• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Florida school construction finance...
 Letter of transmittal
 Executive summary
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Issues in school construction
 Previous efforts
 Current funding methods for school...
 School impact fees
 Alternative funding methods for...
 Commission's assessment of alternative...
 Conclusion
 Recommendations
 Appendix






Group Title: Report to the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives
Title: A report to the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000218/00001
 Material Information
Title: A report to the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives
Physical Description: 1 v. (various foliations) : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida School Construction Finance Commission
Publisher: The Commission
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla.
Publication Date: [2000]
 Subjects
Subject: School buildings -- Design and construction -- Costs -- Florida   ( lcsh )
School buildings -- Design and construction -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
New schools -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Florida School Construction Finance Commission.
General Note: "February 7, 2000."
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: AM00000218
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Holding Location: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 43687958
lccn - 00325988

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Florida school construction finance commission
        Unnumbered ( 2 )
    Letter of transmittal
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Executive summary
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Issues in school construction
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Previous efforts
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Current funding methods for school construction
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    School impact fees
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Alternative funding methods for school construction
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Commission's assessment of alternative funding methods for school construction
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Conclusion
        Page 32
    Recommendations
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Appendix
        Page 35
        Laws of Florida
            Page 36
            Page 37
        Florida school construction finance commission members
            Page 38
        School district comparison of capital needs indicators
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
        1998-99 summary of school construction cost
            Page 45
            Page 46
        Florida student population growth charts
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
        Education fixed capital outlay table
            Page 54
            Page 55
        School construction finance data
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
        Intangibles tax (Part C) collections
            Page 74
        Documentary stamp tax collections
            Page 75
            Page 76
        Gross receipts tax collections
            Page 77
Full Text















FLORIDA SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
FINANCE COMMISSION


I


A Report to the
Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House of
Representatives


February 7, 2000


FIA
LB
3218
.F5
F55
2000
C.2






FAMU1IBRARY
Florida School Construction

Finance Commission


MEMBERSHIP:
Tom Greer, Chairman
St. Cloud
Benton Murphey, Vice-Chair
Tampa
Senator Tom Lee
Brandon
Senator Patsy Kurth
Palm Bay
Representative Carlos Lacasa
Miami
Representative Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz
Weston
David Balz
Jacksonville
Carol Vallencourt
Orange Park
Valerie Adams
Tampa
Pamela Brooks-Thomas
Lauderhill
Dr. Anthony Cardinale
Indialantic
Betty Strifler
Invemess
Myra Mueller
Boca Raton
Manty Morse
Miami
Jeanine Blomberg
Tallahassee








STAFF:
Marsha Hosack
Cristina Martinez
Richard Drennon
Sandy Brooks


February 7, 2000

The Honorable Jeb Bush
Governor of Florida
The Capitol, Room PL-05
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

The Honorable Toni Jennings
President of the Senate
The Capitol, Room 409
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100


The Honorable John Thrasher
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Capitol, Room 420
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

Dear Sirs and Madam:

On behalf of the Florida School Construction Finance Commission, I am pleased to
transmit this report of the Commission pursuant to Sections 17 and 18 of Chapter 99-
239, Laws of Florida.

The Commission was charged with formulating revenue policies that considered
school construction revenue needs, the availability of alternative funding
mechanisms, and other accepted policy goals, including fairness and ease of
administration. The Commission received oral reports along with supporting detailed
information from various staffs representing, the Florida School Boards Association,
the SMART Schools Clearinghouse, the Florida State University Institute of Science
and Public Affairs, the Department of Education, the Office of Economic and
Demographic Research, the Senate Fiscal Resource Committee, several district
school boards, Florida Home Builders, Florida Tax Watch, the American Planning
Association, the Florida Association of Counties, the Institute for School Innovation,
Partnership for Better School Funding, and members of the public.

Copies of this report are being provided to the Department of Education, Florida
School Boards Associations, the Board of Regents, the State Board of Community
Colleges, the Post Secondary Education Planning Commission, and appropriate
committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.


Reply to: c/o Florida LCIR Suite 4, Holland Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
(850)488-9627 Fax (850) 487-6587 Suncom 278-9627 Suncom Fax 278-6587


~'P

3a /8
,r4~

~2.000

"r."-








Letter Governor, President & Speaker
Page Two
February 7, 2000

In the short time provided, the Commission recognized that although there is no statewide method
for assessing school construction needs, the need in fact exists. The Commission found that school
construction need is not uniform throughout the state and that large counties and counties
experiencing rapid growth bear the brunt of the facilities shortage and inadequacies of existing
facilities. Furthermore, many school districts experience problems with aging facilities.

Based upon its findings, the Commission recommends a revenue policy that allows for the
elimination of school impact fees by authorizing sufficient state and local revenue sources to give
school boards the necessary funding and flexibility to address school construction needs within their
respective districts. Specifically, the Commission recommends that the state should lead by example
and dedicate the revenues from the general revenue portion of the Intangible Tax (Part C), the
mortgage portion, for school construction. The Commission recommends that adequate funds be
dedicated to fully reimburse counties for school impact fees, and the remaining funds be distributed
to all school districts based on a formula which takes into account a district's current student
population and projected student population growth. Additionally, the Commission recommends
that local school boards be allowed to levy a one cent sales tax by majority vote, in lieu of the current
2 mills property tax, or a .5 cent in lieu of 1 mill, for school construction in their district. By
recommending both state and local sources, the Commission believes that school construction needs
could be resolved in most districts.

In light of Florida's constitutional mandate making it a paramount duty of the state to ensure that
adequate provisions are made for high quality education, the time has come to put words into action.
The members of this Commission believe that the recommendations contained in this report provide
a valuable contribution to the mission of the Governor, Legislature, and local school districts to meet
Florida's needs with regard to public education facilities. The Commission stands ready to provide
assistance through the legislative process so that the goal shared by all of us, to provide Florida's
children with the best education possible, can not only be realized, but secured for future
generations.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the challenge of ensuring that the State of Florida's
public education facilities needs are met. We look forward to assisting in meeting those needs.

Very Truly Yours,



Tom Greer
Chair









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


In 1999, the Legislature created the Florida School Construction Finance Commission, as an
advisory body to the Governor and the Legislature. See, 1999 Fla. Laws ch. 99-239, 16-18. The
Commission was charged with studying: alternative methods of funding school construction; the
pros and cons of such methods; formulating revenue policies that consider construction revenue
needs; the availability of alternative funding; and other accepted policy goals, including fairness and
ease of administration. Chapter 99-239 also provided a moratorium until July 1, 2000 on all new
school impact fees or increases to school impact fees adopted after May 1, 1999. The Commission
interpreted that this moratorium on school impact fees indicated that considering a replacement
source for impact fees should be a major focus of its charge.

In the past three decades, Florida's student population has almost doubled. This unprecedented
growth in student population has resulted in severe school overcrowding problems in some school
districts. Consequently, since 1990 at least five commissions and one legislative Special Session
have addressed the issue of school construction financing. However, financing the billions of dollars
to build the necessary school facilities continues to challenge the state and local school districts.
Therefore, the Florida School Construction Finance Commission was tasked with studying
alternative methods of financing school construction.

What constitutes "need" for school construction has been the subject of ongoing debate. Early on
the Commission recognized that no statewide method for determining a school district's construction
need exists. Consequently, each school district self reports what it deems to be its school
construction needs. Regardless of how the need for school construction is assessed, the Commission
determined that the need for new and improved school facilities exists.

Public school construction is currently financed through a combination of state and local revenue
sources. Given its charge, the Commission set out to examine alternative sources of revenue for
school construction in light of desired revenue policy goals, such as fairness, ease of administration,
ability to bond, desirability of local efforts, and state assistance. The Commission studied both state
and local alternative revenue sources for school construction, including: the Intangible Tax (Part C),
the Documentary Stamp Tax, the Sales and Use Tax, expansion of the Gross Receipts Tax,
redistributing PECO, swapping the local option 2 mill ad valorem tax for a one cent local option
sales tax, authorizing a local option documentary stamp tax, options using the Local Option School
Capital Outlay Surtax, a School Capacity Assessment, and the viability of the Unified Tax,
Telecommunication Taxes and E-Commerce Taxes.

Based on presentations and deliberations, the Commission concluded that school capital outlay needs
are not uniform throughout the state and are most acute in large districts or districts experiencing
rapid growth. The Commission also concluded that adequate and appropriate educational facilities
are critical to a high quality education. The use of innovative techniques and technologies to reduce
the need for space should be encouraged. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that school
impact fees should be eliminated and supplanted by a reliable, bondable and recurring source of









revenue for school construction. However, the Commission determined that school impact fees
should only be eliminated if the 15 counties that currently impose them are reimbursed.

The Commission further concluded that because the need for school construction is not uniform
throughout the state, local school districts should have the authority to raise revenue to address the
need experienced in their districts. Authorizing local school boards to implement a one cent sales
tax, in exchange for rolling back 2 mills, or a .5 cent sales tax in exchange for rolling back 1 mill,
would provide most school districts additional funds to meet those needs. School boards should be
given maximum flexibility in implementing the local revenue option by majority vote.

Based upon its conclusions, the Commission recommends that an additional state revenue source,
either the General Revenue portion of the Intangible Tax, Part C (the mortgage portion) or another
appropriate source, be dedicated for school construction. The Commission further recommends that
this state portion be used to supplant school impact fees in the 15 counties currently imposing such
fees, and dedicate the remainder of this source for school construction in all 67 counties based on
the Legislature's 1997 Special Session formula. This formula is based on both growth and the
current full time equivalent (FTE) student population, thereby ensuring that all counties receive
assistance. The Commission believes that this recommendation would assist the state in meeting its
constitutional duty to ensure that adequate provisions are made for a high quality system of
education.

As stated previously, because the need for school construction is not uniform throughout Florida,
the Commission additionally recommends that local school districts be authorized to levy a one cent
sales tax, in exchange for rolling back 2 mills, or a .5 cent sales tax in exchange for rolling back 1
mill, by majority vote of the school board for school construction. The Commission recommends
the elimination of school impact fees upon implementation of either the alternative state revenue
source, as long as it remains in law, or local alternative revenue source, provided that the school
district exercises the option. The Commission believes that these recommendations would provide
the local school districts with much needed funding and flexibility to locally address the problems
of school overcrowding and other school capital outlay needs, such as renovation, technology, and
transportation.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Introduction ........................................................ 1

I. Issues in School Construction ................................... 2

II. Previous Efforts .............. ... .............................. 5

III. Current Funding Methods for School Construction ................. 9

IV. School Impact Fees .......................... ......... ......... 13

V. Alternative Funding Methods for School Construction ............... 16

VI. Commission's Assessment of Alternative Funding Methods
for School Construction ............................. ........ 25

VII. Conclusions ................................................... 32

VIII. Recommendations ............................................. 33



APPENDIX

1. 16 18, Chapter 99-239, Laws of Florida
2. Florida School Construction Finance Commission Members
3. School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators
4. 1998-99 Summary of School Construction Cost
5. Florida Student Population Growth Charts
6. Education Fixed Capital Outlay (Public Schools) Table
7. School Construction Finance Data
8. Intangibles Tax (Part C) Collections
9. Documentary Stamp Tax Collections
10. Gross Receipts Tax Collections








INTRODUCTION


In 1999, pursuant to Ch. 99-239, Laws of Florida, the Legislature created the Florida School
Construction Finance Commission (FSCFC).' Created as an advisory body to the Governor and the
Legislature, the Commission was charged with studying alternative methods of funding school
construction, the pros and cons of each method of funding, and formulating revenue policies that
consider construction revenue needs, the availability of alternative funding, and other accepted policy
goals, including fairness and ease of administration. Chapter 99-239 also provided a moratorium
until July 1, 2000 on all new school impact fees or increases to school impact fees adopted after May
1, 1999. The Commission interpreted this moratorium on school impact fees to indicate that
considering a replacement source for school impact fees should be a major focus of its charge.

The Commission is comprised of 15 members: six appointed by the Governor, four appointed by the
President of the Senate, four appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and one
appointed by the Commissioner of Education.2 Chapter 99-239 specified that by February 1, 2000,
the Commission shall issue a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives summarizing its findings, stating its conclusions, and presenting its
recommendations.

Chapter 99-239 also directed the Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR) to
provide technical support. Staff from the LCIR collected and prepared material for the Commission,
arranged for presentations, and provided technical assistance and administrative support. Dr. Robert
Bradley, Director of Florida State University Institute of Science and Public Affairs, also provided
technical expertise, as well as staff of the Senate Fiscal Resource Committee, House Finance and
Tax Committee, and Office of Economic and Demographic Research.

The organizational meeting of the Commission was held in Tallahassee on October 4, 1999. At this
meeting the members elected Tom Greer as Chair and Benton Murphey as Vice Chair. Given that
the Commission's final report and recommendations were due to the Governor and the Legislature
on February 1, 2000, the Commission decided to meet biweekly. The Commission held six
meetings; three in Tallahassee, and meetings in Tampa, Orlando, and West Palm Beach.

This report summarizes the Commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Part I
discusses current issues in school construction. Part II summarizes the previous efforts of other
commissions, task forces, and the Legislature's 1997 Special Session in resolving these issues. Part
III explains how school construction is currently funded. Part IV discusses school impact fees and
the testimony presented to the Commission regarding this topic. Part V presents an overview of the
alternative methods of funding school construction and the pros and cons of each option discussed.
Part VI summarizes the Commission's assessment of the alternative school construction funding
methods. Part VII lists the Commission conclusions. Part VIII presents the Commission's
recommendations.




See Appendix, No. 1, 16-18, Ch. 99-239, Laws of Florida.

2 See Appendix, No. 2, Florida School Construction Finance Commission Members.









I. ISSUES IN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION


One of the results of Florida's explosive growth rate is the school overcrowding in some districts
caused by the lack of school facilities. In the past decade, five commissions and one legislative
Special Session have studied ways to remedy the gap between the growing student population and
the available number of student stations. However, financing the billions of dollars to build the
necessary school facilities continues to challenge the state and local school districts. Consequently,
the Florida School Construction Finance Commission was tasked with studying alternative methods
of financing school construction.

In November 1998, Florida's voters overwhelmingly approved to amend Article IX, 1 of the
Florida Constitution as follows:

The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of
Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision
for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision
shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality
system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality
education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions
of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the
people may require.3

An appropriate environment is necessary to achieve such a high quality education. In order to meet
its constitutional duty to make adequate provision for a high quality education, the state should
continue to strengthen its partnership with local school districts to meet the state's school
construction needs.

Early on, the Commission acknowledged that what constitutes a district's need for school
construction has been the object of contentious debate.4 In 1997, during the Legislature's Special
Session addressing school overcrowding, the need for school construction was assessed at anywhere
from $3 billion to $12 billion. Although $ 2.7 billion was ultimately funded as a result of the Special
Session, a gap was still left, especially for repair and renovation of existing facilities. Comparable





3 Proposed by the 1997-98 Constitution Revision Commission as Revision No. 6, filed
with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted November 3, 1998. According to the Florida
Department of State, of the 3,693,295 votes cast on Revision 6, 71 percent voted "Yes" for
approval and 29 percent voted "No" for rejection.

4 Testimony of Spessard Boatright, Executive Director of the SMART School
Clearinghouse, October 4, 1999 meeting.









and reliable data on unmet educational facility need in each school district is not available.5 Each
school district self reports what it deems to be its school construction needs.6 Regardless of whether
school construction need is assessed by the state or by the districts, the Commission determined that
need for school construction, renovation, and maintenance exists.

The Commission was presented with testimony regarding the current cost of school construction.7
Based on 1998 data, the average cost of: an elementary school is $9.2 million; a middle school is
$13.8 million; and a high school is $28.6 million. Moreover, the Commission was presented with
testimony regarding the continuing need of repair and renovations for existing educational facilities.

Several school districts gave presentations before the Commission regarding their school
constructions needs.8 These presentations verified that the current student population exceeds the
number of student stations available to properly educate them in several school districts. Further,
school construction needs are not uniform throughout the state. Large districts, such as Miami-Dade
and Broward, and districts experiencing rapid growth, such as Osceola, bear the brunt of educational
facility shortfalls and inadequacies. For this reason, the Commission found that local districts
needed additional authority and flexibility to address the school construction situation in their
district.

Additionally, the Commission found that some districts rely on aging facilities to meet their needs.9
The fact that several of the funding sources available for school facilities are limited to new
construction further compounds the problem of inadequately maintained educational facilities. Lack
of funds to maintain and properly repair and renovate these existing facilities broadens the gap
between the student population and the number of student stations necessary to educate them.


5 All 67 school districts self report their need for school construction based on their own
independent criteria. For example, one district may include the replacement of all portables in
their need calculation while another district may not, or, a district may not have fully utilized all
authorized local revenue sources and conclude that its needs are not met. See Appendix, No. 3,
School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators.

6 See Appendix, No. 3.

7 Presentation by Suzanne Marshall, Education Facilities Bureau Chief, Department of
Education, at the Commission's October 4, 1999 meeting. See Appendix No. 4, 1998-99 School
Construction Data Summary.

Miami-Dade, Orange, Broward, Flagler, Hillsborough, Osceola, Palm Beach, St. Lucie
and Pinellas.

9 For example, in Hillsborough County approximately 50 percent of their educational
facilities are over 50 years old. Testimony of Jim Hamilton, Deputy Superintendent,
Hillsborough County Schools at the FSCFC's October 18, 1999 meeting in Orlando, Florida.









Lastly, the Commission was presented with testimony that the current deficit in school construction
would not last indefinitely, but would move on to affect higher education facilities as the student
population aged.10 However, the student population has exceeded the number of available student
stations for decades. Consequently, the long standing school construction deficit will continue to
affect the need for school construction, long after the growth in student population tapers off.
Therefore, the Commission sought to find solutions that would address the situation without
encouraging overbuilding.




































10 Testimony of Ed Montanaro, Director of the Florida legislative Office for Economic
and Demographic Research at the FSCFC's November 1, 1999 meeting in Tallahassee, Florida.
See Appendix, No.5, Student Population Growth Charts.









II. PREVIOUS EFFORTS


In the last three decades, Florida student population, ages 5 -17, has increased significantly." This
has led to an unprecedented need for school facilities and has resulted in school overcrowding in
several districts. As stated previously, in the last decade at least five commissions and one
legislative Special Session have studied the issue of the need for and funding of school construction.
Some of the findings of the more significant efforts are summarized within this section.

Facilities Task Force 1989-1993

The Facilities Task Force was first appointed in February 1989 by the Commissioner of Education.
The mission of the Task Force was to assess the state's needs regarding public educational facilities,
and to make recommendations to the Commissioner on how to meet those capital outlay needs
through the next decade. The Task Force examined current and anticipated needs, identified
potential funding sources, and made recommendations regarding alternative funding initiatives. The
issues considered by the Task Force were more numerous than the narrower focus of the Florida
School Construction Finance Commission (FSCFC).

In February 1990, the Task Force issued "A Report to The Commissioner." In its report, extensive
recommendations were made. Not only fiscal topics were addressed; other items were evaluated,
as well. For example, the group examined: expanding the role of the Department of Education to
help local school districts more fully utilize current facilities, expanding the school day or school
year, increasing the Gross Receipts Utilities Tax rate, and allowing nonbonded Public Education
Capital Outlay (PECO) funds to be used for leasing relocatable educational facilities.

The Task Force issued "A Supplemental Report to the Commissioner" in February 1991. This
Supplement was, however, more limited in scope than the original report. In the Supplement, the
Task Force reiterated its recommendation to amend existing statutory language to define "utility"
more broadly in order to expand the tax base of the Gross Receipts Utilities Tax. The Task Force
further recommended that the constitutional restriction on the maturation date of bonds from the sale
of PECO funds and motor vehicle license tag fees be deleted. Lastly, the Task Force provided an
allocation scheme for PECO funds to "incorporate equalization factors." As a result of the Task
Force's work, several legislative changes were made. These are summarized in the Summary of
Recommendations and September 8, 1993 Status of the Facility Task Force Recommendations, as
updated February 27, 1990.

Shortly before that summary was issued, a new Facilities Task Force was appointed by the
Commissioner of Education. Three areas were addressed specifically: (1) cost effectiveness, which
included cost containment and building construction quality; (2) growth management and


In 1970, Florida's K 12 student population was estimated at 1.6 million. In 2000,
Florida K-12 student population is estimated to have grown to 2.5 million. Source: Demographic
Estimating Conference Database.









concurrency, and; (3) equity as to tax base, including alternative funding mechanisms. Other issues
arose, such as the distribution formula of PECO funds, but were not the primary focus of the
analysis.

The recommendations that resulted from this Task Force were reported to the Commissioner on
December 27, 1993. Most suggested changes would require amendments to the Florida
Administrative Code, although a few called for statutory changes. The recommendations regarding
cost effectiveness focused primarily on decentralizing and streamlining the processes involved in
planning, designing and building educational facilities. Growth management related
recommendations urged greater coordination between, and clearer role definition for, local school
boards and local governments. The group's recommendations regarding equity were not, by and
large, new. Once again the Task Force promoted expanding the tax base of the Gross Receipts
Utilities Tax and increasing the tax rate. Deficiencies in the PECO distribution scheme were
identified, but the Task Force felt that further study was warranted prior to making recommendations
on that subject.

Florida Education Facilities Study Committee 1994

In 1994, the Legislature created the Florida Education Facilities Study Committee to evaluate a
variety of issues relating to public education facilities. The Committee was instructed to review:
current and projected capital facility needs; planning, design, and construction methodologies;
emerging technology needs; program options that impact efficient use of facilities; capital financing
methodologies and alternatives; and public-private options.12 The group organized itself into two
subcommittees; one focused on capital financing and public-private options, the other concentrated
on design, planning and construction methodologies. Technology related items were addressed by
the Committee as a whole.

The recommendations in the Final Report, presented on December 30, 1994, were numerous. The
recommendations were organized into finance related suggestions and proposals regarding design
and construction. Some of the proposals were new, others reiterated recommendations made by prior
Task Forces. With regard to finance related matters, for example, the Committee again urged
expanding the base for the Gross Receipts Utilities Tax and suggested increasing the tax rate.
Another recommendation provided that more communities should consider levying local education
impact fees. As for the design and construction of facilities, several proposals were made to
streamline those processes.

Subsequently, several changes were made to Chapter 235, Fla. Stat."3 Certain aspects of decision
making was transferred from the state to local school districts. Innovative construction management
was encouraged, and the expenditure of PECO funds for enumerated items was explicitly prohibited.


12 See Ch. 94-292, 23, at 2053, Laws of Fla.

13 See Ch. 95-269, Laws of Fla.








The role of the Department of Education shifted from regulatory and compliance responsibilities to
providing technical assistance.

Governor's Commission on Education 1996-1998

More recently, in 1996, the late Governor Lawton Chiles established by Executive Order the
Governor's Commission on Education, and charged that Commission with developingn] consensus
about meeting Florida's education challenges for the next decade and to assist in accomplishing that
task." The Commission was comprised of numerous state public and private leaders, including
Governor Chiles, Senate President Toni Jennings and House Speaker Daniel Webster. The
Commission's mission was broad, and their recommendations correspondingly numerous. While
many innovative suggestions were presented by the Commission when it issued its Final Report in
November 1998, some of the proposals were similar to those previously made by earlier Task Forces,
particularly those proposals addressing financial issues.

This Commission worked for close to two years, addressing myriad issues. It is noteworthy that
about halfway through the Commission's project, the Legislature was called to a Special Session by
Governor Chiles. The focus of the Special Session was how to abate the overcrowding of Florida's
public schools. Consequently, the Commission's Interim Report and recommendations preceded the
conclusion of the Special Session. However, the Final Report was presented close to one year after
the Special Session was over and legislation had been passed.

Initially, the Commission recognized that the state's share of public school financing has declined,
while the local share has increased significantly. In response, the Commission offered what it termed
"A Balanced Solution" to public school financing -- one that would redistribute financing
responsibilities between the state and local governments.

The first proposal made by the Commission called for creating an independent board at the state
level. One of the primary charges of this board would be to ensure adequate construction standards.
The board would also be charged with setting standards to ensure that technology equipment did not
become obsolete before five years.

