1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
COMMISSION MEETING
6
7
8
9
DATE: February 25, 1998
10
TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
11 Concluded at 5:00 p.m.
12 PLACE: The Senate Chamber
The Capitol
13 Tallahassee, Florida
14 REPORTED BY: KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
15 MONA L. WHIDDON
Court Reporters
16 Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
17 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 W. DEXTER DOUGLASS, CHAIRMAN
3 CARLOS ALFONSO
CLARENCE E. ANTHONY (EXCUSED)
4 ANTONIO L. ARGIZ
JUDGE THOMAS H. BARKDULL, JR.
5 MARTHA WALTERS BARNETT
PAT BARTON
6 ROBERT M. BROCHIN
THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH
7 KEN CONNOR (ABSENT P.M. SESSION ONLY)
CHRIS CORR
8 SENATOR ANDER CRENSHAW
VALERIE EVANS
9 MARILYN EVANS-JONES
BARBARA WILLIAMS FORD-COATES
10 ELLEN CATSMAN FREIDIN
PAUL HAWKES (ABSENT)
11 WILLIAM CLAY HENDERSON
THE HONORABLE TONI JENNINGS
12 THE HONORABLE GERALD KOGAN
DICK LANGLEY
13 JOHN F. LOWNDES
STANLEY MARSHALL (ABSENT)
14 JACINTA MATHIS
JON LESTER MILLS
15 FRANK MORSANI
ROBERT LOWRY NABORS
16 CARLOS PLANAS (ABSENT)
JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
17 KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE
SENATOR JIM SCOTT
18 H. T. SMITH
ALAN C. SUNDBERG
19 JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
PAUL WEST (EXCUSED)
20 JUDGE GERALD T. WETHERINGTON
STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
21
IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)
22 LYRA BLIZZARD LOGAN (ABSENT)
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)
3 SECRETARY BLANTON: All unauthorized visitors please
4 leave the chamber. All commissioners, indicate your
5 presence; all commissioners, indicate your presence.
6 (Pause.)
7 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum call, quorum call. All
8 commissioners indicate your presence, all commissioners
9 indicate your presence.
10 (Pause.)
11 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. If everybody would be
13 seated, please. Will the commissioners and the guests
14 please rise for the opening prayer given this morning by
15 Reverend Dr. Brant Copeland of the First Presbyterian
16 Church in Tallahassee. Dr. Copeland.
17 REVEREND COPELAND: Let us pry. Almighty God, you
18 sit in judgment to declare what is just and right and to
19 have compassion on all people. Bless this nation and its
20 leaders and especially the members of this commission.
21 Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, clear
22 heads and a plenitude of patience that they may sift
23 through opposing views and listen with respect. Help them
24 to make decisions that reflect your justice and your
25 desire that all may live in freedom and safety. We pray
4
1 in the name of the one who will be our judge and for his
2 love's sake. Amen.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Amen.
4 This morning our pledge of allegiance will be led by
5 students from the Bristol Middle School and they are
6 Charles Steward, if you all would come forward, Ricky
7 Mayo, Ashley Hill, Leann Nobles, Erica Spivey and Jennifer
8 Proctor. And their sponsor is Donna Summers. If you
9 would turn and face the flag and lead us, we would be
10 happy to follow you.
11 (Pledge of allegiance.)
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Thank you. We had a very
13 productive day yesterday and if we can go with the same
14 cooperation and order and decorum we had yesterday, we can
15 probably get very far along here. Commissioner Barkdull,
16 you are recognized.
17 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, thank
18 you.
19 Members of the Commission, I also want to thank you
20 for the attention and the expeditious way the calendar was
21 addressed yesterday afternoon. I hope some of it will
22 carry over today. You have the calendar on your desk. We
23 are going to be operating out of all three books today;
24 the yellow, the blue and the pink. The Chair will attempt
25 at the time he calls a proposal to identify the book. And
5
1 I also have on my calendar identification of which book we
2 are in if somebody needs to ask.
3 I think that Chairman Mills is going to recommend
4 that we use the same procedure, which I concur with, that
5 we did yesterday on time limitation overall on a
6 proposition and opportunity for the sponsor to close.
7 Other than that, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Mills
8 may have some announcements, I'm ready to proceed with the
9 calendar.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We are proceeding
11 with the calendar. Commissioner Mills.
12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, the only item you
13 have here on special order is Proposal 46, and I don't
14 know what the status of that is. That has not yet been to
15 Style and Drafting.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Forty-six we haven't dealt with?
17 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Maybe the rules chairman might
18 tell us how he would suggest --
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Where is it on the sheet?
20 COMMISSIONER MILLS: It is on page, the first page,
21 Mr. Chairman, under the daily order of business.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. I hadn't seen it yet. I
23 have got it.
24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That was withdrawn or was
25 wrapped up in the debate yesterday.
6
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think that's right, that the
2 debate yesterday -- reflect that it was withdrawn by
3 unanimous consent.
4 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: The Secretary needs to get
5 that.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I just gave it to her.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Okay, Mr. Chairman. In that
8 case, we would return to the debate by grouping. With
9 the, I think, general consent of the commission, I would
10 make the motion to limit debate to ten minutes under the
11 same conditions we had yesterday.
12 As I understand what we did yesterday, which I think
13 sorted out relatively logically, the Chair determined
14 proponents and opponents, allocated the ten minutes, two
15 minutes to close for the proponent/introducer, and prior
16 to the ten-minute clock running, explanation by the
17 designated persons from Style and Drafting and questions
18 from members.
19 If that is the will of the body I would move that
20 same procedure.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We will follow that
22 procedure today. There is, let's see, two items on here
23 that we passed yesterday that have come back from Style
24 and Drafting and that would complete all of the items; is
25 that correct? And so we have to do the ones we did
7
1 yesterday again; is that --
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Under the procedure that was
3 established by the Rules Committee, yes. They would have
4 to come back for a final vote again.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The first two on here are two
6 that we passed yesterday with majority votes, correct?
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Actually the first one,
8 Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well we passed No. 152 yesterday,
10 too.
11 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Actually that was passed before.
12 Commissioner Barkdull -- what happened, that was
13 temporarily passed yesterday with amendments pending.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We didn't take it up yesterday.
15 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Right.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I remember we debated it though.
17 Okay. All right. We will start then with the, with the
18 order established and that brings up Committee Substitute
19 for Proposals 172 and 162 by the Committee on Legislative
20 and Commissioners Thompson and Evans-Jones. We debated
21 this yesterday. Is there further debate today? Has there
22 been any changes?
23 (Off-the-record comment.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Style and Drafting,
25 who is going to handle this? Commissioner Ford-Coates on
8
1 behalf of Style and Drafting. Do you have -- I have an
2 amendment on the desk.
3 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: On behalf of Style and
4 Drafting I would just like to point out it is in your pink
5 packet from yesterday and yield the floor.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There is an amendment on the desk
7 by Commissioner Planas, who is not present in the chamber.
8 Yes, Commissioner Barnett.
9 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: And one of the reasons he has
10 filed this, this is just a point of information, filed
11 this amendment is he was, this was taken up, an original
12 proposal he had which was taken up the week he was out
13 sick and it deals with term limits. And I think he wanted
14 to have this discussed. So it might be in everybody's
15 best interest if we could just temporarily pass that until
16 Commissioner Planas shows up.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection we will
18 temporarily pass this pending the appearance of
19 Commissioner Planas and move on to Proposal No. 152. It
20 is in your pink book. Would you read the proposal,
21 please?
22 READING CLERK: Proposal 152, a proposal to revise
23 Article XI, Section 2, Florida Constitution; amending the
24 deadline by which the Constitution Revision Commission
25 must file any proposed revision with the Secretary of
9
1 State.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right, Commissioner
3 Ford-Coates.
4 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: There should be --
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There is a pending Amendment
6 No. 1.
7 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: I would like to withdraw
8 the amendment that I offered yesterday. After discussion
9 with Commissioner Barkdull, I have a different way to
10 attack this problem.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right.
12 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Those amendments should be
13 on the desk.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There are three amendments on the
15 table. We are on Proposal 152, Commissioners. Three
16 amendments on the table. Are these on behalf of Style and
17 Drafting?
18 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: No, sir.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: These are your own?
20 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Offered by Commissioner
22 Ford-Coates. Would you read Amendment No. 1? In the pink
23 book, it is Proposal 152.
24 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: We don't have them on our
25 desks yet but I assume you have them, don't you? Okay.
10
1 Mr. Chairman, if I might just give a little history first
2 and then we will read the amendment.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Ford-Coates is
4 recognized. Now I have announced this about three times.
5 We are on Proposal 152, it's in the pink book, and we have
6 amendments on the table by Commissioner Ford-Coates. They
7 have not been distributed. They are being distributed at
8 the moment. Commissioner Ford-Coates, though, wants to
9 undertake the purpose of her amendments. Can we read the
10 first amendment?
11 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Ford-Coates the
12 following amendment: On Page 1, Lines 15 through 16,
13 strike all of said lines and insert, "within 30 days
14 before the convening of 2017 regular session of the
15 Legislature and each twentieth."
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
17 Ford-Coates. You are recognized on the amendment.
18 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Let me just put this in
19 context. We have all experienced some problems in dealing
20 with how to get our work done. And what we are trying to
21 look at is in 20 years how to make it easier for the next
22 commission. Let me just give you a little history here.
