SOH benefit to a new homestead anywhere in the state. Portability is not limited within a county or any other jurisdiction. . The transferred SOH benefit on the new homestead will apply to school tax levies. . The implementing bill sets forth additional rules for portability when more than one person has established the homestead: o If two or more people own multiple homesteads and are moving into only one new homestead. they can only transfer a benefit from one of the former homesteads. So if a newly married couple is selling two former homesteads to move into one new homestead, they will choose to transfer whichever of their SOH benefits is largest. The size of the transferable benefit is capped at $500,000. o If two or more people jointly own a homestead and are moving into more than one new homestead. they must divide the value of their SOH benefit among the new homesteads based on the number of owners of the prior homestead. The total amount of transferable benefits is capped at $500,000. So, if a couple is moving out oftheir jointly owned homestead with a $100,000 SOH benefit into two new homesteads, they will divide the benefit in half and apply a $50,000 benefit to each of their new homesteads. [The following page provides a visual depiction of how portability will work.] 3 Just Value: $600,000 CURRENT SITUATION (without Portability) Accumulated SOH benefit: $0 Just Value: $400,000 Accumulated SOH benefit: $200,000 Assessed Value: $600,000 Assessed Vaiue: $200,000 Upsize Downsize Just Value: $200,000 Accumulated SOH benefit: $0 Assessed Value: $200,000 With Portability Just Value: $600,000 Just Vaiue: $400,000 Accumulated SOH benefit: $200,000 Accumulated SOH benefit: $200,000 Assessed Value: $400,000 Upsize Assessed Value: $200,000 4 Assessed Value: $100,000 Downsize Just Value: $200,000 Accumuiated SOH benefit: $100,000 2. Expands the Homestead Exemption to be worth UP to $50.000. providina every homestead owner with tax savinas in 2008. . The Joint Resolution creates an additional homestead exemption worth up to $2S,OOO in addition to the existing $25,000 exemption - effectively for a total of $50,000. However, there are two key differences between this new exemption and the existing exemption: o Difference #1: The new exemption applies to the value of the homestead between $50,000 and $75,000. Placing the additional exemption on the "third" $25,000 of value will alleviate the impact for jurisdictions with relatively low property values by ensuring that most homesteads will continue to pay some amount of property tax. o Difference #2: The additional $25,000 exemption does not apply to school tax levies. By contrast, the existing Homestead Exemption does apply to school tax levies. Thus, the new exemption offers fewer savings than the original exemption, because it doesn't shield homeowners from school taxes. The new exemption saves the average homeowner who receives the full benefit an average of $240 a year, while the existing homestead exemption provides about $450 per year. 3. Creates a 10% annual assessment cap for ALL non-homestead properties. . The SJR limits the annual growth of assessed value to 10% for non-homestead residential and business properties. . This assessment limitation does not apply to school tax levies. . The assessment limitation will expire in 10 years. At that time, voters will decide whether to reauthorize it. . Residential properties of nine units or less will surrender accumulated protections at change of ownership or control, as defined by general law. . For all other properties (i.e., residential properties of ten or more units and business properties), the Legislature: o Must define by general law how the property will surrender protections when there is a "qualifying improvement" to the property, and o May define by general law how the property will surrender accumulated protections at a change of ownership or control. 5 . The cap will use a base year of 2008, which means the cap will begin shielding properties from taxation in 2009. . Those benefiting from the new 10% cap include small business owners, second home owners, and renters - ensuring that those taxpayers who have born the brunt of the property tax crisis receive protections into the future, 4. Creates a new Tanaible Personal Propertv Exemption of S2S.000 for business properties. . The Joint Resolution authorizes a new exemption of $25,000 for Tangible Personal Property. . For the average commercial property, this creates savings of $450 (assuming an aggregate tax rate of 17 mills, which is near the statewide average). . Those property owners with less than $25,000 worth of tangible personal property will no longer have to file detailed returns, thereby alleviating an often cumbersome administrative burden. . Approximately 1 million of Florida's 1.3 million businesses will receive a total exemption from the tangible personal property tax. . This provision does apply to school tax levies. If this provision exempted schools, businesses would save money but still be required to file annual returns. This would undermine the purpose of completely removing the administrative burden of filing annual returns. 