The second recommendation by the Commission was purely fiscal in nature. The Commission
recommended that there be established a recurring state fund containing $50 to $100-million. These
funds could be used by school districts under certain circumstances, provided that the school district
had levied the full two mills and that the cost of the school facility fell within certain parameters.

Increasing the Gross Receipts Tax was offered once again as part of the way to meet school
construction needs. This Commission's plan called for a multi-year program that increased the base
of the tax, as well as increased the rate of the tax on an annual basis.

Lastly, the Commission recommended establishing a formula for setting PECO appropriations at a
certain level. Starting in 1998-99, the appropriations would be made on the basis of level funding,
using a five-year average of anticipated PECO appropriations.









Special Session of the Legislature 1997


As mentioned above, the Legislature convened in a Special Session in late 1997. Although
substantial changes to Chapter 235, Fla. Stat., had been made during the 1995 legislative session,
additional changes were called for. Consequently, the Legislature focused its attention on
educational facilities and abating the overcrowding of public schools.

The exact scope of the overcrowding dilemma was the subject of prolonged and spirited debate. The
Legislature examined the issues, and as a result of the Special Session, Chapter 97-384, Laws of
Florida, which created the SMART (Soundly-Made, Accountable, Reasonable and Thrifty) Schools
Act, was enacted. The Legislature appropriated a potential $2.7 billion to fund: (1) Classrooms First
Program;14 (2) the School Infrastructure Thrift (SIT) Program;'1 (3) Effort Index Grants;16 and (4)
the SMART Schools Small County Assistance Program for fiscal year 1998-99.17 Collectively, these
programs provide capital outlay funding for school districts to construct new student stations and
related core facilities to reduce overcrowding; to renovate, remodel, and repair existing school
facilities; and to replace old relocatables. The provisions of that law are discussed in more detail in
Section IIIA(3) of this report.

Despite the significant progress made by the Legislature in dealing with school overcrowding, some
sectors maintained that significant needs would continue to be unmet.

Summary

With regards to school construction financing, several of the commissions made similar
recommendations regarding expansion of the Gross Receipt Tax base. Another theme has been to
direct state resources that are earmarked for school construction, such as lottery bond proceeds, to
those districts that not only demonstrate a need, but demonstrate a willingness to both commit local
resources and have a plan for effective and efficient use of those resources. Despite the efforts of
previous commissions and the Legislature, finding adequate revenues to fund school capital outlay
continues to be an ongoing challenge.






14 235.187, Fla. Stat. (1997).

'5 235.2155, Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance
Data, Part I (H) SIT Funds.

16 235.186, Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance
Data, Part I (J) Effort Index Grants.

17 235.4355, Fla. Stat. (1998). Completed in February 1998.








III. CURRENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING METHODS

Public school construction is currently financed through a combination of state and local revenue
sources.'" Generally, local school boards are required to generate a "required local ad valorem tax
effort" of funding determined through a formula applied to the 67 school districts.

A. State Funding Sources

In 1986, the state funded 40 percent of the total capital outlay for educational facilities. Although
more state sources for school capital outlay funding exist today, the state's share has decreased to
23 percent.9 The major state sources of capital outlay funding include: the Public Education Capital
Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund, the School District and Community College Capital Outlay and
Debt Service Trust Fund, and the Classrooms First Program. A less significant source of funding
is provided by the Pari-mutual Wagering Trust Fund.

1. Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund

The Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund (PECO) is the primary source of
state capital outlay funding for Florida's school districts, community colleges, and the state
University System.20 PECO funds are generated by a 2.5 percent levy on the gross receipts of utility
companies and municipal corporations that provide electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication
services and those that transmit co-generated electrical power. Over 85 percent of PECO funds are
derived from bonds backed by the Gross Receipts Tax. PECO funds are used for new construction,
remodeling, renovation, repair, and site improvement of educational facilities.21

2. School District and Community College Capital Outlay and Debt
Service Trust Fund

Public schools and community colleges receive capital outlay funds from the constitutionally
authorized School District and Community College District Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust
Fund (CO&DS). CO&DS funds are derived from motor vehicle license tag fees and are distributed
according to the formula established by Article XII, section 9(d) of the State Constitution.22


'8 See Appendix, No. 6, Education Fixed Capital Outlay for Public Schools Table, A
Statistical Review of Education in Florida, 1999-2000; A Senate Budget Committee Report, p.
204-05.

'9 Testimony of Dr Robert Bradley, Director of Institute of Science and Public Affairs,
Florida State University, at the Commission's October 4, 1999 meeting.
20 It is the only state capital outlay source for state universities.

21 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part I(B) PECO Dollars.

22 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part I(C) CO&DS Dollars.










3. SMART Schools


As a result of the Legislature's November 1997 Special Session to address public school
overcrowding, Chapter 97-384, Laws of Florida, created the Soundly-Made, Accountable,
Reasonable and Thrifty (SMART) Schools Act.23 The SMART Schools Act appropriated a potential
$2.7 billion from General Revenue and the proceeds of School Capital Outlay Bonds backed by the
pledge of lottery funds. These appropriations primarily fund three major and one minor program:
(1) Classrooms First Program;24 (2) the School Infrastructure Thrift (SIT) Program;25 (3) Effort Index
Grants;26 and (4) the SMART Schools Small County Assistance Program for fiscal year 1998-99.27
Collectively, these programs provide capital outlay funding for school districts to construct new
student stations and related core facilities to reduce overcrowding; to renovate, remodel, and repair
existing school facilities; and to replace old relocatables. Appropriations for these programs add to
local capital outlay sources and state capital outlay sources.

The SMART Schools Act requires each district to develop and annually update a 5-year district
facilities work program, balancing planned capital outlay expenditures and anticipated revenues. The
law encourages districts to build functional and frugal schools. The law also encourages districts to
maximize their local effort and authorizes monetary awards for districts which build frugally but still
cannot meet their student station needs after exhausting available state and local capital outlay
resources. The Act establishes an independent SMART Schools Clearinghouse to recommend frugal
design and construction standards, review districts' performance in meeting those standards in their
5-year capital outlay work programs; and to recommend SIT (School Infrastructure Thrift) Program
awards and Effort Index Grants.

A large amount of funds available to the SIT program and Effort Index Grants have yet to be
utilized. A total of $450 million has been allocated to the SIT program and approximately $82.4
million has been dispensed to school districts after recommendation by the SMART Schools
Clearinghouse and by the Department of Education to date. A total of $300 million has been
allocated for Effort Index Grants and approximately $5 million has been dispensed by the
Department of Education to date. The draw down of these funds is expected to take between three


23 235.217, Fla. Stat. (1997).

24 235.187, Fla. Stat. (1997).

25 235.2155, Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance
Data, Part I (H) SIT Funds.

26 235.186, Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance
Data, Part I (J) Effort Index Grants.

27 235.4355, Fla. Stat. (1998). Completed in February 1998.









to eight years. Several factors influence this schedule, including the time to design and build a
facility, and the priority to use PECO and CO&DS funds to avoid reversions and penalties.
Information on the disbursement of the SIT program and Effort Index Grants is updated on a
regular basis on the Department of Education's Internet website found at www.firn.edu/doe/oef.

4. Pari-mutuel Wagering Trust Fund

Some school districts receive funds generated by the tax on pari-mutuel wagering. Each county
government receives an equal share of $29.5 millions of the pari-mutuel tax. Many counties share
these revenues with the school district through interlocal agreements or if required by local or
special law. Otherwise, the revenues are used at the discretion of the board of county
commissioners.

B. Local Funding Sources

Local school districts have the authority to implement any of the following to address their school
construction needs. Counties have the authority to levy school impact fees on behalf of their school
districts. School impact fees will be discussed further in Part IV of this report.

1. Nonvoted, Discretionary Capital Outlay Millage Levy

Each district school board may levy up to 2 mills of non-voted, ad valorem tax for the capital
outlay purposes defined by 236.25(2), Fla. Stat. The statute has been amended many times since
1980 to give school districts more flexibility in using this local revenue source.28

2. Voter-approved Millage Levies/Bonds

A district school board may levy an ad valorem tax in excess of the constitutional cap of 10 mills
for up to two years with voter approval, and for voter-approved bond issues backed by ad valorem
taxes. In 1998, 21 school districts reported having referendum voted millage.29

3. Optional Capital Outlay Surtax

In 1995, the Legislature authorized a local option "half-penny" sales tax for capital outlay. Each
district school board may levy, with approval by referendum, a discretionary sales surtax of up
to 0.5 percent on all items subject to state sales tax, except for amounts exceeding $5,000 on any
item of tangible personal property or long distance service. School districts may use the proceeds
of the tax to fund school capital outlay projects, technology implementation, and to pay debt


28 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part I(A) 1998-99 Millage.

29 Local Government Financial Information Handbook (September 1999), Table 7.









service on bonds, but may not use the proceeds for operating expenses. Each district that levies
the surtax must freeze discretionary noncapital property taxes for at least 3 years at the assessment
level of the year prior to implementing the surtax.0

4. Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax

Through interlocal agreements county governments may dedicate all or part of their local
government infrastructure sales surtax for school-related infrastructure. Osceola and Sarasota
counties allocate part of their one cent levy for education capital outlay.31

5. School Impact Fees

Pursuant to their home rule authority, local governments may assess school impact fees on new
development to fund infrastructure needs brought about by the new development. Currently, 15
counties impose school construction impact fees on all new residential development within their
county.32 The collections, minus an administrative handling fee, are given to school districts through
interlocal agreements. In 1998 school impact fee collections ranged from just over $200,000 in
Citrus County to nearly $20 million in Miami-Dade with a statewide total of $70,057,929. As a
result of Chapter 99-239, Laws of Florida, all new school impact fees or increases to school
impact fees adopted after May 1, 1999 shall not take effect until July 1, 2000.















30 Eight counties currently levy the surtax at the maximum rate of 0.5 percent: Bay,
Escambia, Gulf, Hernando, Jackson, Monroe, Santa Rosa and St. Lucie Counties. See also
Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part I(G) Surtax.

31 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part I(G) Surtax.

32 These counties are: Broward, Citrus, Collier, Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake,
Martin, Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Seminole, and
Volusia. See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II (FF) Impact Fees
and (GG) Estimated Impact Fee Collections.









IV. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES


As stated previously, Ch. 99-239, L.O.F., placed a moratorium on school impact fees and created this
Commission to study alternative methods of funding school construction. The Commission
interpreted its charge to include considering a replacement source for school impact fees.

The concept behind impact fees is that "[t]he cost of new facilities should be borne by new users
to the extent new use requires new facilities, but only to that extent."33 In order to withstand legal
challenge, an impact fee levied by a local government must meet what the courts term the dual
rational nexus test, i.e., (1) there must be a reasonable connection between the need for additional
capital facilities and the growth in population generated by the new development; and (2) the local
government must show a reasonable connection between the expenditures of the funds collected and
the benefits accruing to the new development. In order to show this reasonable connection, the
ordinance authorizing the fee "must specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring
capital facilities to benefit the new residents."34

On October 5, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments in Volusia County v. Aberdeen at
Ormond Beach, Case No. 95-345. In this case, Volusia County, under its charter powers, imposed
a school impact fee on residential property for the purpose of recouping education costs caused by
developments. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, a trailer park restricted to retirees, sued the county on
grounds it should not have to pay the fee since its residents send no children to school. The trial court
agreed, and the 5th District Court of Appeal certified the case to the Supreme Court. To date, the
Court has not issued its opinion.

A. Variations Among County Ordinances.

Currently, 15 counties collect impact fees for school construction, as illustrated below.

1999 Impact Fee Collections
Broward $8,240,045 Hillsborough $1,586,915 Palm Bch $7,013,959
Citrus $206,610 Lake $2,733,503 Seminole $3,613,573
Collier $8,043,865 Martin $1,227,484 St Johns $641,732
Miami-Dade $19,685,638 Orange $11,592,731 St Lucie $1,054,128
Hernando $1,512,925 Osceola $1,831,981 Volusia $2,486,164
____TOTAL $71.471.254
Source: School Construction Finance Data Part II




33 See Contractors and Builders Association ofPinellas County v. City ofDunedin, 329
So.2d 314, 321 (Fla. 1976). See also, St. Johns County v. N.E. Florida Builders Association,
Inc., 583 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1991).

34 See Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606, 611-12 (Fla. 4th DCA),
review denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1983).









School impact fee collection and administration varies among the 15 counties. In most counties, the
fees are due before the building permit is issued, however, in Osceola and Volusia counties, these
fees are not due until issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Fee amounts are generally set on three
levels and levied accordingly; single family, multi family, and mobile home. However, Miami-Dade
has a single formula based on square footage that applies to all types of development. The fee
schedules of the counties cover a great range, the lowest and highest shown below.

Hillsborough County Orange County

multi family $9 $1,280
mobile home $57 $1,660
single family $64 $2,119

In Miami-Dade County, which uses a standardized formula, the fee for a 2500 sq. ft house would
be $3,420.

The county ordinances provide for individual calculation of actual "impact" based on specified
criteria if the applicant feels the standard rate is too high. However, most of the scheduled fees
reflect a discounted impact so as to encourage use of the standard rates, and to cut administrative
costs. Developers can also receive credit towards their school impact fee for monetary and/or land
donations made towards capital education facilities. Exceptions and exemptions from school impact
fees also exist for non-impact producing development, such as non-residential development and
low-income housing development.

School impact fees are collected by both cities and counties, and are deposited into a single county
trust fund created especially for purposes of providing growth necessitated educational facilities.
The funds are allocated by the county to the school district based on criteria that vary among the
counties. For example, Citrus County requires development of project priority lists, Hillsborough
County has specified school siting criteria, Miami-Dade County has defined benefit districts, and
Lake County has a specially created Lake County Impact Fee Committee for this process. The
allocation requires an interlocal agreement between the county and the school board to ensure proper
use of the funds.

Each county ordinance outlines for what purposes the funds may be used. The specificity of these
provisions ranges from itemized lists to general clauses such as, "for which purposes the board sees
fit." In all counties, the money is to be used only for new growth necessitated educational facilities,
and not for correcting current deficiencies or for maintenance or repair of existing facilities. The use
is subject to review by the county. The Osceola County ordinance explicitly prohibits use of these
funds to secure indebtedness or to otherwise pay the principal and/or interest on bond issues.
However, the ordinances in Volusia and Seminole explicitly allow payment of bonds and other
indebtedness from these funds, while other ordinances are silent on this issue.

Each ordinance provides for a review of the current fee schedule in light of changing impact
measures and educational costs. This review is to analyze effects of inflation and other factors









affecting the fee schedule and should ensure that the fee charged does not exceed its pro rata share
of expansion costs. This review is usually done annually or biannually by the county commissioners
and/or school board, as specified in the ordinances.

During deliberations, the Commission was presented with testimony opposing any restrictions on
county authority to impose school impact fees, unless a secure and recurring funding program that
does not use county revenue sources is adopted by the Legislature.3 It was also emphasized that
school impact fees allow growth to help pay for itself and that elimination could set a damaging
precedence with respect to their use as a growth management tool .36

B. Limitations

The Commission also heard testimony that the relationship between new development and the need
for new school facilities is not clear. Larger families moving into existing developments can have
a significant impact on school overcrowding and yet these purchases would not qualify for
imposition of an impact fee.37 Additionally, the Commission was presented with further testimony
that in the case of school impact fees, which are usually collected at the time residential building
permits are issued, the money becomes available for use late in the school planning process.

School impact fees are not viewed by the financial community as a primary source of revenue for
securing capital debt financing due to the amount of funds typically raised and the variability of the
rate at which the funds are collected.38 This presents a further problem for school districts
experiencing need. School district representatives testified that they need more authority and
flexibility to raise funds locally for school construction. Thus, the Commission set out to find a more
reliable, bondable, recurring, and broad-based source of revenue to replace school impact fees.





35 Testimony of Bob McKee, Legislative Counsel for the Florida Association of
Counties, at the Commission's December 6, 1999 meeting.

36 Testimony of Bill Jones, representing Marcia K. Elder, Executive Director, of the
Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association, at the Commission's November 1, 1999
meeting.

37 Testimony of Richard Gentry, Legislative Counsel for the Florida Home Builders
Association, at the Commission's October 4, 1999 meeting.
38 "Capital Financing/How State and Local Factors Impact Borrowing Costs," presented
by Jerry Ford, Financial Advisor, Ford & Associates, specializing in local government finances,
at the Commission's November 15, 1999 meeting.









V. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING METHODS


As charged by law, the Commission studied both state and local alternative methods of funding
school construction and the pros and cons of each method. The Commission interpreted its charge
in part to review alternative revenue sources as compared to school impact fees. The Commission
began with the premise that at a minimum, a recurring and bondable funding source should be
considered to replace school impact fees. The Commission also sought to recommend additional
revenue sources to address the continuing student population growth and the maintenance and
renovation needs of existing school facilities.

The following desired revenue policy goals were used when considering the alternative revenue
sources.

* Constitutional responsibility. In light of Article IX, s.1, of the Florida Constitution, the
state should lead by example and partner with local school districts to assist them with
meeting their school construction needs.

* Desirability of local effort. Because the need for school construction is not uniform
throughout the state, local school districts need to participate in addressing their school
construction needs.

* Fairness. To ensure fairness, the pool of contributors to the funding source should be broad.
This goal is necessary so that no one group is burdened with a disproportionate share of the
district's school construction.

* Ability to bond. The source of revenue should be bondable for maximum efficiency. This
aspect further assists districts in meeting their unmet school construction needs.

* Ease of administration. The revenue source should be easy to administer in order to
encourage school districts to take action in resolving their school construction needs.

* No penalty to districts that imposed impact fees. Any action to replace impact fees should
ensure that the 15 districts that currently impose school impact fees should be held harmless
and not be penalized by this change in policy.

The revenue sources and the specific funding options considered by the Commission are discussed
on the following pages.









A. State Sources.


1. Intangible Tax (Part C)39

The tax on intangible personal property is the only property tax that the state may collect under the
Florida Constitution. All other taxes based on property value are reserved for local governments.
Part C of the Intangible Tax, the non-recurring portion, consists of obligations secured by mortgage,
deed of trust, or other lien upon real property in Florida, which are taxed at 2 mills at the time they
are recorded. Just under two-thirds of Intangible Tax revenue goes to General Revenue, with 38
percent distributed to the counties. It is estimated that in fiscal year 2000-2001, Part C total yield
for General Revenue will be approximately $124.3 million.40 This is a reduction from the
approximately $131 million of General Revenue derived from this source in 1998-99. The reduction
is due to an assumption of rising mortgage interest rates. The Commission also considered it
important to hold counties harmless for the portion of the Part C revenues currently distributed to
the counties.

Option: Secure the General Revenue portion of the funds collected by Intangible
Tax (Part C)for school construction.

During deliberations, the Commission noted that a positive aspect of this option is that it is an
existing source and consequently, would not constitute a new tax. The Commission further noted
that revenues collected pursuant to Part C of the Intangible Tax would be a possible bondable source
of revenue. Moreover, these revenues would be sensitive to growth in construction and the resale
market. The Commission also believed that tapping this source would be feasible when compared
to other revenue sources because there has been less competition for Part C revenues. On the other
hand, the Commission noted that Part C revenues have been influenced by lending rates and that
tapping this source for school construction would reduce the state's General Revenue.

2. Documentary Stamp Tax

The Documentary Stamp tax is actually two different taxes imposed on different bases at different
rates. The tax on deeds and other documents related to real property is imposed at the rate of 70





39 See 199.133, Fla. Stat. Though repealed and reenacted in 1971 as Intangible Personal
Property Tax, Part II, Nonrecurring Tax, this tax has historically been referred to as Intangible
Tax, Part C as codified in the in the 1968 Florida Statutes. Accordingly, 199.133, Fla. Stat.,
will be referred to as Part C in this Report.

40 January 12, 2000 Florida Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference. See also,
Appendix, No. 8, Intangibles C Collections.









cents per $100.41 Corporate shares, certificates of indebtedness, promissory notes, wage assignments
and retail charge account agreements are taxed at 35 cents per $100. Revenue from documentary
stamps is divided between the General Revenue Fund which receives just under half of total
collections and various trust funds, including Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever. It is estimated
that in fiscal year 1999-2000, total collection from this tax will yield $1.1 billion.42 However, most
of this amount is already dedicated to other sources.43

Option: Dedicate the revenues from the Documentary Stamp Tax for school
construction.

The Commission considered it a plus that this option would yield potentially bondable revenues that
are related to growth and construction. Consequently, this source may keep up with school
construction needs. Alternatively, because the Documentary Stamp Tax is related to real estate
transactions, it is cyclical and would prove volatile in times of economic downturns. Furthermore,
the Documentary Stamp Tax is currently distributed to a variety of entities, ensuring competition for
this source. However, the Commission considered that once the state meets its obligation to fund
Florida Forever, the remaining $100 million that currently goes to General Revenue could be
considered a viable source to fund school construction.

3. Sales and Use Tax

Florida's Sales and Use tax is a 6 percent levy on retail sales of most tangible personal property,
admissions, transient lodging, commercial rentals and motor vehicles. As such, it is the premier
source of general revenue to the state. It is estimated that collections of this tax will yield $14.6
billion in fiscal year 1999-2000.44 Disposition of these funds are: 92 percent to General Revenue
fund ($13.4 billion); 5 percent to local governments ($1.2 billion); and smaller percentages to the
Sports Facilities Transfer Fund ($16 million) and the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund ($29
million), etc.





41 Except for Miami-Dade County where the rate is 60 cents per $100. Miami-Dade
County also has its own additional documentary stamp tax of 45 cents per $100, which goes to
the county, not the school district.

42 1999 Florida Tax Handbook, p. 41. See also Part I(P) Documentary Stamp Tax
Collections. See also, Appendix, No. 9, Documentary Stamp Tax Collections.

43 Approximately $400 million currently goes to General Revenue. Of that amount,
approximately $300 million is obligated to fund Florida Forever.

44 1999 Florida Tax Handbook, p. 98.









Option: Secure a portion of the funds generated by the State Sales and Use Tax
for school construction.

The positive aspects of tapping the Sales and Use Tax for school construction are that it broadens
the pool of contributors to school construction, i.e., Florida's tourism industry. The Sales and Use
Tax is also a bondable source of revenue which offers a long term solution that has growth potential
and tracks growth. Furthermore, the Sales and Use Tax may prove less volatile than other revenue
sources in times of economic downturns. However, because the Sales and Use Tax is the state's
premier source of revenue, the Commission considered that any attempt to tap it directly for school
construction would be problematic.

4. Gross Receipts Tax

The Gross Receipts Tax is imposed at the rate of 2.5 percent on the gross receipts of sellers of
electricity, natural or manufactured gas, and telecommunications services in Florida. The revenues
collected pursuant to this tax fund PECO, discussed on page 9. Projections for fiscal year 1999-2000
estimate that $642.5 million will be collected pursuant to this tax.45

Option: Expand the Gross Receipts Tax by either expanding the base or
eliminating an exemption, Le., cable, water, and/or sewer.46

Expansion of the Gross Receipts Tax has been recommended by several past commissions that have
studied the issue of school construction funding. One positive aspect of expanding the Gross
Receipts Tax and earmarking the revenues for school construction is that it is currently the state's
main source of revenue for school construction. Further, such revenues would be both a bondable
and reliable source of revenue and would track growth. Conversely, because the need for school
construction is not uniform throughout the state and larger districts and districts experiencing rapid
growth usually have more need, the Commission considered that expanding the statewide Gross
Receipts Tax to primarily benefit a few counties would be politically difficult. The Commission also






45 1999 Florida Tax Handbook, p. 51. See also, Appendix, No. 10, 1999-2000 Real GRT
Collections.

46 For example, if cable, water and sewer were taxed, there would be an increase in real
revenue per student and some growth. In the case of cable, a 2.5 percent tax would have
produced approximately $20 million in calendar year 1998. See Appendix, No. 10, Real GRT
Collections per FTE, 99-00 $ Effect of adding water, sewer and CATV. The value of the cable
exemption in 1997-98 was approximately $49.8 million with an anticipated minimal growth rate
of 5 percent per year.









considered that electric deregulation poses a threat to Gross Receipts Tax revenues.47 It was also
acknowledged that pulling in sources currently exempt could be construed as a new tax and likely
would be difficult to obtain the support of the Legislature. The Commission acknowledged that
while it may be desirable to expand the Gross Receipts Tax, this has been recommended by several
commissions to no avail.