23 In 1996 a steering committee started meeting, put
24 together -- Commissioners, once you get it, you will have
25 it on your desk in a second. Listen to me here for just a
11
1 second. A steering committee met, set up proposed rules,
2 set up a proposed schedule.
3 Some of us followed that process and knew what our
4 calendars would be if we were on the commission. Most
5 commissioners had no idea, until they were appointed, what
6 the time commitment would be. Commissioner Barkdull put
7 in here to extend our time to submit our work load to the
8 Secretary of State.
9 I agree that we have got a problem and we have
10 discussed this. What I think the solution to the problem
11 is is to make the appointments earlier, keep the deadline
12 at 180 days of May 1st. If you had known in February that
13 you were serving on the Constitution Revision Commission,
14 you could have seen the work of the steering committee,
15 cleared your calendar, been able to come to the public
16 hearings, we could have gotten up and running in the first
17 part of May, and been done with this by now.
18 So what you have is two amendments. The first two
19 amendments that you will see there require that the
20 appointment is made 30 days before the legislative session
21 starts, within that 30 days, and returns it to the 180
22 days that we talked about that currently exists in the
23 Constitution. Does that make sense? Anybody have any
24 questions?
25 We have not shortened the time. What we have done is
12
1 provided more notice to each commissioner that they are on
2 the commission. Many commissioners did not know until
3 right before we met. Our first meeting, the steering
4 committee had hoped, would be I believe in May; is that
5 right, Mr. Chairman? We had to wait and meet in June
6 because the appointments were not made until the deadline.
7 If people know in February, perhaps we can get up and
8 running, that commission can get up and running much
9 earlier.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well I will say that the
11 President of the Senate made her appointments before the
12 deadline and gave everybody much more time than the other
13 appointing authorities did, and the Chief Justice made his
14 too. It was the Governor and the Speaker that were late.
15 And Commissioner Butterworth knew his.
16 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Aside from Commissioner
17 Butterworth. I heard a lot of commissioners say last
18 summer, I have already got my summer schedule. I have a
19 trial going on, I have got commitments made. If you know
20 in February what's going on in May, it helps a lot.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does everybody understand the
22 amendment? On the amendment this is. Is everybody ready
23 to vote on the amendment? Commissioner Connor.
24 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: I'd like to ask a question --
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Certainly, go ahead.
13
1 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: -- and if I understand it
2 correctly, speak in opposition to it. Commissioner
3 Ford-Coates, the amendment that you are addressing now,
4 does that limit amendments which are placed on the ballot?
5 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: No, that's the third
6 amendment.
7 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Okay. Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: This one deals only with the
9 time, I think.
10 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Correct. This just
11 changes the time for appointment to 30 days before the
12 convening of the legislative session.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Does everybody
14 understand the amendment? All in favor of the amendment,
15 say aye; opposed?
16 (Verbal vote taken.)
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The amendment is adopted. Now
18 read Amendment No. 2.
19 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Ford-Coates, the
20 following amendment: On Page 2, Line 4, strike 90 and
21 insert 180.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Ford-Coates, you are
23 recognized.
24 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: This merely returns the
25 deadline for submitting our work back to 180 days from the
14
1 90 days that the original proposal had.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Does everybody
3 understand the amendment? What it does is just reinstate
4 the present Constitution requirement that our work be done
5 or the commission's work be done 180 days before the
6 election, general election in 2018 or 17. Anyway, I'll be
7 here.
8 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Barkdull is going to be
9 here too, Commissioner Barkdull.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull will be
11 here, Commissioner Kogan. All right. We are on the
12 amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment? If
13 not, all in favor of the amendment say aye; opposed like
14 sign.
15 (Verbal vote taken.)
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The amendment is adopted. Now to
17 Amendment No. 3. Would you read it, please?
18 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Ford-Coates, the
19 following amendment: On Page 2, Line 8, insert Section 2,
20 subsection d, subsection 5 of Article XI of the Florida
21 Constitution is created to read: Notwithstanding the
22 provisions of subsection a, only Constitution Revision
23 Commission proposed amendments or revisions may appear on
24 the general election ballot in those years in which
25 commission proposals may be submitted, except that upon a
15
1 finding of emergency, and pursuant to law enacted by the
2 affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of
3 each house of the Legislature, the Legislature may submit
4 a proposed amendment or revision in such a year.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
6 Ford-Coates, you are recognized on the amendment.
7 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Commissioners, as I have
8 been going out and talking to people about the proposals
9 that we will be submitting, and they have asked how many,
10 I have told them we wish it would be five, it may be ten,
11 but don't forget, we will not be the only proposals on the
12 ballot. There may be some before us, and there may be
13 some after us that are initiated by the Legislature or by
14 citizen initiative.
15 And one of the times I spoke to people about that,
16 they said, Well, that doesn't make sense to me. If the
17 commission only meets every 20 years, why in that year
18 alone do you not limit what's on the ballot, just that one
19 time every 20 years, so people can really focus on the
20 work of the commission and not have competing proposals.
21 I made the, proposed this amendment in order to do
22 that and at the suggestion of Commissioner Barkdull added
23 in an override so that the Legislature in some unforeseen
24 emergency situation could put a proposal on the ballot.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Does everybody
16
1 understand the amendment? The amendment would in effect
2 restrict the placing on the ballot of other amendments in
3 the year that the Constitution Revision Commission
4 recommends amendments. Commissioner Mills.
5 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Briefly in opposition.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Proceed.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: While I have learned to have
8 immense respect for the wisdom of this body, the
9 Constitution provides other ways for the public to express
10 itself on the ballot, including by initiative and the
11 Legislature through its ability to pass constitutional
12 provisions.
13 With all due respect, I believe that just because
14 this commission meets, those other groups might not have
15 worthy ideas in a given year. And it's for that simple
16 purpose that I would regretfully oppose my good friend
17 Commissioner Ford-Coates because I believe that those
18 other items should still be available to the public and
19 the Legislature.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Other discussion? If
21 not, we will proceed to vote on the amendment. All in
22 favor of the amendment say aye; opposed?
23 (Verbal vote taken.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It fails. All right. We will
25 move now to the proposal as amended, the amended proposal
17
1 by Commissioner Barkdull. Commissioner Barkdull, you are
2 recognized now on your amended proposal.
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I think everybody on the
4 floor understands what it is. I would move the passage.
5 If anybody has any questions, I'll try to answer them.
6 Really when we get down to it, the only change in it now
7 is rather than the appointments being made within 30 days
8 after the adjournment of the regular session, they are
9 made 30 days in advance.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does everybody understand the
11 proposal now as amended? All right. We will proceed to
12 vote, open the machine.
13 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Has everybody voted? Lock the
15 machine and announce the vote.
16 READING CLERK: Twenty-nine yeas, zero nays,
17 Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We will move next to
19 Proposal 37. Would you read it, please?
20 READING CLERK: Proposal 37, a proposal to revise the
21 Florida Constitution by adopting language that is not
22 gender-specific.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills.
24 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, I think everyone
25 has just received on their desk a copy of where in the
18
1 Constitution these gender-neutral changes would occur. I
2 would suggest perhaps Commissioner Freidin might want to
3 explain briefly her intent and what her interpretation of
4 the impact is and see if there are any questions. And if
5 the body wants to take a little more time to look at that,
6 we would hold this for a little while longer while you
7 made some other determinations.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think we can probably go to
9 vote on this. I don't think it is very controversial.
10 Commissioner Freidin.
11 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Commissioners, as the last
12 time that we discussed this, it was discussed that, and
13 made clear to all of us that there are literally scores of
14 gender-specific references in the Constitution. When the
15 Governor is mentioned, it is mentioned as a he. When the
16 office of state attorney, the office of public defender,
17 all the cabinet positions are mentioned, they are all
18 mentioned in the masculine. Any time the word, the head
19 of something is mentioned, the word chairman is in here.
20 What this amendment does is nothing more than change
21 those to gender-neutral references. Now, lest any of you
22 have any concern about substantive changes, we have handed
23 out a handout to you that contains all the changes that we
24 are talking about making. I would urge any of you who
25 have any questions about whether this creates any
19
1 substantive change to look at the handout, if you haven't
2 had a chance to already, let us know. If you are in doubt
3 about it and need more time, please let us know.
4 Otherwise, it is time to put into our Constitution
5 the words that all of you would want your daughters to
6 read when you read the Constitution. You don't, we don't
7 want the young girls and women of this state to read
8 about, read our Constitution and have the impression after
9 they are finished reading that the Governor has got to be
10 a man, that the Attorney General has got to be a man, that
11 the state attorneys have to be men, or if you want to be,
12 if you want to chair something that you have got to be a
13 man.
14 And I urge you to pass this. There was yesterday
15 raised some issue of the cost of this, which I think we
16 are all past that at this point. This is not something
17 that we should be looking at the cost of. There are many
18 other amendments that we will be offering that will cost
19 every bit as much. This shouldn't be a cost issue and I
20 urge your passage.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mathis.