5. Reauires an annual appropriation to fiscallv constrained counties to offset revenue reductions that result from the constitutional amendment. . SB 4D directs the Legislature to appropriate money in FY 2008-09 for fiscally constrained counties that lose revenue as a result of the constitutional amendment. . Each fiscally constrained county will be reimbursed in proportion to its share of the overall statewide revenue reduction. . The definition of a "fiscally constrained county" already exists in statute and is used for purposes of sales tax distribution. A county may be considered fiscally constrained if it levies $5 million or less from one mill of ad valorem tax or if the county is within a rural area of critical concern as defined by the Governor. 6 Authorizing a Special Election S860 Background The Florida Constitution stipulates that a special election may only be called by a three-fourths vote in the House and Senate. The bill authorizing the special election must have no other subject matter than the authorization of the special election. Summary of the Bill SB 6D authorizes a special election for a public vote on SJR 2D. The Special Election will coincide with the Florida Presidential Preference Primary on January 29, 2008. . Delaying consideration of the property tax reform amendment would mean it could not be implemented until 2009 tax bills are issued. Placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in January 2008 makes the new reforms and savings available for tax bills in November 2008. . Note: Florida's election law creates a "closed" primary, wherein only registered members of a party can vote for candidates of that party. However, voters of all political affiliations may vote on the proposed constitutional amendment. 7 Appendix A - First Year Tax Savings by County Methodoloay . The following chart shows the first-year tax savings for the typical Florida homestead owner under the constitutional amendment. Savings are measured against the current year's tax rates and tax base. . Homestead Exemption: The savings in Column 2 are for "Fully Benefiting Homestead Properties." These are homesteads with assessed values above $75,000, since the new $25,000 exemption applies to values between $50,000 and $75,000. . Portability: Homeowners realize tax savings from portability only when they move. Column 3 shows how the typical homestead owner (based on median home values within each county) will save when they move compared to what their tax bill would be under current law. However, these savings will vary widely based on a number of factors, including the value of the first homestead, the value of the second homestead, and whether the homeowner moves to a different taxing jurisdiction. Fully Benefiting Typical County Homestead Portability Exemption Beneficiarv Alachua $334.58 $1,029.71 Baker $264.0S $611.26 Bay $125.61 $920.67 Bradford $266.20 $538.46 Brevard $210.19 $1,131.99 Broward $308.72 $2,666.87 Calhoun $253.38 $279.87 Charlotte $179.48 $975.70 Citrus $217.21 $776.39 Clay $178.82 $800.44 Collier $140.39 $2,060.88 Columbia $281.16 $558.65 Dade $286.72 $3,234.44 8 Fully Benefiting Typical County Homestead Portability Exemotion Beneficiarv Desoto $221.72 $898.64 Dixie $321.99 $419.53 Duval $222.09 $1.134.10 Escambia $223.71 $593.77 Flagler $168.90 $986.74 Franklin $111.37 $1,161.56 Gadsden $240.43 $408.06 Gilchrist $229.29 $612.22 Glades $307.21 $724.45 Gulf $153.73 $745.66 Hamilton $272.18 $410.79 Hardee $222.31 $485.61 Hendry $279.88 $1,080.78 Hernando $229.95 $813.34 Highlands $222.01 $995.21 Hillsborough $325.74 $ 1 ,S52.83 Holmes $233.05 $118.37 Indian River $186.33 $ 1 ,122.36 Jackson $209.72 $227.76 Jefferson $277.99 $570.20 Lafayette $237.62 $481 .48 Lake $225.58 $731.52 Lee $230.95 $1,652.91 leon $235.20 $957.33 Levy $234.21 $715.71 Liberty $220.12 $312.59 Madison $235.91 $369.25 Manatee $215.05 $1,486.86 9 Fully Benefiting Typical County Homestead Portability Exemption Beneficiary Marion $164.39 $792.23 Martin $215.14 $,111.65 Monroe $120.30 $2.296.96 Nassau $200.07 $1.088.36 Okaloosa $144.52 $1,071.61 Okeechobee $183.0S $726.36 Orange $236.00 $1,542.89 Osceola $181.89 $1,130.99 Palm Beach $274.15 $2,145.29 Pasco $190.42 $821.02 Pinellas $295.20 $1,735.87 Polk $242.40 $921.64 Putnam $272.60 $745.67 St. Johns $183.77 $1,623.50 St. Lucie $331.47 $1,261.47 Santa Rosa $165.16 $513.59 Sarasota $150.46 $1.495.07 Seminole $223.54 $1,603.26 Sumter $165.75 $572.43 Suwannee $227.91 $585.49 Taylor $235.07 $352,01 Union $269.44 $459.49 Volusia $284.60 $1,633.79 Wakulla $207.77 $546.06 Walton $107.88 $713.09 Washington $209.21 $176.63 1 . Allows portability of accumulated Save Our Homes (SOH) benefits for homeowners who move from one homestead to another. o Homeowners may transfer their SOH