5. Redistributing PECO

Originally intended to fund capital outlay for higher education, funds collected for the Public
Education Capital Outlay (PECO) and Debt Service Trust Fund, contained in 235.435(1), Florida
Statutes, are currently divided among the state university system, community colleges, and the public
school system (grades K through 12). Public schools receive approximately 50 percent of PECO
funds, while the state university system and community colleges receive approximately 25 percent
each. Despite the fact that all schools within a district earn a portion of PECO funds, districts
receive a lump sum from PECO and the funds are allocated by the school board.

Option: Revise the PECO distribution formula to measure student population
growth across school districts.

The Commission considered revising the PECO distribution formula to more closely track student
population growth across districts. This change in the distribution formula would direct PECO funds
from community colleges, currently experiencing a decrease in enrollments, to school districts.

One benefit of this option is that by tying the formula to enrollment, the PECO fund could more
directly address the need for school construction. Alternatively, the Commission noted that
frequently there is a lag between the need for school construction and the disbursal of these funds.
The Commission recognized that unless the need for school construction is accurately projected the
lag would continue. The Commission also noted that previously suggested modifications to the
PECO formula have not been supported by community colleges and the state university system.
Additionally, the incremental gain in PECO funds is the only portion that is bondable. The
incremental gain, however, varies greatly from year to year. Therefore, the bondable portion of this
source would change on a yearly basis and thus, would not prove reliable.

B. Local Sources

1. Local option 2 mill ad valorem property tax.

Under Florida Statute 236.25(2), school boards may levy a district school tax of up to 2 mills, after
public hearings, for educational facility survey recommended construction, lease, and lease-purchase


47 However, one solution would be to tax the distribution end of electricity. See, Report
by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research.









of buildings. Other allowable uses, not specified in the facility survey, include environmental
compliance, equipment, and vehicles, including school buses. This assessment is subject to the 10
mill constitutional cap.48 The Commission considered two options relative to the local school
boards' current authority to levy 2 mills.

Option: Swap the 2 mill ad valorem tax for a 1 cent local option sales tax for
school construction imposed by majority vote of the local school board.

Under this option the school board would be authorized to levy a one cent sales tax, in lieu of the
2 mill ad valorem tax, or a half cent sales tax for 1 mill for school construction. Moreover, the pool
of those contributing to this revenue source would be broadened to include tourists making purchases
in that county. In most counties, including large counties where the need for school construction is
most acute, the sales tax would act as a property tax refund and generate significant new revenues
beyond those generated by the 2 mills. For example, 48 counties would yield gains from replacing
millage with a local sales tax.49 If fully implemented in the 48 counties, this source of revenue would
raise positive revenue by approximately $631.9 million statewide in fiscal year 1999.50 The
Commission also considered that some school boards may opt to impose a half cent sales tax for 1
mill, depending on the level of need for school construction in the district.

Because school districts already have the authority to impose 2 mills by majority vote, the
Commission believed that extending this authority to a locally imposed 1 cent sales tax to be used
for the same purposes would be acceptable in many communities. Particularly in recognition that
property taxes are generally the least popular among the public. The Commission also considered
the pros and cons of implementing this same option by supermajority vote or referendum, but
considered it desirable to place the accountability on the school board. Conversely, in fiscal year
1999-2000, this option would reduce revenues in 19 counties, including 5 counties with school
impact fees. Also, the value of the 1 cent for 2 mills swap, even when yielding a positive result,
would fall short of impact fee collections in Highland county." Nevertheless, the Commission
considered this to be a very desirable revenue alternative.

Option: Raise the upper limit on the 2 mill ad valorem tax to 2.5 mills for school
capital outlay.

The Commission considered raising the 2 mill ad valorem tax to 2.5 mills for school capital outlay


48 Art. VII, 9(b), FLA. CONST.

49 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II(AA) Potential Value.

50 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II(AA) Potential Value.

51 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II (AA) Potential Value
and (GG) 1999 School Impact Fee Collections.









to have merit, in part because school districts can levy this tax by majority vote, rather than by
referendum. This option would allow school districts with school construction needs the flexibility
to address those needs without having to meet state imposed criteria or tapping a state source.52

The fact that these revenues are not directly bondable was considered by the Commission to be an
important negative aspect of this option. Moreover, the fact that this source of revenue is subject
to the 10 mill constitutional cap and some counties are nearing the 10 mill cap would make this a
less available source without a constitutional amendment. Lastly, the Commission that it may be
difficult to build support to raise property taxes.

2. Local Documentary Stamp

In past sessions, legislation has been filed to authorize an additional local documentary stamp tax
to benefit school construction." Currently, only Miami-Dade County levies an additional local
documentary stamp tax of 45 cents per $100, which benefits the county, not the school district.

Option: Authorize school boards levying capital outlay or voted capital
improvement millage of at least 2 mills to levy an additional documentary stamp
surtax on instruments relating to real property.

Although this option would give local school districts the flexibility to address their school
construction needs, the Commission noted that such an option would be perceived as a new tax.
The Commission determined that this option would be more controversial than providing school
boards the authority to impose a sales tax in exchange for rolling back millage.

3. Local Option School Capital Outlay Surtax

The Local Option School Capital Outlay Surtax, authorized by 212.055(7), Florida Statutes, must
be used to fund fixed capital expenditures or fixed capital costs associated with the construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of school facilities and campuses which have a useful life
expectancy of 5 years or more, as well as any related land acquisition, land improvement, design and
engineering costs. Additionally, the surtax may be used to fund the cost of retrofitting and providing
for technology implementation for the various sites within the school district and servicing of bond
indebtedness used to finance those projects. The sales surtax of up to .5 cent must be approved by
referendum.54



52 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II(BB) Value of
Additional Half Mill Levy.

5 See HB 237 filed in 1997 by Representative Wasserman-Schultz.

54 1999 Florida Tax Handbook, p. 138. Currently the following counties levy this tax:









Option: Remove the referendum requirement for instituting the Local Option
School Capital Outlay Surtax.

In considering this option, the Commission noted that revenues from this source would be a possible
bondable source of revenue. Additionally, the Commission considered it valuable that the school
board members would remain accountable to the public through elections. This would guard against
abuse of this authority. The Commission noted that this option would be easy to impose and
administer. However, the Commission believed that any increase in sales tax would be more
acceptable if exchanged for a roll back of millage.

Option: Increase Local Option School Capital Outlay Surtax to 1 cent.

The Commission considered it a positive aspect of this option that more revenues could be
generated. Moreover, the pool of those contributing to this source of revenue would be broadened
to include tourists. Furthermore, if fully implemented, a 1 cent sales tax would have raised
approximately $1.96 billion statewide in fiscal year 1999-2000. Alternatively, the Commission
noted that competition exists for additional one cent surtax which would make acceptance of this
surtax difficult.

4. School Capacity Assessment"

The school capacity assessment would be imposed at the point in the land development process
when the developer acquired a vested right to build. The right to build vests when the concurrency
requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan are triggered.

Option: All or a portion of a school impact fee could be collected as a school
capacity assessment.

In considering this option, the Commission noted it as a positive aspect that this assessment would
be imposed earlier in land development process and therefore, would precede the need for school
constructions. Furthermore, the Commission acknowledged that this assessment could be collected
over a number of years on the tax bill. Its similarity to impact fees, however, was noted as a negative
aspect.






Bay, Escambia, Gulf, Hemando, Jackson, Monroe, Osceola, Santa Rosa, and St. Lucie. See also,
Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II(G) Surtax.

55 Proposed by Robert L. Nabors ofNabors, Giblin & Nickerson P.A., at the
Commission's October 15, 1999 meeting.









5. Unified Tax, Telecommunication Taxes, and E-Commerce Taxes


The Commission also acknowledged that the creation of a Unified Tax, composed of
telecommunications taxes, e-commerce taxes, and other technologies is currently under review by
policy makers and the Telecommunications Taxation Workgroup. Consequently, the
appropriateness and timeliness of these potential sources is unknown at this time.56 However, given
the widespread and growing use of telecommunications and e-commerce, the Commission noted that
these taxes could become both feasible and attractive sources for funding school construction in the
future.

C. Summary

After giving all of the above revenue sources much consideration, the Commission determined to
recommend both a state and local source of revenue for school construction. The Commission
believed that this recommendation would reflect both the state's responsibility in ensuring that
adequate provisions are made for a high quality system of education, and provide the local school
districts with much needed flexibility to locally address the problem of school overcrowding.
Additionally, the Commission concurred that these revenue sources could be used to supplant school
impact fees as well as provide additional revenues to all districts to address their respective school
construction needs.






















56 "Implications of Telecommunications Tax Reform/Unified Tax on School Construction
Funding," presented by Ellen Fournier, Senior Analyst, Senate Fiscal Resource Committee, at the
Commission's November 15, 1999 meeting.









VI. COMMISSION'S ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING METHODS FOR
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

The Florida School Construction Finance Commission was tasked with studying alternative methods
of financing school construction. After presentations by representatives of local school districts,
government agencies and the business community, regarding school construction financial needs,
the Commission determined to recommend both new state and local alternative revenue sources to
address school construction needs. In reviewing alternatives, the Commission considered such
factors as fairness, ease of administration, and the ability to bond the revenue sources for more
efficiency.

The Commission determined to recommend that the state dedicate the General Revenue portion of
the Intangible Tax, Part C (the mortgage portion), or another appropriate recurring source, for school
construction. The Commission determined that the state portion should be used to supplant school
impact fees in the 15 counties currently imposing the fees and that the remainder of this source be
distributed to all 67 counties for school construction based on the Legislature's 1997 Special Session
formula. The Commission believes that this recommendation would assist the state in meeting its
responsibility to ensure that adequate provisions are made for a high quality system of education.

Because the need for school construction is not uniform throughout the state, the Commission
additionally determined to recommend that local school districts be authorized to levy a one cent
sales tax, in lieu of 2 mills, or .5 cent in lieu of 1 mill, by majority vote of the school board for school
construction. The Commission believes that this proposal would provide the local school districts
with much needed flexibility to locally address the problems of school overcrowding and other
school capital outlay needs. The proposed recommendations are discussed below.

A. School Impact Fees

Based on the testimony presented, the Commission determined that school impact fees are not an
appropriate revenue source to meet school construction needs. School impact fee revenues are
limited because they are not viewed by the financial community as a primary source of revenue for
securing capital debt financing due to the amount of funds typically raised and the variability of the
rate at which the funds are collected. The Commission also heard testimony that school impact fees
imposed on the sale of new construction target a segment of society which is not clearly linked to
the need for school construction. By law, impact fees are required to be linked to the need they
create. 57 Consequently, the Commission recommended that school impact fees be eliminated and
replaced with alternative sources.

The Commission acknowledged, however, that impact fees have been an important revenue source
to the 15 counties currently imposing school impact fees, and that those counties should not be


57 See IV, p. 11 for a discussion of Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, Case
No. 95-345, currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court.









penalized by this recommended change in policy. Thus, the Commission determined that school
impact fees should be eliminated only if alternative revenue sources are made available to reimburse
the 15 counties for their impact fee collections. To this end, the Commission identified a reliable
and bondable state source of revenue adequate to reimburse the 15 counties for their school impact
fees, as well as to provide additional funds to all school districts for capital outlay need.

B. Alternative State Source

The Commission determined to recommend that the state dedicate an appropriate recurring revenue
source for school construction. The Commission specifically suggests that the general revenue
portion of the Intangible Tax, Part C (also know as the mortgage portion) would be an appropriate
source.8 Projections estimate that this revenue source will yield approximately $124.3 million in
fiscal year 2000-2001.59 The Commission advocates that the state source should be used to first
reimburse those counties currently imposing school impact fees, which would be approximately
$74.3 million.60 The Commission also proposes that the remainder of the Intangible Tax (Part C)
revenues, approximately $50 million, should be distributed to all 67 districts based on the 1997
Special Session formula. This formula allows for distribution of the funds based on 10 percent of
the PECO funds received by a district the previous year, plus 65 percent of the district's full time
equivalent (FTE) student population growth, plus 25 percent of the district's previous year student
population. The Commission believes that the use of this formula would benefit all districts,
regardless of size or student population growth rate. An illustrative example of the potential
distribution of the $50 million according to an approximation of the 1997 Special Session formula
is presented below:

Special Session Formula Allocation of $50 Million
98/99 PECO = 10%, 99/00 FTE growth = 65%, 98/99 FTE values = 25%
Alachua $219. 647 Hamilton $26,207 Okeechobee $52.977
Baker $32.484 Hardy $37,868 Orange $4,063,640
Bay $183,923 Hendry $92,886 Osceola $1,033,829
Bradford $31.158 Hernando $348.016 Palm Bch $3,903.859
Brevard $1,265,880 Highlands $119,864 Pasco $1.385,251
Broward $7,396,793 Hillsborough $3,502,247 Pinellas $1,979,764
Calhoun $17,684 Holmes $26,143 Polk $1,407,733
Charlntte $279 760 Indian River $338.260 Pntnam $ 90.496


58 The Commission specified the general revenue portion of the Intangible Tax (Part C),
in order to clarify that it is not recommending the portion of the tax currently distributed to
counties.

59 See footnote 39.

60 See Appendix, No. 7, School Construction Finance Data, Part II (GG) 1999 School
Impact Fee Collections.










Special Session Formula Allocation of $50 Million Continued
Citrus $229,819 Jackson $56.510 Santa Rosa $189,033
Clay $544,297 Jefferson $15,119 Sarasota $828,995
Collier $1,284,291 Lafayette $12,945 Seminole $1,427,833
Columbia $196.242 Lake $833.187 St Johns $843.881
Miami-Dade $7.059.611 Lee $1,283.114 St Lucie $473,208
Desoto $33,720 Leon $480.766 Sumter $89,011
Dixie $22.798 Levy $154,520 Suwannee $132,449
Duval $1.424,988 Liberty $9.329 Taylor $28.537
Escambia $448,552 Madison $67,710 Union $17,313
Flagler $182,935 Manatee $597,639 Volusia $707,219
Franklin $21,536 Marion $892,492 Wakulla $61,552
Gadsden $56,124 Martin $457.661 Walton $94,682
Gilchrist $86,054 Monroe $74.783 Washington $27,561
Glades $28.321 Nassau $154,274 TOTAL $50,000,000
Gnlf $20.073 Okalonoa $512.947_________________

C. Alternative Local Source

The Commission further determined to recommend that local school boards be given the authority
to swap their current authority to raise 2 mills for school capital outlay for authority to impose a local
option sales tax of up to one cent by majority vote of the school board. The Commission believes
that because school boards currently have the authority to raise 2 mills for school construction, to
extend this authority to implement a 1 cent sales tax in exchange for rolling back 2 mills for the same
purposes, would be acceptable in many districts. The Commission also determined that districts
should also be provided the flexibility of implementing a .5 cent sales tax in exchange for rolling
back 1 mill, depending on the respective needs of the district. Additionally, consistent with other
local sales tax option, the Commission proposes that this local sales tax option for school
construction be imposed only on the first $5000 of a purchase and that groceries and prescription
medicine be exempt.

The Commission deliberated as to whether this option should be by majority vote, supermajority
vote, or referendum. The Commission believes that authorizing the school board to implement this
option by majority vote would be most desirable because it would afford school districts the
necessary flexibility to address school facility need at the local level. Furthermore, the Commission
considers that this recommendation would provide adequate public accountability because school
board members are elected.

The calculated 1999 value of 1 cent for 2 mills swap along with the 1999 estimated school impact
fee collections are presented in the following table to illustrate which districts would benefit from
the sales tax swap.









1999 Estimated School Impact Fee Collections and
Calculated 1999 Value of One Cent Two Mills Swap
1999 Calculated 1999 Calculated 1999 Calculated
Impact Fees cent 2mill Impact Fees 1cent 2mill Impact Fees 1cent-2mill
Alachua $13,262,605 Hamilton (-$247,443) Okeechobee $853,730
Baker $376,606 Hardy (-$395,905) Orange $11,592,731 $129,975,657
Bay $9,045,872 Hendry (-$627,255) Osceola $1,831,981 $9,696,878
Bradford $579.038 Hernando $1,512,925 $65,822 Palm Bch $7,013,959 $21,365,390
Brevard $11 209,670 Highlands $1,112,544 Pasco $6,016,270
Broward $8,240,045 $56,722,340 Hillsborough $1,586,915 $78,462,821 Pinellas $34,162,289
Calhoun $86,134 Holmes $55,286 Polk $19,773,483
Charlotte _(-$72,171) Indian River $655,009 Putnam $14,065
Citrus $206,610 (-$1,715,049) Jackson $1,245,937 Santa Rosa (-$1,722,302)
Clay $4,335,489 Jefferson (-$133,991) Sarasota $693,932
Collier $8,043,865 (-$9,559,690) Lafayette (-$105,729) Seminole $3,613,573 $17,173,096
Columbia $2,972,124 Lake $2,733503 $3,973,163 St Johns $641,732 (-$365,197)
Miami-Dade $19,685,638 $71,287,818 Lee $11,567,216 St Lucie $1,054,128 (-$1,534,971)
Desoto $262,450 Leon $12681,101 Sumter $242,801
Dixie $3,144 Levy $538,046 Suwannee $722,026
Duval $51,818,075 Liberty (-$103,751) Taylor $171,394
Escambia $17,251,427 Madison $20,442 Union $89,115
Flagler (-$2,026,309) Manatee $3,878,409 Volusia $2,486,164 $13,036,988
Franklin (-$671,125) Marion $13,087,013 Wakulla $25,408
Gadsden $548,391 Martin $1,227,484 (-$2,404,288) Walton (-$951,810)
Gilchrist _(-$136,482) Monroe $1.670,767 Washington $251,784
Glades (-$534,172) Nassau $148,877 TOTAL $71,471,254 $607,738,446
Gulf (-$805.373) Okaloosae $8.653.527 TOTAL POS VALUE $631.851.459
Source: School Construction Finance Data Part II

D. Revenue Goals

The Commission assessed the above proposals in the context of other desirable revenue goals. Such
factors as state support to meet the constitutional mandate, desirability of local effort, fairness, ability
to bond, no penalty to districts that impose impact fees, and ease of administration, were considered.

1. State Constitutional Responsibility

In light of Article IX, s.1, of the Florida Constitution, the Commission believes that the state should
lead by example and partner with local school districts to assist them with meeting their school
construction needs. Thus, the Commission determined to recommend both a state and local
alternative revenue source to address the current school construction deficit, rather than
recommending that the state or the local government alone address the situation. This partnership
would increase the amount of funds generated and would provide local flexibility to resolve the
school construction capital outlay needs.









2. Local Effort


The need for school construction is not uniform throughout the state. Accordingly, local school
districts need to participate in addressing their school construction needs. The Commission believes
that its proposed recommendation provides an avenue by which local school districts experiencing
rapid growth can help themselves as well as provide funding to all districts for their unique capital
outlay needs.

Furthermore, the Commission determined it important that local school districts have maximum
flexibility in exercising the local option to address their school construction needs. As a result, the
Commission considered it important that local school districts have the ability to levy the one cent
sales tax by majority vote. Given Florida's political climate and past experience with referendums,
the Commission believed that requiring a referendum to impose the one cent sales tax would only
hinder a school board's efforts to address the district's school construction needs. The Commission
also considered recommending that the local sales tax option be imposed by a supermajority vote
of the school board. Although this position represented a compromise between the majority vote and
referendum requirements, the Commission ultimately decided that maximum local flexibility to
address school construction needs was the necessary goal.

3. Fairness

To ensure fairness, the Commission decided that the pool of contributors to the source should be
broad so that no one group be unduly burdened with a disproportionate share of the district's school
construction. The state as a whole benefits from a strong educational system, and adequate facilities
are important to the delivery of quality education. Accordingly, the Commission considers the
Intangible Tax (Part C) and local sales tax proposals sufficiently broad to appropriately address the
state's school construction needs without unduly burdening any one particular group.

The Commission also considered the most equitable manner of distributing the state funds and
concluded that: (1) all 67 counties should be eligible to participate for the state funds; and (2) the
distribution formula should take into account a percentage of a district's current student population
plus a percentage of projected student population growth, so that both large and small counties
would benefit from the state funds. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the state funds
be distributed per the Legislature's 1997 Special Session formula. This formula takes into account
10 percent of the previous years' PECO fund distribution, plus 65 percent of the student population
growth, and 25 percent of the previous years' student population. By recommending this formula,
counties experiencing rapid growth would receive funds on that basis and smaller counties
experiencing no student population growth would be eligible for funds based on their current student
population.61


61 See pp. 27-8.








4. Ability to Bond


The source of revenue should be bondable for maximum efficiency. This aspect would enhance the
districts' ability to meet their unmet school construction needs. The Commission determined that
both the Intangible Tax and the local sales tax options were bondable sources of revenue.

5. No Penalty to Districts that Currently Impose School Impact Fees

The 15 districts that currently impose school construction impact fees should not be penalized by a
change in policy to eliminate impact fees. After all, these 15 districts imposed school impact fees
in an effort to address their school construction needs. Consequently, the Commission's
recommendation provides that impact fees would only be eliminated if those 15 counties would be
reimbursed by a state or local source.

6. Ease of Administration

The revenue source should be easy to impose and administer in order to encourage school districts
to take action in resolving their school construction needs. The Commission is recommendation
reflects this goal in that local school board be authorized to levy the one cent sales tax are majority
vote of the school board.

E. Other Policy Goals

During its deliberations, the Commission was presented with testimony about other methods to assist
school districts in meeting their need for school construction. The following goals were discussed
and deemed desirable.

1. Performance Contracts

At the Commission's November 1, 1999 meeting, a representative of the St. Lucie County School
District spoke of his districts use of performance contracts as authorized by 235.215, Fla. Stat., in
order to secure additional school construction funding. The Commission supports St. Lucie County's
initiative and encourages the use of innovative programs to address the school construction needs
facing Florida's school districts.

2. Innovative and Efficient Uses of Space

At the Commission's November 1, 1999 meeting, the Director of the Institute for School Innovation
testified regarding the relationship between technology and optimal class size. The Institute's
research had shown that innovative uses of technology can lessen the need for space and
consequently, the need for construction of public education facilities. Accordingly, the Commission
determined that technology should continue to be studied as an area that can alleviate the need for
school construction. Additionally, the Legislature should continue to monitor research being done
by various institutions for different delivery systems that can affect classroom size.








3. Periodic Revenue Source Review


Additionally, the Commission determined that the state should continue to periodically review
alternative revenue sources to ensure that the state's school construction needs, including
construction of new facilities and repair and maintenance of existing facilities, are met.

F. Summary

The Commission determined to recommend both the use of the general revenue portion of Intangible
Tax, Part C, and the one-cent sales tax, in place of two mills, because they are reliable sources of
revenue that track growth and have growth potential. The Commission believes that providing school
districts with new revenue raising authority, coupled with a committed state recurring revenue source
for school construction, could begin to make an important difference in addressing school
construction needs throughout the state.









VII. CONCLUSIONS


Based on the testimony and supporting documentation received, the Commission concluded:

1. Adequate and appropriate educational facilities are critical to a high quality education.

2. Although not uniform, the need for school construction exists. Need for school construction is
more acute in large districts and in districts that experience rapid growth.

3. Use of innovative techniques and technologies to reduce the need for space should be
encouraged.

4. Several reliable, recurring, and bondable sources of revenue exist for the state to assist local
school districts with addressing their need for school construction.

5. School impact fees should be eliminated and supplanted by a more reliable, bondable, recurring,
and broad-based source of revenue for school construction.

6. The 15 districts who currently benefit from school impact fees should not be penalized by this
change in policy and should be held harmless.

7. The state should lead by way of example and provide a reliable and recurring revenue source to
replace impact fees and provide school districts with additional resources to meet their school
construction needs. The General Revenue portion of Intangible Tax, Part C, or other recurring
and bondable source, are appropriate sources for such funding.

