Title: 25% Grapefruit Labels Have 'ID'
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002098/00001
 Material Information
Title: 25% Grapefruit Labels Have 'ID'
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Florida Citrus Mutual
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: 25% Grapefruit Labels Have 'ID', Feb 20, 1976
General Note: Box 10, Folder 2 ( SF Taxation, ad valorem tax referendum-SWFWMD-1976 - 1976 ), Item 50
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002098
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



25 % GRAPEFRUIflABELS HAVE "ID"


ofbnly 70 out of a total of 365 canned
grapefruit juice labels contain Florida
ID.


A survey unveiled at this week's
Citrus Commission meeting shows
Florida processors have "Florida ID"
prominently displayed on 25 percent of
processed grapefruit product labels.
In terms of volume, 39 percent of
the grapefruit product has prominent
Florida identification, according to
Warren Savant, Executive Vice Presi-


.dent of the Florida Canners Association.
The report was particularly sig-
nificant in as much as the Canners
Association has strongly objected to
the adoption of a Commission regulation
which would require "'Florida ID" on
processed grapefruit products.
Responding to a Department of
Citrus request, the Canners reported


A total of 26 frozen concentrate
grapefruit juice labels out of 109 have
identification and 39 out of 64 chilled
grapefruit juice labels contain Florida
ID.
Savant saidthe surveyrepresented
95 percent of the 1974-75 retail pack of
the three products.


WATER & POLLUTION CONTROL

COMMITTEE REPORT


HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

.* :Thls committee has been studying this
.referendum for seven months and has
held numerous meetings throughout the
state. We have met with informed
leaders and representatives from the
three Water Management Districts
where citrus lands are affected. We
have read countless volumes of ma-
terial on the subject and have thought-
fully considered the pros and cons of
the referendum. We feel that this is
an important is sue and now, after a
long and thorough study, we are issuing
the following report.
The proposed amendment to the con-
stitution authorizing and limiting local
taxes for water management purposes
to not more than one (1) mill seeks to
address a dilemma created by the
Florida Resources Act of 1972. This
dilemma resultedd from a desire by the
legislature to create regional water
management districts with uniform
authority throughout the state.
This 1972 Act required among other
things that there be substantial bound-
_.iary changes n Cent r a I and Southern
"-Florida F!-cod Control District and the
Southwest Florida Water Management
District, the two existing special dis-
tricts already authorized by enabling
legislation to levy ad valorem taxes of
1 mill and 1.3 mills, respectively.
This transfer, which has been delayed
twice, will take place onDecember 31,
1976. The most recent delay was made
because of a declaratory judgement
issued to the Southwest Water Manage-
ment District in the Fifth Circuit Court,
stating that any such boundary rede-
signation will result inthese two
special districts no longer existing as
they were originally constituted and as
contemplated by the Florida Con-
stitution of 1968.
SThe State Constitution, as revised in
1968, contains three provisions which
makes a constitutional amendment


ne c e s-s a y in solving this dilemma:

1. Article VII, S 1 (a), prohibits
ad valorem taxation for state pur-
poses.

2. Article VII, S 9 (b), provides
that special districts may only levy
an ad valorem tax upon referen-
dum approval of the freeholders
residing in the district.

3. Article XII, S 2 & 15, "grand-
fathered" all millages authorized
on the e effective date of the re-
vision to be continued "until re-
duced by law. "


The proponents of this referendum
support their positions with the follow-
ing points:

1. That "satisfactory water man-
agement throughout the state will
come quicker and on a sounder
basis if the ad valorem referendum
is passed in March;" That to de-
lay its passage in an effort to work
out the existing problems with
water management first, would
take several years and would have
an adverse effect upon sound water
management in Florida; "A vote
for this constitutional amendment
will be a vote for Fall funding for.
locally controlled water manage-
ment.

2. That if t h e referendum doe s
not pass the Flood Control District
and the Southwest Water Manage-
ment District could no longer exist
because there aren't enough funds
in general revenue to replace the
current ad valorem taxes gener-
ated in these two districts.

3. That "if it doesn'tpass, it will
mean double taxation for the thirty-
three counties and the 65 percent


of the people of the statewhopres-
ently reside in the two existing
districts." This would result be-
cause the two existing special
districts would continue to be
authorized to levy ad valorem
taxes under existing statutes while
the rest of th e districts would be
supported by general funds.

The persons campaigning for the rati-
fication of this amendment admit that
there are unresolved problems regard-
ing water management. They believe,
however, that these problems can best
be worked out after an ad valorem tax
base is established and the funds are
made available. It is their hope that
the majority of Florida's present pop-
ulation who r e si d e in the Flood Con-
trol and Water Management Districts
will "grant" or "impose" the "benefits"
or "burdens" of ad valorem taxation on
the minority residing in the three post-
1968 districts.



The Committee comments on this .
reasoning are as follows:

1. We fail to see the urgency of
passing this amendment in March .
since this does not mean funding
for water management purposes '
this Fall. There is no provision .
specifying a different effective date-"
than that established by Arti c e' '
XI, S 5 (c), of the State Constitu-
tion. Thus, if ratified in March,
1976, the amendment would take -
effect on January 4, 1977. Since
tax assessments are based on the '
evaluation as of January 1, the
governing boards would not be
authorized to levy their millage
until the 1978 tax year. So time
really is not an issue, and funding '
doesn't have to be considered in
isolation from the unresolved
issues.


I




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