benefit to a new homestead anywhere in Florida within 2 years of leaving their former homesteads, o Those who sold their homes in 2007 can transfer their SOH benefit to a new homestead if they establish the new homestead by January 1,2009. o If "upsizing" to a home of equal or greater just value, the homestead owner can transfer 100% of the SOH benefit to the new homestead, up to a $500,000 transferred benefit. o If "downsizing" to a home with a lower just value, the homestead owner can transfer a SOH benefit that protects the same percentage of value as it did the former homestead, up to a $500,000 benefit. o The transferred SOH benefit will apply to school taxes on the new homestead. Previous versions of 5JR 2D exempted school tax levies from the transferred benefit. Creates an additional homestead exemption worth $25,000, applied to value above $50,000. o This exemption does not apply to school tax levies, Provides an assessment arowth limitation of 10% for all non-homestead properties. o This assessment limitation does not apply to school tax levies. o The assessment limitation will expire in 10 years. At that time, voters will decide whether to reauthorize it. o Residential properties of nine units or less will surrender accumulated protections at change of ownership or control, as defined by general law. o For all other properties (i.e., residential properties of ten or more units and business properties), the Legislature must define by general law how the property will surrender protections when there is a "qualifying improvement" to the property. The Legislature may define by general law how the property will surrender accumulated protections at a change of ownership or control. Creates a new Tanaible Personal ProDerty ExemDtion of $25,000. o This exemption applies to all tax levies, Requires an annual appropriation to fiscally constrained counties to offset revenue reductions that result from the constitutional amendment (contained in 56 4D). Tax reduction over the next four years: o $8.746 billion total o $6.887 billion for non-school levies o $1 .859 billion for school levies . . . . . ... '" CD >- . CD > Ii: en c .2 'E ... - Q) Cl CO .ll:: o CO 0.. E ... .E Q) ~ >< co I- "C Q) I/) o c. o ... 0.. to '" '" a ~ o I- .., ~ ';' r-- N ~ ..... o N N c:? ';' on ..... ~ ..... o N ..... G' ';' '" o ~ ..... o N o ~ ';' ~ en ~ o o N en N 9 '" ClI) e o o N a;- N '" e ::;. e: o '" 0.. E (I) >< UJ " co (I) ~ In (I) E o :l: ... e: o '" :s " 00( "" '" N '" r::- at, ~ ~ to N on G' ~ ~ ~ r::- '" b N o ~ ~ "" c c '" '" >< co ::E C ~ o " ... e: o 'e o 0.. e 0.. ii ::l ~ o c '7 ~ :c t! o 0.. e;;- N e MO '" CIO ~. M ~N ::. 5' '" ~ r:::-in N M ~U> !i r::- eo ~ ~ ~N '" U> ~C) !i ~ eo ~ ~ N'j::' '" N ::;.'<t !:!: N eo ~ ~ ~ eco "!. ::. a;- r-- ~ ';;, ... <"!. ::. ~ ~ 0.. E :!l UJ "" '" N "t ~ (I) 0.. e 0.. ... e: o f (I) 0.. (I) :c '51 e: co .... ::;. J!l e: (I) E In ~ In U (I) co In 0- .il! .E " co iii .e - In 0 (I) .... E o :l: C: o Z e: o 0.. co () ~ . c ~ ;;, N U> e ~ M ...- !::!. - ... '<t M !:!: c;- lIO "!. ::. ~ '" '<t. ::. a; U> ...- ::. .l!l u .. 0- .E "0 o .c u III e: o Z CD :> UI UI ~ ..c UI ... u ~ .E "0 o .c u I/) 6' '" ... ci t::r::- "'." ...... -~ <D e NOO eo", -e ~ ~ -- ~ ... eoN ~!:.. co <D ~ a;-t:: r--'<t ~e (j) o ~ co~ r--CIO -e r::- N ~ r:::-. r--C) ~!::!. "" c c '" '" >< co ::E C ~ o " ... e: o 'e o 0.. e 0.. 0.. ::l ... c c '7 ~ :c t! o 0.. ~ 0.._ E u (I) .. >< 0- UJ E ""- "'- N 0 "'I 0 .c ~u (I)'" 0.. - 2J9 0.. 0 ...1- e: o f (I) 0.. (I) :c '51 e: co .... N"V) ... N t-:. o~ =-~ ~~ <D '" !!!-8 ~co on <D :!..~ ::j: 8 e~ M~ ... ... ~~ <0'1.0 N b ::;. w W ..J ..J '" '" c: o z lii In o 0.. o 0: E .E (I) n: x '" f- >, t: Q) C. o 0: Q) <ii c: Q) (J) en Q) a. >- - - c: Q) >- E ~ E Z<( en ~ .~ 0 2>'" ::::i~11l w-U ~g.9 o.{j'jij w(/)- ~oo ct;.m I/) a.':;; w a. Q) 1-"'- <(_0 0- :2c:(/) I-(/)~ I/)Q)o. woo. ..Jo<( ..J-- <Cs~ ::;; 00( <D on o r-- o o N m !::,! o Non-School Impacts by County Portability, $25k TPP Exemption, $25k Homestead Exemption and 10% Cap on Non-Homestead % Reduction in Property Tax Base I Tax Impact - Current Millage Rates $m's I ~ 200S illQ Wi 2012 2008 ~ illQ 2011 W1 Statewide -6.1% .7.2% -8.3% -9.5% -10.2% -1,16S -1,497 -1,880 -2,341 -2,737 Alachua -9.9% -11.5% -13.2% -15.0% -16.4% -16.3 -1s.8 -23.6 -28.2 -32.2 Baker -11.9% -12.6% -13.2% -13.8% -14.0% -1.0 -1.2 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 Bay -4.0% -4.4% -5.1% -6.0% -6.4% -4.2 -5.0 -6.4 -8.2 -S.S Bradford -10.7% -11.5% -12.4% -13.5% -14.3% -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 Brevard -7.6% -7.6% -7.8% -8.1% -8.2% -2s.7 -31.S -35.6 -40.3 -43.S Broward -6.1% -7.1% -8.1% -9.1% -9.7% -141.6 -17S.8 -225.0 -278.4 -32S.S Calhoun -9.2% -10.0% -10.9% -12.1% -12.9% -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 Charlotte -5.0% -5.8% -6.7% -7.7% -8.2% -10.2 -12.7 -15.S -ls.s -23.3 Citrus -7.4% -8.4% -9.5% -10.6% -11.3% -8.6 -10.6 -12.8 -15.4 -17.7 Clay -10.8% -12.0% -12.9% -13.9% -14.5% -8.S -10.1 -11.s -13.S -15.8 Collier -3.2% -4.3% -5.5% -6.6% -7.2% -16.8 -25.0 -35.2 -47.5 .57.S Columbia -9.4% -10.3% -11.3% -12.5% -13.3% -2.8 -3.2 -3.7 -4.3 -4.S Dade -5.8% -8.0% -10.0% -12.0% -13.3% -168.S -254.0 -345.1 -452.8 -54S.4 DeSoto -5.6% -5.9% -6.5% -7.2% -7.5% -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.7 -2.0 Dixie -4.0% -4.9% -6.0% -7.2% -7.8% -0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -O.S -1.1 Duval -7.9% -8.6% -9.5% -10.5% -11.1% -42.5 -4S.7 -58.6 -6S.7 -78.s Escambla -8.2% -9.2% -10.3% -11.6% -12.5% -12.0 -14.0 -16.5 -1s.5 -22.0 Flagler -5.2% -5.8% -6.5% -7.1% -7.1% -5.0 -6.3 -8.1 -10.1 -11.8 Franklin -1.3% -1.6% -2.4% -3.3% -3.7% -0.3 .0.4 -0.6 -1.0 -1.2 Gadsden -10.7% -11.5% -12.3% -13.2% -13.8% -1.4 -1.6 -1.s -2.1 -2.4 Gilchrist -9.8% -10.8%, -11.8% -12.9% -13.6% -0.6 -0.7 -O.S -1.0 -1.1 Glades -6.7% -7.4% -8.5% -9.8% -10.6% -0.6 -0.7 -O.S -1.1 -1.2 Gulf -1.8% -2.2% -2.9% -3.7% -4.1% -0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -1.1 -1.3 Hamilton -4.4% -4.8% -5.5% -6.4% -6.9% -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 Hardee -4.6% -5.0% -5.5% -6.2% -6.6% -0.7 -0.8 -O.S -1.1 -1.2 Hendry -4.2% -5.1% -6.4% -7.9% -9.0% -1.4 -1.8 -2.3 -2.s -3.5 Hernando -10.4% -11.4% -12.4% -13.4% -14.0%. -11.1 -13.3 -15.5 -18.3 -20.7 Highlands -9.6% -11.2% .13.1% -15.2% -16.7%, -5.0 -6.1 -7.5 -S.2 -10.6 Hillsborough -8.0% -9.5% -10.8% -12.3% .13.2% -S5.6 -121.5 -14s.6 -182.8 -212.4 Holmes -11.4% -12.5% -13.6% -14.9% -15.7% -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 Indian River -4.5% -5.1% .5.8% -6.5% -6.8% -7.3 -S.O -11.2 -13.s -16.2 Jackson -9.1% -9.7% -10.6% -11.7% -12.4% -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 Jefferson -10.3% -11.4% -12.4% -13.8% -14.6% -0.7 -0.8 -O.S -1.0 -1.2 Lafayette -9.9% -11.3% -12.7% -14.3% -15.5% -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 Lake -9.1% -10.3% -11.6% -13.1% -14.0% -17.8 -21.4 -25.7 -30.8 -35.2 Lee -4.2% -5.0% -6.0% -7.0% -7.4% -42.7 -56.2 -13.6 -S5.2 -113.1 Leon -9.5% -11.3% -13.1% -15.0% -16.5% -14.2 -17.6 -21.4 -25.S -2S.8 Levy -7.2% -8.2% -9.3% -10.6% -11.5% -1.8 -2.1 -2.6 -3.1 -3.6 Liberty -5.8% -6.6% -7.5% -8.6% -9.3% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Madison -7.7% .8.7% -10.0% -11.5% -12.5% -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 Manatee -6.4% -7.8% -9.0% -10.2% -10.9% -20.S -27.3 -34.7 -43.5 -S1.3 Marion -9.5% -10.3% -11.3% -12.5% .13.2% -12.4 -14.2 -16.6 -1s.5 -21.s Martin -4.9% -5.9%.. -6.9% -8.0% -8.7% -10.5 -13.4 -17.0 -21.3 -24.s Monroe -2.3% -3.0% .4.0% -5.0% -5.5% -3.5 -5.2 -7.6 -10.8 -13.2 Nassau -5.2% -5.5% -6.1% -6.7% -7.0% -3.6 -4.1 -5.0 -6.1 -7.0 Okaloosa -5.6% -6.3% -7.2% -8.5% -9.2% -6.4 -7.5 -S.1 -11.2 -12.8 Okeechobee -6.7% -7.6% -8.8% -10.2% -11.1% -1.2 -1.5 -1.8 -2.2 -2.5 Orange -5.9% -6.8% -8.0% -9.4% -10.3% -56.3 -67.S -84.0 -104.2 -120.2 Osceola -5.0% -5.5% -6.4% -7.5% -8.1% -s.3 -11.0 -13.8 -17.4 -20.2 Palm Beach -5.6% -7.1% -8.5% -9.9% -10.8% -116.4 -158.s -205.7 -260.6 -30S.1 Pasco .9.9% -11.4% -12.6% -13.9% -14.6% -23.3 -2S.2 -35.3 -42.5 -48.S Pinellas -6.9% -7.3% -7.8% -8.5% -8.8% -70.8 -80.0 -S3.2 -10S.7 -122.7 Polk -7.9% -8.4% -9.2% -10.1% -10.5% -26.5 -30.2 -35.2 -41.4 -46.4 Putnam -6.4% -7.5% -8.9% -10.5% -11.7% .2.S -3.5 -4.3 -5.3 -6.1 St. Johns -4.9% -5.3% -5.8% -6.4% .6.6% -S.8 .11.6 -14.0 -17.1 -1S.6 St. Lucie -5.6% -6.3% -7.1% -7.8% -8.2% -22.1 -27.4 -33.8 -41.8 -48.5 Santa Rosa -9.0% -10.1% -11.2% -12.5% -13.3% -5.8 -6.8 -8.0 -S.4 -10.5 Sarasota -4.6% -5.1% -5.7% -6.4% -6.7% -1S.4 -23.5 -2S.2 -36.3 -42.0 Seminole -9.1% -11.1"/" -12.9% -14.8% -16.2% -27.5 -35.8 -44.5 -54.5 -63.5 Sumter -8.9% -9.4% -9.7% -10.0% -10.0% -3.7 -4.4 -5.2 -6.1 -7.0 Suwannee -8.6% -9.9% -11.2% -12.6% -13.6% -1.3 -1.6 -1.S -2.3 -2.6 Taylor -4.6% -5.0% -5.8% -6.9% -7.5% -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1 Union -13.4% -14.3% -15.2% -16.4% -17.1% -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 Vol usia -1.4% -7.9% -8.6% -9.4% -9.8% -37.0 -42.4 -4S.6 -58.6 -65.7 Waku l1a -7.8% -8.8% -9.6% -10.3% -10.6% -1.1 -1.4 -1.7 -2.1 -2.4 Walton -1.5% -1.8% -2.6% -3.5% -3.8% -1.3 -1.8 -2.8 -4.2 -5.2 Washington -6.9% -8.2% -9.8% -11.6% -12.9% -0.6 -0.8 -O.S -1.1 -1.3 10/29/2007 10:56 AM Senate Property Tax Reform Proposal School Impacts by County Portability with $500k Cap and TPP $25k Exemption Reduction in Property Tax Base I Tax Impact at Current Rates $m's I 2008 llii ill!! 2011 W1 2008 llii 2010 W1 2012 Statewide -1.4% -2.5% -3.3% -3.9% -4.5% -204 -387 -547 -721 -898 Alachua -2.3% -3.8% ~5.0% -6.2% -7.3% -2.3 -4.1 -5.6 -7.3 -9.0 Baker -2.4% -3.5% -4.2% -4.8% -5.3% -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 Bay -0.8% -1.1% -1.3% -1.5% -1.6% -1.1 .1.6 -2.1 .2.6 -3.1 Bradford -2.4% -3.3% -4.0% -4.7% -5.3% -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 Brevard -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -2.8 -3.6 -4.2 -4.9 -5.7 Broward -1.4% -2.4% -3.2% -3.8% -4.3% -19.9 -38.4 -54.6 -72.1 -90.0 Calhoun -2.3% -3.1% -3.7% -4.3% -4.8% 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Charlotte -1.2% -1.9% .2.4% -2.9% -3.2% -2.1 -3.7 -5.1 -6.5 .8.1 Citrus .1.6% -2.7% -3.5% -4.2% -4.8%;1 -1.5 -2.8 -3.9 -5.1 -6.3 Clay -1.7% -3.1% -4.1% -4.9% -5.7% -1.4 -2.7 -3.9 -5.2 -6.S Collier -1.2% -2.1% -2.8% -3.3% -3.7% -5.7 -11.7 -16.9 -22.6 -28.3 Columbia -1.8% .2.7% -3.4% -4.0% -4.6% -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 .0.9 -1.1 Dade -2.2% -4.4% -5.9% -7.2% -8.3% -44.5 -95.8 -140.3 -188.9 -238.2 DeSoto -1.7% -2.0% -2.2% -2.3% -2.5% -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 Dixie -1.2% -2.0% -2.5% -3.0% -3.3%. -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Duval -1.3% -2.1% -2.7% _3.2O/D -3.7% -6.2 -10.7 .14.7 -19.0 -23.4 Escambla -1.6% -2.5% -3.2% ~3.9% ~4.5% -2.1 -3.3 -4.5 -5.7 -6.9 Flagler -0.9%.. -1.5% -1.9% ~2.2% -2.3% .1.0 .1.9 -2.7 -3.5 -4.4 Franklin -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Gadsden -2.3% -3.2% -4.0% -4.7% -5.3% -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 Gilchrist -1.9% .3.0% -3.7% -4.5% -5.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Glades .2.5% .3.1% .3.4% -3.8% -4.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Gulf -0.4% -0.6% -0.7% .0.8% ~0.9% -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Hamilton -1.5% -1.8% -2.0% -2.3% ~2.5% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Hardee -1.7% -2.0% -2.2% -2.4% -2.5% -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 Hendry -1.4% -2.1% -2.6% ~3.1% -3.6% -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 Hernando -1.7% -2.9% -3.8% -4.7% -5.3% -1.6 -3.0 -4.2 -5.6 -6.9 Highlands -3.1% -4.6% -5.7% -6.8% -7.8% -1.4 -2.1 -2.8 -3.5 -4.3 Hillsborough -1.8% -3.3% -4.4% -5.4% -6.3% -12.3 -24.5 -35.2 -46.8 -58.6 Holmes -4.0% -5.1% -5.9% -6.7% ~7.4% -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Indian River -0.9% -1.5% -1.9% .2.2% -2.5% -1.5 -2.7 -3.7 -4.8 -5.9 Jackson -2.1% -2.6% -2.9% -3.3% -3.6% -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 Jefferson -3.1% -4.2% -4.9% .5.7% -6.4% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Lafayette -3.0% -4.6% -5.7% -6.8% -7.8% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Lake -1.8% .2.9% -3.7% -4.5% -5.2% -2.9 -5.1 -7.0 -9.1 -11.2 Lee -1.1% -1.8% -2.3% -2.7% -3.1% -8.3 -15.4 -21.6 -28.3 -35.1 Leon -2.1% -3.8% -5.1% -6.3% -7.5% -2.7 -5.0 -7.0 -9.2 -11.4 Levy -1.7% -2.6% -3.2% -3.8% -4.4% -0.3 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 Liberty -1.7% -2.4% -3.0% -3.6% -4.2% 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Madison -2.6% -3.4% -4.1% -4.8% -5.4% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Manatee -1.8% -3.2% -4.2% -5.0% -5.7% -5.0 -10.0 -14.4 -19.1 -23.9 Marion -1.5% -2.2% -2.7% -3.1% -3.6% -2.3 -3.5 -4.6 -5.7 -6.9 Martin -1.2% -2.1% -2.8% -3.4% -3.9% -1.9 -3.7 -5.2 -6.9 -8.6 Monroe -0.9% -1.5% -1.9% -2.2% -2.4% -0.7 -1.3 -1.8 -2.4 -3.0 Nassau -0.7% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 -1.4 Okaloosa -1.1% -1.5% -1.9% -2.3% -2.6% -1.6 -2.4 -3.2 -3.9 -4.7 Okeechobee -2.0% -2.8% -3.4% -4.0% -4.6% -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 Orange -1.1% -1.8% _2.31,1/... -2.8% -3.2% -8.1 -13.4 -18.1 -23.1 -28.3 Osceola -0.8% -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.5"'/1,1 -1.7 -2.3 -2.9 -3.5 -4.1 Palm Beach -1.5% -3.0% -4.0% -4.9% -5.7% -21.4 -45.2 -65.9 -88.5 -111.4 Pasco -2.3% -3.9% -5.0% -6.1% -6.9% -5.1 -9.5 -13.4 -17.6 -21.9 Pinellas -1.0% -1.5% -1.8% -2.2% -2.4% -6.4 -10.3 -13.7 -17.4 -21.1 Polk -1.8% .2.3% -2.7% -3.0% -3.3% -4.6 -6.4 -7.9 -9.6 -11.3 Putnam -1.5% -2.5% -3.2% -4.0% -4.7% -0.5 -0.8 -1.1 -1.S -1.8 St. Johns -0.7% -1.1% -1.3% -1.5% -1.7% -1.5 -2.5 -3.4 -4.3 -5.3 St. Lucie -1.0% -1.7% -2.2% -2.6% -3.0% -2.2 -4.3 -6.0 -8.0 -9.9 Santa Rosa -1.2% -2.1% -2.7% -3.3% -3.9% -0.9 -1.5 -2.1 -2.7 -3.3 Sarasota -0.8% -1.3% -1.6% -1.9% -2.1% -3.5 -6.2 -8.5 -11.0 -13.5 Seminole -2.2% -4.2% -5.7% -7.2% -8.4% -5.6 -11.3 -16.3 -21.8 -27.4 Sumter -1.3% -2.2% -2.8% -3.2% -3.5% -0.6 -1.2 -1.7 -2.3 -2.8 Suwannee -2.1% -3.2% -4.0% -4.8% -5.5% -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 Taylor -1.3% -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% -2.0% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Union -2.9% -4.1% -4.9% -5.8% -6.5% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Volusia -1.0% -1.5% -1.9% -2.2% ~2.5% -3.4 -5.5 -7.3 -9.2 .11.2 Wakulla -1.3% -2.3% -2.9% -3.4% -3.8% -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -0.8 Walton -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.3 .0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 Washington -1.9% -2.8% -3.6% -4.3% -5.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 10/29/2007 10:56 AM Senate Property Tax Reform Proposal --_._,..