8. Any distribution formula used by the state should take into account current full time student
population and the projected growth in the full time student population, so as not to
disenfranchise small counties.

9. Because the need for school construction is not uniform throughout the state, local school
districts need the authority to raise revenue to address the need experienced in their districts.
Authorizing local school boards to implement a one cent sales tax, in exchange for rolling back
2 mills, or a .5 cent sales tax in exchange for rolling back 1 mill, would provide most school
districts additional funds to meet those needs. School boards should be given maximum
flexibility in implementing the local revenue option by majority vote.









VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS


Based on its findings and conclusions, the Florida School Construction Finance Commission
recommends that school impact fees be eliminated and that the Legislature replace them with
alternative revenue sources for school construction at both the state and local levels. Specifically,
the Commission recommends:

(a) The mortgage portion of the Intangible Tax (Part C) that currently goes to General
Revenue or such other funding source the Legislature considers sufficient, be dedicated to
fully reimburse those 15 counties currently imposing school construction impact fees. Such
funding source should be recurring and exhibit maximum flexibility, including bonding
capability.

All revenues from the above state source in excess of those needed to reimburse the 15
counties for school construction impact fees be distributed to all counties, in addition to the
PECO funds currently received, based on the 1997 Legislature's Special Session formula as
follows:

(1) Twenty-five percent of the appropriation shall be prorated to the districts based on
each district's percentage of base capital outlay full-time equivalent membership; and 65
percent shall be based on each district's percentage of growth capital outlay full-time
equivalent membership as specified for the allocation of funds from the Public Education
Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund by s. 235.435(3).

(2) Ten percent of the appropriation must be allocated among district school boards
according to the allocation formula in s. 235.435(1)(a) (relating to PECO allocation for
remodeling, renovation, maintenance and repairs).

However, when those 15 counties being held harmless exercise the local option in (b) below
they will no longer receive state funds for replacing their school construction impact fees,
but will be eligible for those state funds based on the above formula contained in (a)(l) and
(2). AND

(b) Local school districts be authorized, by majority vote of the school board, to roll back
2 mills of their property tax in exchange for a 1 cent sales tax, or to roll back 1 mill of their
property tax in exchange for a .5 cent sales tax in order to locally address their need for
school construction and raise revenues.

(c) School impact fees shall be eliminated upon the implementation of option (a), as long
as it remains in law, or option (b), provided that the school district exercises this option.

With regard to (b), as with all other local option sales taxes, it is the intent of the Commission that this
local option sales tax only be applicable to the first $5000 of a purchase and that groceries and








prescription medications be exempt. Furthermore, the revenue generated by this source would be used
for the same purposes as the local option 2 mill ad valorem property tax.

The Commission believes that this strengthened state and local partnership would offer school districts
and the state the flexibility and the funding necessary to address Florida's present and future school
facility needs.









APPENDIX

1. 16 18, Chapter 99-239, Laws of Florida
2. Florida School Construction Finance Commission Members
3. School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators
4. 1998-99 Summary of School Construction Cost
5. Florida Student Population Growth Charts
6. Education Fixed Capital Outlay (Public Schools) Table
7. School Construction Finance Data
8. Intangibles Tax (Part C) Collections
9. Documentary Stamp Tax Collections
10. Gross Receipts Tax Collections




Appendix 1




General Laws / Chapter 99-239 / Section 16
Section 16. A school impact fee or an increase in a school impact fee shall take effect as
scheduled where the ordinance was adopted prior to May 1, 1999. However, a new impact fee or
an increase to an existing school impact fee adopted by a county ordinance subsequent to May 1,
1999, shall not take effect until July 1, 2000.


General Laws / Chapter 99-239 / Section 17
Section 17. (1) Effective upon this act becoming a law, the Florida School Construction
Finance Commission is created, to serve through June 30, 2000.
(2)(a) The Commission is to be composed of the following 15 members, who must be
appointed within 30 days after the effective date of this section:
1. Six members selected by the Governor, none of whom may be a member of the
Legislature at the time of appointment, as follows: one member of a local school board, and five
members at large.

2. Four members selected by the President of the Senate as follows: one member of the
majority party and one member of the minority party of the Senate, one member of a local school
board, and one member at large.
3. Four members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as follows: one
member of the majority party and one member of the minority party of the House of
Representatives, one member of a local school board, and one member at large.
4. The Commissioner of Education or the Commissioner's designee.
(b) Vacancies in the membership of the commission are to be filled in the same manner as
the original appointments.
(c) All state agencies are directed to cooperate with and assist the commission to the fullest
extent possible. All local governments are encouraged to assist and cooperate with the
commission as necessary.
(d) The Legislative Committee on Interqovernmental Relations is authorized to employ
technical support and to expend funds appropriated to the committee for carrying out the official
duties of the commission.
(e) Commission members shall not receive remuneration for their services, but are entitled to
be reimbursed by the Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations for travel and per
diem expenses in accordance with section 112.061, Florida Statutes.

(3)(a) The commission shall act as an advisory and recommendatory body to the Governor
and the Legislature.
(b) The commission shall convene its initial meeting within 60 days after the effective date of
this section. At its initial meeting, the commission shall select a chair and shall adopted rules of
procedure. Thereafter, the commission shall convene at the call of its chair.
(c) The commission shall study alternative methods of funding school construction and the
pros and cons of each method of funding.

(d) The commission shall formulate revenue policies that consider such construction revenue
needs, the availability of alternative funding mechanisms, and other accepted policy goals,









including fairness and ease of administration.
(e) The commission shall issue a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and
The Speaker of the House of Representatives by February 1, 2000, summarizing its findings,
stating its conclusions, and presenting its recommendations.


General Laws I Chapter 99-239 / Section 18
Section 18. The sum of $150,000 is appropriated to the Legislative Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations from the General Revenue Fund to be used for the Florida School
Construction Financing Commission.







Appendix 2


Florida School Construction Finance Commission

Senate President Appointments :


Senator Tom Lee
Post Office Box 2743
Brandon, Florida 33509

Benton Murphey (Commission Vice Chair)
Mis Pasco Development, Inc.
3004 Rhett Court
Tampa, Florida 33618-2533


Senator Patsy Kurth
2174 Harris Ave., N.E. Suite 1-B
Palm Bay, Florida 32905

Tom Greer (Commission Chair)
Osceola County School Board Chair
3020 Comanche Road
St. Cloud, Florida 34772


Speaker of the House of Representatives Appointments:


Representative Carlos A. Lacasa
1890 S. Red Road, Suite 108
Miami, Florida 33155-2164

David Balz
111 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32231

Governor Appointments:

Valerie Adams
11671 Fox Creek Drive
Tampa, Florida 33635

Dr. Anthony Cardinale
1960 Canterbury Drive
Indialantic, Florida 32903

Myra Mueller
2301 Glades Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33431


Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
2500 Weston Road, Suite 101
Weston, Florida 33331-3616

Carol Vallencourt
Clay County School Board
3345 Shenandoah Drive, West
Orange Park, Florida 32065


Pamela Brooks-Thomas
4006 Inverrary Boulevard, No. 6B
Lauderhill, Florida 33319

Betty Strifler
110 North Apopka Avenue
Inverness, Florida 34450

Manty Morse
Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 202
Miami, Florida 33140


Education Commissioner Appointment:

Jeanine Blomberg
815 Turlington Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301









School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators


Capital Need (A) 1998199 Millage __ (B) PECO Dollars
(Source: SMART Schools) (Source: Economic Demographic Research and Dept. of Ed.) (Source: Department of Education)
reported by the Districts Value New Construction Maintenence New Construction Maintenence
1999 Total School Value of Millage of Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation
DISTRICT TOTAL 5yr Need Taxable Value One Mill 1998/99 Levy 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00" 1999-00
Alachua ($18,634,042) $5,649,862,933 $5,649,863 2.0000 $11,299,726 $913,692 $ 1,448,304 $1,248,275 S 1,243,562
Baker $8,886,062 $314,992,089 $314,992 2.0000 $629,984 $103,346 $ 203,620 $137,080 $ 174,433
Bay ($21,105,588) $5,645,196,519 $5,645,197 2.0000 $11,290,394 $772,146 $ 1.056.008 $827,010 $ 947,163
Bradford $3,664,657 $466,968,146 $466,968 2.0000 $933,936 $106,860 $ 253,926 $221,552 $ 219,008
Brevard $30,472,549 $15,956,788.303 $15,956,788 2.0000 $31,913,576 $2,423,928 $ 2.982,011 $4,336,544 $ 2,782,979
Broward $509,192,794 $69,733,228,779 $69,733,229 2.0000 $139,466,458 $11,041,097 $ 7,689,092 $20,622,774 $ 6.765,737
Calhoun ($706,084) $222,362,026 $222,362 o.oooo $0 $55,766 $ 158.083 $89,097 $ 137.234
Charlotte $5,134,341 $6,978,324,430 $6,978,324 2.0000 $13,956,648 $675,674 $ 554,403 $1,170,229 $ 481,846
Citrus ($99,624,610) $4,901,174,581 $4,901,175 2.000oo $9,802,350 $562.340 $ 603.808 $691,362 $ 530,494
Clay $30,184,264 $3,934,410,876 $3,934,411 2.0000 $7,868,822 $1.381,100 $ 1,067,688 $2,430,758 $ 995.213
Collier ($147,699,585) $24,422,201,235 $24,422,201 2.0000 $48,844,402 $1,867,589 $ 827,967 $4,736,431 $ 747.603
Columbia $1,576,307 $1.156,671,324 $1,156,671 2.0000 $2,313,342 $422.491 $ 563,099 $507,857 $ 477,140
Dade $451,106,291 $92,274,937,260 $92,274,937 2.0000 $184,549,874 $12,681,184 S 11,512,386 $20,445,302 $ 9,668,755
Desoto $15,781,060 $738,300,330 $738,300 2.0000 $1,476,600 $130,467 $ 232,263 $154,488 $ 196.165
Dixie $624,456 $228,214,652 $228,215 2.0000 $456,430 $_158,960 $ 129,699 $105,878 $ 101.356
Duval ($28,814,790) $27,397,924,017 $27,397,924 2.0000 $54.795,848 $3,620,848 $ 6,035,163 $4,283,420 $ 5,168.490
Escambia ($31.385,358) $7,351,078,109 $7.351,078 2.0000 $14,702,156 $1,035.489 $ 2,348.199 $1,638,056 $ 1.978,428
Flagler ($4,639,000) $2,573,102,842 $2,573,103 1.7000 $4,374,275 $387,732 5 175.315 $671,763 $ 159,128
Franklin ($3,603,395) $757,782,899 $757,783 0.6670 $505,441 $41,474 $ 123,656 $49,288 $ 106,721
Gadsden $3,415,327 $747,238,273 $747,238 1.5000 $1,120,857 $180,280 $ 469.153 $238,997 $ 388,494
Gilchrist ($2,058,325) $256.569,615 $256,570 2.0000 $513,140 $62,142 $ 82,704 $218,919 $ 53,262
Glades $1,546,279 $381,049,544 $381,050 1.5970 $608,537 $25,160 S 80,947 $36,580 $ 69,864
Gulf $3,566,536 $752,964,470 $752,964 0.9460 $712,304 $123,655 $ 193,923 $111,123 $ 167,173
Hamilton ($3,079,589) $525,456,819 $525,457 1.8670 $981,028 $41,862 $ 218,227 $69,488 $ 189.502
Hardee ($855,257) $883,831,074 $883,831 2.0000 $1,767,662 $138,213 $ 286,039 $158,868 $ 242,600
Hendry $11,046,287 $1,398,241,263 $1,398,241 2.0000 $2,796,482 $147,012 $ 249,952 $338,038 $ 215,865
Hemando ($34,086,073) $4,117,215,980 $4,117,216 2.0000 $8,234,432 $613,826 $ 486.081 $1,192,949 $ 429.351
Highlands $2,688,132,008 $2,688,132 2.0000 $5,376,264 $256,921 S 511,559 $460,862 $ 441,433
Hillsborough $42,576,612 $34,496,030,668 $34.496,031 2.0000 $68,992,062 $8,356,155 $ 6,063,156 $10.970.178 $ 5,366,170
Holmes ($246,733) $258,407,380 $258,407 2.0000 $516,814 $105,246 $ 168,418 $112,066 $ 145,138
Indian River ($39,833,124) $6,995,096,857 $6,995,097 2.0000 $13,990,194 $813,552 $ 680,042 $771,892 $ 611.943
Jackson $7,290,211 $780,640,652 $780,641 0.0000 $0 $156,556 $ 503,161 $248,315 $ 410,981
Jefferson ($2,283,196) $284,826,117 $284,826 0.7040 $200,518 $40,789 $ 150,810 $65,843 $ 128,394
Lafayette $294,907 $128,555,995 5128,556 2.0000 $257,112 $41,097 $ 40,562 $32,063 $ 39.338
ak e ($49,084,354) $6,933,256,428 $6,933,256 2.0000 $13,866,512 $1,648,481 $ 1.333,461 $2,735,432 $ 1,115,425
Lee ($44,141,037) $25,238,029,630 $25,238,030 2.0000 $50,476,060 $2,646,061 $ 1,644,355 $3,911,900 $ 1,492,978
Leon ($26,242,873) $7,722,064,392 $7,722,064 2.0000 $15,444,128 $898,525 $ 1,432.438 $1,320,447 S 1,310,880
Lvy $4,079,135 $871,343,677 $871,344 2.0000 $1,742,688 $339,804 S 326,661 $555,250 $ 283,157


last updated 10/28/99
Page 1








School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators


Capital Need (A) 1998/99 Millage I I(B) PECO Dollars
(Source: SMART Schools) (Source: Economic Demographic Research and Dept. of Ed.) (Source: Department of Education)
reported by the Districts Value New Construction Maintenence New Construction Maintenence
1999 Total School Value of Millage of Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation
DISTRICT TOTAL Syr Need Taxable Value One Mill 1998/99 Levy 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00" 1999-00
Liberty $9,371,155 $126,176,325 $126,176 2.0000 $252.352 $74,197 $ 70.823 $35,282 $ 61,876
Madison $26,281,040 $346,114,168 $346,114 2.0000 $692,228 $_135,489 $ 179,040 $156.015 $ 151.827
Manatee ($65,207,336) $11.586,175.475 $11,586,175 2.ooo0 $23,172,350 $1,463,413 $ 1,262,814 $2,110,518 $ 1,048,037
Marion $3,788,466 $6,694,306,103 $6,694,306 2.0000 $13,388,612 $1,396,466 $ 1.345,689 $2,164,077 $ 1,171,774
Martin ($42,258,186) $9,713,631.589 $9,713,632 2.0000 $19,427,264 $951,143 $ 665.921 $1,202,615 $ 557.004
Monroe ($1,075) $9,075,159,549 $9,075,160 0.6000 $5,445,096 $309,969 $ 682,000 $284,302 $ 604.380
Nassau ($23,376,132) $2,616,972,033 $2.616.972 2.0000 $5,233,944 $389,502 $ 401.424 $381.923 $ 337,696
Okaloosa ($22,301,934) $6,960,592,645 $6,960,593 1.2890 $8,972,204 $736,059 $ 1,339,156 $1,140,942 $ 1.152.479
Okeechobee ($11,842,254) $976,173,752 $976,174 2.0000 $1,952,348 $207,415 $ 299.240 $446,609 $ 262,546
Orange ($520,290,613) $46,853,504.380 $46,853,504 2.00ooo $93,707,008 $4,519,455 $ 5,336,356 $17,130.060 $ 4.910,027
Osceola ($66,826,948) $7,540.526,572 $7,540,527 2.0000 $15,081,054 $2,297,631 $ 652.285 $3.978,006 $ 614,233
Palm Beach $278,566,444 $67,684,357,558 $67,684,358 2.0ooo $135,368,716 $8,161,959 S 4.375.372 $13.503,012 $ 3,904.115
Pasco $36,246,562 $9,104,108.845 $9,104,109 2.0000 $18,208,218 $2,557,410 $ 1.525.719 $4,614,812 $ 1.342,481
Pinellas $235,686,321 $36,570,676,097 $36,570,676 2.0000 $73,141,352 $4,912,801 $ 5,351.706 $6,659,097 $ 4.619,332
Polk ($17,583,668) $14,481,453,726 $14,481,454 2.0000 $28,962,908 $2,510,600 $ 3.994,212 $4,681.728 $ 3,439,738
Putnam ($2,394,783) $2,244,471,093 $2,244,471 2.0000 $4,488,942 $_232,209 $ 664,237 $682.301 $ 572.218
Santa Rosa $1,414,122 $3,844,057.065 $3.844,057 1.4000 $5,381.680 $1,407,669 $ 769,336 $1,602,492 $ 662,267
Sarasota $14,673,807 $21,910,287,140 $21,910,287 2.0000 $43,820,574 $1,758,377 $ 1.577,353 $2,799,200 $ 1,322,349
Seminole ($87,318,284) $14,339,789,365 $14,339,789 2.0000 $28,679,578 $2,403.576 $ 1,627,523 $4,972,804 $ 1.378,063
St Johns $15,962,710 $7,169,301,581 $7,169,302 _2.0000 $14,338,604 $1,766,349 $ 652,381 $2,426,645 $ 569,519
St. Lucie ($46,402,000) $8,194,853,924 $8,194,854 2.0000 $16,389,708 $1,377,769 s 887,197 $2,185,885 $ 718.174
Sumter $5,224,039 $1,018,524,837 $1,018,525 2.0000 $2,037,050 $186,001 $ 288,830 $187,935 $ 251,439
Suwannee ($66,139) $658,217,130 $658,217 2.0000 $1,316,434 $197,172 $ 295,098 $173,893 $ 259,100
Taylor ($3,900,923) $728,337,792 $728,338 1.7500 $1,274,592 $112,613 $ 227.277 $286,980 $ 188,990
Union ($1,245,712) $138,987.673 $138,988 2.0000 $277,976 $71,922 $ 118,869 $132,241 $ 105,930
Volusia ($34,856,823) $15,023,965,355 $15,023,965 2.0000 $30,047,930 $2,748,968 $ 2,093,193 $3,219,372 $ 1.815,664
Wakulla $8,620,474 $422,060,355 $422,060 2.0000 $844,120 $402,573 $ 151,731 $242,299 $ 132,185
Walton ($3,709,325) $3,521,351,179 $3.521.351 2.0000 $7,042,702 $_403,333 $ 230.402 $257,021 $ 196,573
Washington $25,961,332 $424,172,378 $424,172 2.0000 $848,344 $143,544 $ 234,581 $269,026 $ 202,126
TOTAL $284,529,399 $676,130,777,876 $676,130,778 $1,326,570,944 $98,853,104 $90,186,104 $165,843,466 $78,535,545
_New Const. App for 99-00 only, includes a one time appropriation of
General Revenues to be treated as PECO ($5,024,601) and Principal
State School Trust Fund to be treated as PECO ($89,200,000)
Adjusted regular PECO = $71,618,865


last updated 10/28/99
Pa-e2









School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators


--7 1 I I II I __I I_
(C) CO & DS Dollars (D) Cumulative debt service millage (E) Impact Fee (F) Voter Passed Referendum for
(Source: Department of Education) (Source: Department of Education) (Source: LCIR phone survey (Source: Spessard Boatright, Educational Facilities)
___2/17/99 Rev. 2/22/99) School Construction
Flow through Bond Series 1999-A Net ___ Local Fiscal Year Collections Vote Annual Total Special
DISTRICT 1998/99 Amount 1999-A Bond Proceeds 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 4yr TOTAL 1997 1998 Date Years Amount Amount Note
Alachua $ 246,585.93 $600,000 $ 588,806.11 3.0400 2.8890 2.7600 2.6550 11.2440
Baker $ 19,492.60
Bay $ 230,469.70 $1.100,000 $ 1.079,477.83 ____ 24-Feb-98 10 $9,400,000 $94,000,000
Bradford $ 22,795.69
Brevard $ 375,024.83 $1,400,000 $ 1,373,880.88
Broward $ 1,326,831.24 $5,000,000 $ 4,906,717.42 0.5807 0.6580 0.5285 0.4866 2.1538 $6,555,616 $8,087,153
Calhoun $ 68,124.57
Charlotte $ 161,935.85 $820,000 $ 804,701.65 0.5552 0.5552 0.5625 0.5100 2.1829
Citrus $ 140,288.64 $800,000 $ 785,074.79 ___ $177,678 $202,038
Clay $ 161,497.26 $600,000 $ 588,806.08
Collier $ 303,248.74 ____ $6,920,183 $7,756,132
Columbia $ 52,707.50
Dade $ 2,519,596.86 $3,100,000 $ 3,042,164.80 1.0160 1.0100 1.1060 0.9780 4.1100 $18,525,970 $19,477,530
Desoto $ 50,648.01 $260,000 $ 255,149.31
Dixie $ 16,097.52
Duval $ 598,945.09 $1,750,000 $ 1,717,351.10 0.8820 0.8370 0.7700 0.7360 3.2250
Escambia $ 178,365.47 _____7-Oct-97 5 $14,000,000 $70,000,000
Flagler $ 162,417.85 1.7110 1.6330 1.5420 1.1960 6.0820
Franklin $ 60,090.91
Gadsden $ 63,675.08 $290,000 $ 284,589.60
Gilchrist $ 33,036.74
Glades $ 35,863.85
Gulf $ 13,841.85 5-Nov-96 20 $325,000 $6,500,000
Hamilton $ 18,088.68
Hardee $ 25,062.90
Hendry $ 92,406.61
Hemando $ 155,085.81 $855,000 $ 839,048.67 1.4660 1.5860 1.6000 1.6890 6.2410 $1,270,274 $1,474,335
Highlands $ 71,829.06 $210,000 $ 206,082.13
Hlllsborough $ 1,613,610.29 $9,150,000 $ 8.979,292.87 0.4362 0.4362 0.4360 0.3230 1.6314 $1,383,303 $1,565,163 3-Sep-96 30 $14,700,000 $677,900,000
Holmes $ 15,073.29
Indian River $ 467,205.97 1.2150 1.2100 1.1650 1.1370 4.7270
Jackson $ 70,870.98 $350,000 $ 343,470.22 ____ 12-Mar-96 10 $1,396,196 $13,961,960
Jefferson $ 26,677.34
Lafayette $ 34,534.10 ___
Lake $ 168,322.53 $800,000 $ 785,074.79 __ $2,601,204 $2,653,731
Lee $ 580,200.65 $2,950,000 $ 2,894,963.28
Leon $ 175,196.91 $500,000 $ 490,671.74 1.3970 1.2660 1.2260 1.0990 4.9880 __
Levy $ 56,890.85 $325,000 $ 318,936.63