22 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I am rising in opposition to
23 Proposal No. 37 not because I don't think that gender
24 neutrality is a good idea, but because the manner in which
25 this proposal has come to us is questionable and I have
20
1 not had an opportunity to study the impact of this
2 proposal on the most basic fundamental document in this
3 state.
4 I got what has been referred to as a handout when on
5 every other proposal that has come before this commission
6 I have gotten the specific proposal that we are voting on.
7 I am concerned that in the effort to make our Constitution
8 gender neutral, we are affecting substantive rights in
9 this Constitution that we are not giving full coverage for
10 and full debate on.
11 And I would urge this commission to step back from
12 this and let's really look at this. If we can't do that,
13 I would urge that we defeat this until we have a chance to
14 examine the real issues and its effect. I just got this
15 no less than ten minutes ago. This is the first time I
16 have seen the language that they are referring to changing
17 and it has been referred to as a handout and not the exact
18 proposal.
19 So I would urge that we vote against this at this
20 time.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Kogan.
22 COMMISSIONER KOGAN: I'm going to speak in favor of
23 this. First of all, in due respect to Commissioner
24 Mathis, this is the entire proposal that you have in front
25 of you.
21
1 Actually what it does is it strikes out the reference
2 to "he" and substitutes, for example, when talking about
3 the Governor, it puts "the Governor" in here. And
4 certainly if you read this, there is absolutely nothing
5 within this proposal other than striking out the male
6 references. Now as a woman, I would think that ordinarily
7 you would be in favor of that to show that it is gender
8 neutral.
9 And as far as the men in the audience are concerned,
10 I would ask how many of them would be happy if they picked
11 up the Constitution and read about the Governor, her, and
12 the Cabinet people, her, and the judges, her. And instead
13 of mankind you had womankind. I mean, this is just
14 something that needs to be done. And it simply recognizes
15 a fact that all of our citizens, male and female, are
16 equal under the law. That's all it is.
17 But you do have the entire proposal right here.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Smith.
19 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
20 morning.
21 I hear Commissioner Mathis saying that she hasn't had
22 a chance to review the proposal, she has a concern. I
23 think if we go to something else, give her a chance to
24 review it, she will get a comfort level that this is just
25 a noncontroversial thing. She wants to read it and I
22
1 think after that time we can take a vote.
2 And I feel very confident that after she has had a
3 chance to read it she will feel as comfortable as I do
4 that this is good for my daughters, this is good for my, I
5 don't have any sons, it is good for the people of Florida.
6 We have done that before when people haven't had a chance
7 to read something, we pass it and give them a chance to
8 read it. And that's what I ask that we do, and then pass
9 it.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley.
11 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Just a question of the Chair.
12 We were advised yesterday that we would have knowledge of
13 what it is going to cost to print this. This is 17«
14 pages. And we were advised that we would have some
15 estimate on what the cost of it -- contrary to
16 Commissioner Freidin, I do have concern with taxpayers'
17 money and I think that it ought to be a consideration.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: As best as we could determine
19 this will not greatly increase the cost of publishing the
20 entire document. We couldn't get a specific amount
21 because there isn't any way to get that.
22 It is up to the Secretary of State in effect to
23 select the newspapers of general circulation in each
24 county where it is published. And for example, if they
25 select a small newspaper, they get it for much less cost.
23
1 So I don't know what the Secretary of State will do. But
2 it is not a significant departure from the general cost
3 involved in that, as best we could determine.
4 Am I right on that, Commissioner Barkdull?
5 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That's what I understand,
6 Mr. Chairman. But I think that for the comfort level of
7 the group I would move we temporarily pass this and come
8 back to it later on in the morning and give Commissioner
9 Mathis an opportunity to see this.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There has been a motion to
11 temporarily pass this, all in favor say aye; opposed?
12 (Verbal vote taken.)
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It is temporarily passed. We
14 will come back to it as soon as commissioners are ready to
15 advise the chair that they have read it and we will come
16 back to it and take it up, Commissioner Mills.
17 I think we can go back to the, I have just been
18 looking at this, and the first proposal, Committee
19 Substitute for Proposal 172 and 162 we passed because of a
20 proposed amendment. And I have looked at the proposed
21 amendment and it has, is a, was a Proposal No. 105, which
22 was voted on on January the 27th and defeated. It is the
23 exact same proposal. It has to do with term limits. It
24 is in another section of the Constitution than we are
25 dealing with on this particular proposal.
24
1 The chair would rule that the amendment is out of
2 order and would not be available either as an amendment to
3 this, for the reason it is for the wrong section of the
4 Constitution and not germane, and to the fact that it has
5 previously been voted on by the commission in the form of
6 a proposal.
7 So therefore we can revert back to Proposal No. 172
8 and 162. Commissioner Barnett.
9 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'm not even sure if I want
10 this proposal or not, Mr. Chairman, but the reason I rise,
11 again, is a point of information. I think Commissioner
12 Planas offered that to that particular proposal at the
13 suggestion of the staff that it would be an appropriate
14 place to do that. And he is not --
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That is not correct.
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It is correct, I was there.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: What staff?
18 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I was there when it was done.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: What staff?
20 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We'll talk about that in just
21 a minute. But the point is Mr. Planas simply wants an
22 opportunity on an appropriate vehicle to I think debate
23 this. He was not here due to his illness when his
24 proposal was taken up.
25 We have extended enormous courtesies to other members
25
1 of the commission, even allowing proposals to be brought
2 up again. And I would hope that you would extend that
3 same courtesy to Commissioner Planas on an appropriate
4 bill and at an appropriate time when he is here.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think on an appropriate bill he
6 can offer the amendment and then I'll have to rule on
7 whether or not the fact that it's been debated and
8 defeated makes it out of order. And the Secretary is
9 clarifying that to make sure that's correct.
10 But I think it is improper and not germane to the
11 proposal that he has attempted to offer it to. And he can
12 offer it when it does come to whatever proposal that he
13 finds that would be a vehicle for it and then we can rule
14 on whether or not it is appropriate. Is that agreeable
15 with everybody? If it is, that's going to be my ruling
16 and we will at this time rule it out of order and he can
17 certainly, when he gets, here make an effort to have it
18 heard on another issue.
19 We will revert to Committee Substitute for Proposals
20 172 and 162 by the Committee on Legislative, Article III,
21 and Commissioner Thompson and Evans-Jones which was
22 debated yet and passed. And it is back now in the process
23 that all the others are in.
24 Style and Drafting, Commissioner Mills, Style and
25 Drafting. Were there any changes in this proposal which
26
1 you want to bring to the attention --
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: No, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We have the same proposal we
4 voted on yesterday and I'll ask it to be read.
5 READING CLERK: Committee Substitute for Proposal
6 No. 172 and 162, a proposal to repeal Article III, Section
7 16, Florida Constitution; relating to legislative
8 apportionment and create Article II, Section 10, Florida
9 Constitution; providing for a commission to establish
10 legislative and congressional districts; providing for the
11 appointment of members to the commission; requiring that
12 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court fill certain
13 vacancies on the commission; requiring meetings and
14 records of the commission to be open to the public;
15 providing certain exceptions; requiring that the
16 commission file its final report with the Secretary of
17 State within a specified period; requiring that the
18 Supreme Court determine the validity of the plans;
19 providing for the Supreme Court to establish the districts
20 under specified circumstances; providing for the
21 assignment of senatorial terms that are shortened as a
22 result of apportionment; deleting requirements that the
23 Legislature apportion the state into legislative
24 districts.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Alfonso, you were
27
1 chairman of the executive committee. And you rise,
2 Commissioner Langley? Commissioner Langley.
3 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: It's a rather strange point of
4 order, but one I challenge your ruling on the Planas
5 proposed amendment because, one, there was no point upon
6 which you to rule. Nobody raised a point of order on it.
7 And two, as far as germanity, it is talking about terms of
8 office. And three, as a courtesy to Mr. Planas, I think
9 that we could, we have plenty to do, we are not going to
10 lose time to pass that until he gets here and he can argue
11 his own case.
12 But my point of order is you had nothing to rule upon
13 because no point was raised to you.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Your point is well taken on that
15 ground. We will get to it later. We will TP this again.
16 Move to, in the blue book, Proposal No. 6, Committee
17 Substitute for Proposal No. 6 by the Committee on Finance
18 and Taxation and Commissioner Nabors in the blue book.
19 Would you read it, please?
20 READING CLERK: Committee Substitute for Proposal
21 No. 6, a proposal to create Article VII, Section 19,
22 Florida Constitution; providing limits on the adoption of
23 exemptions and exclusions from the general state sales
24 tax; reducing the rate of the general sales tax to
25 5 percent.
28
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Mills.
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, the Committee on
3 Style and Drafting has referred the three issues out of
4 taxation and I would request the Chair would recognize
5 Senator Scott, Commissioner Scott, who will review what
6 that package contains.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Before we do that, there are two
8 amendments on the table. Would you read Amendment No. 1?
9 READING CLERK: By the Committee on Style and
10 Drafting, the following amendment: On Page 1, Line 26,
11 delete the word "may."
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. On committee, I mean,
13 excuse me, on the Amendment No. 1, Commissioner Scott,
14 Amendment No. 1.
15 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, we all know what
16 this proposal is, I was going to explain it like every
17 other member has done in every other section. But in any
18 event, Proposal 6 is the issue of the sales tax that
19 Commissioner Nabors had before us. And we have a
20 technical amendment, I'm assuming it is technical, on
21 changing "may," deleting the word "may." And that's the
22 first amendment.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: On Page 1, Line 26, in the blue
24 book.