~-_.,,--_._-- Non-School Impacts by County Portability, $25k TPP Exemption, $25k Homestead Exemption and 10% Cap on Non-Homestead Statewide Baker Bradford Calhoun Columbia DeSoto Dixie Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Highlands Holmes Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Levy Liberty Madison Okeechobee Putnam Sumter Suwannee Taylor Union Wakulla Washington Statewide Alachua Bay Brevard Broward Charlotte Citrus Clay Collier Dade Duval Escambia Flagler Hernando Hlllsborough Indian River Lake Lee Leon Manatee Marion Martin Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Orange Osceola Palm Beach Pasco Pinellas Polk Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole St. Johns St. Lucie Volusia Walton 10/29f2007 10:56 AM % Reduction in Property Tax Base I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -6.8%1 -7.6%1 -8.6%.1 -9.7%1 -10.3%1 -11.9% -12.6% .13.2'% -13.8% -14.0% -10.7% -11.5% -12.4% -13.5% -14.3% -9.2% -10.0% -10.9% -12.1% -12.9% -9.4% -10.3% -11.3% ~12.5% -13.3% -5.6% -5.9% -6.5% -7.2% -7.5% -4.0% -4.9% -6.0% -7.2% -7.8% -1.3% -1.6% -2.4% -3.3% -3.7% -10.7% -11.5% -12.3% -13.2% -13.8% -9.8% -10.8% ~11.8% -12.9% -13.6% -6.7% -7.4% -8.5% -9.8% -10.6% -1.8% ~2.2% -2.9% -3.7% -4.1% -4.4% -4.8% -5.5% -6.4% -6.9% -4.6% -5.0% -5.5% ~6.2% -6.6% -4.2% -5.1% -6.4% -7.9% -9.0% -9.6% -11.2% -13.1% -15.2% -16.7% -11.4% -12.5% -13.6% -14.9% -15.7% -9.1% -9.7% -10.6% -11.7% -12.4% -10.3% -11.4% -12.4% -13.8% -14.6% -9.9% -11.3% -12.7% -14.3% -15.5% -7.2% ~8.2% -9.3% -10.6% -11.5% -5.8% -6.6% -7.5% -8.6% -9.3% -7.7% -8.7% -10.0% -11.5% ~12.5% -6.7% -7.6% -8.8% -10.2% -11.1% -6.4% -7.5% -8.9% -10.5% -11.7% -8.9% ~9.4% -9.7% -10.0% -10.0% -8.6% -9.9% -11.2% -12.6% -13.6% -4.6% -5.0% -5.8% -6.9% -7.5% -13.4% -14.3% -15.2% -16.4% -17.1% -7.8% -8.8% -9.6% -10.3% -10.6% -6.9% -8.2% -9.8% -11.6% -12.9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -6.1% -7.2% -8.3% -9.5% -10.2% -9.9% -11.5% -13.2% ~15.0% -16.4% -4.0% -4.4% -5.1% -6.0% -6.4% -7.6% -7.6% -7.8% -8.1% ~8.2% -6.1% -7.1% -8.1% -9.1% -9.7% -5.0% -5.8% -6.7% -7.7% -8.2% -7.4% -8.4%. -9.5% -10.6% -11.3% -10.8% -12.0% -12.9% -13.9% -14.5% ~3.2% -4.3% -5.5% -6.6%. -7.2% -5.8% -8.0% -10.0% -12.0% -13.3% -7.9% -8.6% -9.5% -10.5% -11.1% -8.2% -9.2% -10.3% -11.6% -12.5% -5.2% -5.8% -6.5% -7.1% -7.1% -10.4% -11.4% -12.4% -13.4% -14.0% -8.0% -9.5% -10.8% -12.3% -13.2% -4.5% -5.1% -5.8% -6.5% -6.8% -9.1% -10.3% -11.6% -13.1% -14.0% -4.2% -5.0% -6.0% -7.0% -7.4% -9.5% -11.3% -13.1% -15.0% -16.5% -6.4% -7.8% -9.0% -10.2% -10.9% -9.5% ~10.3% -11.3% -12.5% -13.2% -4.9% ~5.9% -6.9% -8.0% -8.7% -2.3% -3.0% -4.0% -5.0% -5.5% -5.2% -5.5% -6.1% -6.7% -7.0% -5.6% -6.3% -7.2% -8.5% -9.2% -5.9% ~6.8% ~8.0% ~9.4% -10.3% -5.0% -5.5% -6.4% -7.5% -8.1% -5.6% -7.1% -8.5% -9.9% -10.8% -9.9% -11.4% -12.6% -13.9% -14.6% -6.9% -7.3% -7.8% -8.5% -8.8% -7.9% -8.4% -9.2% -10.1% -10.5% -9.0% -10.1% -11.2% -12.5% -13.3% 4.6% -5.1% -5.7% -6.4% -6.7% -9.1% -11.1% -12.9% -14.8% ~16.2% -4.9% ~5.3% -5.8% -6.4% -6.6% -5.6% -6.3% -7.1% -7.8% -8.2% -7.4% -7.9% -8.6% -9.4% -9.8% -1.5% -1.8% -2.6% -3.5% -3.8% Tax Impact. Current Millage Rates $m's I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ~~ ~I .1 al ~I -1.0 -1.2 -1.3 ~.5 ~.7 -1.0 -1.1 ~.3 -1.5 -1.7 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -2.8 -3.2 -3.7 -4.3 -4.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.7 -2.0 ~0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.9 -2.1 -2.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -1.1 -1.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.8 -2.3 -2.9 -3.5 -5.0 -6.1 -7.5 -9.2 -10.6 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 ~.1 ~.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 ~1.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -1.8 -2.1 -2.6 -3.1 -3.6 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.5 -1.8 ~.2 ~.5 -2.9 -3.5 -4.3 -5.3 -6.1 -3.7 -4.4 -5.2 -6.1 -7.0 -1.3 -1.6 -1.9 -2.3 -2.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -1.1 -1.4 -1.7 ~.1 ~.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 .1.3 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -1,13SI -1,4561 -1.8311 -2,2821 .2,6691 -16.3 -19.8 -23.6 ~28.2 -32.2 -4.2 -5.0 -6.4 -8.2 -9.5 -29.7 -31.9 -35.6 -40.3 -43.9 -141.6 -179.8 -225.0 -279.4 -325.9 -10.2 -12.7 -15.9 -19.9 -23.3 -8.6 -10.6 -12.8 -15.4 -17.7 -8.5 -10.1 -11.9 -13.9 -15.8 -16.8 -25.0 -35.2 -47.5 -57.9 -168.9 -254.0 -345.1 -452.8 -549.4 -42.5 -49.7 -58.6 -69.7 -78.9 -12.0 -14.0 -16.5 -19.5 ~22.0 -5.0 -6.3 -8.1 -10.1 -11.8 .11.1 -13.3 -15.5 -18.3 -20.7 -95.6 -121.5 -149.6 -182.8 -212.4 -7.3 -9.0 -11.2 -13.9 -16.2 -17.8 -21.4 -25.7 -30.8 -35.2 -42.7 -56.2 -73.6 -95.2 -113.1 -14.2 -17.6 -21.4 -25.9 -29.8 -20.5 -27.3 -34.7 -43.5 -51.3 -12.4 -14.2 -16.6 -19.5 -21.9 -10.5 -13.4 -17.0 -21.3 -24.9 -3.5 -5.2 -7.6 -10.8 -13.2 -3.6 -4.1 -5.0 -6.1 -7.0 ~6.4 ~7.5 -9.1 -11.2 -12.8 -56.3 -67.9 -84.0 -104.2 -120,2 -9.3 -11.0 ~13.8 -17.4 -20.2 -116.4 -158.9 -205.7 -260.6 -309.1 -23.3 -29.2 -35.3 -42.5 -48.9 -70.8 -80.0 -93.2 -109.7 -122.7 -26.5 -30.2 ~35.2 -41.4 -46.4 -5.8 -6.8 -8.0 -9.4 -10.5 -19.4 -23.5 -29.2 -36.3 -42.0 -27.5 -35.8 -44.5 -54.5 -63.5 -9.8 -11.6 -14.0 -17.1 -19.6 -22.1 -27.4 -33.8 -41.8 -48.5 -37.0 -42.4 -49.6 -58.6 -65.7 -1.3 -1.8 -2.8 -4.2 -5.2 Senate Property Tax Reform proposal School Impacts by County Portability with $500k Cap and TPP $25k Exemption Reduction in Property Tax Base I Tax Impact at Current Rates $m's I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Statewide -1.7% -2.4% -3.0% -3.5% -3.9% -71 -111 .1.