last updated 10/28/99
Page 3










School District Comparisop of Capital Needs Indicators


(C) CO & DS Dollars (D) Cumulative debt service millage (E) Impact Fee (F) Voter Passed Referendum for
(Source: Department of Education) (Source: Department of Education) (Source: LCIR phone survey (Source: Spessard Boatright, Educational Facilities)
2/17/99 Rev. 2/22/99) School Construction
Flow through Bond Series 1999-A Net Local Fiscal Year Collections Vote Annual Total Special
DISTRICT 1998/99 Amount 1999-A Bond Proceeds 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 4yr TOTAL 1997 1998 Date Years Amount Amount Note
Liberty $ 4,833.09 $200,000 $ 196,268.70
Madison $ 24,898.58
Manatee $ 400,387.68 $1,735,000 $ 1,702,630.94 0.1615 0.1534 0.1434 0.0000 0.4583 26-Apr-94 5 $15,000,000 $75,000,000
Marion $ 199,467.11 $835,000 $ 819,421.80 1.1700 1.1200 1.1200 0.9500 4.3600
Martin $ 152,054.35 $850,000 $ 834,141.96 0.1180 0.1180 0.1120 0.0000 0.3480 $1,145,542 $1,199,951
Monroe $ 40,985.34 3-Oct-95 10 $7,982,000 $79,820,000
Nassau $ 87,953.89 $440,000 $ 431,791.14
Okaloosa $ 167,993.13 $650,000 $ 637,873.26 16-May-95 4 $16,009,359 $64,037,436 "
Okeechobee $ 60,147.38 $320,000 $ 314,029.91
Orange $ 1.196,133.08 $5,450,000 $ 5,348,321.99 $10,016,822 $11,344,718
Osceola $ 199,466.75 $1,400,000 $ 1,373,880.88 0.7010 0.6650 0.6150 0.5600 2.5410 $1,541,912 $1,772.655
Palm Beach $ 871,014.18 $2,650,000 $ 2,600,560.24 0.5200 0.5360 0.4970 0.5030 2.0560 $6,442,628 $6,889,054
Pasco $ 433,616.44 $2,000,000 $ 1,962,686.96 0.9620 0.9290 0.9160 0.8740 3.6810
Pinellas $ 4,237,288.12
Polk $ 409,524.41 $1.300,000 $ 1,275,746.53
Putnam $ 68,985.36 $270,000 $ 264.962.74 1.0470 0.9700 0.9950 0.9700 3.9820
Santa Rosa $ 158,867.04 $725,000 $ 711,474.02 _20-May-97 10 $2,228,626 $22,286.260 *
Sarasota $ 310,179.14 $3.000,000 $ 2,944,030.45 4-Nov-97 10 $12,800,000 $128,000,000 '*
Seminole $ 328,405.32 $2,000,000 $ 1,962,686.96 1.0680 0.9200 0.8800 0.8160 3.6840 $3,050.204 $3,536,113
St. Johns $ 159,290.47 $1,500,000 $ 1,472,015.22 0.8560 0.8520 0.7600 0.7170 3.1850 $577,538 $622.974
St. Lucie $ 157,583.98 $640,000 $ 628,059.83 0.3700 0.3700 0.6100 0.3300 1.6800 $1,076,430 $1,029,709 12-Mar-96 10 $6,000,000 $60,000,000 +
Sumter $ 32,841.74
Suwannee $ 52,039.69 $250,000 $ 245,335.87
Taylor $ 128,455.82
Union $ 49,861.95
Volusia $ 558,054.80 $3,150,000 $ 3,091,231.97 1.3420 1.3240 1.3010 1.1880 5.1550 $2,078,080 $2,446,673
Wakulla $ 49,880.51 $300,000 $ 294,403.05 2.3500 2.1000 1.9500 1.7500 8.100
Walton $ 35,013.96
Washington $ 22,812.30
TOTAL $21,010,673 $60,525,000 $ 59,395,814.32 $63,363,384 $70,057,929 $99,841,181 $1,291,505,656
__This the school district using the local option sales tax 1/2 cent referendum
"Thiis s the local government infrastructure surtax, not a true 12 cent referendum
+ These funds are pledged to pay 70 percent of the bond issue approved in 1996
District share is 114 cent of the county infrastructure surtax


last updated 10128/99
Pa e4








School Cistrict Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators


(G) Surtax (H) SIT Funds (1_ I) Percent Students in Charter Schools (J) Effort Index Grants
(Source: Department of Revenue) (Source: SMART Schools Clearinghouse) (Source: SMART schools Clearinghouse Worksheets) (Source: Dept. of Education)
Amount Generated Amount Generated from Award for Award for 1997-98 2000-01 Charter Stations
from School Capital Local Gov. Infrastructure Thrifty New Sponsoring Actual Charter Student As Percent 1998-99
DISTRICT Outlay Surtax 1998-99 Surtax 1998-99 Construction Charter Schools TOTAL CO-FTE Stations of CO-FTE Award
Alachua $726,225 $726,225 28,185 273 0.97%
Baker
Bay $10,168,133 $ 2,803,884
Bradford
Brevard $3,529,153 $1,673,355 $5,202,508 65,827 275 0.42%
Broward $9,889,293 $9,889,293 215,412 2,121 0.98% $48,217,101
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay $7,442,890
Collier $1,346,796_ $1,346,796 28,393 200 0.70% $ 6.613.213
Columbia
ouad $4,127,620 $4,127,620 340,123 1,770 0.52% $62,755,920
Dade __ _______________ ___--------- -4,127.62 __-- _____ -- -------_-------_-------_-----------
Desoto
Dixie
Duv'al $2,306,900 $2,306,900 123,784 580 0.47% $ 15,117,893
Escambia $15,976,792 $1,938,600 $1,938,600 42,989 350 0.81% $ 4,788,867
Flagler -
Franklin
Gadsden $197,258 $197,258 7,583 121 1.60%
Gilchrist
Glades $ 7
Gulf $350,278 $317,717
Hamilton
Hardee .------ -- -
Hendry $_1,628,590
Hemando $4,150,127 $ 2,215,010
Highlands
Hillsborough $1,733.198 $1,322,125 $3,055,323 146,806 775 0.53% $24,187,214
Holmes
ndian River $2,345,063 $2,345,063 14,022 385 2.75% $ 2,165,611
Jackson $1,403,609 7,632 50 0.66% $852,475
Jefferson -
Lafayette
Lafkete n/a 758 $ 5.950.530
Lee
Leon $794,675 $794,675 30,183 758 2.51% $ 2,837,267

Levy


last updated 10/28/99
Page 5








School District Comparison of Capital Needs Indicators

School Construction Finance Data


(G) Surtax (H) SIT Funds 1 (I) Percent Students in Charter Schools (J) Effort Index Grants
(Source: Department of Revenue) (Source: SMART Schools Clearinghouse) (Source: SMART schools Clearinghouse Worksheets) (Source: Dept. of Education)
Amount Generated Amount Generated from Award for Award for 1997-98 2000-01 Charter Stations
From School Capital Local Gov. Infrastructure Thrifty New Sponsoring Actual Charter Student As Percent 1998-99
DISTRICT Outlay Surtax 1998-99 Surtax 1998-99 Construction Charter Schools TOTAL CO-FTE Stations of CO-FTE Award
Liberty
Madison $414,950
Manatee $18,912,328 $3,774,892 $3,774,892 31,510 708 2.25% $ 4,629,939
Marion
Martin $415,275 $415,275 15,087 100 0.66% $ 2,764,247
Monroe $9,910,543 9,219 85 0.92% $ 981,718
Nassau
Okaloosa $21,578,764 $2,042,522 $2,313,500 $4,356,022 29,965 60 0.20% $ 3,016,816
Okeechobee
Orange $2,649,578 $2,649,578 $ 26,399,317
Osceola $1.332,222 $1,332,222 27,705 250 0.90% $ 6,936,110
Palm Beach $5,212,067 $88,988 $5,301,055 $23,700,071
Pasco $7,365,117
Pnellas $604,205 $364,210 $968,415 108,996 40 0.04%
Polk $2,426,601 $2,426,601 73,922 418 0.57%
Putnam 1,780,505
Santa Rosa $2,982,906 $8,036,135 $799,666 $8,835,801 21,022 100 0.48% $4,266,694
Sarasota $10,866,151 $1,632,308 $1,632,308 33,386 260 0.78% $5,604,263
Seminole $863,944 $704.900 $1,568,844 55,447 160 0.29% $ 7,600,020
St Johns $4,459,479
St. Lucle $7,427,369 $5,139,754 $5,139,754 27,345 100 0.37% $ 4,074,580
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor ______
Union
Volusia ____ $98,230 $98,230 57,709 150 0.26% $ 7,383,670
Wakulla... $728,322
Walton .__..._ __ ___ $395,6$39 5395,675 5,556 65 1.17%
Washington
TOTAL $52,369,757 $51,357,243 $27,259,208 $43,565,725 $70,824.933 1,547,808 10,9121 21.79% $300,000,000
Manatee expires June 30, 1999
Okaloosa expired August 1, 1999_


last updated 10/28/99
Pae 6




I


SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY FOR 1998


Elementary Schools


Average Size of an Elementary School (Student Stations) 831
Average Size of an Elementary School (Square Feet) 90,570
Average Elementar School Price (Contract) S 7,520,885
Average Elementary School Architect and Engineering Fees S 327,953
Average Elementary School Legal and Administrative Costs S 95,566
Average Elementary School Furniture and Equipment Costs S 878,974
Average Elementary School Site Improvement Costs S 106,195
Average Elementary School Site Development Costs S 48,987
Average Elementary School Site Impact Connection Fees S 5,554
Average Elementary School Site Costs S 285,321
Average Elementary School Price (Total) S 9,269,435

Middle Schools

Average Size of an Middle School (Student Stations) 961
Average Size of an Middle School (Square Feet) 117,365
Average Middle School Price (Contract) S 11,137,964
Average Middle School Architect and Engineering Fees S 659.020
Average Middle School Legal and Administrative Costs S 176,583
Average Middle School Furniture and Equipment Costs S 1,156,433
Average Middle School Site Improvement Costs S 170,969
Average Middle School Site Development Costs S 26,704
Average Middle School Site Impact Connection Fees S 23,550
Average Middle School Other Costs S 493,982
Average Middle School Price (Total) S 13,844,935

High Schools

Average Size of an High School- (Student Stations) 1,330
Average Size of an High School (Square Feet) 198,778
Average High School Price (Contract) S 24,063,110
Average High School Architect and Engineering Fees S 1,330,941
Average High School Legal and Administrative Costs S 338,171
Average High School Furniture and Equipment Costs S 2,288,556
Average High School Site Improvement Costs S -
Average High School Site Development Costs S 583,936
Average High School Site Impact Connection Fees S-
Average High School Other Costs S-
Average High School Price (Total) S 28,604,714

All Schools

Average Size (Student Stations) 878
Average Size (Square Feet) 100,429
Average Price (Contract) S 8,916,215
Average Architect and Engineering Fees 5 438,635
Average Legal and Administrative Costs S 122,557
Average Furniture and Equipment Costs 5 990,700
Average Site Improvement Costs $ 117,769
Average Site Development Costs S 61,619
Average Impact Connection Fees S 9,568
Average Other Costs 5S 324,498
Average Price (Total) $.S 10.981,561


Source: Office of Educational Facilities, Florida
Department of Education


Appendix 4








SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR 1998


ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS


MIDDLE
SCTOOnT .


HIGH
SCHOfLS


ALL
srTjnrT


TEACHER STATIONS ..-. .
STUDENT STATIONS 18,278 6,730 1,330 26,338
TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET 1,992.540 821.554 198,778 3,012,872
TOTAL CONTRACT COST $ 165,459,477 S 77,963,855 S 24,063.110 S 267,486,442
TOTAL ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING FEES S 7,214,963 S 4,613.143 S 1.330.941 S 13.159.047
TOTAL LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE FEES S 2,102.456 S 1.236.080 S 338.171 S 3.676.707
TOTAL FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT COSTS S 19,337,420 S 8,095,031 S 2,288,556 S 29.721,007
TOTAL SITE IMPROVEMENT COSTS 2.336,286 S 1,196,782 S S 3.533,068
TOTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS S 1,077,714 S 186,930 S 583,936 S 1.848,580
TOTAL IMPACT CONNECTION FEES S 122.187 S 164.853 S S 287.040
TOTAL OTHER S 6.277,063 S 3.457.872 S S 9,734,935
TOTAL ALL COSTS S 203.927.566 S 96.914,546 S 28.604,714 S 329,446,826


SUMMARY OF CONTRACT COSTS ONLY FOR 1998

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH ALL
SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS
AVERAGE COST PER STUDENT STATION S 9,052 S 11,585 S 18.093 S 10,156
AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT S 83.04 S 94.90 S 121.06 S 88.78


SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS ONLY FOR 1998

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH ALL
SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS
AVERAGE COST PER STUDENT STATION S 11.157 S 14,400 S 21.507 S 12,508
AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT S 102.35 S 117.96 S 143.90 S 109.35


ASSOCIATED COSTS AS A PERCENT OF CONTRACT COSTS FOR
THE YEARS 1994 THROUGH 1998

ARCHITECT LEGAL & FURNITURE srrE srE' *. IMPACT TOTAL
ENGINEER ADM FEES EQUIPMENT IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT CONNECT FEE OTHER CONTRACT
S 23,304,328 S 7,753,921 S 59,019,765 S 14,331,034 S S S S 598,587,472
S31,528,843 S 11,603,766 S70,914,882 S 20,570.658 S S S 512,169,91S
S 26.515,352 S 8,426.935 S 58,548,610 S 8,354,408 S S S- S 545.369,923
S23,300,768 S 6.150,381 5 57,015,233 S 11,709,876 S S S. S 460.345.22-
S 13,159,047 S 3,676,707 S 29721,007 S 3,533,068 S 1,848,580 S 287,040 S 9,734,935 S 267.486,44:
S 117,808.338 S 37,611.710 S 275,219,497 S 58.499,044 S 1,848,580 S 287,040 S 9,734.935 S 2.333,958,971


TOTAL CONTRACT COST ALL SCHOOLS S 2,383,958,979


PERCENT


ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING FEES S 117,808,338 4.94
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE FEES S 37,611,710 1.58
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT COSTS S 275,219.497 11.54
SITE IMPROVEMENT COSTS S 58,499,044 2.45
SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS S 1.848,580 0.08
IMPACT CONNECTION FEES S 287,040 0.01
OTHER S 9,734,935 0.41
TOTAL S 501.009,144 21.02


Source: Office of Educational Facilities, Florida Department
of Education


1










FLORIDA SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION


I Ages 5-14
Population Change % change


1,248,726
1,333,362
1,306,613
1,369,981
1,555,649
1,785,268
1,981,358
2,048,849
2,054,815
1,893,349


84,636
-26,749
63,368
185,668
229,619
196,090
67,491
5,966
-161,466


6.8%
-2.0%
4.8%
13.6%
14.8%
11.0%
3.4%
0.3%
-7.9%


I Ages 15-17
Population Change % change


359,229
463,473
482,909
443,957
455,160
458,220
536,382
595,118
634,797
659,507


NA
104,244
19,436
-38,952
11,203
3,060
78,162
58,736
39,679
24,710


29.0%
4.2%
-8.1%
2.5%
0.7%
17.1%
11.0%
6.7%
3.9%


Source: Demographic Estimating Conference Database, updated 8/99


4/1/70
4/1/75
4/1/80
4/1/85
4/1/90
4/1/95
4/1/00
4/1/05
4/1/10
4/1/15
























Florida

School Age Population


o In a mn a in
N P. 0 o
* S S
- -


o n o i
O Or
o o a
(UCU(N


E 5-14 M 15-17


2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0




















































% Change in School Age Population Florida


m 1


J3.U7
30.0%-
25.0% -

20.0%
15.0%

10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0% --
-10.0%-


70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-10 10-15

S5-14 *15-17


I







































Florida Population Ages 5-14
% Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 1%
1% to 9 9%
S10% or More
Florida: 3.7%






























































0 C


Florida Population Ages 15-17
Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 100
E 100 to 999
E 1,000 to 4,999
/ 5,000 or More
Florida: 98,415


Florida Population Ages 15-17
% Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 10%
S10% to 19.9%
I 20% or More
Florida: 18.3%















Florida Population Ages 5-14
Change 2000-2010


Florida Population Ages 5-14
% Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 1%
l 1% to 9.9%
S10% or More
Florida: 3.7%













Florida Population Ages 15-17
Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 100
100 to 999
l 1,000 to 4,999
1 5,000 or More
Florida: 98,415


Florida Population Ages 15-17
% Change 2000-2010


Map Legend
Less than 10%
S10% to 19.9%
S20% or More
Florida: 18.3%





Appendix 6


(1 of 2,)

Education Fixed Capital Outlay


PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Funding Method

Operating Budget









2-Year Voted Millage



Discretionary Millage



District Bonds


2 Mill


Public Education Capital
Outlay (PECO)










Race Track Funds




General Revenue



Lease-Purchase


Source of Fund

General Revenue and
Local Property Taxes. S.
9, Article VII, .







Local Property Taxes.
S. 236.31, F.S. s. 9,
Article VII, Const.

Local Property taxes.
s. 236.25(1), F.S. s. 9,
Article VII, Const.

Local Property Taxes.
s. 236.25(2), F.S. s. 9,
Article VII, Const.

Local Property Taxes. S.
236.25(2), F.S. s. 9,
Article VII, Const.



Gross Receipts Tax on
utility companies. S.
9(a)(2). Article XII, Const.
s. 235.435(1)&(3), F.S.








Legislative appropriation
to Board of County
Commissioners and local
Acts.

General State Taxes.



Capital Outlay and Debt
Service Funds, s. 9(d),
Article XII, Const. 2 mill
funds.


Decision Making Authority

While GR funds are appropriated and the
local required effort and discretionary
millage limits are set by the Legislature,
the District School Board makes the
decision on whether to expend any for
capital outlay purposes. All property tax
funds which cite Article VII of the
Constitution are part of the total 10 mill
cap limitation.

Voter approval in referendum at request of,
District School Board.


District School Board decides how much
to levy up to the limit set by the
Legislature.

Voter approval in referendum at request of
District School Board.


District School Board after public hearing.


Legislative appropriation but Local Board
decision on projects to be built unless
specified by the Legislature.









Board of County Commissioners. Local
acts may pass through funds to the
District School Board.


Legislative appropriation



Local Board approval.


Use of Funds

Local Board discretion.









Local Board discretion.



Local Board discretion.



Local Board discretion.


New construction and remodeling
projects must be survey
recommended; otherwise local
discretion as allowed by statute
and rule.

Usually District School Board
decision. Legislature may specify
a particular purpose. Bonded
money may be spend only for
survey recommended new
construction, renovation or
remodeling. Cash may be spent
for maintenance, repair and
renovation as board decides;
however remodeling projects
must be survey recommended.

Local Board discretion.




Usually specific projects but may
be given to the local board to be
used at board discretion.

Survey recommended facilities
only.













(2 of 2)
Education Fixed Capital Outlay


PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Funding Method


Chapter 237 Loans







Special Facilities
Construction Account


Capital Outlay and Debt
Service Funds






Discretionary Sales Surtax


Classrooms First Program



School Infrastructure Thrift
Program

Effort Index Grants


Smart Schools Small
County Assistance
Program


Source of Fund


Loans may be for one
year only but may be
renewed from year to
year not to exceed 4
years total. s. 237.161,
F.S. (Operating Budget)
s. 237.162, F.S.

PECO. s. 235.435(2),
F.S.


Motor Vehicle License
Fees. S. 9(d), Article XII
Const. May be bonded or
spent as cash at local
board initiative.



Local sales tax not to
exceed 0.5 percent s.
212.055(7), F.S.


Lottery


Lottery and General
Revenue

Lottery. s. 236.2155, F.S.


Lottery.
s. 19, HB 17-A
1997 Special Session "A"


Decision Making Authority


Local Board decision with DOE approval.







Legislative appropriation and binding local
board resolution. Available to smaller and
property tax poorer counties only.

Local Board decision.







Local Board with approval of majority vote
of electors in the county.


Legislative appropriation and Local Board
decision.


Legislative appropriation and Local Board
decision.

Legislative appropriation and Local Board
decision.

Legislative appropriation and Local Board
decision.


Use of Funds


Construction, remodeling and
renovation. s. 237.161, F.S.
Correct major emergency
conditions. s. 237.162, F.S.




Once specific project meeting the
provisions of statute.


Survey recommended facilities
only and must be expended in
order of priority of need
according to Chapter 2(4)(d),
State Requirements for
Educational Facilities, and
related bond expenses.

Construction, reconstruction or
improvement of facilities and
campuses; land acquisition; land
improvement; and technology
implementation.

New construction renovation,
remodeling, major repair or
maintenance.


Any lawful capital outlay
expenditure.

New construction.


New construction, repair,
renovation.


-Source: A Statistical Review of Education in Florida 1999-2000 Edition; A Senate Budget
Committee Report




0 0 0







School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


* *


Capital Need County (A) 1998199 Millage (B) PECO Dollars
(Source: SMART Schools) Population (Source: Economic Demographic Research and Dept. of Ed.) (Source: Department of Education)
reported by the Districts Value New Construction Maintenence New Construction Maintenence
1999 Total School Value of Millage of Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation
DISTRICT TOTAL 5yr Need 1998 Estimates Taxable Value One Mill 1998/99 Levy 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00" 1999-00
Alachua ($18,634,042) 211,403 $5,649,862,933 $5,649,863 2.0000 $11,299,726 $913,692 $ 1,448,304 $1,248,275 $ 1,243,562
Baker $8,886,062 21,131 $314,992,089 $314,992 2.0000 $629,984 $103,346 $ 203,620 $137,080 $ 174,433
Bay ($21,105,588) 147,496 $5,645,196,519 $5,645,197 2.0000 $11,290,394 $772,146 $ 1,056,008 $827,010 $ 947,163
Bradford $3,664,657 25,355 $466,968,146 $466,968 2.0000 $933,936 $106,860 $ 253,926 $221,552 $ 219,008
Brevard $30,472,549 465,825 $15,956,788,303 $15,956,788 2.0000 $31,913,576 $2,423,928 $ 2,982,011 $4,336,544 $ 2,782,979
Broward $509,192,794 1,460,890 $69,733,228,779 $69,733,229 2.0000 $139,466,458 $11,041,097 $ 7,689,092 $20,622,774 $ 6,765,737
Calhoun ($706,084) 13,572 $222,362,026 $222,362 o.0ooo $0 $55,766 $ 158,083 $89,097 $ 137,234
Charlotte $5,134,341 133,655 $6,978,324,430 $6,978,324 2.0000 $13,956,648 $675,674 $ 554,403 $1,170,229 $ 481,846
Citrus ($99,624,610) 112,424 $4,901,174,581 $4,901,175 2.0000 $9,802,350 $562,340 $ 603,808 $691,362 $ 530.494
Clay $30,184,264 134,534 $3,934,410,876 $3,934,411 2.0000 $7,868,822 $1,381,100 $ 1,067,688 $2,430,758 $ 995,213
Collier ($147,699,585) 210,095 $24,422,201,235 $24,422,201 2.0000 $48,844,402 $1,867,589 $ 827,967 $4,736,431 $ 747,603
Columbia $1,576,307 55,368 $1,156,671,324 $1,156,671 2.0000 $2,313,342 $422,491 $ 563,099 $507,857 $ 477,140
Miami-Dade $451,106,291 2,090,314 $92,274,937,260 $92,274,937 2.0000 $184,549,874 $12,681,184 $ 11,512,386 $20,445,302 $ 9,668,755
Desoto $15,781,060 27,927 $738,300,330 $738,300 2.0000 $1,476,600 $130,467 $ 232,263 $154,488 $ 196,165
Dixie $624,456 13,196 $228,214,652 $228,215 2.0000 $456,430 $158,960 $ 129,699 $105,878 $ 101,356
Duval ($28,814,790) 753,823 $27,397,924,017 $27,397,924 2.0000 $54,795,848 $3,620,848 $ 6,035,163 $4,283,420 $ 5,168,490
Escambia ($31,385,358) 296,164 $7,351,078,109 $7,351,078 2.0000 $14,702,156 $1,035,489 $ 2,348,199 $1,638,056 S 1,978,428
Flagler ($4,639,000) 43,441 $2,573,102,842 $2,573,103 1.7000 $4,374,275 $387,732 $ 175,315 $671,763 $ 159,128
Franklin ($3,603,395) 10,739 $757,782,899 $757,783 0.6670 $505,441 $41,474 $ 123,656 $49,288 $ 106,721
Gadsden $3,415,327 50,820 $747,238,273 $747,238 1.5000 $1,120,857 $180,280 $ 469,153 $238,997 $ 388,494
Gilchrist ($2,058,325) 13,140 $256,569,615 $256,570 2.0000 $513,140 $62,142 $ 82,704 $218.919 $ 53.262
Glades $1,546,279 9,875 $381,049,544 $381,050 1.5970 $608,537 $25,160 $ 80,947 $36,580 $ 69,864
Gulf $3,566,536 14,260 $752,964,470 $752,964 0.9460 $712,304 $123,655 $ 193,923 $111,123 $ 167,173
Hamilton ($3,079,589) 14,120 $525,456,819 $525,457 1.8670 $981,028 $41,862 $ 218,227 $69,488 $ 189,502
Hardee ($855,257) 22,801 $883,831,074 $883,831 2.0000 $1,767,662 $138,213 $ 286,039 $158,868 $ 242.600
Hendry $11,046,287 30,364 $1,398,241,263 $1,398,241 2.0000 $2,796,482 $147,012 $ 249,952 $338,038 $ 215,865
Hemando ($34,086,073) 125,008 $4,117,215,980 $4,117,216 2.0000 $8,234,432 $613,826 $ 486,081 $1,192,949 $ 429,351
Highlands 80,458 $2,688,132,008 $2,688,132 2.0000 $5,376,264 $256,921 $ 511,559 $460,862 $ 441,433
Hillsborough $42,576,612 942,322 $34,496,030,668 $34,496,031 2.0000 $68,992,062 $8,356,155 $ 6,063,156 $10,970,178 $ 5,366,170
Holmes ($246,733) 17,949 $258,407,380 $258,407 2.0000 $516,814 $105,246 $ 168,418 $112,066 $ 145,138
Indian River ($39,833,124) 106,690 $6,995,096,857 $6,995,097 2.0000 $13,990,194 $813,552 $ 680,042 $771,892 $ 611,943
Jackson $7,290,211 49,670 $780,640,652 $780,641 0.0000 $0 $156,556 $ 503,161 $248,315 $ 410,981