25 (Off-the-record comment.)
29
1 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Correction, I was not -- I had
2 assumed from Style and Drafting that it was a technical
3 amendment.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: This was not a Style and Drafting
5 amendment, this is one offered by Commissioner Nabors.
6 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I didn't think we had one.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There are two amendments on the
8 table by Commissioner Nabors.
9 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well you had stated they were by
10 Style and Drafting but they really aren't. Commissioner
11 Nabors has an amendment. This is the sales tax --
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We are on -- Number 1 is the one
13 that says on Page 1, Line 26, delete the word "may."
14 Commissioner Scott, they are in the packet. Commissioner
15 Scott has explained this, that this is the Nabors' sales
16 tax reform amendment and he has offered -- and I'm going
17 to recognize him on his amendment, on the first amendment.
18 Commissioner Nabors.
19 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Commissioner Scott, do you want
20 to go through the whole package or do you want me to go
21 right to this amendment? You generally -- I thought the
22 introduction was we were going to explain the package, but
23 I can go right to this proposal if you would like,
24 whatever the body wants to do.
25 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Style and Drafting had no
30
1 amendments on the proposal, I would yield to the proponent
2 of the proposal to explain it and then explain his
3 amendment.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You are yielding to let him
5 explain the proposal, then do his amendments, and then we
6 will vote.
7 COMMISSIONER NABORS: If you would listen up, the
8 packet that you have, the special order packet, does not
9 have the -- does not have the first engrossed copy in it.
10 So what was handed -- everybody should have handed out the
11 first engrossed copy of this bill because amendments are
12 drawn to that. Does everybody have that?
13 It seems like everything I do there is always
14 confusion before I get to talk. This is a very important
15 proposal and I want to make sure everybody is centered and
16 focused.
17 Okay. As James Harold said, this is my proposal.
18 And he lost his, I hope I don't lose mine. Let me talk to
19 you, I need to explain the amendment. It is not a
20 technical amendment, but I think it is contrary to the
21 structure of the proposal.
22 Let me explain just very briefly to understand the
23 amendment what the proposal does, refresh everybody. The
24 proposal does three things: One is it limits the ability
25 of the Legislature in the future the way it handles
31
1 exemptions or exclusions to the sales tax. It requires it
2 to be in a separate bill, and declare the state public
3 purpose advanced.
4 The second thing it does is in the year 2000-2001
5 fiscal year, in that moment in time, it reduces the sales
6 tax rate from six to five. And the people instruct the
7 Legislature to achieve revenue neutrality by expanding the
8 base to eliminate those exemptions and exclusions that do
9 not advance a state public purpose. And the intent is to
10 achieve revenue neutrality. So that's what it does.
11 That's the simple concept.
12 Now to do that, it defines in the bill a concept of
13 revenue neutrality. It doesn't have anything to do with
14 whether taxes are lowered or taxes are raised. It creates
15 a revenue neutrality concept so that this process focuses
16 on a review of the exemptions. At the time that it was
17 passed 20 to 8 or whatever it was last time, Commissioner
18 Hawkes, who couldn't be here today, offered the amendment
19 to insert the word "may" and some language on revenue
20 neutrality.
21 And I have talked to him and he indicated he voted
22 for it. It did that to help the concept, but it doesn't
23 help the concept, it confuses it. Because it has to
24 have -- the fund amendment point is it has to have revenue
25 neutrality. If the Legislature wants to cut the budget,
32
1 just like it can now, it can do that it in a variety of
2 ways. For example, it can lower the required local
3 effort.
4 All of you understand that the school funding
5 formula, the state puts its money in the pot, then they
6 require a required local effort millage which is the bulk
7 of the state sales tax. And it requires -- and so there
8 is plenty of flexibility for the state to cut the budget.
9 So I propose this amendment is to cure the unintended
10 consequences of what Mr. Hawkes tried to do because it
11 confuses the concept of revenue neutrality. And I would
12 ask that you support the deletion of the word "may."
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. On the amendment, the
14 word may is deleted. Commissioner Scott on the amendment.
15 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well I would point out to you
16 that then it would read that the Legislature shall
17 maintain revenue neutrality by taxing all exempt goods and
18 services. And I think that's a mandate and it is totally
19 different from what left here, which was that that was the
20 question, the main question in committee asked by several
21 members including myself was, you know, what happens if
22 you determine you really don't need any more money, we are
23 having a good economy and whatever.
24 And so this would now, it was left may so that they
25 may maintain revenue neutrality but they don't have it.
33
1 And it is a very significant change in the proposal and I
2 would be opposed to it.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You are opposed to the amendment?
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Ford-Coates.
6 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Let me ask a question,
7 after listening to what Commissioner Scott said, because
8 as I read this, what we are talking about is when all of
9 those exemptions, we start back from ground zero. Then we
10 are going to have a windfall. And if it says "may," the
11 Legislature can decide to keep the windfall. If it says
12 "shall," that they must maintain revenue neutrality then
13 the Legislature must not keep the windfall, it must go
14 back in some other way. Am I mistaken on that?
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott.
16 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: It is not a windfall. It is a
17 reduction because it says shall -- "the state sales tax
18 rate shall be reduced from 6 percent to 5 percent."
19 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: But it talks about
20 maintaining revenue neutrality.
21 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: It talks about may maintain it,
22 if they feel they need the money.
23 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Could I ask the proposer
24 then to explain that a little more clearly?
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Nabors is recognized
34
1 to answer the question.
2 COMMISSIONER NABORS: The reason that you don't need
3 "may," it wouldn't say "shall," it just says, "will
4 maintain revenue neutrality." The reason for that is, is
5 that this is intended to be a revenue neutral proposal.
6 Okay.
7 Currently, currently, if the Legislature --
8 currently, under a 6 percent rate, the Legislature can cut
9 the budget, but it will have to cut that by reducing the
10 rate it cuts the budget. Under this concept, under
11 revenue neutrality, when you reduce the rate to five, that
12 reduction does not diminish the amount the Legislature can
13 deal with. They can still cut the budget.
14 And it's a fallacious argument to argue that this is
15 essential because it's inconsistent with the concept of
16 revenue neutrality. The concept is there is no question
17 that this mandates the Legislature to broaden the base.
18 There is no question about that. If the Legislature wants
19 to reduce the budget by $800 million, it can do that. It
20 just reduces the required local effort, or reduces other
21 taxes.
22 But as to sales tax during that one year, there would
23 be revenue neutrality. In the future, the Legislature
24 could reduce the rate or they could raise the rate. But
25 the concept is we have in one place a definition of
35
1 revenue neutrality and the other place it makes it seem
2 like it's permissive. I don't know how to explain it. I
3 mean, this is not as complex as it seems.
4 What you need to understand is this proposal does not
5 have anything to do with whether the budget is reduced or
6 increased. It has nothing to do with that. It mandates a
7 review and a broadening of the base in a fiscal year. And
8 to do that, the Legislature needs to have pressure of the
9 rollback in the rate plus maintaining a revenue neutrality
10 posture.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does that answer your question,
12 Commissioner Ford-Coates?
13 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Let me clarify it one more
14 time. So what this does is ensure that the Legislature
15 maintains revenue neutrality in this situation.
16 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Absolutely.
17 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: So it actually goes to the
18 basic heart of the proposal in that year, that first year.
19 COMMISSIONER NABORS: But it has nothing to do with
20 increasing -- because any dollar, any dollar that's
21 generated beyond the revenue neutrality in this proposal,
22 any dollar that's generated goes to reduce school property
23 taxes. There is no concept -- and so the Legislature
24 still maintains its prerogative to cut the budget, to do
25 whatever they want. And, frankly, if anything, it keeps
36
1 them from increasing the amount. It's more of a
2 limitation than it is a restriction on the ability to cut
3 the budget.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Corr.
5 COMMISSIONER CORR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
6 still trying to understand the question. Commissioner
7 Nabors, does this mean that in addition to ensuring that
8 the Legislature does not increase the budget, that it also
9 ensures that it cannot decrease it.
10 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Absolutely not. What it says
11 is, is that in that budget process that year, the amount
12 of sales tax revenue would be the same plus historical
13 growth. They could still cut the budget, they could
14 reduce the required local effort from 6.7 to 0 mills and
15 cut a billion dollars out of the budget. But the point is
16 it puts a ceiling on how much -- they couldn't increase it
17 above the amount of money they have, but they could
18 certainly reduce it by reducing other taxes.
19 COMMISSIONER CORR: I'm still not clear on that
20 because I think what Commissioner Scott said was sort of
21 juxtaposed to that. So if somebody can still help me
22 understand that I'd appreciate it.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you want to try one more time?
24 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Let me try one more time.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm not sure people are getting
37
1 the drift of your answer there.
2 COMMISSIONER NABORS: This was really put in there by
3 Commissioner Hawkes to try to help the proposal. The
4 point is is that in that one budget year, in 2000-2001,
5 say it's $10 billion was collected the previous year in
6 sales tax revenue, okay? The rate would be reduced from
7 six to five, okay. But the Legislature would still have
8 to come up with $10 billion in sales tax revenue, which
9 means they would have to expand the base.