\ -181 -21 Baker -2.4% -3.5% -4.2% -4.8% -5.3% -0.2 .0.2 -0.3 -0.' -0.5 Bradford -2.4% -3.3% -4.0% -4.1% -5.3% -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.' -0.' Calhoun -2.3% -3.1% -3.7% -4.3% -4.8% 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Columbia -1.8% -2.7% -3.4% -4.0% -4.6% -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 DeSoto -1.7% -2.0% -2.2% -2.3% -2.5% -0.3 -0.3 -0.' -0.5 -0.5 Dixie -1.2% -2.0% -2.5% -3.0% -3.3% -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Franklin -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Gadsden -2.3% -3.2% -4.0% -4.7% -5.3% -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 Gilchrist .1.9% -3.0% -3.7% -4.5% -5.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Glades -2.5% .3.1% -3.4% -3.8% -4.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Gulf -0.4% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 .0.2 Hamilton -1.5% -1.8% -2.0% -2.3% .2.5% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Hardee -1.7% .2.0% -2.2% -2.4% -2.5% .0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.' Hendry -1.4% -2.1% -2.6% -3.1% -3.6% -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 Highlands -3.1% -4.6% -5.7% -6.8% -7.8% -1.4 -2.1 -2.8 -3.5 -4.3 Holmes -4.0% ~5.1% -5.9% -6.7% -7.4% -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Jackson -2.1% -2.6% -2.9% -3.3% -3.6% -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 .0.3 ~0.4 Jefferson -3.1% -4.2% -4.9% -5.7% ~6.4% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Lafayette ~3.0% -4.6% -5.7% .-6.8% -7.8% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Levy -1.7% -2.6% ~3.2% -3.8% -4.4% -0.3 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 Liberty -1.7% -2.4% -3.0% -3.6% -4.2% 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Madison -2.6% -3.4% -4.1% -4.8% ~5.4% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Okeechohee -2.0% -2.8% -3.4% ~4.0% -4.6% -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 Putnam -1.5% -2.5% -3.2% -4.0%. -4.7% -0.5 -0.8 -1.1 -1.5 -1.8 Sumter -1.3% -2.2% ~2.8% -3.2% -3.5% -0.6 -1.2 -1.7 -2.3 -2.8 Suwannee -2.1% ~3.2% -4.0% -4.8% -5.5% -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.9 Taylor -1.3% -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% -2.0% -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Union -2.9% -4.1% -4.9% -5.8% -6.5% -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 WakuUa -1.3% -2.3% -2,9% -3.4% -3.8% -0.2 -0.' -0.5 -0.7 -0.8 Washington -1.9% -2.8% -3.6% -4.3% -5.1% -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.' 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Statewide -1.4%1 -2.5%1 -3.3%1 -3.9%1 -4.5%1 .1971 -3771 -5331 -70.\ -8771 Alachua -2.3% -3.8% -5.0% -6.2% -7.3% -2.3 -4.1 -5.6 -7.3 -9.0 Bay -0.8% -1.1% -1.3% -1.5% -1.6% -1.1 -1.6 -2.1 -2.6 -3.1 Brevard -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -2.8 -3.6 -4.2 -4.9 ~5.7 Broward -1.4% ~2.4% -3.2% -3.8% -4.3% -19.9 _38.4 _54.6 -72,1 -90.0 Charlotte -1.2% ~1.9% -2.4% -2.9% -3.2% -2.1 -3.7 -5.1 -6.5 -8.1 Citrus -1.6% -2.7% ~3.5% -4.2% -4.8% -1.5 -2.8 -3.9 -5.1 -6.3 Clay -1.7% -3.1% -4.1% -4.9% -5.7% -1.4 -2.7 -3.9 -5.2 -6.5 Collier ~1.2% -2.1% -2.8% -3.3% -3.7% -5,7 -11,7 -16.9 -22.6 -28.3 Dade -2.2% -4.4% -5.9% ~7.2% -8.3% -44.5 -95.8 .1'0.3 -188.9 -238.2 Duval -1.3% -2.1% -2.7% -3.2% -3.7% .6.2 -10.7 -14.7 -19.0 -23.4 Escambia -1.6% -2.5% -3.2% -3.9% -4.5% -2.1 -3.3 -4.5 -5.7 -6.9 Flagler -0.9% -1.5% -1.9% ~2.2% -2.3% -1.0 -1.9 -2.7 -3.5 -4.' Hernando -1.7% ~2.9% -3.8% -4.7% -5.3% -1.6 -3.0 -4.2 -5.6 -6.9 Hillsborough -1.8% -3.3% -4.4% -5.4% -6.3% -12.3 _24.5 -35.2 -46.8 -58.6 Indian River -0.9% -1.5% -1.9% -2.2% -2.5% -1.5 -2.7 -3.7 -4.8 -5.9 Lake -1.8% ~2.9% -3.7% -4.5% -5.2% ~2.9 -5.1 -7.0 -9.1 -11.2 Lee ~1.1% -1.8% -2.3% -2.7% -3.1% -8.3 -15.4 _21.6 -28.3 ~35.1 Leon -2.1% -3.8% -5.1% -6.3% -7.5% -2.7 -5.0 -7.0 -9.2 -11.4 Manatee -1.8% -3.2% -4.2% -5.0% -5.7% -5.0 -10.0 -14.4 ~19.1 -23.9 Marion -1.5% -2.2% ~2.7% -3.1% -3.6% -2.3 -3.5 -4.6 -5.7 -6.9 Martin -1.2% -2.1% -2.8% -3.4% -3.9% -1.9 -3.7 .5.2 -6.9 -8.6 Monroe ~0.9% -1.5% -1.9% -2.2% ~2.4% -0.7 .1.3 -1.8 -2.' -3.0 Nassau -0.7% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% ~0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 -1.4 Okaloosa -1.1% -1.5% -1.9% -2.3% -2.6% -1.6 -2.4 -3.2 -3.9 -4.7 Orange -1.1% -1.8% -2.3% -2.8% ~3.2% -8.1 ~13.4 -18.1 -23.1 -28.3 Osceola -0.8% -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.5% -1.7 -2.3 -2.9 ~3.5 -4.1 Palm Beach ~1.5% -3.0% -4.0% -4.9% -5.7% -21.4 -45.2 .-65.9 -88.5 ~111.4 Pasco -2.3% -3.9% -5.0% -6,1% .-6,9% -5.1 -9,5 -13.4 -17.6 -21.9 Pine lias -1.0% -1.5% -1.8% -2.2% -2.4% -6.' -10.3 -13.7 ~17.4 -21.1 Polk -1.8% -2.3% ~2.7% -3.0% -3.3% -4.6 -6.' ~7.9 -9.6 -11.3 Santa Rosa ~1.2% -2.1% -2.7% -3.3% -3.9% -0.9 -1.5 -2.1 ~2.7 -3.3 Sarasota -0.8% -1.3% -1.6% ~1.9% -2.1% -3.5 -6.2 -8.5 -11.0 ~13.5 Seminole -2.2% -4,2% -5.1% -7.2% ~8.4% -5.6 -11.3 -16.3 -21.8 -27.4 St Johns ~0.7% -1.1% -1.3% -1.5% -1.7% -1.5 ~2.5 -3.4 -4.3 -5.3 St Lucie -1.0% -1.7% -2.2% -2.6% -3.0% -2.2 -4.3 -6.0 -8.0 -9.9 Vol usia -1.0% -1.5% -1.9% -2.2% ~2.5% -3.4 -5.5 -7.3 -9.2 -11.2 Walton -0.5% -0.6% ~0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 10/29/2007 10:56 AM Senate property Tax Reform Proposal THE FLORIDA SENATE SENATOR KEN PRUITT President MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: All Senators Ken Pruitt, President Summary of the Proposed Amendment to SJR 20 and SB 40 October 28, 2007 As was mentioned, today we are sending you an outline of the proposals that the Senate will take up on Monday. The proposed constitutional amendment represents what we believe to be language that will be acceptable to the majority of Republican and Democrat Senators, and to Florida voters on the January 29, 2008 special election. I want to thank Majority Leader Webster and Minority Leader Geller for working together to produce these amendments. I would also like to commend Senator Haridopolos; the Finance & Tax Committee members; and Leader Webster for providing a meaningful, clear, and sound Senate product which was the foundation for the amendment s that you will have before you on Monday. Senators, thank you for the incredible patience and determination that you have demonstrated. I firmly believe that we have a proposed constitutional amendment that provides tax relief and reform; that minimizes the negative impact on education funding; and that will be understandable and acceptable to voters this January. Attached is a summary of the proposed amendments to SJR 20 and SB 40, and the 5-year fiscal impact. The text of the proposed amendments to SJR 20 and SB 40 will be sent to shortly. We hope this information will be helpful as you prepare for the debate and votes that will take place Monday. Tax relief and reform is a priority for Florida taxpayers and I believe we are on our way to providing them an opportunity to take action on this important matter in the upcoming special election. SUITE 409, THE CAt'ITOL, 404 SOUTH MONROE STREET? TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1100? TELEPHONE (850) 487-5229 Senate's Websitc: wwwJ!.I'l'nate.Krn' Page 2 Florida Senate Property Tax Reform Package SJR 2D & SB 4D The property tax reform package includes both a general bill, SB 4D, and a Senate joint resolution, SJR 2D. Those provisions with the note (SJR 2D & SB 4D) denote sections of the bill that take effect only if S.IR 2D is approved by the voters on January 29, 2008. Provisions with the note (SB 4D) denote sections that are not contingent upon voter approval. Double Homestead Exemption (SJR 2D & SB 4D) An additional $25,000 homestead exemption is provided for the value of homestead property above $50,000. This exemption does not apply to school taxes. Portability (SJR 2D & SB 4D) Homestead property owners will be able to transfer their Save Our Homes benefit (up to $500,000) to a new homestead within two years of giving up their previous homestead. If the just value of the new homestead is more than the previous home's just value, the entire differential can be transferred; if the new homestead has a lower just value, the amount of the accumulated benefit that may be transferred is proportional to the value of the new homestead. (For those who gave up their homestead in 2007 before the amendment was passed, the differential may be transferred if they apply for a new homestead January 1, 2008 or January 1, 2009.) This provision applies to all taxes, including school taxes. Tangible Personal Property Exemption (SJR 2D & SB 4D) A $25,000 exemption is provided for each tangible personal property return. This provision applies to all taxes. Assessment Cap for Non-Homestead Property (SJR 2D & SB 4D) Non-homestead property will have a 10% assessment cap (similar to Save Our Homes) but the cap will apply only to non-school levies. The 10% cap will sunset after 10 years, when it will be presented to the voters for re-approval. Most residential property will be reassessed at just value when it is sold; commercial property and residential properties with 10 or more units will be reassessed after a significant improvement or a sale. This provision will not take effect until the 2009 tax roll, or 2010 if the amendment is approved in November. This provision does not apply to school taxes. Fiscally Constrained Counties (SB 4D) The bill requires an annual appropriation to fiscally constrained counties to make up for revenue reductions resulting from the adoption of the constitutional amendment by the voters. Attachments