Jefferson ($2,283,196) 14,207 $284,826,117 $284,826 0.7040 $200,518 $40,789 $ 150,810 $65,843 $ 128,394
Lafayette $294,907 6,998 $128,555,995 $128,556 2.0000 $257,112 $41,097 $ 40,562 $32,063 $ 39,338

Lee ($44,141,037) 405,637 $25,238,029,630 $25,238,030 2.0000 $50,476,060 $2,646,061 $ 1,644,355 $3,911,900 $ 1,492,978
Leon ($26,242,873) 233,232 $7,722,064,392 $7,722,064 2.0000 $15,444,128 $898,525 $ 1,432,438 $1,320,447 $ 1,310,880 S
Levy $4,079,135 32,416 $871,343,677 $871,344 2.0000 $1,742,688 $339,804 $ 326,661 $555,250 $ 283,157


last updated 11/23/99
Page 1












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


Capital Need County (A) 1998/99 Millage (B) PECO Dollars
(Source: SMART Schools) Population (Source: Economic Demographic Research and Dept. of Ed.) (Source: Department of Education)
reported by the Districts Value New Construction Maintenence New Construction Maintenence
1999 Total School Value of Millage of Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation
DISTRICT TOTAL 5yr Need 1998 Estimates Taxable Value One Mill 1998/99 Levy 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00" 1999-00
Liberty $9,371,155 7,708 $126,176,325 $126,176 2.0000 $252,352 $74,197 $ 70,823 $35,282 $ 61,876
Madison $26,281,040 19,277 $346,114,168 $346,114 2.0000 $692,228 $135,489 $ 179,040 $156,015 $ 151,827
Manatee ($65,207,336) 247,028 $11,586,175,475 $11,586,175 2.0000 $23,172,350 $1,463,413 $ 1,262,814 $2,110,518 $ 1,048,037
Marion $3,788,466 242,357 $6,694,306,103 $6,694,306 2.0000 $13,388,612 $1,396,466 $ 1,345,689 $2,164,077 $ 1,171,774
Martin ($42,258,186) 119,370 $9,713,631,589 $9,713,632 2.0000 $19,427,264 $951,143 $ 665,921 $1,202,615 $ 557,004
Monroe ($1,075) 85,646 $9,075,159,549 $9,075,160 0.6000 $5,445,096 $309,969 $ 682,000 $284,302 $ 604,380
Nassau ($23,376,132) 54,538 $2,616,972,033 $2,616,972 2.0000 $5,233,944 $389,502 $ 401,424 $381,923 $ 337,696
Okaloosa ($22,301,934) 175,568 $6,960,592,645 $6,960,593 1.2890 $8,972,204 $736,059 $ 1,339,156 $1,140,942 $ 1,152,479
Okeechobee ($11.842,254) 35,059 $976,173,752 $976,174 2.0000 $1,952,348 $207,415 $ 299.240 $446,609 $ 262,546
Orange ($520,290,613) 824,095 $46,853,504,380 $46,853,504 2.0000 $93,707,008 $4,519,455 $ 5,336,356 $17,130,060 $ 4,910,027
Osceola ($66,826,948) 148,712 $7,540,526,572 $7,540,527 2.0000 $15,081,054 $2,297,631 $ 652,285 $3,978,006 $ 614,233
Palm Beach $278,566,444 1,020,521 $67,684,357,558 $67,684,358 2.0000 $135,368,716 $8,161,959 $ 4,376,372 $13,503,012 $ 3,904,115
Pasco $36,246,562 321,074 $9,104,108,845 $9,104,109 2.0000 $18,208,218 $2,557,410 $ 1,525,719 $4,614,812 $ 1,342,481
Pinellas $235,686,321 892,178 $36,570,676,097 $36,570,676 2.0000 $73,141,352 $4,912,801 $ 5,351,706 $6,659,097 $ 4,619,332
Polk ($17,583,668) 465,858 $14,481,453,726 $14,481,454 2.0000 $28,962,908 $2,510,600 $ 3,994,212 $4,681,728 $ 3,439,738
Putnam ($2,394,783) 71,454 $2,244,471,093 $2,244,471 2.0000 $4,488,942 $232,209 $ 664,237 $682,301 $ 572,218
Santa Rosa $1,414,122 107,814 $3,844,057,065 $3,844,057 1.4000 $5,381,680 $1,407,669 $ 769,336 $1,602,492 $ 662,267
Sarasota $14,673,807 316,023 $21,910,287,140 $21,910,287 2.0000 $43,820,574 $1,758,377 $ 1,677,353 $2,799,200 $ 1,322,349
Seminole ($87,318,284) 345,166 $14,339,789,365 $14,339,789 2.0000 $28,679,578 $2,403,576 $ 1,627,523 $4,972,804 $ 1,378,063
St Johns $15,962,710 109,894 $7,169,301,581 $7,169,302 2.0000 $14,338,604 $1,766,349 $ 652,381 $2,426,645 $ 569,519
St. Lucie ($46,402,000) 183,222 $8,194,853,924 $8,194,854 2.0000 $16,389,708 $1,377,769 $ 887,197 $2,185,885 $ 718,174
Sumter $5,224,039 47,907 $1,018,524,837 $1,018,525 2.0000 $2,037,050 $186,001 $ 288,830 $187,935 $ 251,439
Suwannee ($66,139) 33,746 $658,217,130 $658,217 2.0000 $1,316,434 $197,172 $ 295,098 $173,893 $ 259,100
Taylor ($3,900,923) 19,527 $728,337,792 $728,338 1.7500 $1,274,592 $112,613 $ 227,277 $286,980 $ 188,990
Union ($1,245,712) 13,459 $138,987,673 $138,988 2.0000 $277,976 $71,922 $ 118,869 $132,241 $ 105,930
Volusia ($34,856,823) 420,431 $15,023,965,355 $15,023,965 2.0000 $30,047,930 $2,748,968 $ 2,093,193 $3,219,372 S 1,815,664
Wakulla $8,620,474 19,828 $422,060,355 $422,060 2.0000 $844,120 $402,573 $ 151,731 $242,299 $ 132,185
Walton ($3,709,325) 38,304 $3,521,351,179 $3,521,351 2.0000 $7,042,702 $403,333 $ 230,402 $257,021 $ 196,573
Washington $25,961,332 21,319 $424,172,378 $424,172 2.0000 $848,344 $143,544 $ 234,581 $269,026 $ 202,126
TOTAL $284,529,399 15,000,475 $676,130,777,876 $676,130,778 $1,326,570,944 $98,853,104 $90,186,104 $165,843,466 $78,535,545
New Const. App for 99-00 only, includes a one time appropriation of
General Revenues to be treated as PECO ($50,240,601) and Principal
State School Trust Fund to be treated as PECO ($89,200,000)


last updated 11/23/99
Page 2












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(C) CO & DS Dollars (D) Cumulative Debt Service Millage (E) Impact Fee (F) Voter Passed Referendum for
(Source: Department of Education) (Source: Department of Education) (Source: LCIR phone survey School Construction
2/17/99 Rev. 2/22/99) (Source: Spessard Boatright, Educational Facilities)
Flow through Bond Series 1999-A Net Local Fiscal Year Collections Vote Annual Total Special
DISTRICT 1998/99 Amount 1999-A Bond Proceeds 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 4yr TOTAL 1997 1998 Date Years Amount Amount Note
Alachua $ 246,585.93 $600,000 $ 588,806.11 3.0400 2.8890 2.7600 2.5550 11.2440
Baker $ 19,492.60
Bay $ 230,469.70 $1,100,000 $ 1,079,477.83 24-Feb-98 10 $9,400,000 $94,000,000
Bradford $ 22,795.69
Brevard $ 375,024.83 $1,400,000 $ 1,373,880.88
Broward $ 1,326,831.24 $5,000,000 $ 4,906,717.42 0.5807 0.5580 0.5285 0.4866 2.1538 $6,555,616 $8,087,153
Calhoun $ 68,124.57
Charlotte $ 161,935.85 $820,000 $ 804,701.65 0.5552 0.5552 0.5625 0.5100 2.1829
Citrus $ 140,288.64 $800,000 $ 785,074.79 $177,678 $202,038
Clay $ 161,497.26 $600,000 $ 588,806.08
Collier $ 303,248.74__ $6,920,183 $7,756,132
Columbia $ 52,707.50
Miami-Dade $ 2,519,596.86 $3,100,000 $ 3,042,164.80 1.0160 1.0100 1.1060 0.9780 4.1100 $18,525,970 $19,477,530
Desoto $ 50,648.01 $260,000 $ 255,149.31
Dixie $ 16,097.52
Duval $ 598,945.09 $1,750,000 $ 1,717,351.10 0.8820 0.8370 0.7700 0.7360 3.2250
Escambia $ 178,365.47 07-Oct-97 5 $14,000,000 $70,000,000
Flagler $ 162,417.85 1.7110 1.6330 1.5420 1.1960 6.0820
Franklin $ 60,090.91
Gadsden $ 63,675.08 $290,000 $ 284,589.60
Gilchrist $ 33,036.74
Glades $ 35,863.85
Gulf $ 13,841.85 05-Nov-96 20 $325,000 $6,500,000 *
Hamilton $ 18,088.68
Hardee $ 25,062.90
Hendry $ 92,406.61
Hemando $ 155,085.81 $855,000 $ 839,048.67 1.4660 1.5860 1.6000 1.5890 6.2410 $1,270,274 $1,474,335
Highlands $ 71,829.06 $210,000 $ 206,082.13
Hllsborough $ 1,613,610.29 $9,150,000 $ 8,979,292.87 0.4362 0.4362 0.4360 0.3230 1.6314 $1,383,303 $1,565,163 03-Sep-96 30 $14,700,000 $677,900,000
Holmes $ 15,073.29
Indian River $ 467,205.97 1.2150 1.2100 1.1650 1.1370 4.7270
Jackson $ 70,870.98 $350,000 $ 343,470.22___ 12-Mar-96 10 $1,396,196 $13,961,960 *
Jefferson $ 26,677.34
Lafayette $ 34,534.10
Lake $ 168,322.53 $800,000 $ 785,074.79 $2,601,204 $2,653,731
Lee $ 580,200.65 $2,950,000 $ 2,894,963.28
Leon $ 175,196.91 $500,000 $ 490,671.74 1.3970 1.2660 1.2260 1.0990 4.9880
Levy $ 56,890.85 $325,000 $ 318,936.63

last updated 11/23/99
Page 3












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(C) CO & DS Dollars (D) Cumulative Debt Service Millage (E) Impact Fee (F) Voter Passed Referendum for
(Source: Department of Education) (Source: Department of Education) (Source: LCIR phone survey School Construction
~ 12/17/99 Rev. 2/22/99) (Source: Spessard Boatright, Educational Facilities)
Flow through Bond Series 1999-A Net Local Fiscal Year Collections Vote Annual Total Special
DISTRICT 1998/99 Amount 1999-A Bond Proceeds 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 4yr TOTAL 1997 1998 Date Years Amount Amount Note
Liberty $ 4,833.09 $200,000 $ 196,268.70
Madison $ 24,898.58
Manatee $ 400,387.68 $1,735,000 $ 1,702,630.94 0.1615 0.1534 0.1434 0.0000 0.4583 26-Apr-94 5 $15,000,000 $75,000,000 **
Marion $ 199,467.11 $835,000 $ 819,421.80 1.1700 1.1200 1.1200 0.9500 4.3600
Martin $ 152,054.35 $850,000 $ 834,141.96 0.1180 0.1180 0.1120 0.0000 0.3480 $1,145,542 $1,199,951
Monroe $ 40,985.34 03-Oct-95 10 $7,982,000 $79,820,000
Nassau $ 87,953.89 $440,000 $ 431,791.14
Okaloosa $ 167,993.13 $650,000 $ 637,873.26 16-May-95 4 $16,009,359 $64,037,436 *
Okeechobee $ 60,147.38 $320,000 $ 314,029.91
Orange $ 1,196,133.08 $5,450,000 $ 5,348,321.99 $10,016,822 $11,344,718
Osceola $ 199,466.75 $1,400,000 $ 1,373,880.88 0.7010 0.6650 0.6150 0.5600 2.5410 $1,541,912 $1,772,655
Palm Beach $ 871,014.18 $2,650,000 $ 2,600,560.24 0.5200 0.5360 0.4970 0.5030 2.0560 $6,442,628 $6,889,054
Pasco $ 433,616.44 $2,000,000 $ 1,962,686.96 0.9620 0.9290 0.9160 0.8740 3.6810
Pinellas $ 4,237,288.12
Polk $ 409,524.41 $1,300,000 $ 1,275,746.53
Putnam $ 68,985.36 $270,000 $ 264,962.74 1.0470 0.9700 0.9950 0.9700 3.9820
Santa Rosa $ 158,867.04 $725,000 $ 711,474.02 20-May-97 10 $2,228,626 $22,286,260 *
Sarasota $ 310,179.14 $3,000,000 $ 2,944,030.45 04-Nov-97 10 $12,800,000 $128,000,000
Seminole $ 328,405.32 $2,000,000 $ 1,962,686.96 1.0680 0.9200 0.8800 0.8160 3.6840 $3,050,204 $3,536,113
St Johns $ 159,290.47 $1,500,000 $ 1,472,015.22 0.8560 0.8520 0.7600 0.7170 3.1850 $577,538 $622,974
St. Lucie $ 157,583.98 $640,000 $ 628,059.83 0.3700 0.3700 0.6100 0.3300 1.6800 $1,076,430 $1,029,709 12-Mar-96 10 $6,000,000 $60,000,000 *+
Sumter $ 32,841.74
Suwannee $ 52,039.69 $250,000 $ 245,335.87
Taylor $ 128,455.82
Union $ 49,861.95
Volusia $ 558,054.80 $3,150,000 $ 3,091,231.97 1.3420 1.3240 1.3010 1.1880 5.1550 $2,078,080 $2,446,673
Wakulla $ 49,880.51 $300,000 $ 294,403.05 2.3500 2.1000 1.9500 1.7500 8.1500
Walton $ 35,013.96
Washington $ 22,812.30
TOTAL $21,010,673 $60,525,000 $ 59,395,814.32 $63,363,384 $70,057,929 $99,841,181 $1,291,505,656
_This is the school district using the local option sales tax 1/2 cent referendum
T__his is the local government infrastructure surtax, not a true 1/2 cent referendum
+ These funds are pledged to pay 70 percent of the bond issue approved in 1996
_District share is 1/4 cent of the county infrastructure surtax


last updated 11/23/99
Page 4












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(G) Surtax (H) SIT Funds 1997-1999 (I) Percent Students in Charter Schools
(Source: Department of Revenue) (Source: SMART Schools Clearinghouse) (Source: SMART schools Clearinghouse Worksheets)
Amount Generated Amount Generated from Estimated 99-00 Estimated 99-00 Award for Award for 1997-98 2000-01 Charter Stations
from School Capital Local Gov. Infrastructure Distribution Based Distribution Based Thrifty New Sponsoring Actual Charter Student As Percent
DISTRICT Outlay Surtax 1999-00 Surtax 1998-99 0.5% Tax Rate 1% Tax Rate Construction Charter Schools TOTAL CO-FTE Stations of CO-FTE
Alachua $12,281,165 $24,562,331 $726,225 $726,225 28,185 273 0.97%
Baker $503,295 $1,006,590
Bay $10,168,133 $10,168,133 $20,336,266
Bradford $756,487 $1,512,974
Brevard $21,561,623 $43,123,246 $3,529,153 $1,673,355 $5,202,508 65,827 275 0.42%
Broward $98,094,399 $196,188,798 $9,889,293 $9,889,293 215,412 2,121 0.98%
Calhoun $265,429 $530,858
Charlotte $6,942,239 $13,884,477
Citrus $4,043,650 $8,087,301
Clay $6,102,155 $12,204,311
Collier $19,642,356 $39,284,712 $1,346,796 $1.346,796 28,393 200 0.70%
Columbia $2,642,733 $5,285,466
MlamI-Dade $127,918,846 $255,837,692 $4,127,620 $4,127,620 340,123 1,770 0.52%
Desoto $869,525 $1,739,050
Dixie $229,787 $459,574
Duval $53,306,961 $106,613,923 $2,306,900 $2,306,900 123,784 580 0.47%
Escambia $15,976,792 $15,976,792 $31,953,583 $1,938,600 $1,938,600 42,989 350 0.81%
Flagler $1,559,949 $3,119,897
Franklin $422,221 $844,441
Gadsden $1,021,433 $2,042,867 $197,258 $197,258 7,583 121 1.60%
Gilchrist $188,329 $376,658
Glades $113,964 $227,928
Gulf $350,278 $350,278 $700,555
Hamilton $401,735 $803,471
Hardee $685,879 $1,371,757
Hendry $1,084,614 $2,169,227
Hemando $4,150,127 $4,150,127 $8,300,254
Highlands $3,244,404 $6,488,808
HIllsborough $73,727,441 $147,454,883 $1,733,198 $1,322,125 $3,055,323 146,806 775 0.53%
Holmes $286,050 $572,100
Indian River $7,327,602 $14,655,203 $2,345,063 $2,345,063 14,022 385 2.75%
Jackson $1,403,609 $1,403,609 $2,807,219 7,632 50 0.66%
Jefferson $217,830 $435,661
Lafayette $75,691 $151,383
Lake $8,919,837 $17,839,675 ___n/a 758
Lee $31,021,638 $62,043,276
Leon $14,062,614 $28,125,229 $794,675 $794,675 30,183 758 2.51%
Levy $1,140,362 $2,280,724

last updated 11/23/99
Page 5












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(G) Surtax I(H) SIT Funds 1997-1999 (I) Percent Students in Charter Schools
(Source: Department of Revenue) (Source: SMART Schools Clearinghouse) (Source: SMART schools Clearinghouse Worksheets)
Amount Generated Amount Generated from Estimated 99-00 Estimated 99-00 Award for Award for 1997-98 2000-01 Charter Stations
from School Capital Local Gov. Infrastructure Distribution Based Distribution Based Thrifty New Sponsoring Actual Charter Student As Percent
DISTRICT Outlay Surtax 1999-00 Surtax 1998-99 0.5% Tax Rate 1% Tax Rate Construction Charter Schools TOTAL CO-FTE Stations of CO-FTE
Liberty $74,300 $148,601
Madison $356,335 $712,670
Manatee $18,912,328 $13,525,380 $27,050,759 $3,774,892 $3,774,892 31,510 708 2.25%
Marion $13,237,812 $26,475,625
Martin $8,511,488 $17,022,976 $415,275 $415,275 15,087 100 0.66%
Monroe $9,910,543 $9,910,543 $19,821,087 9,219 85 0.92%
Nassau $2,691,410 $5,382,821
Okaloosa $21,578,764 $11,287,357 $22,574,713 $2,042,522 $2,313,500 $4,356,022 29,965 60 0.20%
Okeechobee $1,403,039 $2,806,078
Orange ___$111,841,332 $223,682,665 $2,649,578 $2,649,578
Osceola $12,388,966 $24,777,932 __$1,332,222 $1,332,222 27,705 250 0.90%
Palm Beach $78,367,053 $156,734,106 $5,212,067 $88,988 $5,301,055
Pasco $12,112,244 $24,224,488
Pinellas $53,651,821 $107,303,641 $604,205 $364,210 $968,415 108,996 40 0.04%
Polk $24,368,195 $48,736,391 _$2,426,601 $2,426,601 73,922 418 0.57%
Putnam $2,251,503 $4,503,007
Santa Rosa $2,982,906 $2,982,906 $5,965,812 $8,036,135 $799,666 $8,835,801 21,022 100 0.48%
Sarasota $10,866,151 $22,257,253 $44,514,506 $1,632,308 $1,632,308 33,386 260 0.78%
Seminole $22,926,337 $45,852,674 $863,944 $704,900 $1,568,844 55,447 160 0.29%
St Johns $6,986,703 $13,973,407
St. Lucie $7,427,369 $7,427,369 $14,854,737 $5,139,754 $5,139,754 27,345 100 0.37%
Sumter $1,139,925 $2,279,851
Suwannee $1,019,230 $2,038,460
Taylor $814,035 $1,628,070
Union $183,545 $367,091
Volusia $21,542,459 $43,084,918 $98,230 $98,230 57,709 150 0.26%
Wakulla $434,764 $869,528
Walton $3,045,446 $6,090,892 $395,675 $395,675 5,556 65 1.17%
Washington 1$550,064 $1,100,128
TOTAL $52,369,757 $51,357,243 $979,999,996 $1,960,000,002 $27,259,208 $43,565,725 $70,824,933 1,547,808 10,912 0.70%
Manatee expired June 30, 1999 Local Discretionary Sales Surtax Distributions
Okaloosa expired August 1, 1999 Estimates Reflect the $5,000 Cap on Transactions and Are Based
Osceola interlocal agreement on Fiscal Year 1999-00 Half-Cent Sales Tax Distribution Factors
begins January'00 (Dollar Figures Represent a 100 Percent Distribution of Estimated Monies)


last updated 11/23/99
Page 6












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(J) Effort Index Grants (K) FTE Growth (Pre K-12) (L) Potential Values (M) Income
(Source: Dept. of Education) (Source: Dept of Education) (Source: Department of Education and Department of Revenue) (Source: D. of Commerce)