10 If they wanted to cut, you know, $800 million out of
11 the budget, they could do that. What they would do is
12 they would just reduce the required local effort on
13 schools or other types of things. It's ingenuous to say
14 that somehow you have got to go away from revenue
15 neutrality in order to have the ability of the Legislature
16 to -- they still have the same ability to reduce the
17 budget. It's just like now if they want to reduce the
18 budget, they could reduce the budget without reducing the
19 sales tax from six to five.
20 COMMISSIONER CORR: To follow up then, would it be
21 possible that the sales tax rate could be rolled back to
22 5 percent and because of success in the economy, that
23 there would still -- none of the exemptions would need to
24 be rolled back because of sort of a -- we could go back to
25 5 percent and still not take away any exemptions. Would
38
1 that be possible?
2 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Absolutely. And if that was
3 possible then they would have revenue neutrality because
4 of the amount of money that came in because of the
5 increase in the economy.
6 COMMISSIONER CORR: Just because of the success.
7 COMMISSIONER NABORS: That's right, that's right.
8 COMMISSIONER CORR: So this doesn't require those
9 sales tax exemptions to be sort of, quote, rolled back, if
10 the economy is doing well.
11 COMMISSIONER NABORS: But to be candid with you, if
12 the economy is exactly like it is now, it would require a
13 broadening of the base in order to receive revenue
14 neutrality, no question about that. If we get more money
15 than anticipated and the Legislature did nothing, then it
16 would, then that extra money would go to reduce property
17 taxes.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. On the amendment,
19 we're on the "may" amendment; not the month May, but the
20 word "may." Everybody ready to vote on the amendment?
21 Commissioner Riley.
22 COMMISSIONER RILEY: Commissioner Nabors, if I may,
23 on Page 2 of the amendment.
24 (Off-the-record comment.)
25 COMMISSIONER RILEY: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.
39
1 I'll wait.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any further questions
3 or discussion on this amendment? All in favor of the
4 amendment say aye; all opposed?
5 (Verbal vote taken.)
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Unlock the machine.
7 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine and announce the
9 vote.
10 READING CLERK: Seventeen yeas, 12 nays,
11 Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: By your vote you've adopted the
13 amendment.
14 Now we move to Amendment No. 2. And that's by
15 Commissioner Nabors as well. Commissioner Scott, do you
16 want to yield to him? Commissioner Nabors.
17 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Amendment No. 2 does basically
18 two things. To everybody's relief it shortens the
19 definition of revenue neutrality by ten lines.
20 The other thing it does is, if you recall, now listen
21 up, if you recall before when the Lottery proposal was
22 alive we defined, when the Lottery proposal was alive, we
23 defined -- what this current definition does in clear
24 language says, revenue neutrality means last year's, the
25 prior year's sales tax revenue, plus growth. Any dollar
40
1 beyond that goes to reduce required local effort, or
2 property taxes.
3 The prior language also allows it to include filling
4 up the hole in the Lottery, which we no longer need
5 because that's now been defeated. There is no hole
6 created. So what this does, it makes a clear revenue
7 neutrality and simplifies the language. Basically what it
8 says is any dollar received, greater than the prior year's
9 sales tax money plus historical growth over five years,
10 goes to reduce the required local effort on school
11 property taxes.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, on the
13 amendment.
14 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I'm looking for it, that's my
15 problem. It's in the book? Could we have it read?
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Read the amendment. It's a
17 lengthy amendment.
18 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Nabors, the following
19 amendment: On Page 2, Line 14, through Page 3, Line 6,
20 delete those lines and insert: Section C, revenue
21 neutrality guarantee. The general state sales tax
22 revenues estimated by the Legislature in general
23 appropriations bills for state fiscal year 2000-2001 shall
24 not be less than the general state sales tax revenues
25 collected during the prior fiscal year, as adjusted by
41
1 average historical growth during the last five years. Any
2 excess general state sales tax revenues for state fiscal
3 years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, or 2003-2004 in excess of this
4 revenue neutrality guarantee shall be appropriated to
5 reduce the ad valorem millage fee for school purposes
6 under the established public school formula.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley.
8 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Question of Commissioner
9 Nabors.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: He hasn't explained his amendment
11 I don't think. But you can ask him a question, maybe that
12 will help him explain it.
13 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: In the explanation tell me how
14 you control what the tax revenue estimate is going to be?
15 That's based on -- that's based on the factors that go
16 into, you know, tourism and sales and all the different
17 factors that they get into to estimate. And you're saying
18 there that the estimate shall not be less than the general
19 sales tax revenues collected during the prior year. I
20 wish we could control the economy like this, but I don't
21 see how we can just by passing this law.
22 COMMISSIONER NABORS: As you know, in the
23 appropriation process, it's all based upon estimates of
24 sales tax revenue. And it's those estimates that would
25 have to be used. Those estimates would have to be used.
42
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Anybody else on the
2 amendment? Commissioner Kogan.
3 COMMISSIONER KOGAN: This probably relates back to
4 the original proposal as well, but I have got to ask this
5 question, I really don't understand this. In the original
6 proposal you're reducing the tax rate down to 5 percent,
7 and essentially you're letting the Legislature phase out
8 or actually you're saying, no exemptions, they have got to
9 restore them.
10 What happens if they go ahead and are unable to raise
11 enough revenue with the 5 percent, and eliminating all
12 these exemptions there is still not enough money, can they
13 then raise the percentage of the sales tax.
14 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Well, I think the schedules we
15 sent out, I think that one of the reasons we settled,
16 those who believe in this, on the 5 percent is that there
17 is plenty of room in terms of that we don't -- no one
18 feels this strains the Legislature in terms of coming up
19 to revenue neutrality, and let me tell you why.
20 If you look at it, just for purposes of illustration,
21 if they did the same thing they did in '87, Commissioner
22 Kogan, they did the same thing and removed those
23 exemptions that were selected by that legislative session,
24 what would happen is you could reduce the rate from six to
25 five, you would come up with $400 billion in additional
43
1 revenue which would go for property tax relief.
2 So we don't think any of those proposals -- and you
3 can look at the schedules we sent out -- strains the
4 Legislature in getting what they need to do in this tax
5 fairness initiative.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: On the amendment, Commissioner
7 Kogan.
8 COMMISSIONER KOGAN: A follow-up question though.
9 But I can foresee, you know, that there are situations
10 where even if you eliminate a whole bunch of these
11 exemptions, you're still not going to have enough revenue
12 to run the state. And my question is: Is the state
13 forever locked into that 5 percent without another
14 constitutional amendment?
15 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Absolutely not. The 5 percent
16 is for one moment in time only. There is nothing that
17 restricts the Legislature the next year from raising it
18 up. There is no restriction on the Legislature in a tax
19 initiative year to go to four and remove more exemptions
20 than we think that they will.
21 But it is a one-year initiative process that requires
22 the process to be done within the context of a ceiling of
23 a rate and a floor of revenue neutrality. But after that,
24 you know, it could be raised up as the dictates of the
25 state need. We hope, the purpose of this is, if we can
44
1 broaden the base, which everybody who knows this area,
2 every economist, every expert says, if you can broaden the
3 base, then the need for additional increases diminishes
4 over time, particularly with changes in the economy.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills, you had asked
6 to be recognized for a housekeeping matter.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I just wanted to point out that
8 what we said, we're doing a ten-minute limitation on final
9 passage. And it's appropriate that, you know, we are
10 amending it into a position. So I just didn't want people
11 to think that we had abandoned our procedure.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We haven't because we're still on
13 questions and we still have amendments we're dealing with.
14 We haven't gotten to that. Commissioner Scott, you're
15 recognized.
16 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I probably should clarify
17 something. I am here because as a member of the Style and
18 Drafting Committee, the chairman graciously told me that I
19 would be the point person on this proposal. I'm not here
20 because I support this proposal. I just wanted, you know,
21 to make that point.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It was a strange pick, wasn't it,
23 Commissioner Scott?
24 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: The point though is a good point
25 that Commissioner Kogan is making is that to say that we
45
1 are going to do something based on revenue estimated by
2 the Legislature, which is really not what's done anyway.
3 There is a revenue estimating conference, the Governor has
4 people on it and so forth that does this.
5 But then to put into the Constitution that we're
6 going to do things and repeal tax exemptions or not repeal
7 them or eliminate them based on some revenue estimate I
8 just think is a bad idea. It doesn't make this proposal
9 any worse, it's already not that great. But I just don't
10 think it's a good idea to have that in there. And it may
11 have been -- in fairness to him -- it may have been in the
12 original version of this also. But it's a good point.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You oppose the amendment?
14 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Anybody else on the amendment?
16 Oh, Commissioner Corr, excuse me, you want to speak on the
17 amendment or you have a question?
18 COMMISSIONER CORR: Question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
19 Just to continue to try to understand this. Does somebody
20 on the floor know what the estimated tax revenues are for
21 this year, 1998, seeing how we're near session beginning?
22 (Off-the-record comment by Commissioner Nabors.)