1998-99 FTE Growth 1997-1999 FTE Growth 1999-2005 Potential value of Potential value of Potential value of Potential value of Per capital
DISTRICT Award Actual % Projected % Imill levy-1999 full 2mill levy-1999 1/2 cent surtax-1999 one cent surtax-1999 income 1996
Alachua -153 -0.55% -1,210 -4.33% $5,649,863 $11,299,726 $12,281,165 $24,562,331 $20,968
Baker -19 -0.42% 90 2.01% $314,992 $629,984 $503,295 $1,006,590 $15,729
Bay $ 2,803,884 -206 -0.82% -250 -1.00% $5,645,197 $11,290,394 $10,168,133 $20,336,266 $19,487
Bradford 24 0.60% -143 -3.60% $466,968 $933,936 $756,487 $1,512,974 $14,900
Brevard 562 0.85% -1,161 -1.72% $15,956,788 $31,913,576 $21,561,623 $43,123,246 $21,640
Broward $48,217,101 5,119 2.34% 29,657 12.77% $69,733,229 $139,466,458 $98,094,399 $196,188,798 $27,129
Calhoun -10 -0.45% 45 2.04% $222,362 $444,724 $265,429 $530,858 $13,119
Charlotte 254 1.62% 845 5.22% $6,978,324 $13,956,648 $6,942,239 $13,884,477 $21,535
Citrus 92 0.65% 1,010 7.03% $4,901,175 $9,802,350 $4,043,650 $8,087,301 $17,653
Clay $7,442,890 606 2.30% 2,412 8.77% $3,934,411 $7,868,822 $6,102,155 $12,204,311 $20,648
Collier $ 6,613,213 1,415 4.98% 7,815 24.88% $24,422,201 $48,844,402 $19,642,356 $39,284,712 $34,830
Columbia 42 0.46% 819 8.68% $1,156,671 $2,313,342 $2,642,733 $5,285,466 $16,401
Mlami-Dade $62,755,920 3,711 1.11% 18,970 5.48% $92,274,937 $184,549,874 $127,918,846 $255,837,692 $22,370
Desoto 3 0.07% -97 -2.19% $738,300 $1,476,600 $869,525 $1,739,050 $17,744
Dixie -12 -0.52% 203 8.80% $228,215 $456,430 $229,787 $459,574 $13,171
Duval $ 15,117,893 -39 -0.03% 2,357 1.91% $27,397,924 $54,795,848 $53,306,961 $106,613,923 $23,421
Escambia $ 4,788,867 -402 -0.92% -1,403 -3.23% $7,351,078 $14,702,156 $15,976,792 $31,953,583 $19,253
Flagler 184 3.18% 1,202 19.44% $2,573,103 $5,146,206 $1,559,949 $3,119,897 $17,450
Franklin 15 1.03% -114 -7.68% $757,783 $1,515,566 $422,221 $844,441 $16,395
Gadsden -263 -3.44% -777 -10.86% $747,238 $1,494,476 $1,021,433 $2,042,867 $14,762
Gilchrist 58 2.28% 447 16.55% $256,570 $513,140 $188,329 $376,658 $13,378
Glades 8 0.75% 123 11.09% $381,050 $762,100 $113,964 $227,928 $11,449
Gulf $317,717 -49 -2.14% -121 -5.64% $752,964 $1,505,928 $350,278 $700,555 $15,464
Hamilton -82 -3.75% -31 -1.46% $525,457 $1,050,914 $401,735 $803,471 $12,433
Hardee -125 -2.46% -12 -0.25% $883,831 $1,767,662 $685,879 $1,371,757 $15,817
Hendry $1,628,590 83 1.17% 334 4.60% $1,398,241 $2,796,482 $1,084,614 $2,169,227 $16,776
Hemando $ 2,215,010 264 1.68% 1,070 6.54% $4,117,216 $8,234,432 $4,150,127 $8,300,254 $19,109
Highlands 3 0.03% 111 1.02% $2,688,132 $5,376,264 $3,244,404 $6,488,808 $19,356
Hlllsborough $24,187,214 2,391 1.62% 13,727 8.95% $34,496,031 $68,992,062 $73,727,441 $147,454,883 $22,872
Holmes -172 -4.62% -179 -5.16% $258,407 $516,814 $286,050 $572,100 $13,430
Indian River $ 2,165,611 -5 -0.04% 559 3.90% $6,995,097 $13,990,194 $7,327,602 $14,655,203 $34,374
Jackson $852,475 -254 -3.31% -796 -11.10% $780,641 $1,561,282 $1,403,609 $2,807,219 $14,952
Jefferson -63 -3.24% -268 -14.52% $284,826 $569,652 $217,830 $435,661 $16,338
Lafayette -20 -1.92% 87 8.47% $128,556 $257,112 $75,691 $151,383 $13,512
Lake $ 5,950,530 710 2.68% 3,390 12.05% $6,933,256 $13,866,512 $8,919,837 $17,839,675 $20,108
Lee 857 1.66% 4,226 7.83% $25,238,030 $50,476,060 $31,021,638 $62,043,276 $25,144
Leon $ 2,837,267 142 0.47% 1,129 3.68% $7,722,064 $15,444,128 $14,062,614 $28,125,229 $22,300
Levy 139 2.36% 529 8.55% $871,344 $1,742,688 $1,140,362 $2,280,724 $14,616

last updated 11/23/99
Page 7











School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(J) Effort Index Grants (K) FTE Growth (Pre K-12) (L) Potential Values (M) Income
(Source: Dept. of Education) (Source: Dept of Education) (__Source: Department of Education and Department of Revenue) (Source: D. of Commerce)

1998-99 FTE Growth 1997-1999 FTE Growth 1999-2005 Potential value of Potential value of Potential value of Potential value of Per capital
DISTRICT Award Actual % Projected % mill levy-1999 full 2mill levy-1999 1/2 cent surtax-1999 one cent surtax-1999 income 1996
Liberty -68 -5.57% -131 -12.98% $126,176 $252,352 $74,300 $148,601 $13,297
Madison $414,950 -55 -1.68% -129 -3.94%/ $346,114 $692,228 $356,335 $712,670 $14,193
Manatee $ 4,629,939 334 1.05% 2,372 7.25% $11,586,175 $23,172,350 $13,525,380 $27,050,759 $25,669
Marion 397 1.11% 2,616 7.05% $6,694,306 $13,388,612 $13,237,812 $26,475,625 $18,975
Martin $ 2,764,247 275 1.82% 954 6.01% $9,713,632 $19,427,264 $8,511,488 $17,022,976 $35,503
Monroe $ 981,718 -166 -1.80% -1,118 -12.54% $9,075,160 $18,150,320 $9,910,543 $19,821,087 $28,959
Nassau -143 -1.42% 319 3.17% $2,616,972 $5,233,944 $2,691,410 $5,382,821 $23,148
Okaloosa $ 3,016,816 4 0.01% -287 -0.96% $6,960,593 $13,921,186 $11,287,357 $22,574,713 $21,218
Okeechobee 93 1.47% -115 -1.79% $976,174 $1,952,348 $1,403,039 $2,806,078 $15,864
Orange $ 26,399,317 4,781 3.70% 18,513 13.35% $46,853,504 $93,707,008 $111,841,332 $223,682,665 $22,951
Osceola $ 6,936,110 1,156 4.14% 6,491 21.41% $7,540,527 $15,081,054 $12.388,966 $24,777,932 $16,714
Palm Beach $23,700,071 3,409 2.46% 11,112 7.61% $67,684,358 $135,368,716 $78,367,053 $156,734,106 $38,081
Pasco $7,365,117 1,219 2.81% 6,411 13.88% $9,104,109 $18,208,218 $12,112,244 $24,224,488 $19,843
Pinellas 1,243 1.18% 2,683 2.47% $36,570,676 $73,141,352 $53,651,821 $107,303,641 $27,311
Polk 677 0.92% 3,594 4.77% $14,481,454 $28,962,908 $24,368,195 $48,736,391 $19,905
Putnam $ 1,780,505 -86 -0.69% -667 -5.44% $2,244,471 $4,488,942 $2,251,503 $4,503,007 $15,444
Santa Rosa $4,266,694 365 1.76% 1,629 7.70% $3,844,057 $7,688,114 $2,982,906 $5,965,812 $18,875
Sarasota $5,604,263 650 2.02% 2,434 7.24% $21,910,287 $43,820,574 $22,257,253 $44,514,506 $35,062
Seminole $ 7,600,020 1,210 2.18% 4,829 8.30% $14,339,789 $28,679,578 $22,926,337 $45,852,674 $24,852
St Johns $4,459,479 688 3.98% 2,368 12.46% $7,169,302 $14,338,604 $6,986,703 $13,973,407 $29,345
St. Lucie $ 4,074,580 590 2.16% 96 0.34% $8,194,854 $16,389,708 $7,427,369 $14,854,737 $18,659
Sumter 6 0.11% 156 2.74% $1,018,525 $2,037,050 $1,139,925 $2,279,851 $15,144
Suwannee -76 -1.34% 599 10.47% $658,217 $1,316,434 $1,019,230 $2,038,460 $16,599
Taylor 32 0.89% -269 -7.49% $728,338 $1,456,676 $814,035 $1,628,070 $16,023
Union 16 0.71% 40 1.78% $138,988 $277,976 $183,545 $367,091 $10,314
Volusia $ 7,383,670 445 0.77% 331 0.57% $15,023,965 $30,047,930 $21,542,459 $43,084,918 $19,787
Wakulla $728,322 -15 -0.34% 506 11.40% $422,060 $844,120 $434,764 $869,528 $19,005
Walton -22 -0.40% 648 11.56% $3,521,351 $7,042,702 $3,045,446 $6,090,892 $15,183
Washington -7 -0.21% 63 1.95% $424,172 $848,344 $550,064 $1,100,128 $14,289
TOTAL $300,000,000 31,760 1.43% 150,643 6.56% $676,130,778 $1,352,261,556 $979,999,996 $1,960,000,002


last updated 11/23/99
Page 8












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(N) Certificates of Participation Payable (0) Residential Property Taxable Value (P) Estimated Doc Stamp Tax (Q) Estimated
(Source: DOE) (Source: EDR) (Source: D. of Revenue) Intangibles C Tax

(Source: D. of Revenue)
State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year
DISTRICT 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998 1999 1998-1999 estimates 1998-1999 estimates
Alachua $14,020,000 $45,340,000 $3,121,228,237 $3,498,659,374 $8,920,000 $1,590,000
Baker $0 $0 $99,870,364 $111,966,222 $560,000 $100,000
Bay $21,865,000 $20,965,000 $3,237.217,261 $3,639,897,731 $10,110,000 $1,800,000
Bradford $0 $0 $193,534,153 $208,059,789 $540,000 $100,000
Brevard $138,695,000 $135,340,000 $10,049,645,260 $10,567,103,290 $21,600,000 $3,840,000
Broward $298,245,000 $284,860,000 $44,288,978,890 $47,077,101,640 $122,760,000 $21,840,000
Calhoun $0 $0 $56,078,743 $60,151,367 $280,000 $50,000
Charlotte $0 $0 $5,013,923,883 $5,330,909,055 $8,430,000 $1,500,000
Citrus $0 $0 $2,174,909,985 $2,328,741,000 $5,100,000 $910,000
Clay $13,680,000 $0 $2,405,775,662 $2,608,545,762 $6,950,000 $1,240,000
Collier $151,670,000 $146,725,000 $17,008,322,220 $19,480,489,619 $46,300,000 $8,240,000
Columbia $0 $0 $433,586,910 $469,591,230 $1,790,000 $320,000
Miami-Dade $459,565,000 $444,415,000 $55,111,493,096 $58,525,284,808 $179,590,000 $31,960,000
Desoto $0 $0 $248,041,839 $265,263,635 $1,430,000 $250,000
Dixie $0 $0 $89,539,813 $96,489,448 $210,000 $40,000
Duval $0 $0 $13,559,412,311 $14,393,110,082 $59,340,000 $10,560,000
Escambia $72,020,000 $70,665,000 $3,833,968,030 $4,063,351,319 $14,090,000 $2,510,000
Flagler $0 $0 $1,858,818,411 $1,948,666,489 $3,770,000 $670,000
Franklin $0 $0 $551,381,299 $621,515,407 $1,230,000 $220,000
Gadsden $0 $0 $272,626,585 $300,519,872 $1,000,000 $180,000
Gilchrist $0 $0 $100,954,674 $110,627,066 $440,000 $80,000
Glades $0 $0 $135,533,250 $140,852,645 $330,000 $60,000
Gulf $0 $0 $309,247,531 $387,493,429 $700,000 $120,000
Hamilton $0 $9,750 $72,908,437 $76,312,347 $350,000 $60,000
Hardee $0 $0 $118,363,162 $126,993,741 $1,570,000 $280,000
Hendry $7,985,000 $7,350,000 $322,491,900 $336,160,010 $1,390,000 $250,000
Hemando $28,295,000 $29,398,000 $2,400,848,068 $2,664,145,830 $6,160,000 $1,100,000
Highlands $7,355,000 $6,295,000 $1,347,105,395 $1,389,899,856 $3,180,000 $570,000
Hlllsborough $301,785,000 $364,930,000 $17,139,699,533 $18,606,863,555 $74,240,000 $13,210,000
Holmes $0 $0 $71,108,572 $79,299,118 $580,000 $100,000
Indian River $0 $0 $4,545,464,145 $4,955,677,989 $9,560,000 $1,700,000
Jackson $0 $0 $312,573,234 $330,584,921 $1,910,000 $340,000
Jefferson $0 $0 $49,092,022 $54,290,823 $410,000 $70,000
Lafayette $0 $0 $28,584,743 $30,786,985 $150,000 $30,000
Lake $22,760,000 $0 $3,994,119,688 $4,459,373,381 $11,010,000 $1,960,000
Lee $208,735,000 $198,670,000 $17,326,550,500 $18,756,627,300 $45,240,000 $8,050,000
Leon $0 $34,970,000 $4,617,629,354 $4,898,011,896 $15,030,000 $2,670,000
Levy $5,655,000 $5,460,000 $367,804,276 $387,759,154 $1,340,000 $240,000


last updated 11/23/99
Page 9












School Construction Finance Data (Part I)


(N) Certificates of Participation Payable (0) Residential Property Taxable Value (P) Estimated Doc Stamp Tax (Q) Estimated
(Source: DOE) (Source: EDR) (Source: D. of Revenue) Intangibles C Tax
___________ (Source: D. of Revenue)
State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year (Sou of Re
DISTRICT 1996-1997 1997.1998 1998 1999 1998-1999 estimates 1998-1999 estimates
Liberty $0 $0 $28,256,013 $30,251,049 $170,000 $30,000
Madison $0 $0 $83,193,400 $93,791,793 $390,000 $70,000
Manatee $0 $98,120,000 $7,106,634,941 $7,603,819,107 $13,990,000 $2,490,000
Marion $15,225,000 $22,995,000 $3,401,046,524 $3,709,614,660 $12,990,000 $2,310,000
Martin $0 $0 $6,177,601,029 $6,629,357,562 $13,700,000 $2,440,000
Monroe $28,000,000 $26,970,000 $6,159,850,315 $6,628,528,468 $11,590,000 $2,060,000
Nassau $0 $0 $1,476,730,337 $1,650,149,916 $4,410,000 $780,000
Okaloosa $15,110,000 $13,450,000 $4,684,935,398 $5,143,326,951 $14,670,000 $2,610,000
Okeechobee $0 $0 $446,659,687 $458,840,013 $1,080,000 $190,000
Orange $351,057,075 $351,057,075 $21,382,807,795 $23,269,326,173 $88,670,000 $15,780,000
Osceola $54,930,000 $53,370,000 $3,375,457,077 $3,724,399,060 $15,730,000 $2,800,000
Palm Beach $221,890,000 $219,530,000 $46,765,332,316 $49,941,529,411 $114,120,000 $20,310,000
Pasco $106,770,000 $106,770,000 $5,280,595,699 $5,789,601,066 $12,650,000 $2,250,000
Pinellas $0 $0 $22,375,474,500 $23,485,997,100 $61,630,000 $10,970,000
Polk $81,555,000 $113,605,000 $6,032,548,463 $6,342,979.128 $19,870,000 $3,540,000
Putnam $0 $0 $889,990,782 $935,483,438 $1,770,000 $320,000
Santa Rosa $0 $20,195,000 $2,581,007,528 $2,798,618,603 $7,420,000 $1,320,000
Sarasota $97,155,000 $91,555,000 $15,363,012,000 $16,633,356,589 $34,830,000 $6,200,000
Seminole $110,540,000 $188,275,000 $8,798,514,547 $9,403,804,065 $26,910,000 $4,790,000
St Johns $19,880,000 $18,450,000 $4,739,073,115 $5,425,715,976 $13,550,000 $2,410,000
St. Lucie $85,830,000 $83,495,000 $4,501,877,297 $4,644,958,370 $10,130,000 $1,800,000
Sumter $0 $2,060,000 $447,373,420 $576,277,239 $2,910,000 $520,000
Suwannee $0 $0 $225,600,249 $240,129,166 $890,000 $160,000
Taylor $0 $0 $174,670,781 $182,919,889 $690,000 $120,000
Union $0 $0 $33,119,426 $36,591,361 $1,110,000 $200,000
Volusia $53,815,000 $51,195,000 $9,417,102,711 $9,905,986,609 $24,550,000 $4,370,000
Wakulla $0 $0 $238,944,405 $260,261,826 $880,000 $160,000
Walton $3,645,000 $3,010,000 $2,488,425,531 $2,910,967,187 $7,760,000 $1,380,000
Washington $0 $0 $150,932,932 $164,989,912 $860,000 $150,000
TOTAL $2,997,732,075 $3,259,494,825 $401,695,199,654 $432,008,748,872 $1,187,510,000 $211,340,000
County totals include: Vacant Single Fam Res, *Estimates only not adopted by REC *Preliminary estimates based on
Single Fam Res, Mobile Homes, "Includes notes (approx 60% pledge for bids) doc stamp distributions.
Multi Fam < 10 units. Mult Fam> 10 units, and deeds (approx 70%) "Not adopted by REC
Condos, Cooperatives, Retirement "*Out of State Revenues are not included. "'Includes county revenue sharing
""Dade levies a discretionary surtax of $.45100 and general revenue
________ in addition to deed tax 201.02, F.S, levied
Sat $.60/100 rather than $.70/100 elsewhere.


last updated 11/23/99
Page 10












School Construction Finance Data (Part II)


(AA) Calculated (BB) Value of Additional (CC) Local Option (DD) Local Option (EE) Gross Receipts (FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est. Impact Fee
Icent surtax 2mill levy Half Mill Levy $.101100 Doc Stamp Tax Intangibles C Tax Value of Cable Exemption
Local FY Collections Local FY Collections
DISTRICT Potential Value 1999 Potential Value-1999 1998-99 Estimate 1998-99 Estimate 1997-1998 Estimate 1997 1998 1999 2005
Alachua $13,262,605 $2,824,932 $624,400 $1,028,730 $799,741
Baker $376,606 $157,496 $39,200 $64,700 $112,437
Bay $9,045,872 $2,822,599 $707,700 $1,164,600 $583,119
Bradford $579,038 $233,484 $37,800 $64,700 $140,216
Brevard $11,209,670 $7,978,394 $1,512,000 $2,484,480 $1,646,641
Broward $56,722,340 $34,866,615 $8,593,200 $14,130,480 $4,245,851 $6,555,616 $8,087,153 $8,240,045 $9,007,326
Calhoun $86,134 $111,181 $19,600 $32,350 $87,292-
Charlotte ($72,171) $3,489,162 $590,100 $970,500 $306,137
Citrus ($1,715,049) $2,450,588 $357,000 $588,770 $333,418 $177,678 $202,038 $206,610 $233,539
Clay $4,335,489 $1,967,206 $486,500 $802,280 $589,568
Collier ($9,559,690) $12,211,101 $3,241,000 $5,331,280 $457,196 $6,920,183 $7,756,132 $8,043,865 $9,505,272
Columbia $2,972,124 $578,336 $125,300 $207,040 $310,938
Miami-Dade $71,287,818 $46,137,469 $12,571,300 $20,678,120 $6,357,042 $18,525,970 $19,477,530 $19,685,638 $20,988,545
Desoto $262,450 $369,150 $100,100 $161,750 $128,254
Dixie $3,144 $114,108 $14,700 $25,880 $71,619
Duval $51,818,075 $13,698,962 $4,153,800 $6,832,320 $3,332,566
Escambia $17,251,427 $3,675,539 $986,300 $1,623,970 $1,296,656
Flagler ($2,026,309) $1,286,552 $263,900 $433,490 $96,807
Franklin ($671,125) $378,892 $86,100 $142,340 $68,282
Gadsden $548,391 $373,619 $70,000 $116,460 $259,062
Gilchrist ($136.482) $128,285 $30,800 $51,760 $45,668
Glades ($534,172) $190,525 $23,100 $38,820 $44,698
Gulf ($805,373) $376,482 $49,000 $77,640 $107,083
Hamilton ($247,443) $262,729 $24,500 $38,820 $120,503
Hardee ($395,905) $441,916 $109,900 $181,160 $157,948
Hendry ($627,255) $699,121 $97,300 $161,750 $138,021
Hemando $65,822 $2,058,608 $431,200 $711,700 $268,410 $1,270,274 $1,474,335 $1,512,925 $1,748,544
Highlands $1,112,544 $1,344,066 $222,600 $368,790 $282,479
Hillsborough $78,462,821 $17,248,016 $5,196,800 $8,546,870 $3,348,023 $1,383,303 $1,565,163 $1,586,915 $1,716,880
Holmes $55,286 $129,204 $40,600 $64,700 $92,999
Indian River $665,009 $3,497,549 $669.200 $1,099,900 $375,513
Jackson $1,245,937 $390,321 $133,700 $219,980 $277,841
Jefferson ($133,991) $142,413 $28,700 $45,290 $83,276
Lafayette ($105,729) $64,278 $10,500 $19,410 $22,398
Lake $3,973,163 $3,466,628 $770,700 $1,268,120 $736,326 $2,601,204 $2,653,731 $2,733,503 $3,139,332
Lee $11,567.216 $12,619,015 $3,166,800 $5,208,350 $907,999
Leon $12,681,101 $3.861,032 $1,052,100 $1,727,490 $790,980


last updated 12/6/99
Page 1




* *


School Construction Finance Data (Part II)


last updated 12/6/99
Page 2


(AA) Calculated (BB) Value of Additional (CC) Local Option (DD) Local Option (EE) Gross Receipts (FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est. Impact Fee
cent surtax 2mill levy Half Mill Levy $.101100 Doc Stamp Tax Intangibles C Tax Value of Cable Exemption I
____ Local FY Collections Local FY Collections
DISTRICT Potential Value 1999 Potential Value-1999 1998-99 Estimate 1998-99 Estimate 1997-1998 Estimate 1997 1998 1999 2005
Levy $538,036 $435,672 $93,800 $155,280 $180,379
Liberty ($103,751) $63,088 $11,900 $19,410 $39,108
Madison $20,442 $173,057 $27,300 $45,290 $98,864
Manatee $3,878,409 $5,793,088 $979,300 $1,611,030 $697,315
Marion $13,087,013 $3,347,153 $909,300 $1,494,570 $743,078
Martin ($2,404,288) $4,856,816 $959,000 $1,578,680 $367,716 $1,145,542 $1,199,951 $1,227,484 $1,375,113
Monroe $1,670,767 $4,537,580 $811,300 $1,332,820 $376,595
Nassau $148,877 $1,308,486 $308,700 $504,660 $221,663
Okaloosa $8,653,527 $3,480,297 $1,026,900 $1,688,670 $739,471
Okeechobee $853,730 $488,087 $75,600 $122,930 $165,238
Orange $129,975,657 $23,426,752 $6,206,900 $10,209,660 $2,946,690 $10,016,822 $11,344,718 $11,592,731 $13,147,687
Osceola $9,696,878 $3,770,264 $1,101,100 $1,811,600 $360,186 $1,541,912 $1,772,655 $1,831,981 $2.182,896
Palm Beach $21,365,390 $33,842,179 $7,988,400 $13,140,570 $2,416,043 $6,442,628 $6,889,054 $7,013,959 $7,798,660
Pasco $6,016,270 $4,552,055 $885,500 $1,455,750 $842,489
Pinellas $34,162,289 $18,285,338 $4,314,100 $7,097,590 $2,955,167
Polk $19,773,483 $7,240.727 $1,390,900 $2,290,380 $2,205,570
Putnam $14,065 $1,122,236 $123.900 $207,040 $366,786
Santa Rosa ($1,722,302) $1,922,029 $519,400 $854,040 $424,821
Sarasota $693,932 $10,955,144 $2,438,100 $4,011,400 $871,001
Seminole $17,173,096 $7,169,895 $1,883,700 $3,099,130 $898,704 $3,050,204 $3,536,113 $3,613,573 $4,078,405
St Johns ($365,197) $3,584,651 $948,500 $1,559,270 $360,239 $577,538 $622,974 $641,732 $746,170
St. Lucie ($1,534,971) $4,097,427 $709,100 $1,164,600 $489,903 $1,076,430 $1,029,709 $1,054,128 $1,198,809
Sumter $242,801 $509,263 $203,700 $336,440 $159,489
Suwannee $722,026 $329,109 $62,300 $103,520 $162,951
Taylor $171,394 $364,169 $48,300 $77,640 $125,500
Union $89,115 $69,494 $77,700 $129,400 $65,638
Volusia $13,036,988 $7,511,983 $1,718,500 $2,827,390 $1,155.843 $2,078,080 $2,446,673 $2,486,164 $2,720,676
Wakulla $25,408 $211,030 $61,600 $103,520 $83,785
Walton ($951,810) $1,760,676 $543,200 $892,860 $127,226
Washington $251,784 $212,086 $60,200 $97,050 $129,534
TOTAL $607,738,446 $338,065,389 $83,125,700 $136,736,980 $49,800,000 $63,363,384 $70,057,929 $71,471,254 $79,587,854
Calc by: (Est. Doc Stamp Tax) Calc by: County distribution of $49.8m *Osceola and Orange
x (. 7 deeds) x ( 1/100) (Est. IntangiblesTax) x (estimate) based on share of recently increases fees
(GRev apportionment = .647) 98/99 Total PECO Maintenence. "Growth based on EDR
"___ __"Assume min. 5% increase/yr county population estimates