23 COMMISSIONER NABORS: I don't know if they got it out
24 since the upcoming --
25 COMMISSIONER CORR: What I'm trying to get at is do
46
1 we know what it is in terms of how much larger it is this
2 year compared to last year? Does anybody have a feel for
3 that yet going into the session here?
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman?
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott.
6 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I don't know exactly how much
7 larger, but there is a revenue estimating conference in
8 about a week, next Friday week that will then give the
9 numbers. So I know that it's larger than last year but
10 I'm not sure how much.
11 COMMISSIONER CORR: I have a further question. I
12 heard, and I'm not plugged in enough to really know if
13 this is accurate, but I have heard that the upside could
14 be some $3 billion greater than last year. Do you have an
15 order of magnitude at this point since you're only a week
16 away from the conference?
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Maybe you heard the budget might
18 meet, Commissioner Jennings.
19 COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: I know just enough to be
20 dangerous, but I'll give a little bit more information for
21 you, if you would like, Commissioner Corr.
22 The budget has that much gross in it, that's not
23 purely sales tax revenue. That would be all revenues
24 coming into the state as well. So I'll call down to
25 finance and tax to see if we can get some specific
47
1 numbers, but, again, it will change probably next --
2 March 6 is the revenue estimating conference that we do
3 our final allocations for this year's budget from.
4 So we're about a week ahead of time.
5 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Let me answer that real
6 quickly.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right, Commissioner Nabors.
8 COMMISSIONER NABORS: The current Constitution, the
9 revenue limitations in the current Constitution is based
10 upon state revenues, which we have heard some testimony.
11 I think you were at the one in Fort Myers where someone
12 said that that is not a real revenue because it is so
13 large. This is more surgical. It's based upon an
14 increase in sales tax. It would be a smaller amount.
15 One of the problems with sales tax is, the reason you
16 need this, Commissioner Corr, is that percentage varies.
17 In good times it's good, in bad times it's bad. And
18 that's why we have a shaky state budget process.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now, Commissioner Smith, do you
20 have a question or do you want to speak to the amendment?
21 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Question, please. For those of
22 us who are challenged in the area of taxation, I hear
23 Commissioners Langley and Scott basically say that it
24 doesn't pass the giggle test to use tax estimates. That's
25 what I hear them saying. Well, what about alternatives?
48
1 If you're not using tax estimates, what else would you
2 use? I mean, obviously we could -- if they're opposing
3 that, they're not going to help and say, well, use this
4 instead of that. What's your response?
5 COMMISSIONER NABORS: I wouldn't apply the giggle
6 test to anything the Legislature does. Let me tell you
7 that the truth is, is that every time you do a budget, it
8 has to be based on estimations and it's a collegial
9 process that's done. So this is no different than that.
10 This does not cause any heartbeats, giggles or hiccups in
11 terms of the implementation of it.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. On the amendment,
13 Commissioner Langley.
14 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Well, I'm ready to vote too,
15 but I just don't understand. And, frankly, Commissioner
16 Nabors, you didn't explain it to my satisfaction.
17 And the first lines of your item C in your amendment
18 talks about you're going to determine what a revenue
19 estimate is going to be in the year 2000. And you're
20 saying that it can't be less than what the actual revenues
21 were the prior year. If there's a recession or
22 depression, those things are not going to be controlled by
23 whatever language we may present to the people. That's
24 going to be a factual situation. And those revenues, the
25 estimate may well be less than what was spent the year
49
1 before. I've seen that in the Legislature.
2 How do you control by law a revenue estimating
3 conference?
4 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Well, in the first place, it's
5 not me that does that. What would happen is there would
6 be an estimate that would be given in this one year only.
7 There would be an estimate given to the Legislature of how
8 many dollars that they have to deal with in the
9 appropriations process.
10 To the extent that that is greater than the prior
11 year, that it is greater than the prior year, it has to be
12 used for property tax relief. Implicitly if it's less,
13 then that's all they got. If that's all they got, it
14 doesn't require the rate to be increased because the rate
15 is frozen at 5 percent. But they would get an estimate,
16 if that estimate is greater than the prior year, this says
17 that that would have to be used to reduce the required
18 local effort.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Scott,
20 we are ready to vote on the amendment. Unlock the machine
21 and let's vote on the amendment. It's Amendment No. 2.
22 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine, announce the
24 vote.
25 READING CLERK: Sixteen yeas, 14 nays, Mr. Chairman.
50
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We have Amendment No.
2 3 on the table by Commissioner Evans. Would you read the
3 amendment, please?
4 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Evans, the following
5 title amendment, on Page 1, Line 6, delete "percent" and
6 insert "percent for the state fiscal year 2000-2001."
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Evans,
8 you're recognized on your amendment.
9 COMMISSIONER EVANS: All right. I find that the
10 language reducing the rate of the general sales tax to
11 5 percent is extremely misleading. I think it's very
12 possible that people might think that that is a
13 constitutional limit and that the Legislature could not be
14 able to override it simply by looking at the title.
15 So I think taking the language from the body of the
16 amendment, 5 percent for state fiscal year 2000-2001 is
17 much more accurate with no misleading.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. On the amendment.
19 Does everybody understand the amendment? Any questions?
20 Commissioner Nabors, do you want to address the amendment?
21 COMMISSIONER NABORS: No, the amendment is fine.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All in favor of the amendment say
23 aye; opposed?
24 (Verbal vote taken.)
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The amendment carries and is now
51
1 part of the proposal.
2 All right. We're ready to debate the proposal.
3 Proponent? Commissioner Brochin and Commissioner
4 Ford-Coates. All right. Do you want to take -- how about
5 opponents? Okay, very well. I'll try to alternate you.
6 I'll start with Commissioner Nabors to take just a little
7 bit of time.
8 COMMISSIONER NABORS: I've been talking, I think
9 everybody is tired of listening to me. We have other
10 proponents. I would like for you, hopefully, in the
11 debate, in the limited time we have, you will see that
12 this is a proposal that's widely shared among this body.
13 It's not just a Nabors' proposal. It's one we have worked
14 at, I have talked to most of you about.
15 In my judgment, it's the fundamental most important
16 thing we can do. If we don't do it, it's not going to be
17 done. The Legislature institutionally cannot do it. It
18 cannot be done by voter initiative, it violates the single
19 subject matter. We have got a proposal to abolish the
20 budget reform commission.
21 We have 20 years before we offer an opportunity to
22 talk to the people about this idea. And everybody in
23 power will tell you it's the thing that needs to be done
24 for Florida to survive the next 20 years.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Opponent, Commissioner Barnett.
52
1 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For
2 those of you who haven't heard me say this before,
3 philosophically I strongly believe in expanding the sales
4 tax base to include excluded services, professional
5 services, and to look at exemptions. I also strongly
6 believe that the Constitution is not the place to do that
7 and that this proposal is inherently unworkable in its
8 current form.
9 The reality about what we are asking the Legislature
10 to do is in two years to look at 4- or 500
11 currently-on-the-books exemptions, sales tax exemptions
12 and look at the concept of personal services, professional
13 services, and to make a decision about each of those
14 individual cases in a two-year period. Every one of
15 those, every one of those has a story behind it.
16 This proposal presumes that none of those are
17 legitimate exemptions, that they don't encourage economic
18 development, that they don't serve a public purpose.
19 Believe me, the debate on those particular aspects of
20 every one of these will be a long, involved, important
21 debate to this state and to the citizens who are benefited
22 or who support those particular exemptions.
23 This is a very difficult message to send to the
24 business community and to the economic development efforts
25 of our state. The business community that I'm familiar
53
1 with basically is not opposed to taxing services or ex --
2 I mean, taking the exemptions away, but they want tax
3 certainty and they want a tax that they can administer.
4 This proposal -- they want a tax that they know how to
5 administer. They don't want to have to pay a dollar to
6 collect a dollar in tax.
7 This proposal picks up the services tax. Any of you
8 that were involved in this know that tax is enormously
9 complicated. And the way it was implemented was to adopt
10 corporate income tax principles about where the benefit of
11 the service is enjoyed.
12 Florida almost never got around to implementing it in
13 a year and a half of rulemaking because it was so
14 complicated and because the people required to collect and
15 pay that tax didn't know how to calculate the tax, didn't
16 know the services that they had to include within their
17 tax base. It became one of the reasons the tax was
18 ultimately repealed by the Legislature.
19 Now I know we don't have a lot of time and I want to
20 save time for others, but I will just tell you practically
21 what we are asking the Legislature to do, they cannot do
22 in the time period. And the Legislature can do this.
23 They have done it in the past, they are looking at
24 exemptions now and they are looking at professional
25 services now. This is not the place to do it in the
54
1 Constitution.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Proponent,
3 Commissioner Ford-Coates. You have a question,
4 Commissioner Sundberg? Commissioner Ford-Coates, you're
5 recognized.
6 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Commissioners, I think we
7 need to keep our eye on the heart of this proposal, which
8 is to get to the point where exemptions are handled in an
9 appropriate way, in a single bill where we know what's
10 going on, where they can't be attached onto a bill in the
11 middle of the heat of the session. I think that this is
12 the only way this is going to happen.
13 And with all due respect to Commissioner Barnett, I
14 have had a little experience in teaching people how to
15 collect sales tax and, yeah, it can be difficult, but it
16 can be done right. And once it's done and it's in as a
17 process, it works very well.
18 It is difficult to learn a new thing, no matter what
19 happens, but those problems can be dealt with by the
20 Department of Revenue. This is a good proposal. It's a
21 proposal the public in particular, I think, needs an
22 opportunity to comment on. And I know we've heard this
23 before, but I think it is essential that we take this to
24 public hearing and see what the public has to say about it
25 because I think it's one which they are going to like.
55
1 Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to yield
2 just a moment of my time to Commissioner Lowndes, who was
3 just off the floor when you asked for proponents, to
4 complete the thoughts on this good proposal.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think you just wait a minute.
6 I've got to go to an opponent and I'll come back to you,
7 Commissioner Lowndes.
8 Commissioner Scott is an opponent. Commissioner
9 Morsani, you were an opponent too? Okay. You have two
10 minutes. I think we're going to have to extend the time
11 if we're going to debate this the way everybody wants to
12 and I won't enforce it unless we get out of line here.
13 Okay? Commissioner Scott.
14 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: This is a very bad idea, we
15 discussed it before. To try to impose something like this
16 in the Constitution, it is double bad. And you can't
17 correct that except every two years without some special
18 election, which is an extraordinary expense and whatever.
19 If something goes wrong in this, and we have no idea -- we
20 spend, literally last week we spent all week just on the
21 budget and another week before that. I mean -- and every
22 one of these issues that's brought up takes hours, tens of
23 hours of testimony.
24 You really shouldn't try to put something like this
25 into the Constitution. Very bad idea for the reasons that
56
1 Commissioner Barnett and others have enumerated.
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman?
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills.
4 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I move to extend the time five
5 minutes.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All in favor, say aye; all
7 opposed, no.
8 (Verbal vote taken.)
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Carries. Now proponent
10 Commissioner -- we have got three of you. You have two
11 minutes between you. Commissioner Brochin was originally
12 designated as a proponent. You have the floor.
13 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: I'm going to make it quick
14 because I do want everyone else to speak. I'm going to
15 address the issue about whether it belongs in the
16 Constitution because I think that's a very legitimate
17 question to raise. It probably doesn't.
18 But if you review our entire Constitution, we have
19 tax policy in our Constitution. So to suggest that tax
20 policy doesn't belong in the Constitution I think is a
21 little disingenuous, because we have it. We have it
22 because the Legislature can't impose an income tax. The
23 ad valorem taxes are restricted in the Save Our Homes
24 Proposal in the amount that they can raise.
25 This, to use an oft-quoted phrase, balances or levels
57
1 the playing field to at least make it a fair spreading of
2 the tax. So, yes, in a perfect constitutional world we
3 would let the Legislature decide which if any taxes to
4 impose. But they don't have that flexibility and they
5 don't have it because our Constitution uniquely has tax
6 policy in it.
7 This is actually a modest proposal to begin to spread
8 the base which, by the way, there was no dissent before
9 the Finance and Tax Committee when we heard testimony, no
10 dissent on the issue that our tax base needs to be spread
11 out or it will be chaotic in the future. No dispute about
12 that. And this is an attempt to spread that tax base out.
13 We all have interests. Commissioner Hawkes at one
14 point talked about a take home amendment and I asked him
15 what it meant. It means it's something you can take home.
16 Well, when I take home this amendment to my 900 lawyers in
17 the law firm I'm a member of, I am not going to be a very
18 popular guy there because they are going to look at me and
19 say, Why do we need this? And I am going to tell them
20 that it is our attempt in Florida to make this a fair tax
21 for all. And that includes professional, it includes
22 accountants, in includes bankers, it includes everybody in
23 this state.
24 So I think we should pass this. I think we should
25 let the people hear about this. There will be a lot of
58
1 people opposing this, but that to me is essentially a good
2 thing in the sense that it's about fairness and it's about
3 everybody paying. And we need to make these steps and we
4 should make them now.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The proponents have two minutes
6 left. The opponents have the extended two-and-a-half
7 minutes left. Commissioner Morsani.
8 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: Commissioners, I voted for
9 this proposal initially.
10 As I said, I voted for this proposal initially. I
11 read at length Mr. Nabors' information. But I have come
12 to the conclusion that I was wrong. Sorry, Mr. Nabors.
13 But I think Commissioner Barnett really summed it up.
14 This -- our current tax system has been crafted over
15 a number of years by people that were trying to do the
16 right thing. Yes, maybe they didn't always do the right
17 thing. But I don't believe we as 37 members, without the
18 historical background, without having the analytical
19 people before all of us to digest something, this is a
20 $44 billion item. That was with a B.
21 I don't think that we all have the information that
22 we would need to ponder a decision of this magnitude.
23 Even though I want to support, I think we need to look at
24 our tax base, but I also think that our Legislature in
25 their wisdom has been able to find the taxes and change
59
1 the taxes as they needed to in the past.
2 I do believe that we're on a new level in the state
3 of Florida with the leaderships of the House and the
4 Senate. And we are getting, I think, and with all due
5 respect to former legislators in this room, I really
6 believe as a group we have the finest legislators we ever
7 had and they are changing the dynamics of what's going on
8 in this state.
9 This is the wrong proposal at the wrong time for us
10 to digest on a short notice. I would encourage you to
11 vote against this proposal.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Proponent,
13 Commissioner Lowndes.
14 COMMISSIONER LOWNDES: Mr. Chairman, I'm in favor of
15 this proposal. And I'm in favor of it for the reason I
16 think that the tax base needs to be broadened in this
17 state and I think the Legislature needs some help and some
18 courage in doing it. I think this will provide them the
19 courage to do it.
20 As far as whether it should be in the Constitution or
21 not, after the initial work done by the Legislature in the
22 next two years, the only thing left in the Constitution,
23 which is the provision that Commissioner Ford-Coates spoke
24 of that from then on exemptions from the sales tax would
25 be in single bills, that's the only thing left in the
60
1 Constitution. I think that certainly would be appropriate
2 in the Constitution.
3 As far as the Legislature being able to get the work
4 done, my sense about that is the work will get done if the
5 job is there. My observation would be that the
6 Legislature finally gets down to doing the job it needs to
7 do, and if it's mandated to do this job, it will get the
8 job done. So I urge everybody to pass this amendment.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any other opponents?
10 All right, one minute left -- opponent, Commissioner
11 Argiz. I think you have a minute and three quarters.
12 COMMISSIONER ARGIZ: I supported this proposal at
13 committee level, but I changed my mind. And due to
14 various items. I've spoken to people around the state,
15 primarily the business people and I wanted to support to
16 broaden the tax base, but at the same time, I've heard how
17 adverse it would be to businesses around the state.
18 And due to that fact, even some of the professionals
19 that Mr. Brochin, Commissioner Brochin discussed, I talked
20 to Florida CPAs, and their problem with it is neutrality.
21 A lot of the services that are performed in the state of
22 Florida can be transferred out of state, which gives a
23 competitive advantage to the larger firms that don't have
24 a home base in the state of Florida. The same thing goes
25 with the banking services. This tax is all banking
61
1 transactions and I heard from the bankers as to the same
2 argument, and I do agree with it.
3 And finally, you know, when I came to this country at
4 the age of eight, I was clothed, sheltered and educated by
5 the Catholic charities for six years until my parents were
6 able to leave Cuba and join me in Tampa at the time.
7 And what they're saying is that they think it's a
8 great proposal. But when you look at it, they're saying
9 the budget costs to fight this and protect their exemption
10 after this is passed, it's just not a fruitful investment
11 for them and that's why they're telling me, and I spoke to
12 them as late as this morning, that they're against it.
13 So, therefore, because of those arguments, I have
14 changed my mind, although I supported it at the committee
15 level. And I'm going to vote against it today.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. To close, Commissioner --
17 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I thought you were going to
18 give me --
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The time is up under the rule and
20 the extensions are up for the proponents and the
21 opponents; am I right? All the time has been used except
22 to close. Now he can defer to you in the close, if he
23 likes, Commissioner Sundberg. Commissioner Nabors to
24 close. He could yield time to you.
25 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Let me yield a minute to you,
62
1 Commissioner Sundberg. I just need a couple of seconds to
2 close.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg, he yields
4 to you for a minute.
5 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you, Commissioner
6 Nabors. Everyone who has stood up says that broadening
7 the tax base in this state is not only a good thing but
8 essential. This is the only proposal we have before us
9 that permits us to do that. All of the other tax
10 proposals have either created more exemptions at the local
11 level or has relieved local government of tax obligations
12 and shifted them to the state.
13 For us to ignore, to ignore this issue -- well I
14 can't find the word for it except -- I must say this, and
15 Commissioner Barnett is very persuasive, she's very
16 familiar with these issues. But she said two things that
17 convinced me to a moral certainty that you need to support
18 this.
19 She says, How will the Legislature deal with 4- or
20 500 exemptions that exist in our sales tax at this point?
21 Is that any kind of sensible tax program? No. She says,
22 The experience that we had from the sales tax on services,
23 it took them a year and a half to do the rules. I don't
24 know how that can be, it was only in force for six months.
25 And it created an enormous amount of revenue for this
63
1 state in the six months that it was in force. In any
2 event, if we ignore this opportunity, we will have clearly
3 failed the people of this state.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Nabors, you have one
5 minute to close.
6 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Quickly, several points,
7 Commissioner Barnett. There is a story behind every
8 exemption. And a lot of those stories aren't very pretty.
9 So we need to have those out in the open.
10 Commissioner Morsani, we're not going to be the one
11 that's going to ponder with the choosing that's going to
12 be done. In the two-year process the Legislature has,
13 they'll do it and it's their job to do it. If in two
14 years, in two years, if the Legislature cannot sort this
15 out, cannot sort this out and deal with the issues, we all
16 need to move to Bosnia. We can do this in two years.
17 There is no fundamental reason why not. They cannot do
18 it, they need the people to instruct them to do it.
19 Commissioner Argiz, if the Catholic Church cannot get
20 back in their proposal in the legislative process, it's
21 inconceivable to me. Everybody that has an exemption is
22 going to be at risk, but everybody has got an opportunity
23 to talk to the Legislature to get it back in. If it
24 serves a public purpose, it will get back in. This is the
25 most fundamental thing we can do for the next 20 years.
64
1 If we don't do it, it's not going to get done. It's not
2 going to get done, and we're going to live in a state we
3 all love and grew up in and we're not going to recognize
4 it in the next 20 years.
5 I urge you to vote for the proposal.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We'll vote on
7 Committee Substitute for Proposal No. 6. Open the
8 machine.
9 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine and announce the
11 vote.
12 READING CLERK: 15 yeas, 16 nays, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. By your vote, you've
14 defeated this proposal. Committee Substitute for
15 Proposals 49, 103 and 185 by the Committee on Finance and
16 Taxation, Article VII, and Commissioners Anthony,
17 Henderson and Mills. Read it, please.
18 READING CLERK: Committee Substitute for Proposals
19 No. 49, 103, and 185; a proposal to revise Article VII,
20 Section 3, Florida Constitution; revising the requirements
21 for exempting municipally-owned property; allowing the
22 Legislature to exempt from taxation property owned by a
23 municipality or special district and used for airport,
24 seaport, or public purposes, as defined by law, and uses
25 that are incidental thereto.
65
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There is an amendment on the
2 table. Commissioner Scott, you're recognized from Style
3 and Drafting.
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, this proposal was
5 like 28 to 4, we debated it thoroughly before. The vote
6 was like 28 to 4.
7 What it does is it protects the county immunity but
8 allows municipalities as provided by law, as he read in
9 the title, and other special districts, airports,
10 seaports, to have -- to have exemptions from taxation.
11 And the reason this is here is that the courts have said
12 that this cannot be dealt with by the Legislature, it's
13 very complicated because of some court rulings. So we
14 need to have a constitutional amendment which would level
15 the playing field and allow the Legislature to deal with
16 this issue.
17 There is an amendment from Style and Drafting which
18 clarifies the discussion. When we finish this,
19 Commissioner Lowndes had an amendment. And it's pretty
20 simple if we could read that amendment.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Amendment on the
22 table by Commissioner Scott. Please read the amendment.
23 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Scott, the following
24 amendment: On Page 1, Lines 23 and 24, strike all of said
25 lines and insert "purposes as defined by general law, and
66
1 uses that are incidental thereto, may be exempted from
2 taxation as provided by general law. A municipality".
3 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: This is a clarifying amendment,
4 as we discussed when we were here before. We put in two
5 places "as defined by" and the second one "as provided by"
6 general law to make it clear that both airport, seaport
7 public purposes and uses incidental thereto can be defined
8 by the Legislature. And that's all it is.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Brochin on the
10 amendment.
11 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: Reading this, can an airport
12 or a seaport be exempted by the Legislature, and as
13 defined by law, even though the airport or seaport does
14 not serve a public purpose? The way I read it, that can
15 be done.
16 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well, we debated this
17 thoroughly, remember, Commissioner Mathis and others, that
18 we think airports and seaports in Florida are public
19 purposes and very vital to our whole economy and travel to
20 the state. So, yes, in that sense if it is an airport or
21 seaport, as defined by general law, then it could be
22 exempted, but not if it's an airport that is not somehow
23 related to a public purpose.
24 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: The reason I ask, Commissioner
25 Scott, is that it doesn't read that way to me. It reads
67
1 that airport, seaport, or public purposes may be exempted
2 from taxation and therefore the Legislature could be
3 permitted under this constitutional authority to exempt
4 from taxation an airport, seaport, even though it doesn't
5 serve a public purpose.
6 It seems to me we ought to write something in that
7 requires, if there is going to be an exemption, it ought
8 to be by public purposes. And I was hopeful Style and
9 Drafting would make an adjustment, but apparently it still
10 reads the three in the alternative. So that's why I ask
11 the questions.
12 I understand that the Legislature may exempt an
13 airport or seaport and may determine it to be a public
14 purpose, but my reading of this constitutional language
15 also allows the Legislature to exempt an airport and a
16 seaport even though it doesn't serve a public purpose
17 because you have the word "or" in there.
18 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yeah, I think it's covered --
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Just a moment, Commissioner
20 Scott.
21 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Brochin I know has
22 been opposed to this proposal in general, but I really
23 think that it is covered and particularly where it says,
24 as we have added in this amendment, may be exempt from
25 taxation as provided by general law.
68
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner -- this
2 is on the amendment. Does everybody understand the
3 amendment? Any further debate or questions on the
4 amendment? All right. All in favor of the amendment, say
5 aye; opposed?
6 (Verbal vote taken.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The amendment is adopted. Now
8 we're on the proposal as amended. Commissioner Scott,
9 would you care to have anything further to say now that
10 it's amended?
11 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Just what we said before. I
12 really kind of already made an argument. If there is some
13 debate, then maybe I'd reserve time to close.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Lowndes.
15 COMMISSIONER LOWNDES: I'd just like to speak in
16 favor of this amendment. My sense about this problem has
17 been it's been a serious problem of government taxing
18 government and the Legislature has tried to solve this
19 problem, but the courts have told the Legislature they
20 can't solve the problem. And this amendment will -- the
21 courts have said the Legislature can't solve the problem
22 because the Constitution doesn't give the Legislature the
23 power to solve the problem.
24 This amendment gives the Legislature the power to
25 solve the problem. It gives the Legislature the power to
69
1 put the municipally-owned airports and seaports and those
2 that are in special districts on the same footing as those
3 which are now owned by the counties because those airports
4 which are owned by the counties are exempt from taxation.
5 This would allow the Legislature in its wisdom to exempt
6 those owned by the cities to be exempt from taxation.
7 So I think it's a very good proposal. I think it's a
8 very necessary proposal and I would hope that you would
9 pass it.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
11 Evans-Jones, are you a proponent?
12 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: No.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Opponent. You're recognized.
14 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: I wish you-all would
15 listen just a minute here. You're talking about more
16 exemptions. We talked a lot about exemptions with
17 Commissioner Nabors' bill and about fairness and equity.
18 This is a terrible, terrible proposal.
19 The property appraisers throughout the state tried to
20 be able to tax the things by the county, but it was turned
21 down. What you're doing is you're competing with private
22 businesses. You can drive a truck through these loopholes
23 here. People who are in private business should be taxed.
24 I mean, that's just the bottom line.
25 And if you're going to just allow all of these
70
1 exemptions, what's going to happen? We're going to have
2 more and more property taxes because that's the only
3 answer. And I frankly am sick and tired of all these
4 exemptions and I don't think it's fair. But I think the
5 lobbyists are very strong and very powerful and a lot of
6 them get their way. I think this would be a big mistake
7 for us to put this on the ballot and I strongly disapprove
8 of it.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mathis.
10 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I have been in the unique
11 position to represent businesses that were trying to do
12 business with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. One
13 of those businesses was TGIF Friday's out of Dallas,
14 Texas, and the other was McDonald's out of Oakbrook,
15 Illinois.
16 We were looking at bidding on a proposal for a food
17 and beverage concession in the airport. There is a TGIF
18 Friday's 3 miles outside the airport. The question was,
19 to the corporate officers at TGIF Friday's, would a TGIF
20 Friday's inside the airport compete with an off-site TGIF
21 Friday's. They said, No, the market is different.
22 Now I know a little bit about business, but I know in
23 the restaurant business there are three issues; location,
24 location, location. And in that particular instance, if
25 those corporate officers could see that on-site airport
71
1 businesses were not in competition with off-site airport
2 businesses, I think they had a reasonable basis to do it.
3 I have not seen in my dealings with small and
4 minority businesses, minority businesses saying that I
5 have got an off-site business so I don't want to be on
6 airport property. It's been quite the opposite. They are
7 going with the chance of being on airport property.
8 There is a Chili's in the terminal at the Aviation
9 Authority. They also competed for Air Site 3 food and
10 beverage concession. They didn't even see that as
11 competition. Airports are unique businesses and should be
12 viewed as such and they do serve a public purpose in that.
13 Those issues that they deal with affect the economic
14 development of our state 20, 30 years out. And we need to
15 give them the assurance that they will be treated on an
16 equal basis within the state and to be able to compete
17 globally with other airports.
18 And this proposal does that and I would urge you to
19 support it.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Opponents, you have some time
21 left. The proponents have 20 seconds. Commissioner
22 Brochin, are you |