School Construction Finance Data (Part III)


(HH) Distributions based on unweighted FTE I (II) Dist. Based on FTE and Impact Fees
based on 98/99 FTE based on 04/05 FTE allocation of &100M allocation of $150M allocation of $100M allocation of $150M
allocation of allocation of allocation of allocation of 99 Impact Fees 99 Impact Fees including '99 Impact Fees including '99 Impact Fees
DISTRICT $100M total $150M total $100M total $150M total based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE
Alachua $1,241.839 $1,862,759 $1,091,511 $1,637,267 $823,489 $2,266,750 $354,281 $975,201
Baker $201,062 $301,593 $186,599 $279,898 $133,328 $367,002 $57,360 $157,891
Bay $1,109,267 $1,663,900 $1,007,552 $1,511,328 $735,577 $2,024,763 $316,460 $871,093
Bradford $178,010 $267,014 $156,432 $234,649 $118,042 $324,924 $50,784 $139,789
Brevard $2,955,093 $4,432,639 $2,714,369 $4,071,553 $1,959,582 $5,393,981 $843,051 $2,320,597
Broward* $9,948,288 $14,922,432 $10,704,804 $16,057,206 $11,078,167 $16,052,311
Calhoun $98,306 $147,459 $92,134 $138,202 $65,189 $179,439 $28,045 $77,198
Charlotte $709,769 $1,064,653 $696,486 $1,044,729 $470,662 $1,295,553 $202,488 $557,372
Citrus* $631,088 $946,633 $628,550 $942,825 $386,651 $702,196
Clay $1,201,253 $1,801,880 $1,222,723 $1,834,084 $796,575 $2,192,668 $342,702 $943,329
Collier* $1,326,527 $1,989,791 $1,603,483 $2,405,224 $8,422,307 $9,085,570
Columbia $411,736 $617,604 $419,142 $628,713 $273,031 $751,549 $117,463 $323,331
Miaml-Dade* $15,080,616 $22,620,924 $14,912,781 $22,369,171 $23,987,949 $31,528,257
Desoto $198,436 $297,654 $177,156 $265,735 $131,587 $362,209 $56,611 $155,829
Dixie $102,534 $153,800 $102,640 $153,959 $67,992 $187,156 $29,252 $80,518
Duval $5,444,913 $8,167,369 $5,128,994 $7,693,492 $3,610,632 $9,938,691 $1,553,365 $4,275,822
Escambia $1,923,438 $2,885,157 $1,717,077 $2,575,615 $1,275,471 $3,510,884 $548,733 $1,510,452
Flagler $265,902 $398,853 $301,828 $452,742 $176,325 $485,355 $75,858 $208,809
Franklin $65,419 $98,128 $56,000 $84,000 $43,380 $119,410 $18,663 $51,372
Gadsden $328,695 $493,042 $260,625 $390,938 $217,964 $599,972 $93,772 $258,120
Gilchrist $115,573 $173,359 $128,678 $193,016 $76,639 $210,957 $32,971 $90,758
Glades $48,018 $72,027 $50,359 $75,539 $31,842 $87,648 $13,699 $37,708
Gulf $99,641 $149,461 $82,692 $124,038 $66,074 $181,876 $28,426 $78,247
Hamilton $93,767 $140,650 $85,349 $128,024 $62,178 $171,154 $26,750 $73,634
Hardee $220,153 $330,230 $199,556 $299,335 $145,988 $401,850 $62,807 $172,884
Hendry $320,239 $480,359 $310,494 $465,741 $212,357 $584,538 $91,360 $251,480
Hemando* $712,572 $1,068,859 $712,713 $1,069,070 $1,716,213 $2,072,499
Highlands $481,827 $722,741 $449,636 $674,454 $319,510 $879,488 $137,459 $378,373
Hillsborough* $6,668,506 $10,002,759 $6,830,130 $10,245,195 $3,489,356 $6,823,609
Holmes $158,028 $237,042 $134,605 $201,907 $104,792 $288,451 $45,083 $124,097
Indian River $622,633 $933,950 $608,643 $912,965 $412,881 $1,136,503 $177,629 $488,946
Jackson $329,941 $494,911 $260,707 $391,060 $218,790 $602,246 $94,128 $259,098
Jefferson $83,620 $125,430 $64,502 $96,753 $55,450 $152,633 $23,856 $65,666
Lafayette $45,348 $68,022 $45,536 $68,304 $30,071 $82,774 $12,937 $35,611
Lake* $1,210,643 $1,815,965 $1,288,411 $1,932,616 $3,078,884 $3,684,206
Lee $2,341,894 $3,512,841 $2,378,941 $3,568,411 $1,552,957 $4,274,699 $668,113 $1,839,060
Leon $1,349,535 $2,024,303 $1,301,573 $1,952,359 $894,904 $2,463,329 $385,005 $1,059,773
Levy $268,127 $402,190 $274,400 $411,601 $177,800 $489,417 $76,493 $210,557


last updated 1/5/00
Page 1











School Construction Finance Data (Part III)


(HH) Distributions based on unweighted FTE (iI) Dist Based on FTE and Impact Fees
based on 98/99 FTE based on 04/05 FTE allocation of &100M allocation of $150M allocation of $100M allocation of $150M
allocation of allocation of allocation of allocation of 99 Impact Fees 99 Impact Fees including '99 Impact Fees including '99 Impact Fees
DISTRICT $100M total $150M total $100M total $150M total based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE based on 98/99 FTE
Liberty $51,267 $76,900 $35,889 $53,834 $33,996 $93,578 $14,626 $40,259
Madison $142,986 $214,479 $128,678 $193,016 $94,817 $260,995 $40,792 $112,285
Manatee $1,432,799 $2,149,199 $1,434,869 $2,152,304 $950,118 $2,615,313 $408,760 $1,125,159
Marion $1,608,094 $2,412,141 $1,622,899 $2,434,348 $1,066,360 $2,935,281 $458,769 $1,262,816
Martin* $683,646 $1,025,469 $687,616 $1,031,423 $1,422,520 $1,764,343
Monroe $402,880 $604,320 $318,751 $478,126 $267,158 $735,384 $114,937 $316,377
Nassau $442,532 $663,798 $424,456 $636,684 $293,452 $807,761 $126,249 $347,515
Okaloosa $1.304,009 $1,956,014 $1,204,656 $1,806,984 $864,715 $2,380,230 $372,017 $1,024,022
Okeechobee $286,017 $429,025 $258,295 $387,443 $189,664 $522,071 $81,597 $224,605
Orange* $5,961,897 $8,942,846 $6,424,722 $9,637,083 $13,293,586 $18,274,534
Osceola* $1,295,109 $1,942,663 $1,504,685 $2,257,028 $2,201,459 $2,849014
Palm Beach* $6,307,458 $9,461,187 $6.422.555 $9,633,833 $8,813,398 $11,967,127
Pasco $1,985,519 $2,978,278 $2.150,362 $3,225,543 $1,316,638 $3,624,201 $566,444 $1,559,203
Pinellas $4,753,969 $7,130,953 $4,546,593 $6,819,890 $3.152,453 $8,677,499 $1,356,248 $3,733,232
Polk $3,299,096 $4,948,644 $3,229,120 $4,843,680 $2,187,698 $6,021,896 $941,191 $2,590,739
Putnam $551,874 $827,811 $474,120 $711,181 $365,959 $1,007,345 $157,443 $433,380
Santa Rosa $940,647 $1,410,971 $931,604 $1,397,406 $623,762 $1,716,979 $268,355 $738,678
Sarasota $1,458,388 $2,187,582 $1,474,151 $2,211,227 $967,087 $2,662,020 $416,060 $1,145,254
Seminole* $2,521,372 $3,782,058 $2,576,535 $3,864,803 $4,332,889 $5,593,575
St Johns* $799,130 $1,198,694 $873,397 $1,310,095 $869,714 $1,269,279
St. Lucie* $1,243,174 $1,864,762 $1,162,104 $1,743,156 $1,408,790 $2,030,377
Sumter $250,326 $375,489 $239,165 $358,748 $165,996 $456,924 $71,415 $196,578
Suwannee $248,457 $372,685 $258,254 $387,382 $164,757 $453,513 $70,882 $195,110
Taylor $161,010 $241,515 $135,749 $203,624 $106,769 $293,894 $45,934 $126,439
Union $100,353 $150,529 $93,729 $140,593 $66,546 $183,176 $28,629 $78,806
Volusia* $2,587,992 $3,881,989 $2,407,022 $3,610,534 $3,224,485 $4,518,482
Wakulla $195,989 $293,983 $202,132 $303,198 $129,964 $357,741 $55,913 $153,907
Walton $246,276 $369,414 $255,679 $383,519 $163,311 $449,532 $70,260 $193,398
Washington $145,478 $218,218 $134,400 $201,600 $96,470 $265,544 $41,503 $114,242
TOTAL $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $28,528,746 $78,528,746 $100,000,000 $150,000,000
* School Total = $100M 99 ImFe Total = 150M '99 Im Fe base of $28,528,746 *base of $78,528,746
Impact Fees distributed based on PECO. distributed based on PECO
-- "total includes '99 Impact total includes '99 Impact
Fees collected Fees collected


last updated 1/5/00
Page 2












School Construction Finance Data (Part III)


(JJ) Distribution based on 98/99 Total PECO (FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est. Impact Fee
allocation of $100M allocation of $150M I
based on combined based on combined Local FY Collections Local FY Collections
DISTRICT maint. & new con. PECO maint. & new con. PECO 1997 1998 1999 2005
Alachua $1,249,474 $_1,874,211
Baker $162,382 $243,573
Bay $967,077 $1,450,615
Bradford $190,852 $286,279
Brevard $2,859,692 $4,289,538 4- -
Broward* $9,908,097 $14,862,146 $6,555,616 $8,087,153 $8,240,045 $9,007,326
Calhoun $113,124 $169,686
Charlotte $650,699 $976,049
Citrus* $616,882 $925,322 $177,678 $202,038 $206,610 $233,539
Clay $1,295,386 $1,943,079
Collier* $1,425,924 $2,138,886 $6,920,183 $7,756,132 $8,043,865 $9,505,272
Columbia $521,368 $782,052
Miami-Dade* $12,798,176 $19,197,264 $18,525,970 $19,477,530 $19,685,638 $20,988,545
Desoto $191,881 $287,821
Dixie $152,698 $229,047
Duval $5,107,941 $7,661,911
Escambia $1,789,940 $2,684,910
Flagler $297,847 $446,770
Franklin $87,352 $131,028
Gadsden $343,544 $515,316
Gilchrst .$76,622 $114,933
Glades $56,130 $84,194
Gulf $167,996 $251,994
Hamilton $137,585 $206,377
Hardee $224,425 $336,638
Hendry $209,990 $314,985
Hemando* $581,841 $872,761 $1,270,274 $1,474,335 $1,512,925 $1,748,544
Highlands $406,519 $609,778 -
Hillsborough* $7,627,683 $11,441,524 $1,383,303 $1,565,163 $1,586,915 $1,716,880
Holmes $144,766 $217,149
Indian River $790,097 $1,185,146
Jackson $348,984 $523,476
Jefferson $101,354 $152,031
Lafayette $43,197 $64,795
Lake* $1,577,420 $2,366,130 $2,601,204 $2,653,731 $2,733,503 $3,139,332
Lee $2,269,591 $3,404,386
Leon $1,233,058 $1,849,587
Levy $352,554 _$528,831


last updated 1/5/00
Page 3












School Construction Finance Data (Part III)


(JJ) Distribution based on 98/99 Total PECO (FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est. Impact Fee
allocation of $100M allocation of $150M
based on combined based on combined Local FY Collections Local FY Collections
DISTRICT maint. & new con. PECO maint. & new con. PECO 1997 1998 1999 2005
Liberty $76,714 $115,071
Madison $166,383 $249,574
Manatee $1,442,149 $2,163,223
Marion $1,450,575 $2,175,862
Martin* $855,412 $1,283,118 $1,145,542 $1,199,951 $1,227,484 $1,375,113
Monroe $524,742 $787,114
Nassau $418,393 $627,589
Okaloosa $1,097,770 $1,646,654
Okeechobee $268,016 $402,024
Orange* $5,213,633 $7,820,450 $10,016,822 $11,344,718 $11,592,731 $18,527,053
Osceola* $1,560,478 $2,340,718 $1,541,912 $1,772,655 $1,831,981 $5,260,321
Palm Beach* $6,632,133 $9,948,199 $6,442,628 $6,889,054 $7,013,959 $7,798,660
Pasco $2,159,938 $3,239,906
Pinellas $5,429,830 $8,144,745
Polk $3,440,986 $5,161,478
Putnam $474,212 $711,318
Santa Rosa $1,151,616 $1,727,423
Sarasota $1,764,570 $2,646,856
Seminole* $2,132,414 $3,198,621 $3,050,204 $3,536,113 $3,613,573 $4,078,405
St Johns* $1,279,486 $1,919,229 $577,538 $622,974 $641,732 $746,170
St. Lucie* $1,198,146 $1,797,219 $1,076,430 $1,029,709 $1,054,128 $1,198,809
Sumter $251,181 $376,772
Suwannee $260,406 $390,609
Taylor $179,799 $269,698
Union $100,927 $151,390
Volusia* $2,561,459 $3,842,188 $2,078,080 $2,446,673 $2,486,164 $2,720,676
Wakulla $293,222 $439,833
Walton $335,240 $502,860
Washington $200,025 $300,037
TOTAL $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $63,363,384 $70,057,929 $71,471,254 $88,044,644
* School *Osceola and Orange adjusted
Impact Fees for increased fees
"Growth based on EDR
county population estimates


last updated 1/5/00
Page 4











School Construction Finance Data (Part IV)


(FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est Impact Fee (KK) Distribution based on 98199 and 99100 FTE values
I I Dist of $50M Dist of $50M based Average distribution Dist of $100M Increased distribution
Local FY Collections Local FY Collections based on % of on % of total positive Average distribution of $100M total, with based on % of based on % FTE
DISTRICT 1997 1998 1999 2005 98/99 FTE FTE growth 98/99-00 of $100M total Impact Fees paid 98/99 FTE growth 98/99 99/00
Alachua _$620,920 $7,990 $628,910 $509,615 $1,241,839 $356
Baker___ $100,531 $0 $100,531 $81,462 $201,062 $0
Bay $554,633 $0 $554,633 $449,427 $1,109,267 $0
Bradford ___ $89,005 $0 $89,005 $72,122 $178,010 $0
Brevard $_ 1,477,546 $1,161,560 $2,639,106 $2,138,506 $2,955,093 $51,756
Broward* $6,555,616 $8,087,153 $8,240,045 $9,007,326 $4,974,144 $8,672,246 $13,646,391 $8,240,045 $9,948,288 $386,414
Calhoun $___ 49,153 $0 $49,153 $39,829 $98,306 $0
CharlotteI $__354,884 $244,697 $599,581 $485,849 $709,769 $10,903
Citrus* $177,678 $202,038 $206,610 $233,539 $315,544 $185,770 $501,314 $206,610 $631,088 $8,277
Clay $600,627 $507,371 $1,107,997 $897,826 $1,201,253 $22,607
Collier* $6,920,183 $7,756,132 $8,043,865 $9,505,272 $663,264 $1,603,012 $2,266,276 $8,043,865 $1,326,527 $71,426
Columbia $205,868 $182,773 $388,641 $314,922 $411,736 $8,144
Miaml-Dade* $18,525,970 $19,477,530 $19,685,638 $20,988,545 $7,540,308 $6,979,346 $14,519,654 $19,685,638 $15,080,616 $310,983
Desoto ___ $99,218 $0 $99,218 $80,398 $198,436 $0
Dixie ___ _$51,267 $3,995 $55,262 $44,779 $102,534 $178
Duval $2,722,456 $768,048 $3,490,504 $2,828,406 $5,444,913 $34,222
Escambia ___ $961,719 $188,766 $1,150,485 $932,255 $1,923,438 $8,411
Flagler $____ 132,951 $206,744 $339,695 $275,259 $265,902 $9,212
Franklin ___ _$32,709 $13,983 $46,692 $37,835 $65,419 $623
Gadsden ___ _$164,347 $0 $164,347 $133,173 $328,695 $0
Gilchrist $57,786 $103,871 $161,658 $130,993 $115,573 $4,628
Glades __ ___$24,009 $29,963 $53,972 $43,734 $48,018 $1,335
Gulf $49,820 $0 $49,820 $40,370 $99,641 $0
Hamilton _____$46,883 $11,985 $58,868 $47,702 $93,767 $534
Hardee _____$110,077 $0 $110,077 $89,197 $220,153 $0
Hendry _____$160,120 $65,918 $226,038 $183,162 $320,239 $2,937
Hemando* $1,270,274 $1,474,335 $1,512,925 $1,748,544 $356,286 $353,562 $709,848 $1,512,925 $712,572 $15,754
Highlands $___ 240,914 $61,923 $302,837 $245,393 $481,827 $2,759
Hlllsborough* $1,383,303 $1,565,163 $1,586,915 $1,716,880 $3,334,253 $3,516,639 $6,850,892 $1,586,915 $6,668,506 $156,693
Holmes $79,014 $0 $79,014 $64,026 $158,028 $0
Indian River $311,317 $339,579 $650,895 $527,430 $622,633 $15,131
Jackson $164,970 $0 $164,970 $133,678 $329,941 $0
Jefferson $41,810 $0 $41,810 $33,879 $83,620 $0
Lafayette ____$22,674 $7,990 $30,664 $24,848 $45,348 $356
Lake* $2,601,204 $2,653,731 $2,733,503 $3,139,332 $605,322 $924,853 $1,530,175 $2,733,503 $1,210,643 $41,209
Lee _$1,170,947 $1,347,329 $2,518,276 $2,040,596 $2,341,894 $60,034
Leon $674,768 $387,519 $1,062,287 $860,787 $1,349,535 $17,267
Levy $134,063 $158,803 $292,867 $237,314 $268,127 $7,076


last updated 1/7/00
Page 1












School Construction Finance Data (Part IV)


(FF) Impact Fee (GG) Est. Impact Fee (KK) Distribution based on 98199 and 99100 FTE values
I I Dist of $50M Dist of $50M based Average distribution Dist of $100M Increased distribution
Local FY Collections Local FY Collections based on % of on % of total positive Average distribution of $100M total, with based on % of based on % FTE
DISTRICT 1997 1998 1999 2005 98/99 FTE FTE growth 98/99-00 of $100M total Impact Fees paid 98/99 FTE growth 98/99 99/00
Liberty $25,633 $0 $25,633 $20,771 $51,267 $0
Madison $71,493 $63,921 $135,414 $109,728 $142,986 $2,848
Manatee $716,400 $534,337 $1,250,737 $1,013,490 $1,432,799 $23,809
Marion $804,047 $950,821 $1,754,868 $1,421,995 $1,608,094 $42,366
Martin* $1,145,542 $1,199,951 $1,227.484 $1,375,113 $341,823 $505,373 $847,196 $1,227,484 $683,646 $22,518
Monroe $201,440 $0 $201,440 $163,230 $402,880 $0
Nassau $221,266 $120,850 $342.116 $277,222 $442,532 $5,385
Okaloosa $652,005 $455,435 $1,107,440 $897,375 $1,304,009 $20,293
Okeechobee $143,008 $6,991 $150,000 $121,547 $286,017 $312
Orange* $10,016,822 $11,344,718 $11,592,731 $18,527,053 $2,980,949 $4,689,185 $7,670,134 $11,592,731 $5,961,897 $208,939
Osceola* $1,541.912 $1,772,655 $1,831,981 $5,260,321 $647,554 $1,216,492 $1,864,046 $1,831,981 $1,295,109 $54,204
Palm Beach* $6,442,628 $6,889,054 $7,013,959 $7,798,660 $3,153,729 $4,272,702 $7,426,431 $7,013,959 $6,307,458 $190,381
Pasco $992,759 $1,578,043 $2,570,803 $2,083,159 $1,985,519 $70,314
Pinellas $2,376,984 $1,718,869 $4,095,853 $3,318,929 $4,753,969 $76,589
Polk $1,649,548 $1,269,426 $2,918,974 $2,365,287 $3,299,096 $56,563
Putnam $275,937 $0 $275,937 $223,596 $551,874 $0
Santa Rosa $470,324 $24,969 $495,293 $401,343 $940,647 $1,113
Sarasota $729,194 $857,936 $1,587,130 $1,286,074 $1,458,388 $38,228
Seminole* $3,050,204 $3,536,113 $3,613,573 $4,078,405 $1,260,686 $1,545,084 $2.805,770 $3,613,573 $2,521,372 $68,845
St Johns* $577,538 $622,974 $641,732 $746,170 $399,565 $1,040,710 $1,440,274 $641,732 $799,130 $46,371
St. Lucie* $1,076,430 $1,029,709 $1.054,128 $1,198,809 $621,587 $398,506 $1,020,093 $1,054,128 $1,243,174 $17,756
Sumter __$125,163 $69,913 $195,076 $158,073 $250,326 $3,115
Suwannee $124,228 $135,832 $260,060 $210,730 $248,457 $6,052
Taylor $80,505 $0 $80,505 $65,234 $161,010 $0
Union $50,176 $0 $50,176 $40,659 $100,353 $0
Volusia* $2,078,080 $2,446,673 $2,486,164 $2,720,676 $1,293,996 $400,503 $1,694,500 $2,486,164 $2,587,992 $17,845
Wakulla $97,994 $34,957 $132,951 $107,732 $195,989 $1,558
Walton $123,138 $72,910 $196,048 $158,860 $246,276 $3,249
Washington $72,739 $0 $72,739 $58,943 $145,478 $0
TOTAL $63,363,384 $70,057,929 $71,471,254 $88,044,644 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $2,227,879
SSchool *Osceola and Orange adjusted
Impact Fees r increased fees
_Growth based on EDR
county population estimates


last updated 1/7/00
Page 2





Appendix 8


z a t 9 m S SOSN S M
Fiscal Yean






Source: Florida Legislature, Economic and Demographic Research Office.


INTANGIBLES C



Base and Rate: Mortgages and other obligations secured

by liens on Florida realty at $2 per $1000 (2 mills)



Disposition: Approximately 38% of the intangibles tax is

shared with counties through the Revenue Sharing Trust

Fund. The remainder goes to the General Revenue Fund.


Intangibles C Revenues





Appendix 9


Source: Florida Legislature, Economic and Demographic Research Office


DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX


Base and Rate : Deeds and other documents related to

realty at 70 cents per $100. Corporate shares, certificates

of indebtedness, promissory notes, wage assignments and

retail charge account agreements at 35 cents per $100.





















Distribution of the Documentary Stamp Tax


Source: Florida Legislature, Economic and Demographic Research Office


GR service charge
F DOR service charge

P2000
Forever Florida (beginning In 2000-01)
CARL
Land Acquisition Trust Fund
Water Management Lands
Beach Restoration


State Housing Trust Fund
Local Housing Trust Fund

Aquatic Plant Control Trust Fund (beginning 2001-02)
State Game Trust Fund (beginning 2001-02)
DEP Grants and Donations Trust Fund (beginning 2001-02)
Dept of Agriculture Grants and Donations Trust Fund (beginning 2001-02)


General Revenue Fund






, 10


Source: Florida Legislature, Economic and Demographic Office
Office


Real GRT Collections per FTE, 99-00 $

$300

$250 .

$200-


$150


$100

$50

$0

gI q S S b q q S % 0 s^ ^ ^ ^ p
C! qr&. 4r qv- qv' W^ 4A, 14V qq 4:PQ Q? 4P 0s lz 4b t t d


Real GRT Collections per FTE, 99-00 $
Effect of adding water, sewer & CATV

$400

$350

$300

$250

$200

$150

$100
$50

$0-
$or




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs