Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03032010BudgetCouncilWrkshp
CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZEN'S BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES 4:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY MARCH 3, 2010 CITY HALL, 1225 MAIN STREET 1. Mayor Gillmor called the joint workshop to order at 4:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call City Council Present: Mayor Richard H. Gillmor Council Member Andrea Coy Council Member Eugene Wolff Council Member Don Wright City Council Absent: Vice -Mayor Jim Hill (excused) UfYOF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Staff Present: City Manager, Al Minner Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Administrative Services Director, Deb Krueger Finance Director, Ken Killgore Police Chief, Michelle Morris MIS Senior Systems Analyst, Barbara Brooke -Reese Citizen Budget Review Advisory Committee Present: Ed Herlihy Jerry Klenck Christine Vicars Edward Kroah Citizen Budget Review Advisory Committee Absent: Adrina Davis Harry Marshall (excused) Brad White Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Two 4. Introduction of Ken Small, Department of Financial Services, Florida League of Cities by the City Manager The City Manager said the purpose of the workshop was to further the City's attempt at transparency, plan more review time of the budget, and in these difficult financial times, know that we are doing the best that we can with our funds. He introduced Ken Small, Florida League of Cities, Technical Service Manager, to help enhance the FY10/11 budget. He said staff spent the early part of the day with Mr. Small reviewing legislation and the City's revenues. 5. Comments by Ken Small on Revenue Enhancement Ken Small said he has been in local government for 35 years, was at the forefront with Florida's first property tax crisis in 1980 when the homestead exemption was increased to $25,000; and was recruited by the executive director of the Florida League of Cities in 1984 to be the finance and tax expert where he lobbied the legislature for 13 sessions and remains a senior advisor. Mr. Small said he and staff spent about seven hours going through a variety of areas to look for revenue diversification outside of property tax and ended up with about five options that Council may or may not choose to go with. Five Diversification Options 1) He said they reviewed the County's interlocal agreement to provide water and sewer and didn't see anything to preclude requiring the City and the County to enter into a franchise agreement to regulate the County's use of the City's rights -of -way for the utility. He said a rough estimate of a 6% franchise fee could bring in $180,000. Mr. Wright asked if the 5 or 6% would be charged back to residents. Mr. Small replied it would and collection would be negotiated by the City and built into customer's bill. 2) He said the next enhancement could be the mandatory collection of solid waste. He noted folks find other ways of disposing of their trash if it is optional and a 6% franchise fee bring in about $120,000. Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Three 3) An easy enhancement he recommended was finding a way to see if all of the liquefied petroleum companies are remitting the required 10% liquefied petroleum storage tax to the City. He said one or two of the larger companies could identify who is paying so it is an even playing field. 4) He said there are a number of services that cities provide to citizens where the fee isn't recovered to pay the cost and these would be called user fees. In response to Mayor Gillmor, Mr. Small said an example would be public records requests outside of the City Clerk's office such as the Police Department. He said researching what someone asks for could take hours which should be recovered since that staff member is taken away from their regular duties. The City Manager said staff has considered site plan review user fees which would defer some of the cost of development and protect the tax base. He cautioned that while the City is encouraging commercial development, the City may not want to implement that two -edged sword. Ms. Small said in the growth management area there are several areas where you can recover cost with user based services. He said it has been his experience that one of the first questions elected officials ask is, "What does everyone else charge He responds that because we don't know when or how that body established the user fee, he recommends a policy decision be made to recover full cost or only certain areas of a user based service. 5) He said many years ago, he managed to get the legislature to amend some of the environment provisions of the Dept. of Environmental Protection and water management districts so that if cities that met certain criteria indicating that they were below average on their financial abilities, they could qualify for reduced fees with a cap of $100.00 per permit. He said one threshold is called the per capita taxable value and if the city is below state average, which he found to be true for Sebastian, the City could qualify. Property Tax in the Big Picture Mr. Small said cities do not have a lot of options available to run local government and in the big picture, there are four taxes they can levy and the Constitution provides for the property tax up to 10 mils. Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Four He continued to say through general law, the legislature has allowed three additional taxes: the municipal utility service tax which is also known as the public service tax on electricity /metered and bottled gas /water service (10 the local business tax; and the communications services tax (5.22 which is primarily on entertainment and convenience. 4:40 pm In response to Mr. Wright, Mr. Small said the Dept. of Revenue collects the communications tax for the City and disburses it back to the City by wire or check. Mr. Herlihy asked where the cable franchise fee is. Mr. Small said it disappeared in 2001 when the administration of the communication and cable taxes became difficult resulting in the 5.22% communications services tax compromise. Mr. Wright asked how the companies determine the split of money throughout the cities. Mr. Small said a company out of Texas called Geotax identifies street addresses in segments. Mr. Wright said the election and property tax offices have problems determining who lives where and he asked if they use Geotax system. Mr. Small said they do not; it was created for the communications services tax. Mr. Wright said if the system is that good, he asked why the other agencies don't use that system. Ms. Coy said she was sure it was proprietary. Mr. Small said over the years, he has tried to make sure cities received their share with this system and it was transferable to collect the fire and insurance premium tax for pension monies. The City Manager pointed out if the data base was based on address but someone made a call in Orlando, Orlando's services were impacted. Mr. Small said it was based on the billing address location. Home Rule Revenues Mr. Small said home rule revenues include special assessments, franchise fees, impact fees, water /sewer fees, and building permit fees. Miscellaneous Mr. Small said fines and forfeitures, except for criminal traffic fines, would be available. He noted criminal fines go to the state. Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Five State Shared Revenues Mr. Small said cities receive two state shared revenues: sales tax and municipal revenue sharing, noting they are formula based and tied to the population so cities must annex and grow to collect more. He said there is a small local option gas tax which Indian River County has levied for fifteen years whose default formula favors the County. Mayor Gillmor asked what other formulas the City could institute. Mr. Small replied that the formulas are directed by interlocal agreements. Mayor Gillmor pointed out that both the cities in the county and the county have to agree so revenues are slim. Mr. Small said some agencies are using a new local option sales tax paying for fire /rescue. He also said there are local option motor fuel tax options that the counties can levy without referendum and share by agreement based on population, and land miles maintained. He said the remaining revenue enhancements are small miscellaneous rents, royalties, contributions, and donations. There were no questions. Property Tax in the Smaller Picture Mr. Small said when he looks at cities in the average; Sebastian raises $3.6 M and change, with a tax base of $1.162 B. He takes the per capita tax value which is the tax base and divides it by the permanent population. He said Sebastian's value is $57,500 and the average city per capita taxable value is $94,000 which includes some very wealthy cities. He noted Sebastian's value is well below the average so the City has a harder time levying a millage rate to raise an equal amount of money. He said the per capita taxes levied, which is the $3.6 M divided by population, shows $193 per capita for Sebastian, and the state average is $442, so Sebastian is way below the average on per capita taxes levied. Mr. Small said Sebastian's millage rate is 3.3456 and the state average is around 4 mills so Sebastian is below average on millage rate, and the two factors together bring Sebastian well below average. Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Six 5:03 pm Mr. Wright asked what the low levy tells him about the City. Mr. Small said Sebastian is a low -cost city and he noted that a national survey reports that ad valorem taxes are the most unpopular tax, but it is the only tax individuals can write off on their federal taxes. He said when looking at the variety of revenue options, a franchise fee will pick up $180,000 where 1/10 of a mill raises $125,000 with no negotiation or battles. The City Manager summed up in one sentence that there is a lot of good laced with one bad thing; and the indicators show Sebastian is progressive, not over burdening residents, doesn't have a lot of diversity, but there aren't a lot of places to generate the revenue. He said the diversification reviewed earlier in the day, such as a water franchise fee or mandatory trash pickup are hidden taxes and we've come to the crossing point to decide on fighting for a County water franchise fee, noting it will be a fight with the County and an additional charge to the residents or do they start looking at services, employees, or other hidden taxes. Handouts Mr. Small passed out a handout (see attached) depicting FY08 /09 and FY09 /10 scenarios of municipalities in the aggregate indicating cities bought in approximately $200 M more than prior fiscal year. He said the legislature set a maximum rate to be levied with a simply majority vote with a 2/3 override or a unanimous override to go to a higher rate. He said if every city had levied the maximum rate allowed with a simple majority vote, they would have raised $592,047,912 more than they did, so the cities shorted themselves in the aggregate. He said Sebastian's rolled -back rate was 3.8 mills, and 3.3456 mills was levied, and the legislature provided for an additional 2.5% so Sebastian could charge 3.92 mills, so Council levied a very low rate. His second handout depicted how many cities and counties were below the simple majority vote. (see attached) Mr. Small said he liked to use a property tax comparison of what 1 mill will raise and compare that to a revenue source or a departmental cost. He said by far police departments are the most significant and expensive departments to operate and when you take Sebastian's $4.6 M Police Department budget, noting that 1.25 mills is equivalent to $1.25 M; the Police Department is costing 3.856 mills which is below the property tax millage so what is spent doesn't even cover the cost of the Police Department. Mr. Small said in aggregate terms; when you take the total amount of property taxes, the police departments consume about 68% on average, and Sebastian is at 110 Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Seven The City Manager said even though the general statistic showing police departments are 68% of the budget, when we compare officers per capita and costs per capita for our size, we are significantly under average. He said public safety is his number one priority and this shows Sebastian is doing it for less. Mr. Small said in his dealings with the legislature, they have always said any tax is too much. He cited one of his handouts listing Florida as the 47 state taxing 7.4% of an individual's personal income; and Florida is the 5 best state for business tax. Closing Mr. Small said when he looked at various operating sides earlier in the day with staff he was impressed with the number of employees that Sebastian has to provide services. He noted the tax per capita is very low, the reserve levels are not out of whack; he said the reserves are fair but the City might want them to be higher in case of a natural disaster; and the long range plans and goals are excellent. Mr. Small said he graduated in governmental economics, and he keeps up with daily indicators and for the future, he is very sure the next two years' tax base will be in the negative. He explained the Property Appraiser is working on sales that happened 3 -8 months ago, and since then median sales price has been falling month to month so it is documented that real estate has been falling. The sales occurring now for the next nine months will be the basis for FY11/12 tax roll. He said there are a lot of indications that a lot of commercial loans are resetting at a higher interest rate which make commercial foreclosures; and if this goes beyond January 1, 2011, it will affect year three from now. He said Sebastian's ad valorem is 42% of general fund so there is a strong indicator that will affect the next two years. He noted the legislature is in session and Senator Haridopolos has filed a piece of legislation called the Taxpayer A Bill Of Rights (TABOR) which strongly limits the growth of municipal budgets by requiring a referendum to exceed the cap and announcing the duration of the increase so the cost of special elections will have to be considered. He said the cap is inflation plus the increase of population. He said there are so many things that people expect government to do when things go wrong, the TABOR cap will prevent many overrides. Joint Workshop between City Council Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee March 3, 2010 Page Eight 1. Questions and Comments Red Light Cameras He said several class action lawsuits have been filed in addition to a house /senate bill that will eliminate the lawsuits. He said language in the bill provides that half of the $150 ticket will go to the state and the other half plus the expenses go to the municipality. Mayor Gillmor said this was talked about at the Treasure Council of Local Governments where they discussed that a policeman must be involved for a red light ticket to be legal. Mr. Klenck said he is confused as one tax can only be spent for one thing and another spent on another thing, he asked if all taxes were taxes. Mr. Small replied there are no restrictions for the property tax, utility tax, communication services tax, and that local business tax can be spent on any lawful purpose. He further explained, per state law gas taxes can only be spent on transportation related expenditures; and the insurance premium tax is extremely limited. Mr. Klenck asked what happens if it isn't spent. Mr. Small said it is sent back. Mr. Small said the 10 local option tax ($2.5 M) is specified to infrastructure as specified in F.S.212.55. Mr. Small said the one other municipal revenue sharing item is a penny state- wide gas tax which can also only be used for transportation related purposes. Mr. Wright asked what economic projections are going on at the state level and how they will impact the City. Mr. Small said he felt the state economists were over optimistic, he doesn't think things will pick up in the third quarter, the legislature will go to the rolled -back rate for schools, sales tax probably will not improve, and although unemployment has improved, he doesn't see people buying new cars and houses by the third quarter of this year. He said the state will make great decreases in their budget, cutting services, and he didn't know how they plan to deal with the lack of revenue for prison populations and Medicaid. He said he is concerned with how much the state will try to put on city and county governments. 2. Being no further business, Mayor Gillmor adjourned the workshop meeting at 5:55 p.m. Approved at the March 24, 2010 Regular City Council meeting. ATT Richar. H. Gillmor, Mayor Sally A. Mai. MMC City Clerk 0 `0 w 0 O u e m g_ u 8 v L. O 0 u K 0 2 u L A Ira c 00 O N O i0 00 0 ry e eeeei so. V 1 V N N 1n r 00 0 r P rn 01 V r 00 r O+ '0 00 b Vt r1 v o Vw CO .0 00 N Or 00 00 v v N 00 e e e e 01 Of N v o a co r ON 00 00 ry o 00 00 o VI NI ON h M O o 0+ v O Os N r VI O^ D 1' Os N r N NI VI CT eeee w n r� O 00 00 )0 e o r O m 1 0 0o 00 O 00 04 00 r) V1 00 01 CO CO r 00 N O '2 N O '0 e e e l e h I 00 00 0 00 )O 00 l0 O N r1 O r 0' r' CT' N 00 r'1 01 SO V1 H O 01 O N r V1 r` 0 r 00 en v) 0 0O 0 1n N. N 01 00 00 01 N 00 b r 00 N 00 CO N h O V r N O )O O 00 00 O vt r 00 o. O 1 VI 0 h 01 V1 O) r1 00 vl r er n CO ON v r 0) vi co O N rn r1 r r 00 er 00 w 1 h 00 V1 CO '0 00 7 00 N U h )D O. 10 )O N VI O V1 0 00 Vt 02 OT V1 T 0 00 0 00 r T 00 )O O O) Hl Vt 00 00 00 N 00 V1 Cr O r1 O O N Vl M T r1 r1 )D 00 r 00 O n N CO 00 00 V1 00 00 2'- 0 r V 00 00 r1 00 01 00 en O N O. V1 O O rr1 00 O) N N Vi N 00 0 00 N N 00 00 '0 n a V1 r CO 00 0 P N 00 C u 'O 10 0 H 0 c 00 N C 0 c A 0 iT D 0 O E CO u A 0 "rd OD c O 0. 0 O 0 v 0 z M Q) 0 a ,L V_ E 0 0 E U0 E U L- 0 E m O CD .Q 92 z co Et 0 t O 0) NU Counties Municipalities Single County Ind. Sp. Dists Multi- county Ind. Sp. Dists Total 2009 Maximum Millage Required Votes by Local Government Type Vote Required to Approve Millage 1 I Majority 1 Two Thirds 1 Unanimous I Total I 67 365 101 12 545 Note: Excludes municipalities and independent special districts levying less than 5 years. 0 0 67 23 10 398 7 2 110 0 0 12 30 12 587 DOR 01/11/10 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required CITY OF ALACHUA CITY OF ARCHER CITY OF GAINESVILLE CITY OF HAWTHORNE CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS CITY OF LACROSSE TOWN OF MICANOPY CITY OF NEWBERRY CITY OF WALDO Baker CITY OF MACCLENNY Bay CITY OF LYNN HAVEN CITY OF MEXICO BEACH CITY OF PANAMA CITY CITY OF PANAMA CITY CITY OF PARKER CITY OF CALLAWAY TOWN OF CEDAR GROVE Bradford TOWN OF BROOKER CITY OF HAMPTON CITY OF LAWTEY CITY OF STARKE Brevard CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CITY OF COCOA CITY OF COCOA BEACH TOWN OF INDIALANTIC CITY OF INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH TOWN OF MALABAR CITY OF MELBOURNE TOWN OF MELBOURNE BEACH TOWN OF MELBOURNE VILLAGE CITY OF PALM BAY CITY OF ROCKLEDGE CITY OF SATELLITE BEACH CITY OF TITUSVILLE CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE TOWN OF GRANT VALKARIA Broward CITY OF COCONUT CREEK CITY OF COOPER CITY CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS CITY OF DANIA BEACH TOWN OF DAVIE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH TOWN OF HILLSBORO BEACH CITY OF HOLLYWOOD TOWN OF LAUDERDALE -BY -THE -SEA CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES CITY OF LAUDERHILL CITY OF LAUDERHILL VILLAGE OF LAZY LAKE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE POINT CITY OF MARGATE CITY OF MIRAMAR CITY OF NORTH LAUDERDALE CITY OF PARKLAND TOWN OF PEMBROKE PARK CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES CITY OF PLANTATION CITY OF PLANTATION Alachua 4.6966 4.5000 4.2544 5.3194 6.1500 2.0272 8.0000 3.9999 5.8686 3.4878 3.0887 3.7000 3.8493 2.6832 Did not levy 2.2500 Did not levy 0.3215 0.2896 1.5349 3.9528 3.0671 4.4891 3.7186 4.9810 4.2037 1.4676 4.4751 2.7862 5.5656 5.3000 5.3500 7.1207 4.9094 Levied less than 5 years Levied less than 5 years 4.8869 4.7704 3.3651 5.4044 4.2456 4.9072 4.1193 1.0000 4.9818 1.0934 0.6600 2.6121 5.6900 3.9990 5.7622 5.0646 4.3494 3.2822 6.7500 5.4797 6.1875 3.4083 8.5000 4.4312 4.0925 0.4072 4.7540 4.7442 4.3963 5.5444 6.5385 2.1444 8.5183 3.9559 6.0693 3.6620 3.0614 4.7090 4.0019 2.9488 2.3169 0.3315 0.3051 1.5551 3.9672 3.6876 4.9915 4.2715 5.5422 4.6534 1.7004 5.0036 2.9925 6.1796 6.6485 6.1006 7.6286 5.6421 5.6837 5.0761 3.8866 5.8579 4.7408 5.4500 4.5995 1.0389 5.9552 1.1872 0.8704 2.8109 6.3752 4.4829 6.5592 5.9574 4.3326 3.7311 7.8277 6.4654 7.2575 4.1532 8.7900 4.9999 4.5142 0.4176 4.8728 4.8628 4.5062 5.6830 6.7020 2.1980 8.7313 4.0547 6.2210 3.7536 3.1379 4.9874 4.1019 3.0225 2.3748 2.2500 0.3398 0.3127 1.5940 4.0664 3.8563 5.1163 4.3783 5.6808 4.8000 1.7429 5.1287 3.0673 6.3341 6.8165 6.2531 7.8193 5.7832 5.8258 5.3679 4.1584 6.3140 4.8593 5.9371 4.9965 1.1394 6.8930 1.2872 1.0808 2.8812 6.9994 5.2076 6.7232 6.1063 4.4409 3.8244 8.0234 6.6272 7.4389 4.4806 9.0098 5.1249 4.6271 0.4280 5.5000 5.0000 4.3963 5.3194 6.1500 2.1444 8.0000 3.8500 5.8686 3.6000 3.0887 4.0000 3.8493 2.6832 0.3313 0.3051 1.5551 3.9672 3.0671 4.4891 4.0000 5.5374 4.7697 1.6630 5.1287 3.0673 6.1796 6.8165 5.3500 7.8193 5.9107 5.6837 4.7704 3.8866 5.8579 4.8124 5.3499 4.1193 0.7500 5.9000 1.0934 0.6600 2.9600 6.0456 3.9990 6.5500 5.9574 2.0000 4.3775 3.6188 7.7500 6.4654 6.9185 4.0198 8.5000 5.1249 4.5142 0.4072 DOR 01 /11 /10 unanimous two thirds two thirds two- thirds CITY OF PLANTATION CITY OF POMPANO BEACH CITY OF POMPANO BEACH CITY OF OAKLAND PARK VILLAGE OF SEA RANCH LAKES CITY OF SUNRISE CITY OF TAMARAC CITY OF WILTON MANORS CITY OF WESTON TOWN OF SOUTHWEST RANCHES CITY OF WEST PARK Calhoun CITY OF BLOUNTSTOWN Charlotte CITY OF PUNTA GORDA Citrus CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER CITY OF INVERNESS Clay CITY OF GREEN COVE SPRINGS CITY OF KEYSTONE HEIGHTS TOWN OF ORANGE PARK Collier CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY CITY OF NAPLES CITY OF NAPLES CITY OF NAPLES CITY OF MARCO ISLAND CITY OF MARCO ISLAND Columbia CITY OF LAKE CITY Miami -Dade MIAMI -DADE BCC VILLAGE OF BAL HARBOR TOWN OF BAY HARBOR ISLAND VILLAGE OF BISCAYNE PARK CITY OF CORAL GABLES VILLAGE OF EL PORTAL CITY OF FLORIDA CITY TOWN OF GOLDEN BEACH CITY OF HIALEAH CITY OF HIALEAH GARDENS CITY OF HOMESTEAD VILLAGE OF INDIAN CREEK CITY OF ISLANDIA TOWN OF MEDLEY CITY OF MIAMI CITY OF NORTH MIAMI CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI CITY OF WEST MIAMI CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE CITY OF OPA -LOCKA CITY OF SWEETWATER TOWN OF SURFSIDE VILLAGE OF VIRGINIA GARDENS VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE CITY OF AVENTURA VILLAGE OF PINECREST CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH TOWN OF MIAMI LAKES VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY CITY OF DORAL CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS Town of Culter Bay Desoto CITY OF ARCADIA 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation 1.2461 1.2684 0.4718 0.5241 3.4861 3.9298 5.1041 5.9848 7.5000 7.8535 5.4397 6.0543 5.3215 6.3752 5.3122 6.3202 1.5235 1.7239 3.5000 3.9404 Levied less than 5 years 1.3001 0.5372 4.0280 6.1344 8.0498 6.2057 6.5346 6.5294 1.7670 4.0385 1.5000 1.4607 1.4972 1.5000 2.5689 3.0460 3.1222 2.6996 3.8000 4.2000 5.6444 3.8000 4.9680 5.5523 5.6911 5.3902 2.5700 2.8479 2.9191 2.5700 2.0000 2.0466 2.0978 2.3075 5.8000 6.0156 6.1659 5.8000 2.0757 2.4766 2.5385 2.5385 1.1315 1.2112 1.2415 1.1800 0.4702 0.5742 0.5125 0.5000 0.0220 0.0237 0.0250 0.0237 1.3917 1.5614 1.6004 1.6518 1.5570 1.8009 1.9608 1.2302 3.5550 3.5889 3.6786 3.7741 2.0083 2.2451 2.3012 2.0083 2.3085 2.5265 2.6361 2.5265 3.9750 4.4120 4.5223 4.4120 8.8903 9.3510 9.5848 8.8903 5.2500 5.5370 5.6754 5.8950 7.8442 9.2716 9.5034 7.8442 7.7500 8.6702 8.8870 7.7500 7.6050 7.7154 7.9083 7.1525 6.5400 7.1240 7.3021 6.5400 4.9000 5.3466 5.4803 4.9000 5.3410 7.2423 7.4234 6.2917 6.5000 6.7115 7.1953 6.5000 Did not levy 5.7000 5.5674 5.7066 5.6500 7.6740 8.9918 9.2166 7.6740 6.9195 7.5237 7.7118 7.3390 5.2790 5.6140 5.7543 4.9526 6.7376 7.1425 7.3382 6.7376 5.6555 6.6107 6.9048 5.6555 0.7227 0.8817 0.9037 0.8567 6.6236 7.6418 7.8328 6.6136 6.4305 6.9628 7.1369 6.1698 7.6351 8.6848 8.9019 8.0000 4.6697 5.7817 5.9262 4.2772 8.2084 8.5467 8.7604 8.3000 3.4037 3.9252 4.0233 3.9252 4.7332 5.5224 5.6605 4.7332 4.0908 4.4233 4.5339 4.4233 3.2000 3.4138 3.4991 3.2000 1.7261 2.0037 2.2033 1.7261 1.9809 2.1040 2.1612 2.1040 2.4842 2.9361 3.0739 2.6500 2.4795 2.6666 2.7333 2.4470 2.4476 2.6857 2.7528 2.4470 2.4470 2.6567 2.7231 2.4470 5.1402 5.3734 5.5077 5.3734 Levied Tess than 5 years 7.5587 8.0899 8.5135 8.0899 DOR 01/11/10 County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required 1.2461 0.5000 4.0652 two- thirds 5.7252 7.5000 6.0543 5.9999 5.8000 1.7670 3.9400 two thirds two thirds two thirds two-thirds two- thirds County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lake 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation TOWN OF HORSESHOE BEACH TOWN OF CROSS CITY CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH TOWN OF BALDWIN CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH TOWN OF CENTURY CITY OF PENSACOLA CITY OF PENSACOLA TOWN OF BEVERLY BEACH CITY OF BUNNELL CITY OF MARINELAND CITY OF PALM COAST CITY OF APALACHICOLA CITY OF CARRABELLE CITY OF CHATTAHOOCHEE CITY OF GREENSBORO TOWN OF GRETNA TOWN OF HAVANA CITY OF MIDWAY CITY OF QUINCY TOWN OF BELL CITY OF TRENTON CITY OF MOORE HAVEN CITY OF PORT ST JOE CITY OF WEWAHITCHKA CITY OF JASPER CITY OF JENNINGS CITY OF WHITE SPRINGS CITY OF BOWLING GREEN CITY OF WAUCHULA TOWN OF ZOLFO SPRINGS CITY OF CLEWISTON CITY OF LABELLE CITY OF BROOKSVILLE CITY OF WEEKI WACHEE CITY OF AVON PARK TOWN OF LAKE PLACID CITY OF SEBRING CITY OF TAMPA CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE CITY OF PLANT CITY TOWN OF ESTO TOWN OF NOMA CITY OF FELLSMERE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TOWN OF ORCHID CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY OF VERO BEACH TOWN OF ALFORD CITY OF CAMPBELLTON CITY OF COTTONDALE CITY OF GRACEVILLE TOWN OF GREENWOOD CITY OF JACOB CITY OF MARIANNA TOWN OF SNEADS CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWN OF MAYO TOWN OF ASTATULA CITY OF CLERMONT CITY OF EUSTIS CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK 3.0000 6.7646 2.9974 2.5550 3.6940 2.7154 0.8170 4.5395 2.0000 2.0456 6.0544 Levied less than 5 years 2.9623 5.9600 5.5000 0.7766 4.0000 4.3320 1.6350 2.4223 3.6345 Levied less than 5 years Levied less than 5 years 3.7986 3.5914 6.0000 4.9024 1.2438 3.9515 7.2500 5.4420 9.0000 6.2210 3.0000 6.0690 2.1173 5.8745 3.8100 5.5204 5.7326 4.5692 4.1653 0.5164 1.1405 4.4300 1.3923 0.4550 3.3456 1.9367 1.3916 2.0000 3.5000 4.0000 1.0000 3.0000 2.9520 0.5168 6.2000 4.1005 4.5000 3.1420 4.7083 4.3600 2.7170 7.1135 3.1553 2.6135 3.5844 2.8612 0.8230 4.6981 2.2890 2.3895 6.6964 3.5672 7.1900 6.8100 0.7781 4.7682 3.9054 1.6647 2.4647 3.9528 4.1448 4.1178 6.3555 5.1185 1.2579 3.7787 7.9538 5.0911 9.8913 6.4584 3.2784 7.4379 2.5769 6.2494 4.1396 5.8997 6.5609 5.2829 4.7205 0.5247 1.1141 4.6500 1.4307 0.4702 3.8038 2.0740 1.3607 1.5000 3.4257 4.2438 0.9986 3.0000 2.9799 0.5123 6.2849 4.1491 4.9829 3.5601 5.1266 3.2430 2.9495 7.2913 3.2342 2.6788 3.6740 2.9327 0.8400 4.8156 3.0806 2.6605 6.8638 4.1658 7.5600 6.9800 0.7976 4.8874 4.0000 1.7389 2.5263 4.0516 4.2484 4.2424 6.5144 5.2465 1.2893 3.8731 8.1526 5.2184 10.1386 6.6199 3.3879 8.1999 2.6667 7.3481 4.5845 6.3317 7.0838 5.4202 4.9159 0.5378 1.2200 5.1123 1.4993 0.5091 3.9226 2.3161 1.3947 1.5400 3.5113 4.3499 1.0236 3.0750 3.0544 0.5251 6.4420 4.2528 5.1075 3.9203 5.3227 3.3241 3.0000 8.0205 3.1553 2.5550 3.6740 3.0510 0.8230 4.5395 2.0000 2.0456 6.0544 3.5000 7.3100 5.5000 0.7781 5.0000 4.3320 1.6650 3.2159 4.5269 DOR 01 /11 /10 two thirds two thirds two- thirds two thirds two thirds unanimous unanimous 4.1448 3.5914 6.0000 5.7711 two thirds 1.3500 two thirds 3.7787 7.2500 5.4420 two- thirds 9.0000 6.2210 3.0000 6.0690 2.5769 5.8745 3.8100 5.4965 5.7326 5.2829 4.7157 0.5247 1.1141 4.4300 1.3923 0.4550 3.3456 1.9367 1.3607 2.0000 unanimous 3.5000 4.0000 1.0000 3.0000 2.9520 0.5123 6.1000 6.0000 unanimous 4.5000 3.1420 5.1266 4.3600 unanimous County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required CITY OF GROVELAND TOWN OF HOWEY -IN- THE -HILLS TOWN OF LADY LAKE CITY OF LEESBURG CITY OF MASCOTTE CITY OF MINNEOLA TOWN OF MONTVERDE CITY OF MOUNT DORA CITY OF TAVARES CITY OF UMATILLA Lee CITY OF CAPE CORAL CITY OF FT MYERS CITY OF SANIBEL TOWN OF FORT MYERS BEACH CITY OF BONITA SPRINGS Leon CITY OF TALLAHASSEE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE Levy TOWN OF BRONSON CITY OF CEDAR KEY CITY OF CHIEFLAND TOWN OF INGLIS TOWN OF OTTER CREEK CITY OF WILLISTON TOWN OF YANKEETOWN Liberty CITY OF BRISTOL Madison CITY OF GREENVILLE TOWN OF LEE CITY OF MADISON Manatee CITY OF ANNA MARIA CITY OF BRADENTON CITY OF BRADENTON BEACH CITY OF HOLMES BEACH CITY OF PALMETTO Marion CITY OF BELLEVIEW CITY OF DUNNELLON TOWN OF MCINTOSH CITY OF OCALA Martin TOWN OF JUPITER ISLAND TOWN OF JUPITER ISLAND TOWN OF OCEAN BREEZE PARK TOWN OF SEWALL'S POINT CITY OF STUART Monroe CITY OF KEY COLONY BEACH CITY OF KEY WEST CITY OF LAYTON ISLAMORADA VILLAGE OF ISLANDS CITY OF MARATHON Nassau TOWN OF CALLAHAN CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH TOWN OF HILLIARD Okaloosa TOWN OF CINCO BAYOU CITY OF CRESTVIEW CITY OF DESTIN CITY OF FT WALTON BEACH CITY OF LAUREL HILL CITY OF MARY ESTHER CITY OF NICEVILLE TOWN OF SHALIMAR CITY OF VALPARAISO Okeechobee CITY OF OKEECHOBEE Orange CITY OF APOPKA CITY OF BAY LAKE CITY OF BELLE ISLE 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation 4.8205 5.9900 3.0870 4.3179 5.9990 4.4990 2.8300 5.0190 6.2500 6.5000 4.7698 7.1634 2.1561 0.7093 0.8273 3.2115 1.0000 3.2000 3.1355 4.7500 4.8768 2.9465 5.9025 1.8138 3.0000 8.0900 6.3800 6.0484 1.7882 4.2843 2.1539 1.5989 4.6662 2.8905 5.2266 1.8050 4.5288 2.3900 0.7500 2.4241 2.2300 4.3329 1.4434 2.2794 1.1234 1.8542 1.5000 3.0000 3.9873 0.5176 2.0639 5.8466 1.4550 4.1986 Levied less than 5 years 2.6996 3.2000 2.0000 3.7500 6.7432 3.5168 1.0767 3.5378 5.9102 6.8317 3.2808 4.7260 6.8009 5.4036 3.0568 5.4918 6.8570 6.8968 7.2068 9.5233 2.3407 0.8187 1.0047 3.5151 1.1231 3.3561 3.8513 4.9696 5.5250 3.0989 6.3686 2.1355 2.9310 8.7191 6.8022 6.2711 1.9738 4.6758 2.5598 1.7549 5.1925 3.1924 5.5779 1.9670 4.9664 2.3900 0.7509 2.2459 2.3885 5.0269 1.8320 2.6414 1.4763 2.1527 1.8898 3.0589 4.2420 0.5196 2.1195 6.3888 1.6324 4.4359 6.0580 7.0025 3.3628 4.8441 7.3827 5.5387 3.1332 5.7798 7.0284 7.0692 10.2190 9.7614 2.6632 0.8392 1.0378 3.6030 1.2063 3.4400 4.0670 5.2928 5.6631 3.1764 6.5278 2.1889 3.0043 8.9371 6.9723 6.4279 2.3500 5.0084 3.4495 2.0962 7.5551 3.4191 5.8873 2.0162 5.1098 2.4497 0.7697 2.3647 2.4699 5.8721 1.9311 2.7074 1.5132 2.2065 2.0235 3.1354 4.3596 0.5326 2.1725 6.9672 2.0000 4.8352 DOROI /11/10 5.1800 6.8317 3.2808 4.3179 6.8009 4.4990 2.8300 5.0190 6.2500 6.5000 7.9702 7.4000 2.1561 0.8187 0.8273 3.7000 two thirds 1.0000 3.4400 3.1355 4.7500 5.0000 3.0000 5.9025 2.1355 3.0000 8.7191 6.3800 6.0484 1.7882 4.2843 2.1539 1.7549 4.6662 2.8905 6.4469 two- thirds 1.9670 4.9664 2.4850 two thirds 0.7500 2.2459 2.2300 4.3329 1.8320 2.6414 1.6000 two thirds 2.0358 1.6850 3.0589 4.2420 0.5196 2.0639 5.8466 1.4550 4.1986 2.9171 3.5141 2.6996 3.4360 3.5219 3.4500 2.0632 2.2970 2.0000 4.0577 4.1591 4.1591 7.9634 9.4186 6.7432 4.1115 4.2143 3.5168 1.1141 1.1420 1.1467 two- thirds 3.7432 3.8368 3.7432 CITY OF LAKE BUENA VISTA TOWN OF EATONVILLE CITY OF EDGEWOOD TOWN OF OAKLAND CITY OF ORLANDO CITY OF ORLANDO CITY OF MAITLAND CITY OF OCOEE TOWN OF WINDERMERE CITY OF WINTER GARDEN CITY OF WINTER PARK Osceola CITY OF KISSIMMEE CITY OF ST CLOUD Palm Beach CITY OF ATLANTIS CITY OF BELLE GLADE CITY OF BOCA RATON CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH TOWN OF BRINY BREEZES CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CITY OF GREENACRES TOWN OF GULF STREAM TOWN OF HAVERHILL TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH TOWN OF HYPOLUXO TOWN OF JUNO BEACH TOWN OF JUPITER TOWN OF JUPITER INLET COLONY TOWN OF LAKE CLARKE SHORES TOWN OF LAKE PARK CITY OF LAKE WORTH TOWN OF LANTANA TOWN OF MANALAPAN TOWN OF MANGONIA PARK TOWN OF OCEAN RIDGE CITY OF PAHOKEE TOWN OF PALM BEACH CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS TOWN OF PALM BEACH SHORES CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH CITY OF SOUTH BAY VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA TOWN OF SOUTH PALM BEACH VILLAGE OF GOLF VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH VIILLAGE OF WELLINGTON TOWN OF LOXATCHEE GROVES Pasco CITY OF DADE CITY CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY CITY OF PORT RICHEY CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY OF ZEPHYRHILLS TOWN OF ST LEO Pinellas TOWN OF BELLEAIR CITY OF BELLEAIR BEACH CITY OF BELLEAIR BLUFFS TOWN OF BELLEAIR SHORE CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY OF DUNEDIN CITY OF GULFPORT 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required 1.0545 6.9040 3.9500 5.9245 5.6500 1.0000 3.8800 4.8252 3.2280 3.3866 4.0923 3.7058 4.0450 6.0500 6.4300 3.0200 6.4553 2.7608 6.3900 1.0000 4.7022 2.8655 4.2952 3.4042 2.3500 2.8000 2.4234 3.8271 5.6278 8.5163 7.6500 3.2395 2.9080 9.8000 5.1500 7.0500 3.2512 5.2500 5.7420 8.4260 6.3089 5.7671 6.5695 6.7076 6.6977 4.3321 1.9700 7.5500 2.3400 Levied Tess than 5 years 7.1040 6.6274 3.9000 2.1077 5.5708 1.3780 4.5605 1.9800 3.9997 0.5256 4.7254 3.5597 3.4742 1.0995 7.5835 4.3274 6.8883 6.6436 1.5743 4.2384 5.4974 3.4084 3.8546 4.4051 4.6253 4.9332 6.6226 6.8384 3.3282 7.7742 2.6997 7.3833 1.1982 6.0640 3.0437 4.8270 3.7898 2.9402 3.1816 2.6895 4.2009 6.4921 10.0500 9.6825 3.7599 3.0715 11.7620 5.9000 7.2476 3.3435 5.8246 6.4563 10.6561 6.8800 6.4470 7.9226 7.1265 7.4114 5.6242 2.4399 9.5521 2.8071 8.2669 7.1873 4.2260 2.3499 6.4108 1.8959 5.1000 2.3692 4.5212 0.5988 5.5543 4.0760 3.8648 1.1270 7.7731 4.5513 7.0605 6.8097 7.3762 4.3444 5.6348 3.4946 4.1212 4.5152 4.7944 5.0565 7.1485 7.0094 3.6263 8.7493 2.7672 7.6510 1.2282 6.8914 3.2381 5.0832 4.0733 3.4473 3.5798 2.7924 4.4988 6.6544 10.3022 10.6067 7.9235 3.1483 12.0563 6.0475 7.4288 3.4271 6.2123 7.0418 11.2442 7.0520 7.2187 8.1207 7.4292 7.5967 5.7648 2.7002 10.2983 3.1035 8.4736 7.3670 4.6280 2.4086 7.2339 2.1588 5.2275 2.7294 4.7699 0.6508 6.2497 4.4109 4.1837 1.0545 6.9040 3.9500 6.8883 5.6500 1.0000 3.8800 5.4974 3.2280 3.7500 4.0923 4.6253 4.0450 6.6000 6.5419 3.0200 6.7626 10.0000 unanimous 7.1900 1.0000 5.1500 2.8655 4.2952 3.3542 3.1500 2.8000 2.5142 3.8079 6.4921 8.5163 4.9999 3.2395 2.8050 9.8000 5.4000 6.5419 3.2512 5.3900 5.7420 8.4260 6.3089 5.7671 7.9226 7.1265 6.9000 3.5000 1.9300 8.0739 2.5000 7.1000 8.1037 4.2260 2.4086 5.5708 1.3000 4.5605 1.9800 4.3500 0.5988 5.1550 3.5597 3.4742 DOR 01/11/10 two- thirds County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required Polk Putnam Sumter St. Johns St. Lucie Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation CITY OF INDIAN ROCKS BEACH TOWN OF INDIAN SHORES TOWN OF KENNETH CITY CITY OF LARGO CITY OF MADEIRA BEACH CITY OF OLDSMAR CITY OF PINELLAS PARK TOWN OF REDINGTON BEACH TOWN OF NORTH REDINGTON BEACH TOWN OF REDINGTON SHORES CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR CITY OF SEMINOLE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA CITY OF ST PETERSBURG CITY OF ST PETE BEACH CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND CITY OF AUBURNDALE CITY OF BARTOW CITY OF DAVENPORT TOWN OF DUNDEE CITY OF EAGLE LAKE CITY OF FT MEADE CITY OF FROSTPROOF CITY OF HAINES CITY VILLAGE OF HIGHLAND PARK TOWN OF HILLCREST HEIGHTS CITY OF LAKE ALFRED TOWN OF LAKE HAMILTON CITY OF LAKELAND CITY OF LAKE WALES CITY OF MULBERRY CITY OF POLK CITY CITY OF WINTER HAVEN CITY OF CRESCENT CITY TOWN OF INTERLACHEN CITY OF PALATKA TOWN OF POMONA PARK TOWN OF WELAKA TOWN OF HASTINGS CITY OF ST AUGUSTINE CITY OF ST AUGUSTINE BEACH CITY OF FT PIERCE CITY OF PORT ST LUCIE TOWN OF ST LUCIE VILLAGE CITY OF GULF BREEZE TOWN OF JAY CITY OF MILTON CITY OF NORTH PORT CITY OF SARASOTA CITY OF SARASOTA CITY OF SARASOTA CITY OF SARASOTA CITY OF VENICE CITY OF ALTAMONTE SPRINGS CITY OF CASSELBERRY CITY OF LAKE MARY CITY OF LONGWOOD CITY OF OVIEDO CITY OF SANFORD CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CITY OF BUSHNELL CITY OF CENTER HILL 2.0000 1.6000 3.9902 3.8448 1.7954 4.0500 4.5478 1.9410 0.7511 1.8016 2.7830 2.4793 1.4886 5.9125 2.3764 4.5738 2.4999 3.3317 3.9962 4.5695 7.0000 7.4225 3.0435 7.8209 6.9900 7.3161 0.3149 6.5800 6.0000 3.4031 7.3277 8.0573 6.7425 5.7900 8.1723 8.4658 8.6500 5.0867 5.5050 8.0000 6.8232 1.8011 5.4674 3.2172 1.3400 1.8000 2.0000 3.2373 2.9805 2.7771 2.0000 2.7790 2.6352 4.8963 3.6355 4.9900 4.8626 6.3250 2.4714 4.7100 3.9498 2.3786 1.9425 4.6235 4.3113 2.1561 4.3482 5.0380 2.1245 0.8811 2.1440 3.0835 2.8345 1.6985 6.8030 2.6714 5.1990 2.8172 3.8393 4.5176 6.8035 8.4743 9.7310 3.3509 8.5070 8.0706 9.8024 0.3593 8.5954 6.9418 3.7734 8.1817 8.7576 7.6991 6.8227 8.3547 8.8287 9.2106 5.2874 5.5474 8.7200 8.0460 2.2257 6.7328 4.3772 1.6130 1.5933 2.0100 3.5092 3.9289 3.1357 2.3074 3.2253 3.0924 5.5792 4.0031 5.5563 5.4332 7.2455 2.7395 4.8750 3.4269 2.4381 2.3663 4.7391 4.4192 2.4878 4.7163 5.4239 2.5137 1.0006 2.2096 3.1606 3.0934 1.7410 7.3461 3.0449 5.3290 3.1646 4.0266 4.6305 6.9736 8.6861 9.9743 3.4347 8.7197 8.2724 10.0475 0.3683 8.8103 11.4914 3.8677 8.3862 8.9765 7.8916 7.1337 8.6002 9.0494 9.5259 5.4196 5.6861 8.9380 8.2472 2.2875 7.6038 5.5412 1.6619 1.6331 2.0602 3.5969 5.9135 3.4880 2.3651 3.9957 3.1697 5.7187 4.1032 5.6952 5.5690 7.4266 3.8674 4.9969 3.5126 DOR01 /II /10 2.0000 1.7500 4.6235 4.3113 1.7954 4.0500 4.5478 1.9410 0.7511 2.0000 3.0674 2.4793 1.6985 5.9125 2.4834 4.9500 2.6868 3.8393 3.9962 5.9792 7.0000 7.7658 3.3509 7.8209 6.9900 8.3161 0.3125 6.5800 7.0000 3.6538 7.3277 8.0500 7.6991 5.7900 8.1723 8.8287 8.6500 6.2874 unanimous 5.5050 8.0000 7.5000 2.2875 5.4674 3.6866 1.6100 1.9000 unanimous 2.0000 3.2373 3.3400 2.7771 2.0000 0.4315 2.0000 2.7790 2.6352 5.4500 3.6355 4.9900 4.8626 6.3250 2.4714 4.7100 4.0000 unanimous 2009 Municipality Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation County Municipality 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required CITY OF WEBSTER 7.0000 CITY OF WILDWOOD 4.1200 Suwannee TOWN OF BRANFORD 3.9823 CITY OF LIVE OAK 5.9146 Taylor CITY OF PERRY 4.4461 Union CITY OF LAKE BUTLER 2.2460 TOWN OF WORTHINGTON SPRINGS 1.4920 Volusia CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH 5.4247 CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH 1.0000 CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH SHORES 4.1799 CITY OF SOUTH DAYTONA 4.9200 CITY OF DELAND 5.0510 CITY OF EDGEWATER 5.9000 CITY OF HOLLY HILL 4.8872 CITY OF LAKE HELEN 4.2000 CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH 3.1000 CITY OF OAK HILL 4.5740 CITY OF ORANGE CITY 4.4800 CITY OF ORMOND BEACH 3.3888 TOWN OF PONCE INLET 4.1750 CITY OF PORT ORANGE 4.6000 TOWN OF PIERSON 3.6058 CITY OF DEBARY 2.5728 CITY OF DELTONA 4.1532 Wakulla CITY OF ST MARKS 4.5620 Walton CITY OF DEFUNIAK SPRINGS 4.5000 CITY OF FREEPORT 3.9300 Washington CITY OF CHIPLEY 5.8000 CITY OF VERNON 2.2940 Multi- County CITY OF FANNING SPRINGS 2.0000 TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY 1.5000 CITY OF FLAGLER BEACH 3.0199 Note: General fund operating levies only. 7.3107 4.1750 3.9797 5.8878 4.5000 2.2881 1.6290 6.5318 1.9802 4.9972 5.8781 6.2115 7.1297 5.7258 5.2180 3.7499 5.7272 5.1953 3.9280 5.4609 5.5356 4.1078 2.9004 5.4375 4.9571 4.4387 3.9232 5.8270 2.2693 2.1486 1.6771 3.4708 7.4935 4.2794 4.4251 6.5005 4.6125 2.3453 1.6697 7.0220 2.1978 5.1633 6.0251 6.3668 7.3079 5.8689 5.8727 4.3141 6.2250 5.4991 4.0262 5.9868 5.6740 4.2105 3.1414 5.5735 5.0810 4.5497 4.0213 5.9727 2.3260 2.2023 1.7569 3.8081 7.0000 4.1750 4.2573 5.9828 4.5000 2.2881 1.6290 5.4248 1.0000 4.9972 5.7781 5.9995 6.3600 5.7258 5.2180 3.4793 5.7990 5.1953 3.6742 4.0300 4.6000 4.6316 2.5728 5.4376 4.5620 4.5000 3.9300 6.0000 2.2940 2.0000 1.4903 3.4643 DOR 01/11/10 two- thirds two thirds 2009 County Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation County 2008 Millage Rolled -Back Rate Majority Vote Rate 2009 Rate Extraordinary Vote Required ALACHUA COUNTY BCC BAKER COUNTY BCC Bay BOCC BRADFORD COUNTY BCC BREVARD COUNTY BCC BROWARD COUNTY BCC CALHOUN COUNTY BCC CHARLOTTE COUNTY BCC CITRUS COUNTY BCC CLAY COUNTY BCC COLLIER COUNTY BCC COLUMBIA COUNTY BCC MIAMI -DADE BCC DESOTO COUNTY BCC DIXIE COUNTY BCC DUVAL BCC/CITY OF JACKSONVILLE ESCAMBIA COUNTY BCC FLAGLER COUNTY BCC FRANKLIN COUNTY BCC GADSDEN COUNTY BCC GILCHRIST COUNTY BCC GLADES COUNTY BCC GULF COUNTY BCC HAMILTON COUNTY BCC HARDEE COUNTY BCC HENDRY COUNTY BCC HERNANDO COUNTY BCC HIGHLANDS COUNTY BCC HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BCC HOLMES COUNTY BCC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BCC JACKSON COUNTY BCC JEFFERSON COUNTY BCC LAFAYETTE COUNTY BCC LAKE COUNTY BCC LEE COUNTY BCC LEON COUNTY BCC LEVY COUNTY BCC LIBERTY COUNTY BCC MADISON COUNTY BCC MANATEE COUNTY BCC MARION COUNTY BCC MARTIN COUNTY BCC MONROE COUNTY BCC NASSAU COUNTY BCC OKALOOSA COUNTY BCC OKEECHOBEE COUNTY BCC ORANGE COUNTY BCC OSCEOLA COUNTY BCC PALM BEACH COUNTY BCC PASCO COUNTY BCC PINELLAS COUNTY BCC POLK COUNTY BCC PUTNAM COUNTY BCC ST JOHNS COUNTY BCC ST LUCIE COUNTY BCC SANTA ROSA COUNTY BCC SARASOTA COUNTY BCC SEMINOLE COUNTY BCC SUMTER COUNTY BCC SUWANNEE COUNTY BCC TAYLOR COUNTY BCC UNION COUNTY BCC VOLUSIA COUNTY BCC WAKULLA COUNTY BCC WALTON COUNTY BCC WASHINGTON COUNTY BCC Note: General fund operating levies only. 7.5708 7.1495 3.6500 9.1769 3.7193 4.8889 10.0000 5.7096 5.7299 0.9100 3.1469 7.8910 4.8379 6.8987 9.4850 8.4841 6.9755 4.2962 3.3149 8.9064 8.2695 9.1367 4.8949 10.0000 8.5540 6.5000 5.4394 7.1000 5.7439 9.5000 3.0689 7.2898 8.3226 8.4984 4.6511 3.6506 7.8500 7.4212 10.0000 8.4205 6.2993 3.1300 4.8970 2.6883 5.5670 3.2995 6.2719 4.4347 5.1942 3.7811 5.4333 4.8108 6.8065 8.5765 4.2900 3.6173 6.0953 3.1342 4.5153 5.8955 7.6160 7.0113 10.0000 4.5031 8.0000 3.3563 8.0870 7.8532 7.4125 4.0970 9.3233 4.2632 5.5319 9.9323 6.9688 6.2918 0.9729 3.5676 8.4382 5.4524 7.7935 10.2724 9.2727 7.3313 5.1989 4.1431 9.0605 8.6789 10.0193 6.4497 10.1380 8.6537 7.2309 6.2674 7.9627 6.6194 9.4172 3.4090 7.1223 8.4442 8.9348 5.2029 4.8107 8.4998 8.3763 10.0351 9.0964 6.9607 3.5921 5.3601 3.1738 5.8821 3.6066 7.5030 5.0747 6.4289 4.3440 6.5130 5.4746 7.9072 8.9335 4.9473 4.6153 6.7179 3.6107 5.1181 6.0220 8.5095 7.3714 10.1173 5.4451 8.9677 4.0274 8.4083 8.0495 7.8600 5.1100 9.5564 4.5195 5.9699 10.1806 7.1430 7.4255 1.2432 3.9826 8.6492 5.4705 8.4940 10.5292 9.5045 8.5848 5.6371 5.0775 9.2872 8.8959 10.2698 6.6478 10.3913 8.8700 8.6412 6.9649 9.2722 7.1045 9.6526 3.7090 7.3556 8.7144 9.5758 5.7107 5.2612 8.7123 9.0947 10.2860 9.3238 7.9221 3.6819 5.4941 3.2531 6.0292 4.1090 7.6906 5.4166 6.5896 4.7587 7.2464 6.0326 8.2793 9.5645 5.2560 6.1852 7.1423 4.5763 5.2461 6.1726 9.8831 7.8066 10.3702 5.5813 9.3629 4.6400 8.6185 8.0495 7.1495 3.6500 9.1769 3.7161 4.8889 10.0000 5.7096 5.7299 0.6451 3.5645 7.8910 4.8379 6.8987 10.0000 9.2727 6.9755 4.8894 3.6753 8.9064 8.2695 9.1367 5.7679 10.0000 8.5540 6.5000 5.4394 7.1000 5.7423 9.5000 3.0892 7.1223 8.3226 8.7500 4.6511 3.6506 7.8500 7.4212 10.0000 8.9440 6.2993 3.1300 5.3090 3.0837 5.5670 3.2899 7.5030 4.4347 6.3396 4.3440 6.3668 4.8108 6.8065 8.5765 4.8000 2.7694 6.0953 3.1052 4.9000 6.0100 8.0000 7.0113 10.0000 5.3683 8.2500 3.3563 8.6185 DOR. OI /11 /10 ac ua Baker Bay Brevard Broward 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation AI h ALACHU CO LIBRARY DIST BAKER COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY BEACH MOSQUITO CONTROL DIST MERRITT ISLAND LIBRARY DISTRICT NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DIST SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT CENTRAL BROWARD WATER CONTROL FT LAUDERDALE DOWNTOWN DEV HILLSBORO INLET DISTRICT TINDALL HAMMOCK IRR SOIL BROWARD CO CHILDREN'S SERV CNCL Citrus CITRUS CO MOSQUITO CONTROL HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DIST CITRUS COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD Collier COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL DIST EAST NAPLES FIRE CONT &RES DIS NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DIST BIG CORKSCREW FIRE CONTROL DIS GOLDEN GATE FIRE CTRL RESC IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL DIST Columbia LAKE SHORE HOSPITAL Dade DADE CO DOWNTOWN DEV AUTH THE CHILDREN'S TRUST Flagler EAST FLAGLER MOSQUITO CONTROL Franklin DOG ISLAND CONSERVATION DIST EASTPOINT WATER SEWER DIST ALLIGATOR POINT WATER RES DIST Glades BUCKHEAD RIDGE MOSQUITO CTRL Hardee HARDEE CO INDIGENT HEALTH CARE Hendry HENDRY COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTH Hillsborough TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY HILLSBOROUGH TRANSIT AUTH HILLSBOROUGH CHILDREN'S BOARD Indian River INDIAN RIVER MOSQUITO CTRL DIS INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Jackson CAMPBELLTON /GRACEVILLE HOSP Lake NORTH LAKE CO HOSPITAL DIST LAKE CO WATER AUTH SOUTH LAKE CO HOSPITAL DIST Lee LEE CO HYACINTH CONTROL LEE CO MOSQUITO CONTROL DIS ALVA FIRE CONTROL DIST BAYSHORE FIRE CONTROL DIST BONITA SPRINGS FIRE CONT DIST CAPTIVA FIRE CONTROL DIST CAPTIVA EROSION PREVENTION ESTERO FIRE RESCUE FT MYERS BEACH FIRE CONT FT MYERS BEACH LIBRARY DIST FT MYERS BEACH MOSQ CONT FT MYERS SHORES FIRE DIST NORTH FORT MYERS FIRE CTRL 1.2491 1.0571 0.1438 0.0841 1.7059 1.1913 0.4700 0.4802 0.0860 6.0000 0.3754 0.2755 0.7200 1.1689 0.0635 1.3498 0.9869 1.8397 1.0000 2.7380 2.0160 0.5000 0.4212 0.1730 3.0000 2.0000 1.9000 1.0000 0.3381 3.0000 0.1950 0.4682 0.5000 0.2175 0.7560 1.5590 1.0000 0.2130 0.8666 0.0214 0.1636 3.0000 3.4500 1.8569 0.6399 0.1745 1.9037 1.9980 0.5199 0.0698 2.0000 2.5000 1.2856 1.0952 0.1726 0.0934 1.9276 1.3552 0.6314 0.4849 0.0971 6.1508 0.4243 0.3020 0.7597 1.2833 0.0720 1.5793 1.0996 2.7386 1.2451 3.1809 2.1533 0.5827 0.4720 0.2087 3.8783 2.3709 2.5920 1.0503 0.3403 3.3600 0.2247 0.5415 0.5777 0.2417 0.8400 1.5460 1.0920 0.2380 1.0019 0.0277 0.2132 3.5316 4.2965 2.2316 0.6768 0.1846 2.3487 2.3017 0.5989 0.0806 2.5608 3.2746 1.3177 1.1226 0.2007 0.0957 1.9832 1.4216 0.7788 0.4970 0.1067 6.3046 0.4349 0.3095 0.7787 1.3154 0.0804 1.7578 1.1200 3.0516 1.2904 3.2604 2.2071 0.5973 0.4838 0.2139 4.0984 3.7409 2.7322 1.0766 0.3488 3.8195 0.2451 0.5551 0.5921 0.2477 0.8610 1.5846 1.1193 0.2563 1.0959 0.0336 0.2581 4.0559 4.4039 2.4977 0.6937 0.1892 2.4965 2.7453 0.6214 0.0826 2.6405 3.3564 1.2856 1.0571 0.1438 0.0930 1.7059 1.2732 0.6200 0.4970 0.0860 6.0000 0.4243 0.2992 0.7597 1.0000 0.0720 1.5000 1.0000 2.0000 1.2968 two- thirds 3.0000 2.0468 0.5000 0.5000 two thirds 0.2038 3.0000 2.0000 1.9000 1.0000 0.3335 2.9000 0.1925 0.4682 0.5000 0.2417 0.9471 two thirds 1.5460 1.0000 0.2130 0.8666 0.0277 0.2132 3.0000 3.5000 1.7950 0.8768 unanimous 0.2322 unanimous 2.0000 2.3017 0.5989 0.0783 2.0000 2.5000 2008 Rolled -Back Majority 2009 Extraordinary County Independent Special District Millage Rate Vote Rate Rate Vote Required ac ua Baker Bay Brevard Broward 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation AI h ALACHU CO LIBRARY DIST BAKER COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY BEACH MOSQUITO CONTROL DIST MERRITT ISLAND LIBRARY DISTRICT NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DIST SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT CENTRAL BROWARD WATER CONTROL FT LAUDERDALE DOWNTOWN DEV HILLSBORO INLET DISTRICT TINDALL HAMMOCK IRR SOIL BROWARD CO CHILDREN'S SERV CNCL Citrus CITRUS CO MOSQUITO CONTROL HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DIST CITRUS COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD Collier COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL DIST EAST NAPLES FIRE CONT &RES DIS NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DIST BIG CORKSCREW FIRE CONTROL DIS GOLDEN GATE FIRE CTRL RESC IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL DIST Columbia LAKE SHORE HOSPITAL Dade DADE CO DOWNTOWN DEV AUTH THE CHILDREN'S TRUST Flagler EAST FLAGLER MOSQUITO CONTROL Franklin DOG ISLAND CONSERVATION DIST EASTPOINT WATER SEWER DIST ALLIGATOR POINT WATER RES DIST Glades BUCKHEAD RIDGE MOSQUITO CTRL Hardee HARDEE CO INDIGENT HEALTH CARE Hendry HENDRY COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTH Hillsborough TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY HILLSBOROUGH TRANSIT AUTH HILLSBOROUGH CHILDREN'S BOARD Indian River INDIAN RIVER MOSQUITO CTRL DIS INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Jackson CAMPBELLTON /GRACEVILLE HOSP Lake NORTH LAKE CO HOSPITAL DIST LAKE CO WATER AUTH SOUTH LAKE CO HOSPITAL DIST Lee LEE CO HYACINTH CONTROL LEE CO MOSQUITO CONTROL DIS ALVA FIRE CONTROL DIST BAYSHORE FIRE CONTROL DIST BONITA SPRINGS FIRE CONT DIST CAPTIVA FIRE CONTROL DIST CAPTIVA EROSION PREVENTION ESTERO FIRE RESCUE FT MYERS BEACH FIRE CONT FT MYERS BEACH LIBRARY DIST FT MYERS BEACH MOSQ CONT FT MYERS SHORES FIRE DIST NORTH FORT MYERS FIRE CTRL 1.2491 1.0571 0.1438 0.0841 1.7059 1.1913 0.4700 0.4802 0.0860 6.0000 0.3754 0.2755 0.7200 1.1689 0.0635 1.3498 0.9869 1.8397 1.0000 2.7380 2.0160 0.5000 0.4212 0.1730 3.0000 2.0000 1.9000 1.0000 0.3381 3.0000 0.1950 0.4682 0.5000 0.2175 0.7560 1.5590 1.0000 0.2130 0.8666 0.0214 0.1636 3.0000 3.4500 1.8569 0.6399 0.1745 1.9037 1.9980 0.5199 0.0698 2.0000 2.5000 1.2856 1.0952 0.1726 0.0934 1.9276 1.3552 0.6314 0.4849 0.0971 6.1508 0.4243 0.3020 0.7597 1.2833 0.0720 1.5793 1.0996 2.7386 1.2451 3.1809 2.1533 0.5827 0.4720 0.2087 3.8783 2.3709 2.5920 1.0503 0.3403 3.3600 0.2247 0.5415 0.5777 0.2417 0.8400 1.5460 1.0920 0.2380 1.0019 0.0277 0.2132 3.5316 4.2965 2.2316 0.6768 0.1846 2.3487 2.3017 0.5989 0.0806 2.5608 3.2746 1.3177 1.1226 0.2007 0.0957 1.9832 1.4216 0.7788 0.4970 0.1067 6.3046 0.4349 0.3095 0.7787 1.3154 0.0804 1.7578 1.1200 3.0516 1.2904 3.2604 2.2071 0.5973 0.4838 0.2139 4.0984 3.7409 2.7322 1.0766 0.3488 3.8195 0.2451 0.5551 0.5921 0.2477 0.8610 1.5846 1.1193 0.2563 1.0959 0.0336 0.2581 4.0559 4.4039 2.4977 0.6937 0.1892 2.4965 2.7453 0.6214 0.0826 2.6405 3.3564 1.2856 1.0571 0.1438 0.0930 1.7059 1.2732 0.6200 0.4970 0.0860 6.0000 0.4243 0.2992 0.7597 1.0000 0.0720 1.5000 1.0000 2.0000 1.2968 two- thirds 3.0000 2.0468 0.5000 0.5000 two thirds 0.2038 3.0000 2.0000 1.9000 1.0000 0.3335 2.9000 0.1925 0.4682 0.5000 0.2417 0.9471 two thirds 1.5460 1.0000 0.2130 0.8666 0.0277 0.2132 3.0000 3.5000 1.7950 0.8768 unanimous 0.2322 unanimous 2.0000 2.3017 0.5989 0.0783 2.0000 2.5000 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation IONA MCGREGOR FIRE DIST LEHIGH ACRES FIRE CTRL MATLACHA PINE ISLAND FIRE SAN CARLOS PARK FIRE CNTRL SANIBEL FIRE RESCUE DI ST SOUTH TRAIL FIRE CONTROL TICE FIRE CONTROL UPPER CAPTIVA FIRE PROT RESC Sanibel Public Library Levy CEDAR KEY SPEC WATER SEW DIS Manatee MANATEE CO MOSQUITO DIST PALMS OF TERRA CEIA CEDAR HAMMOCK FIRE RESCUE SOUTHERN MANATEE FIRE RESCUE EAST MANATEE FIRE AND RESCUE Marion CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'A' CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'B' CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'C' Martin MARTIN CO CHILDREN'S SERV Monroe FLORIDA KEYS MOSQUITO CTRL KEY LARGO FIRE RESCUE/EMER MED 2.0300 2.4949 2.7517 5.4677 2.8500 3.3127 2.0628 2.8984 0.8114 0.8794 1.8760 2.3425 2.7958 3.6215 2.2900 2.5857 Levied less than 5 years 0.6882 0.8452 0.1088 0.1205 4.0000 4.9362 1.0000 1.1185 1.0000 1.1206 0.8000 0.9035 1.3726 1.3967 1.1566 1.2163 0.9493 1.0062 0.3523 0.3874 0.3798 0.4486 Levied less than 5 years 2.7658 7.9580 3.5300 3.1292 0.9355 2.4011 3.9973 2.6510 0.8663 0.1296 5.0596 1.1465 1.1486 0.9261 1.4893 1.2984 1.0742 0.3971 0.5546 2.3242 3.0000 2.8500 2.5000 0.8794 1.8760 3.0000 2.5430 0.8452 0.1134 4.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 1.3967 1.2163 1.0062 0.3523 0.4262 Nassau AMELIA ISLAND MOSQUITO CONTROL 0.1190 0.1259 0.1290 0.1175 Okaloosa DESTIN FIRE CONTROL DIST 0.9009 1.0066 1.0318 1.0000 EAST NICEVILLE FIRE DIST 2.0000 2.1270 2.1802 2.3500 two- thirds FLOROSA FIRE CONTROL DIST 1.0000 1.0886 1.1158 1.0000 NORTH BAY FIRE DISTRICT 1.7827 1.9071 1.9548 2.0500 two- thirds OCEAN CITY /WRIGHT FIRE CNTRL 1.8144 1.9224 1.9705 1.8144 OKALOOSA ISLAND FIRE DISTRICT 1.9998 2.2884 2.9146 2.1900 Okeechobee OKEECHOBEE CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.3119 0.3722 0.3815 0.3119 Orange ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY DIST 0.3748 0.4281 0.4517 0.3748 Palm Beach WEST PALM BEACH DWNTWN DEV 1.0000 5.1318 33.2901 1.0000 GREATER BOCA RATON BCH PARK 0.8140 0.9022 1.0320 0.9015 JUPITER INLET DISTRICT 0.1000 0.1111 0.1139 0.1253 two thirds PALM BEACH CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.6009 0.6898 0.7308 0.6898 HEALTH CARE DISTRICT 0.9975 1.1451 1.1737 1.1451 Pasco PASCO CO MOSQ CONTROL DIST 0.1567 0.1886 0.1942 0.1883 Pinellas PINELLAS JUVENILE WELFARE 0.7915 0.9005 0.9232 0.7915 CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN DEV BOARD 0.9651 1.0513 1.1219 0.9651 PALM HARBOR SPC FIRE DIST 1.8263 2.0612 2.2266 1.8263 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT 0.5601 0.6431 0.7019 0.5601 PINELLAS PARK WATER MGMT DIST 2.5581 2.9583 3.3703 1.9867 EAST LAKE TARPON FIRE CNTRL 1.4200 1.5882 1.7284 1.3900 LEALMAN FIRE RESCUE 3.9800 4.7189 4.8369 4.4828 Polk LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DIS 0.5000 0.5583 0.6213 0.5000 LAKELAND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT 1.8744 1.9445 1.9931 1.8744 LAKE REGION LAKES MGMT DIST 0.3350 0.3833 0.3929 0.4000 two thirds St. Johns PONTE VEDRA MUNCP SERV DIST 0.2750 0.3060 0.4011 0.2750 ST AUGUSTINE AIRPORT AUTHORITY 0.1697 0.1960 0.2259 0.1600 ANASTASIA MOSQUITO CONTROL 0.1325 0.1530 0.1680 0.1325 ST AUGUSTINE PORT WTWY BCH 0.0454 0.0539 0.0584 0.0539 St. Lucie ST LUCIE CO FIRE DIST 2.2000 2.8096 3.4023 2.2000 ST LUCIE CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.3858 0.4927 0.5967 0.4872 Santa Rosa AVALON BEACH/MULAT FIRE DIST 0.9700 1.0900 1.1173 1.0000 MIDWAY FIRE PROTECTION DIST 1.4000 1.5679 1.6071 1.4000 2008 Rolled -Back Majority 2009 Extraordinary County Independent Special District Millage Rate Vote Rate Rate Vote Required 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation IONA MCGREGOR FIRE DIST LEHIGH ACRES FIRE CTRL MATLACHA PINE ISLAND FIRE SAN CARLOS PARK FIRE CNTRL SANIBEL FIRE RESCUE DI ST SOUTH TRAIL FIRE CONTROL TICE FIRE CONTROL UPPER CAPTIVA FIRE PROT RESC Sanibel Public Library Levy CEDAR KEY SPEC WATER SEW DIS Manatee MANATEE CO MOSQUITO DIST PALMS OF TERRA CEIA CEDAR HAMMOCK FIRE RESCUE SOUTHERN MANATEE FIRE RESCUE EAST MANATEE FIRE AND RESCUE Marion CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'A' CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'B' CITY OF OCALA DOWNTOWN DEV 'C' Martin MARTIN CO CHILDREN'S SERV Monroe FLORIDA KEYS MOSQUITO CTRL KEY LARGO FIRE RESCUE/EMER MED 2.0300 2.4949 2.7517 5.4677 2.8500 3.3127 2.0628 2.8984 0.8114 0.8794 1.8760 2.3425 2.7958 3.6215 2.2900 2.5857 Levied less than 5 years 0.6882 0.8452 0.1088 0.1205 4.0000 4.9362 1.0000 1.1185 1.0000 1.1206 0.8000 0.9035 1.3726 1.3967 1.1566 1.2163 0.9493 1.0062 0.3523 0.3874 0.3798 0.4486 Levied less than 5 years 2.7658 7.9580 3.5300 3.1292 0.9355 2.4011 3.9973 2.6510 0.8663 0.1296 5.0596 1.1465 1.1486 0.9261 1.4893 1.2984 1.0742 0.3971 0.5546 2.3242 3.0000 2.8500 2.5000 0.8794 1.8760 3.0000 2.5430 0.8452 0.1134 4.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 1.3967 1.2163 1.0062 0.3523 0.4262 Nassau AMELIA ISLAND MOSQUITO CONTROL 0.1190 0.1259 0.1290 0.1175 Okaloosa DESTIN FIRE CONTROL DIST 0.9009 1.0066 1.0318 1.0000 EAST NICEVILLE FIRE DIST 2.0000 2.1270 2.1802 2.3500 two- thirds FLOROSA FIRE CONTROL DIST 1.0000 1.0886 1.1158 1.0000 NORTH BAY FIRE DISTRICT 1.7827 1.9071 1.9548 2.0500 two- thirds OCEAN CITY /WRIGHT FIRE CNTRL 1.8144 1.9224 1.9705 1.8144 OKALOOSA ISLAND FIRE DISTRICT 1.9998 2.2884 2.9146 2.1900 Okeechobee OKEECHOBEE CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.3119 0.3722 0.3815 0.3119 Orange ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY DIST 0.3748 0.4281 0.4517 0.3748 Palm Beach WEST PALM BEACH DWNTWN DEV 1.0000 5.1318 33.2901 1.0000 GREATER BOCA RATON BCH PARK 0.8140 0.9022 1.0320 0.9015 JUPITER INLET DISTRICT 0.1000 0.1111 0.1139 0.1253 two thirds PALM BEACH CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.6009 0.6898 0.7308 0.6898 HEALTH CARE DISTRICT 0.9975 1.1451 1.1737 1.1451 Pasco PASCO CO MOSQ CONTROL DIST 0.1567 0.1886 0.1942 0.1883 Pinellas PINELLAS JUVENILE WELFARE 0.7915 0.9005 0.9232 0.7915 CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN DEV BOARD 0.9651 1.0513 1.1219 0.9651 PALM HARBOR SPC FIRE DIST 1.8263 2.0612 2.2266 1.8263 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT 0.5601 0.6431 0.7019 0.5601 PINELLAS PARK WATER MGMT DIST 2.5581 2.9583 3.3703 1.9867 EAST LAKE TARPON FIRE CNTRL 1.4200 1.5882 1.7284 1.3900 LEALMAN FIRE RESCUE 3.9800 4.7189 4.8369 4.4828 Polk LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DIS 0.5000 0.5583 0.6213 0.5000 LAKELAND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT 1.8744 1.9445 1.9931 1.8744 LAKE REGION LAKES MGMT DIST 0.3350 0.3833 0.3929 0.4000 two thirds St. Johns PONTE VEDRA MUNCP SERV DIST 0.2750 0.3060 0.4011 0.2750 ST AUGUSTINE AIRPORT AUTHORITY 0.1697 0.1960 0.2259 0.1600 ANASTASIA MOSQUITO CONTROL 0.1325 0.1530 0.1680 0.1325 ST AUGUSTINE PORT WTWY BCH 0.0454 0.0539 0.0584 0.0539 St. Lucie ST LUCIE CO FIRE DIST 2.2000 2.8096 3.4023 2.2000 ST LUCIE CHILDREN'S SERVICES 0.3858 0.4927 0.5967 0.4872 Santa Rosa AVALON BEACH/MULAT FIRE DIST 0.9700 1.0900 1.1173 1.0000 MIDWAY FIRE PROTECTION DIST 1.4000 1.5679 1.6071 1.4000 Sarasota Volusia SARASOTA CO PUBLIC HOSPITAL HALIFAX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTHEAST VOLUSIA HOSP DIST WEST VOLUSIA HOSP AUTHORITY Walton SOUTH WALTON FIRE DIST SOUTH WALTON MOSQUITO CONTROL Note: Operating levies only. 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation 0.9410 2.2500 2.8529 1.4672 0.7600 0.0998 1.0863 2.6935 3.5109 1.7813 0.9280 0.1216 1.3170 3.4439 3.5987 1.8258 0.9956 0.1246 1.0863 2.2500 3.5987 1.7450 0.7600 0.0986 DOR 01 2008 Rolled -Back Majority 2009 Extraordinary County Independent Special District Millage Rate Vote Rate Rate Vote Required Sarasota Volusia SARASOTA CO PUBLIC HOSPITAL HALIFAX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTHEAST VOLUSIA HOSP DIST WEST VOLUSIA HOSP AUTHORITY Walton SOUTH WALTON FIRE DIST SOUTH WALTON MOSQUITO CONTROL Note: Operating levies only. 2009 Single County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation 0.9410 2.2500 2.8529 1.4672 0.7600 0.0998 1.0863 2.6935 3.5109 1.7813 0.9280 0.1216 1.3170 3.4439 3.5987 1.8258 0.9956 0.1246 1.0863 2.2500 3.5987 1.7450 0.7600 0.0986 DOR 01 2009 Multi- County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation DOR 01/11/10 Water Management Districts St. Johns Water Mgmnt. Dist. Suwannee River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Districtwide Okeechobee Basin Everglades Construction Big Cypress Southwest FI. Water Mgmnt. Dist. Other Multi County Districts Florida Inland Navigation Dist. West Coast Inland Navigation Dist. Sebastian Inlet Dist. Port Labelle Community Dev. Dist. Reedy Creek Improvement Boca Grande Fire Cntl. Dist. Rainbow Lakes Estate Note: Operating levies only. 0.4158 0.4399 0.2549 0.2797 0.0894 0.2265 0.0345 0.0394 0.1124 2.9900 6.3962 1.0233 1.5600 0.4698 0.4654 0.2941 0.3233 0.1033 0.2571 0.0391 0.0481 0.1291 4.3228 6.6244 1.0585 3.1549 0.5013 0.4786 0.3196 0.3503 0.1120 0.2869 0.0418 0.0565 0.1405 5.5350 6.7900 1.0850 3.2338 0.4158 0.4399 0.2549 0.2797 0.0894 0.2265 Districtwide 0.3866 0.4443 0.4969 0.3866 Alafia River Basin 0.2163 0.2519 0.2785 0.2163 Coastal Rivers Basin 0.1885 0.2186 0.2435 0.1885 Hillsborough River Basin 0.2502 0.2885 0.3063 0.2421 Manasota Basin 0.1484 0.1686 0.1993 0.1484 Northwest Hillsborough Basin Peace River Basin 0.1827 0.2139 0.2446 0.1827 Pinellas Anclote River Basin 0.3600 0.4108 0.4643 0.3200 Withlacoochee River Basin 0.2308 0.2604 0.2914 0.2308 Northwest Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. 0.0450 0.0500 0.0500 0.0450 0.0345 0.0394 0.1124 3.4600 6.7180 1.0850 2.0000 2008 Rolled -Back Majority 2009 Extraordinary District Millage Rate Vote Rate Rate Vote Required 2009 Multi- County Independent Special District Compliance with Maximum Millage Levy Calculation DOR 01/11/10 Water Management Districts St. Johns Water Mgmnt. Dist. Suwannee River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Districtwide Okeechobee Basin Everglades Construction Big Cypress Southwest FI. Water Mgmnt. Dist. Other Multi County Districts Florida Inland Navigation Dist. West Coast Inland Navigation Dist. Sebastian Inlet Dist. Port Labelle Community Dev. Dist. Reedy Creek Improvement Boca Grande Fire Cntl. Dist. Rainbow Lakes Estate Note: Operating levies only. 0.4158 0.4399 0.2549 0.2797 0.0894 0.2265 0.0345 0.0394 0.1124 2.9900 6.3962 1.0233 1.5600 0.4698 0.4654 0.2941 0.3233 0.1033 0.2571 0.0391 0.0481 0.1291 4.3228 6.6244 1.0585 3.1549 0.5013 0.4786 0.3196 0.3503 0.1120 0.2869 0.0418 0.0565 0.1405 5.5350 6.7900 1.0850 3.2338 0.4158 0.4399 0.2549 0.2797 0.0894 0.2265 Districtwide 0.3866 0.4443 0.4969 0.3866 Alafia River Basin 0.2163 0.2519 0.2785 0.2163 Coastal Rivers Basin 0.1885 0.2186 0.2435 0.1885 Hillsborough River Basin 0.2502 0.2885 0.3063 0.2421 Manasota Basin 0.1484 0.1686 0.1993 0.1484 Northwest Hillsborough Basin Peace River Basin 0.1827 0.2139 0.2446 0.1827 Pinellas Anclote River Basin 0.3600 0.4108 0.4643 0.3200 Withlacoochee River Basin 0.2308 0.2604 0.2914 0.2308 Northwest Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. 0.0450 0.0500 0.0500 0.0450 0.0345 0.0394 0.1124 3.4600 6.7180 1.0850 2.0000 Residents' State and Local Tax Burden 2008 Florida ranks 47 with a burden of 7.4% as a percentage of Florida personal income. The U.S. average is 9.7% of U.S. personal income. Only three rural States have a lighter tax burden than Florida: Alaska, Wyoming, and Nevada. For 18 consecutive years the Tax Foundation has published an estimate of the combined state -local tax burden shouldered by the residents of each of the 50 states. For each state, they calculate the total amount paid by the residents in taxes, and divide those taxes by the total income in each state to compute a "tax burden" measure. 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index Florida ranks as the 5 best in the United States. Only four rural States have a better business tax climate than Florida: Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, and South Dakota. The Tax Foundation recently published the 2010 version of the State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). The SBTCI was created as a tool for lawmakers, the media and individuals alike to gauge how their states' tax systems compare. Policymakers can use the SBTCI to pinpoint changes to their tax systems that will explicitly improve their states' standing in relation to competing states. About the Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan educational organization that has earned a reputation for independence and credibility. The mission of the Tax Foundation is to educate taxpayers about sound tax policy and the size of the tax burden borne by Americans at all levels of government. From its founding in 1937, the Tax Foundation has been grounded in the belief that the dissemination of basic information about government finance is the foundation of sound policy in a free society. www.taxfoundation.org Are Floridians Overtaxed? State of Florida Personnel Costs Lowest in the U.S. In both comparisons, Florida had the lowest ratio of all the States in the U.S. Submitted by Ken Small to members of the March 3, 2010 Joint Workshop between City Council and the Citizens Budget Review Advisory Committee Recently, the Florida Department of Management Services released its 2007 -2008 Annual Workforce Report. The Report highlighted two key comparisons between Florida and the other 49 States. In 2007, state governments nationwide had an average of 214 state workers per 10,000 in population. Florida had a ratio of 118 workers per 10,000 in population. In 2007, the state government national average was $66 in payroll expenditures per state resident. Florida's ratio was $36 in payroll expenditures per state resident. BACKGROUND PAPER 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index An Executive Summary By Kail M. Padgitt Introduction The Tax Foundation presents the 2010 version of the State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI) as a tool for lawmakers, the media, and individuals alike to gauge how their states tax systems compare. Policymakers can then use the SBTCI to pinpoint changes to their tax systems that will explicitly improve their states' standing in relation to competing states. How much states collect in taxes is critical, but how they take it is also important. In other words, quite apart from whether a state's total tax burden is higher than in other states, it can enact (and many states do) a set of tax laws that cause great damage to the economy. The modern market is characterized by mobile capital and labor. Therefore, companies will locate where they have the greatest competi- tive advantage. States with the best tax systems will have an advantage in attracting new businesses and generating economic and employment growth. Although the market is now global, the Department of Labor reports that most mass job relocations are from one U S state to another rather than to an overseas location.' This means that state lawmakers must be aware of how their states' business climates stack up to others in their region and nationwide. State lawmakers are always tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies. This can be a dangerous proposi- September 2009, Number 59 tion, as a case in Florida illustrates. In July of 2004 Florida lawmakers cried foul because a major credit card company announced it would close its Tampa call center, lay off 1,110 workers, and outsource those jobs to another company. The reason for the lawmak- ers' ire was that the company had been lured to Florida with a generous tax incentive package and had enjoyed nearly $3 million worth of tax breaks during the previous nine years. Lawmakers create these deals under the banner of job creation and economic develop- ment, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a woeful business climate plagued by bad tax policy. A far more effective approach is to systematically improve the business tax climate for the long term. When assessing which changes to make, lawmakers need to remember these two rules: 1. Taxes matter to business. Taxes affect business decisions, job creation and reten- tion, plant location, competitiveness, and the long -term health of a state's economy. Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers (through higher prices), workers (through lower wages or fewer jobs), or shareholders (through lower dividends or share value). Thus a state 1 U.S. Department of Labor, "Extended Mass Layoffs in the First Quarter of 2007," August 9, 2007, located at http://www.b1s.govinews.release/mslo.nr0.htm. 2 Dave Wasson, "Florida Lawmakers Slam Capital One's Layoff After Years of Tax Breaks," lax Analysts. Kail Padgitt, Ph.D., is an economist at the Tax Foundation. He would like to thank the authors ofprevious editions: Joshua Barra, Curtis Dubay, Chris Atkins, Scott Moody Wendy Warcholik and Scott Hodge. Figure 1 State Business Tax Climate Index, Fiscal Year 2010 2 AK #3 with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment, and more likely to experience economic growth. 2. States do not enact tax changes (increases or cuts) in a vacuum. Every tax law will in some way change a state's competitive position relative to its immediate neighbors, its geo- graphic region, and even globally. Ultimately it will affect the state's national standing as a place to live and to do business. Entrepreneur- ial states can take advantage of the tax increases of their neighbors to lure businesses out of high -tax states. Clearly, there are many non -tax factors that affect a state's business climate: its proximity to raw materials or transportation centers, its regulatory or legal structures, the quality of its education system and the skill of its workforce, not to mention the intangible perception of a e HI #24 II 10 worst business tax climates n 10 best business tax climates state's "quality of life."' Some of these factors are, of course, outside of the control of elected officials. Montana lawmakers cannot change the fact that Montana's businesses have no immediate access to deepwater ports. Lawmakers do, how- ever, have direct control over how friendly their tax systems are to business. Purpose The SBTCI is designed to measure the competi- tiveness of each state's tax system so lawmakers, the media and the public alike can gauge how their state compares to other states. They can also use the SBTCI to pinpoint specific changes that will increase the competitive standing of their state. Good state tax systems levy low, flat rates on the broadest bases possible, and they treat all 3 A Trend in tax literature throughout the last two decades has been the increasing use of indexes to measure a states general business climate. Recent examples include the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council's "Small Business Survival Index 2007" and the Beacon Hill Institute's "State Competitiveness Report 2007." Such indexes even exist on the international level, including the Heritage Foundation's "2008 Index of Economic Freedom." Bitclingmayer, Eathington, Hall and Orazem (2005) find in their analysis of several business climate studies that a U.S. state's tax climate does affect its economic growth rate, and that several indexes are able to predict growth. In fact, they found, "The State Business Tax Climate Index explains growth consistently." taxpayers the same. Variation in the tax treatment of different industries favors one economic activity or decision over another. The more riddled a tax system is with these politically motivated prefer- ences the less likely it is that business decisions will be made in response to market forces. The SBTCI rewards those states that apply these principles in five important areas of taxation: individual income taxes, major business taxes, sales taxes, unemploy- ment insurance taxes, and taxes on wealth or assets such as property. How the State Business Tax Climate Index is Calculated The SBTCI places 112 variables into five compo- nent indexes that each measure a different sector of a state's business tax climate. The five compo- nent indexes are the Corporate Tax Index, Individual Income Tax Index, Sales Tax Index, Unemployment Tax Index and Property Tax Index. The total score for each state is calculated based on the scores on each of the five component indexes. Using the economic literature as our guide, we designed these five component indexes to score each state's business tax climate on a scale of zero (worst) to 10 (best) Each component index is devoted to a major area of state taxation and each has two equally weighted sub- indexes, some of which include several categories and variables under them.. The ranking of the states on each of the five major component indexes is presented in Table 2 on page 4. Results of the 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index The ten best states in the Tax Foundation's 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index are as follows: 1. South Dakota 2. Wyoming 3. Alaska 4. Nevada 5. Florida 6. Montana 7. New Hampshire 8. Delaware 9. Washington 10. Utah The ten worst states are: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Table 1 State Business Tax Climate Index, 2009 2010 State U.S. Vermont Wisconsin Minnesota Rhode Island Maryland Alabama 5.19 Alaska 7.38 Arizona 5.01 Arkansas 4.61 California 3.89 Colorado 5.63 Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming District of Columbia FY 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index 4.97 5.59 5.03 4.33 5.03 7.42 5.10 5.70 5.80 4.56 5.53 5.81 4.73 4.54 7.38 4.72 5.98 6.62 5.01 5.05 5.21 5.01 5.67 4.23 46. Iowa 47. Ohio 48. California 49. New York 50. New Jersey Score Rank Score Rank 5.00 5.00 19 3 28 40 48 13 38 8 5 29 24 18 30 12 46 FY 2009 State Business Tax Climate Index 5.30 7.32 5.25 4.87 4.14 5.89 4.81 6.01 6.92 5.16 5.27 5.10 5.26 5.88 4.35 Change from 2009 to 2010 Score Rank 0 20 -0.11 1 4 0.06 1 24 -0.23 -4 35 -0.25 -5 48 -0.11 1 13 -0.26 0 37 -0.09 -1 10 -0.02 2 5 -0.30 0 27 -0.15 -2 22 -0.22 -2 29 0.11 11 23 -0.26 -7 14 -0.20 2 44 -0.12 -2 4.93 32 5.07 31 -0.14 -1 5.18 20 4.95 34 0.23 14 4.74 35 4.98 33 -0.24 -2 4.83 34 4.69 40 0.14 6 4.26 45 4.31 45 -0.06 0 4.73 36 4.99 32 0.26 -4 5.35 17 5.30 21 0.05 4 4.44 43 4,61 41 -0.18 -2 5.16 21 5.32 19 -0.16 -2 5.37 16 5.57 16 -0.20 0 6.32 6 6.27 6 0.05 4.88 33 4.55 42 0.32 9 7.05 4 7.37 3 -0.31 -1 6.25 7 6.21 7 0.05 0 3.60 50 3.90 50 -0.30 0 5.06 23 5.17 26 -0.11 3 3.66 49 4.00 49 -0.47 -2 4.66 39 4.74 39 -0.08 0 5.04 25 5.08 30 -0.04 5 4.04 47 4.15 47 -0.08 1 31 5.40 18 -0.43 -13 14 6.04 8 -0.44 -6 27 5.14 28 -0.10 1 44 4.18 46 0.15 2 26 5.21 25 -0.17 -1 1 7.50 2 -0.08 1 22 5.42 17 -0.32 -5 11 6.02 9 -0.32 -2 10 5.94 11 -0.14 1 41 4,52 43 0.03 2 4.72 15 9 37 42 2 5.70 15 -0.17 0 5.94 12 -0.13 3 4.86 36 -0.13 -1 4.76 38 0.22 -4 7.50 1 -0.12 -1 4.53 Note: The higher the score, the more favorable a states tax system is for business. All scores are for fiscal years. Source: Tax Foundation 0.20 3 Tax competition is an unpleasant reality for state revenue and budget officials, but it is probably the most effective restraint on state and local taxes. When a state imposes higher taxes than a neighboring state, business will cross the border to some extent. Therefore states with more competitive tax systems score well in the SBTCI because they are best suited to generate economic growth. Starting with the 2006 edition, the SBTCI has measured each state's business tax climate as it Table 2 Major Components of the State Business Tax Climate Index, FY2010 Overall State Rank Alabama 19 Alaska 3 Arizona 28 Arkansas 40 California 48 Colorado 13 Connecticut 38 Delaware 8 Florida 5 Georgia 29 Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 24 18 30 12 46 32 20 35 34 45 36 17 43 21 16 6 33 4 7 50 23 49 39 25 47 31 14 27 44 26 22 11 10 41 15 9 37 42 2 Corporate Tax Index Rank 23 26 22 39 34 48 12 18 49 15 8 10 17 27 5 1 45 42 19 43 14 47 48 44 13 5 16 35 3 50 41 32 20 25 30 38 7 31 37 36 9 1 11 46 6 28 4 33 24 29 1 Individual Income Tax Index Rank 17 1 23 34 16 24 35 1 30 44 29 10 11 42 21 32 25 40 49 14 15 37 18 27 22 31 1 9 47 19 50 36 33 46 26 45 13 38 28 1 8 7 12 41 20 1 39 43 1 stands at the beginning of the standard state fiscal year, July 1. Therefore, this edition is the 2010 SBTCI and represents the tax climate in each state as of July 1, 2009, the first day of fiscal year 2010 for most states. Please view the full study on our website at www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf, or, alternatively, call or write us for a free copy. Unemployment Sales Insurance Tax Index Tax Index Rank Rank 25 5 46 43 48 31 27 1 32 23 11 12 41 20 33 24 7 47 6 10 26 9 40 35 16 3 17 44 2 38 42 36 34 21 37 45 4 29 13 18 30 49 39 28 14 50 22 19 15 16 29 2 17 14 20 34 13 3 22 12 48 46 11 33 6 36 8 40 37 49 45 38 4 7 21 15 42 39 25 19 47 5 28 10 1 30 41 50 43 35 32 9 24 18 44 26 31 23 27 Note: Rankings do not average across to total. States without a given tax rank equally as number 1. Source: Tax Foundation Property Tax Index Rank 17 15 4 20 13 6 48 7 22 36 8 3 39 12 31 32 19 24 41 38 45 33 16 23 18 10 34 14 40 50 1 43 37 5 49 27 9 42 47 26 11 46 30 2 44 29 21 28 25 35 Since 1937 TAX FOUNDATION BACKGROUND PAPER (ISSN 1527- -0108) is published approximately four times a year. Each study explores an economic issue in depth. written by Foundation economists and guest scholars. Single copy: Free Multiple copies: 5 each The Tax Foundation, a non- profit, non- partisan research and public education organization, has monitored tax and fiscal activities at all levels of government since 193'. 11 2009 Fax Foundation Editor and Communications Director, Bill Ahern Copy Editor: Alicia Hansen Fax Foundation National Press Building 529 14th Sweet, NBC; Suite 420 Washington, DC: 20045 -1000 ph. 202.464.6200 www.TaxFoundation.org TF9:TaxFoundation.org Ince 1937 TAX FOUNDATION August 2008 No. 163 By Gerald Prante Senior Economist Tax Foundation SPECIAL REPORT State -Local Tax Burdens Dip As Income Growth Outpaces Tax Growth New, jersey's Citizens Pay the Most; Alaska's Least Introduction For 18 consecutive years the Tax Foundation has published an estimate of the combined state -local tax burden shouldered by the resi- dents of each of the 50 states. For each state, we calculate the total amount paid by the resi- dents in taxes, and we divide those taxes by the total income in each state to compute a "tax burden" measure. We make this calculation not only for the most recent year but also for earlier years be- cause tax and income data are revised periodically by government agencies, and in Key Findings The I r ,measure of tax burden iin any state must `include the taxes y residents to ot her states Much larger than commonly supposed ayme nts 1 are included in t s tu d y of how much each ,state's resi- ay z n state local tax es., are down fr om R 9 percent of i come in2 ©07 t o 9 .7per- cent. n 21 08, mostly b in ecause• comegrowt outpaced tax,growt as t macroeconormy slowed. In 21108 the residents of tVe v�ersey iay thew incom New 'ork:;and Connecticut are the o dents pay snore than 11 percent corripared t percent Maryland and Flatpau round ou h per cent of their states where .resi a average o f l 97 Alaskans pay the least 0 4 percent,in 21108, Neuadans ptty 6 6percent, and residents of Wyo ming Florida, New Hampshire: and, South Dakota pay between 7 and.8: percent of their income• in sta te -local taxes. the case of the current report, we have changed our own methodology to take advantage of new datasets. The goal is to focus not on the tax collec- tors but on the taxpayers. That is, we answer the question: What percentage of their income are the residents of this state paying in state and local taxes? We are not trying to answer the question: How much money have state and local governments collected? The Census Bureau publishes the definitive comparative data answering that question. Here are some examples of the difference between collections (focusing on the tax collec- tor) and burdens (focusing on the taxpayer). When Connecticut residents work in New York City and pay income tax there to both the state and the city, the Census Bu- reau will duly tally those amounts as New York tax collections, but we will count them as part of the tax burden of Connecticut's residents. When Illinois and Massachusetts residents own second homes in nearby Wisconsin or Maine, local governments in Wisconsin and Maine will tally those property tax collections, but we will shift those pay- ments back to the states of the taxpayers. When people all over the country vacation in Disney World or Las Vegas, tax collec- Table I State and Local Tax Burdens by Rank Fiscal Year 2008 State -Local State Tax Burden US average New Jersey New York Connecticut Maryland Hawaii California Ohio Vermont Wisconsin Rhode Island Pennsylvania Minnesota Idaho Arkansas Maine Georgia Nebraska Virginia Oklahoma North Carolina Kansas Utah Massachusetts Delaware Kentucky Oregon Michigan Indiana West Virginia Illinois Iowa Missouri North Dakota Colorado Washington Mississippi South Carolina Alabama New Mexico Montana Arizona Louisiana Texas Tennessee South Dakota New Hampshire Florida Wyoming Nevada Alaska Dist. of Columbia Rank 9.7% 11.8% 1 117 2 11.1 3 10.8 4 10.6 5 10.5% 6 10.4 7 10.3 8 10.2 9 10.2 10 10.2% 11 10.2 12 10.1 13 10.0 14 10.0 15 9.9% 16 9.8 17 9.8 18 9.8 19 9.8 20 9.6% 21 9.6 22 9.5 23 9.5 24 9.4 25 9.4% 26 9.4 27 9.4 28 9.3 29 9.3 30 9.3% 31 9.2 32 9.2 33 9.0 34 8.9 35 8.9% 36 8.8 37 8.6 38 8.6 39 8.6 40 8.5% 41 8.4 42 8.4 43 8.3 44 7.9 45 7.6% 46 7.4 47 7.0 48 6.6 49 6.4 50 10.3% Notes: Fiscal Year 2008 figures are advanced estimates. As a unique state -local entity, D.C. is not included in rankings, but the figure in parentheses shows where it would rank. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data from multiple sources, primarily Census Bureau, Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation, and Travel Industry Association. 2 tors will tally the receipts from lodging, rental car, restaurant and general sales taxes in Florida and Nevada, but we will use economic tools to tally those payments in the states where the vacationers live. Every state's economic activity is different, as is every state's tax code. As a result, they vary in their ability to "export their tax burden," that is, to collect revenue from non residents. Economists have been studying this phenom- enon since at least the 1960s when Charles McLure (1967) estimated that states were ex- tracting between 15 and 35 percent of their tax revenue from non residents. In 2008, the residents of three states stand above the rest, paying the highest state -local tax burdens in the nation: New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. They're the only three states where taxpayers give up more than 11 percent of their income in state -local taxes, compared to a national average of 9.7 percent. Much of this interstate tax collecting oc- curs through no special effort by state and local legislators or tax collectors. Tourists spend as they travel, and all those transactions are taxed. People who own property out of state naturally pay property tax out of state. And the burden of business taxes is borne by the employees, shareholders and customers of those businesses, wherever they live. However, many states have made a con- scious effort for years to raise taxes on non residents, and that effort seems to be ac- celerating. In fact, many campaigns for tax- raising legislation in the last several years have explicitly advertised the preponderance of non voting, non resident payers as a reason for resident voters to accept the tax. This beggar -thy- neighbor effort has been mostly legislative, exemplified by a wave of tax hikes on tourism: hotel rooms, rental cars, res- taurant meals, and local sales taxes in resort Table 1 State and Local Tax Burdens by Rank Fiscal Year 2008 6.4% j N (50) g1 OH 0 .4 areas. States and localities have also enacted separate, higher tax rates for non residents' property and income. The effort to soak non- residents has also been administrative, as departments of revenue have pursued non -resi- dent income tax revenue from individuals and corporations with far more zeal than in years past. In some cases the tax exporting is a wash from the tax collector's perspective. That is, a state collects about the same amount from non residents as its own residents pay to out of -state governments. But in many cases there's a significant difference. By tallying tax payments in the taxpayers' home states, this annual tax burden report al- lows policymakers, researchers, media, and citizens to go beyond a tally of collections to the question of which states' residents are most burdened by state and local taxes. HI 10.6% (5) TX 83% (43) LA 8.4% (42) 10 Highest 10 Lowest Ranking State -Local Tax Burdens The 50 state -local tax burdens are mostly very close to each other. This is logical because state and local governments fund similar activities: public education, transportation, prison sys- tems, health programs, etc, often under the same federal mandates. Also, in any state where the residents bear a tax burden dramatically higher than in similar, nearby states, the popu- lation of resident business and individual taxpayers in that high -tax state is likely to shrink. Even modest tax differentials cause out migration according to many studies. Therefore, it is not surprising to find 15 state -local tax burdens clumped in the middle of a tight distribution. Ranking from 17th highest (Nebraska) to 31st highest (Iowa), they vary only from 9.8 percent of income to 9.3 percent, hovering around the national average of 9.7 percent. Among these 15 states with FL� is.. 7.4 �ta7) 10.3% (8) ai NH 7.6% (46) VT DC 10.3% (8) MA 9.5% (23) 61 10.2% CT (10) 11.1% NJ 11.8% DE (1) 95% (24) MD 108% (4) 3 Table 2 State and Local Tax Burdens Fiscal Year 2008 State Local Tax State Burden Rank (per capita) (per capita) (per capita) capita) Rank US average 9.7% 2,924 1,358 4,283 44,254 Alabama 8.6% 38 1, 977 1,168 3,144 36,372 Alaska 6.4 50 1,433 1,438 Arizona 8.5 41 2,170 1,074 Arkansas 10.0 14 2,315 1,036 California 10.5 6 3,683 1,345 Colorado 9.0% 34 2,684 1,675 Connecticut 11.1 3 4,498 2,509 Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Dist. of Columbia 9.5 7.4 9.9 10.6% 10.1 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.6% 9.4 8.4 10.0 10.8 9.5% 9.4 10.2 8.9 9.2 8.6% 9.8 6.6 7.6 11.8 8.6% 11.7 9.8 9.2 10.4 9.8% 9.4 10.2 10.2 8.8 7.9% 8.3 8.4 9.6 10.3 24 2,364 1,889 47 2,384 1,057 16 2,579 1,156 5 3,699 1,221 13 2,374 1,296 30 2,948 1,398 28 2,348 1,154 31 2,263 1,327 21 2,460 1,451 25 42 15 4 23 27 12 36 32 40 17 49 46 1 39 2 20 33 7 19 26 11 10 37 45 44 43 22 8 middling tax burdens, then, slight changes in taxes or income could translate into apparently dramatic shifts in rank. However, that still Taxes Paid Taxes Paid to Home to Other Total State States Taxes Paid 2,201 2,093 2,701 4,062 3,609 2,536 3,328 1,773 2,261 1,960 2,611 1,952 1,824 4,376 2,051 4,845 2,597 2,167 2,937 2,280 2,538 3,054 2,900 2,048 1,645 1,779 2,082 2,305 3,072 1,042 1,193 1,135 1,607 1,768 1,158 1,360 1,061 1,248 1,199 1,371 1,293 1,818 2,234 1,063 1,573 1,066 1,470 1,112 1,481 1,181 1,409 1,633 1,079 1,434 1,382 1,498 1,140 1,337 9.8% 18 3,281 1,388 8.9 35 2,957 1,377 9.3 29 1,982 1,018 10.2 9 3,047 1,147 7.0 48 1,925 1,788 10.3% (8) 4,344 2,964 2,871 3,244 3,351 5,028 4,359 7,007 4,253 3,441 3,735 4,920 3,670 4,346 3,502 3,589 3,911 3,243 3,286 3,835 5,669 5,377 3,694 4,688 2,834 3,508 3,158 3,983 3,245 3,642 6,610 3,114 6,419 3,663 3,637 4,049 3,761 3,719 4,463 4,533 3,127 3,079 3,160 3,580 3,446 4,410 Income (per 44,872 38,174 33,395 47,706 48,300 63,160 1 44,889 17 46,293 15 37,850 38 46,512 14 36,492 42 46,693 13 37,279 40 38,636 32 40,784 24 34,339 47 39,116 29 38,309 34 52,709 6 56,661 2 39,273 28 46,106 16 31,836 50 38,084 37 36,793 41 40,499 25 49,371 7 48,033 10 56,116 3 36,031 44 55,032 4 37,508 39 39,612 26 38,925 31 38,415 33 39,444 27 43,796 20 44,463 19 35,419 46 39,103 30 38,090 36 42,796 21 35,971 45 42,626 22 43 18 35 48 11 4,669 47,666 12 4,334 48,574 8 3,000 32,145 49 4,194 40,953 23 3,714 53,163 5 7,308 70,730 (1) Notes: As a unique state -local entity, D.G. is not included in rankings, but the figure in parenthe- ses shows where it would rank. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data from multiple sources, primarily Census Bureau, Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation, and Travel Industry Association. 4 leaves the other 35 states where the tax burdens are significantly higher or lower than in much of the country. States Where Residents Bear the Lowest and Highest Tax Burdens In 2008, the residents of three states stand above the rest, paying the highest state -local tax burdens in the nation: New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. They're the only three states where taxpayers give up more than 11 percent of their income in state -local taxes. New Jersey residents are paying the most, 11.8 percent of their income in 2008. New York and Connecticut are next highest at 11.7 and 11.1 percent respectively. Maryland, Hawaii, Cfi.lifornia, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island round out the list of ten states where residents pay the most in state local taxes. Alaskans pay the (east, 6.4 percent in 2008, but Nevada is close at 6.6 percent. In four states Wyoming, Florida, New Hamp- shire and South Dakota the residents pay between 7 and 8 percent of their income in state -local taxes. Four other states round out the bottom ten: Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana and Arizona. See Table 1 and Figure 1. Explaining Tax Burdens and "Exported" Taxes Alaska is the only state where residents actually pay more to out -of -state governments than to their own. That's not because Alaskans pay so much to out -of -state governments; it's because they pay so little to their own. There's no state level general sales tax in Alaska, and while in 43 states, the taxpayers are busy filing income tax returns in April, Alaskans are instead re- ceiving checks from a reserve fund of billions built up from years of large severance taxes on oil extraction. Of course, the burden of Alaska's oil taxes does not fall mostly on Alas- kans but rather on energy consumption nationwide. Resource -rich states are only the most dra- matic examples of tax exporting. The residents of all states pay surprisingly high shares of their total tax burden out of state. Major tourist des- tinations like Nevada and Florida are also states where residents pay almost as much to out -of- state governments as to their own. Even in high -tax Connecticut, residents pay an esti- mated $7,007 per capita in taxes in 2008, and of that $2,509 goes directly or indirectly to out -of -state governments. Table 2 includes the per- capita dollar amounts of income and tax that are divided to compute the burden as well as the breakdown of in -state and out -of -state payments. Tax burdens are down from 2007 to 2008, mostly because income growth outpaced tax growth as the macroeconomy slowed. The larg- est drops were in Florida, Utah and the District of Columbia where the taxpayers' bur- den dropped by 0.5 percentage points between 2007 and 2008. Most state residents' tax bur- dens inched down a couple tenths of a percent, mirroring the national average which dipped from 9.9 percent to 9.7 percent. Despite the economic and tax downturn in 2008, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut remain at the top of the list for two principal reasons, high spending by the home state governments and high tax payments to out -of- state governments. The governments of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut have estab- lished high levels of spending that require high taxes. Also, the residents of all three states have much higher capital incomes than the national average. As a result, when taxes on corporate profits are collected in other states, residents of Connecticut, New Jersey and New York bear some of the burden. On the flip side, states where residents pay the least are those that have either committed themselves to frugality and efficiency or where the governments can collect large amounts from non residents. New Hampshire, fifth lowest in tax burden, has no special revenue source from non residents, but the citizens' approval of limited government spending has kept the tax burden low. All four states where the tax burden is lower than New Hampshire's have an ability to extract substantial revenue from out of state, although some have a zeal for limited govern- ment as well. Alaska and Wyoming have taxes on oil and coal that produce substantial rev- enue from out -of -state consumers. Florida and 1 The District of Columbia is prohibited by Congress from taxing the wages of nonresident commuters. 5 Nevada have massive tourism industries that enable governments to collect much of their sales, hotel, restaurant and rental car tax rev- enue from visitors. There is no tax on wage income in any of these five states where taxpay- ers pay the least. Nevada and Wyoming also do without a corporate income tax; and Alaska and New Hampshire have no general state sales tax. Alaskans pay the least, 64 percent in 2008, but Nevada is close at 66 percent. In four states Wyoming, Florida, New Hampshire and South Dakota the residents pay between 7 and 8 percent of their income in state -local taxes. Not every state with an infusion of non- resident money uses it to lighten the tax load of its own residents. Maine and Vermont have the largest shares of vacation homes in the country, and they collect a large fraction of their property tax revenue on those properties, mostly from residents of Connecticut, Massa- chusetts and other New England states. Nevertheless, rank 8th and 15t highest in this burden study, and they maintain some of the highest statutory tax rates in the country. Sales taxes in the District of Columbia are another example, a large fraction of which are paid by Marylanders and Virginians who work in the nation's capital.' Another major factor in a state's ability to foist its tax burden onto non residents is the degree to which businesses initially pay the tax. When a business pays a tax, it first tries to pass that cost along in the price of its goods. In this study, we assume that it is able to, so that cus- tomers bear the burden of business taxes. In many cases, a substantial fraction of those cus- tomers are non residents. Finally, in some states, many people's jobs are out of state, and that's where they pay their state individual income taxes. Where a me- tropolis attracts workers from nearby states, a Table 3 State and Local Tax Burdens by State Selected Fiscal Years 1977 -2008 US average Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 10.8 9.9 9.4 10.4 9.8% 10.0 7.9 9.6 11.1 11.4% 10.0 11.5 10.3 9.3 10.4% 10.9 7.9 8.7 11.1 8.7% 12.8 10.0 10.2 8.7 8.9% 11.0 10.2 10.2 9.4 10.3% 9.2 8.1 10.7 11.0 9.7% 10.0 9.9 11.9 9.1 Dist. of Columbia 10.9% large portion of wage income in a state can be earned by border crossing commuters. Some states have reciprocity agreements, saving each other the trouble and agreeing to tax their own 1977 1980 1985 10.3% 9.5% 9.7% 8.9% 12.8 10.4 9.7 11.6 10.5% 10.2 9.7 8.4 9.6 9.2 10.6% 10.7% 8.6% 8.8% 8.9 7.0 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.1 9.6% 9.7% 9.1 9.6 9.3 9.1 7.7 7.8 9.3 9.8 9.4 8.3 9.6 9.0% 9.2 7.6 9.4 10.5 10.7% 9.8 10.4 9.2 8.8 9.1% 10.0 6.7 7.8 10.1 8.3% 12.2 9.4 8.7 8.2 8.6% 10.2 9.8 9.7 9.2 9.2% 8.2 7.4 10.2 9.6 9.2% 9.2 9.7 10.7 8.3 11.5% 10.1% 10.2 9.4 9.2 9.9 9.2% 9.4 8.2 9.8 10.3 9.9% 10.3 11.1 9.1 8.7 9.1% 9.6 6.9 7.7 10.1 8.2% 12.1 9.5 8.9 9.3 9.0% 10.7 9.8 9.8 9.3 8.9% 8.4 7.7 10.3 9.8 9.2% 9.4 10.4 11.3 8.8 11.3% 1990 1995 9.9% 10.2% 8.9% 8.8% 6.7 6.3 9.5 9.5 9.3 9.B 10.4 10.7 9.9% 9.7% 9.9 11.8 8.6 9.0 8.1 8.6 9.9 9.9 10.8% 11.0% 11.0 10.9 9.7 9.7 9.3 9.4 10.3 10.5 9.6% 9.9% 9.6 10.5 8.1 8.1 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.2% 10.6% 9.8 9.6 10.9 9.0 9.2 9.8% 10.1 7.1 8.2 10.5 9.5% 12.2 9.9 9.2 9.6 9.8% 10.6 9.8 10.0 9.5 8.9% 8.2 8.5 10.3 10.0 9.4% 9.9 9.4 11.1 7.7 11.4% 11.0 9.5 9.7 9.5% 10.2 7.5 8.8 11.5 9.5% 12.4 10.2 9.8 10.2 9.9% 10.4 10.4 10.7 9.2 8.6% 8.3 8.9 10.5 10.0 9.7% 10.3 9.1 11.4 7.3 11.1% residents no matter where they work, but in cases where the commuting is lopsided, states rarely pass up the chance to collect from non- residents. 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 9.5% 9.8% 8.6% 5.8 8.7 9.6 10.5 9.1% 10.9 8.5 7.9 9.5 10.3% 10.4 8.9 8.9 9.3. 9.3% 9.8 8.3 10.3 10.2 9.3% 9.4 10.2 9.2 9.2 8.7% 9.4 6.8 7.3 10.4 9.3% 11.2 9.5 9.2 9.9 9.7% 9.6 9.6 10.2 9.1 7.8% 7.8 8.0 10.3 9.5 9.4% 8.5 9.2 10.9 6.9 11.2% 8.6% 5.7 8.9 10.1 10.5 9.1% 11.5 9.5 8.0 9.4 10.2% 10.3 9.3 9.2 9.7 9.9% 9.8 8.2 11.0 10.5 9.9% 9.7 9.9 9.3 9.5 8.8% 10.4 7.1 7.8 11.4 9.6 10.3 11.2 9.1 7.8% 8.3 8.2 10.2 10.5 9.7% 9.0 9.5 10.7 6.6 10.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.7% 8.7% 6.4 8.8 10.2 10.8 9.4% 11.4 9.9 8.0 9.9 10.4% 10.0 9.5 9.4 9.6 10.0% 9.7 9.6 10.8 10.6 9.9% 9.6 10.5 9.3 9.5 8.7% 10.2 6.9 7.8 11.8 8.8% 6.5 8.7 10.3 10.8 9.3% 11.3 9.7 7.9 10.1 10.6% 10.2 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.9% 9.6 8.7 10.3 10.8 9.8% 9.5 10.4 9.2 9.4 8.6% 10.1 6.9 7.7 11.9 9.0% 9.0 °i° 8.8% 11.9 11.8 11.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 9.0 8.9 9.0 10.3 10.5 10.5 9.6% 9.8% 10.0% 9.9 10.4 10.9 9.0 7.8% 8.5 8.2 10.3 10.9 9.7% 9.2 9.5 10.7 7.3 11.2% 9.6 10.3 10.5 9.2 7.7% 8.4 8.3 10.1 10.6 10.0% 9.1 9.4 10.4 7.0 10.8% 8.6% 6.4 8.5 10.0 10.5 9.0% 11.1 9.5 7.4 9.9 10.6% 10.1 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.6% 9.4 8.4 10.0 10.8 9.5% 9.4 10.2 8.9 9.2 8.6% 9.8 6.6 7.6 11.8 8.6% 11.7 9.8 9.2 10.4 9.8% 9.4 10.2 10.2 8.8 7.9% 8.3 8.4 9.6 10.3 9.8% 8.9 9.3 10.2 7.0 10.3% Note: Fiscal Year 2008 figures are advanced estimates; FY 2007 figures are preliminary estimates. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data primarily from Census Bureau, Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation, and Travel Industry Association. RIB Table 4 State Local Tax Burden Rankings by State Selected Fiscal Years 1977 -2008 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Califomia Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Dist. of Columbia 1977 43 2 17 32 4 15 24 33 47 36 14 12 30 37 16 31 26 50 35 8 6 27 5 19 39 18 11 49 44 7 46 1 28 21 45 42 10 22 23 38 20 40 48 13 9 34 25 29 3 41 (11) Historical Trends Some states' taxpayers are paying the same share of their income now as they were three decades ago, but some have paid steadily more 1980 39 36 21 25 9 19 33 24 47 28 4 12 20 42 18 35 29 48 22 5 2 14 6 30 37 34 11 50 46 10 41 1 23 38 44 40 8 13 15 31 27 45 49 7 17 32 26 16 3 43 1985 41 49 27 26 11 19 20 34 46 30 1990 40 50 30 36 9 20 17 42 46 19 12 5 9 3 24 26 31 35 14 10 33....._.. 27 25 44 17 6 13 8 3 36 42 35 21 50 47 10 45 1 22 38 28 37 4 16 15 29 39 43 48 7 18 32 23 5 2 40 28 47 12 7 13 4 39 37 22 14 49 45 8 31 1 21 38 29 25 6 24 16 32 41 44 43 11 15 33 18 34 2 48 (2) 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 42 39 41 42 39 38 50 50 50 50 50 50 36 38 39 40 40 41 26 18 16 16 13 14 9 4 9 6 4 6 28 2 40 44 25 5 7 31 37 13 23 14 47 16 8 11 32 6 34 30 33 19 48 43 3 21 27 20 24 15 17 10 38 45 46 41 12 22 29 18 39 4 49 (5) and others less. The tax burden in every state changes as years pass for a variety of reasons, including changes in tax law, state economies and population, both in state and out of state. 34 3 41 44 19 7 6 35 36 28 26 14 42 9 12 27 24 11 29 31 37 22 49 47 5 35 25 36 37 1 1 1 2 20 20 17 30 37 39 13 11 10 15 25 24 17 16 10 33 46 45 43 8 21 23 40 32 2 48 (1) 34 34 33 34 2 3 3 3 29 22 24 24 45 45 45 47 30 20 16 16 14 12 7 5 12 18 15 13 31 32 30 30 33 33 27 28 22 28 31 31 19 19 22 21 21 25 26 25 44 29 41 42 5 7 14 15 7 9 5 4 18 23 23...._...__..._...._.. 23 24 27 28 27 17 11 11 12 32 35 35 36 27 30 29 32 40 42 40 10 15 18 17 48 49 49 49 47 46 46 46 3 1 1 1 26 21 13 5 38 39 2 2 19 20 37 33 8 7 20 19 25 26 13 12 11 4 9 10 35 38 34 37 46 47 42 43 43 44 43 44 44 43 15 14 17 22 8 4 6 8 23 26 21 18 38 36 36 35 28 31 32 29 6 8 10 9 49 48 48 48 (6) (4) (4) (8) Note: Fiscal Year 2008 figures are advanced estimates; FY 2007 figures are preliminary estimates. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data primarily from Census Bureau, Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation, and Travel Industry Association. Similarly, the ranking is likely to change over time. See Tables 3 and 4. States Where the Tax Burden Has Fallen Once again, Alaska is the extreme example. Be- fore the Trans -Alaska pipeline was finished in 1977, the taxpayers in Alaska ranked as bearing the second highest tax burden in the country. By 1980, with oil tax revenue a certified bo- nanza, Alaska repealed its personal income tax and started sending out checks instead. The tax burden plummeted, and now Alaskans are the least taxed. These are some of the other states where the burden rankings have dropped the most: From 1977 to the present, South Dakota's tax burden ranking has dropped 25 places from 20`h highest to 45 primarily by maintaining a zero rate on individual and corporate income. The tax burden ranking in Arizona has dropped 24 places from 1 7 highest to 41st, and the residents there now pay the tenth lowest tax burden. Most of the change came in the wake of a property tax limitation in 1980, and their ranking has changed little since. Montana has dropped 22 places, primarily by maintaining a zero rate on general sales. Table 5 U.S State and Local Tax Collections by Major Tax Source and Total Income Fiscal Years 2004 2008 Major Tax Sources Property Taxes Sales Taxes (General and Selective) Individual Income Taxes Corporate Income Taxes Total Taxes Total Income 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 317.8 billion 216.3 billion billion 1,017.5 billion 10,381.7 billion Annual Total Increase 333.6 356.7 billion 5.0% 360.1 383.4 411.0 billion billion 6.5% billion 7.2% 241.7 269.6 billion 11.7% 34.1 43.6 53.3 billion 27.9% 1,102.0 billion 8.3% 11,253.3 billion 8.4% Annual Total Increase billion 6.9% billion 11.5% billion 22.3% 1,200.0 billion 8.9% 12,084.3 billion 7.4% Note: The local portions of tax collection figures for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 rely on projections. Sources: Census Bureau, state govemment websites, Rockefeller Institute, and Tax Foundation calculations. Colorado has dropped 19 places in the ranking over the last 30 years. It levies ev- ery major tax, but the rate on each is among the lowest in the country. Spending discipline in the form of a so- called TA- BOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) has helped the state keep tax rates low. Two politically liberal states have dropped sharply: Oregon and Massachusetts. Or- egon has done so by never enacting a sales tax, dropping 16 ranks from 10 highest to 26`F'. Massachusetts has dropped 17 places by imposing a property tax limitation and keeping a lid on its personal income tax rate, living down its "Taxachusetts" nick- name. States Where the Tax Burden Has Risen Ohio taxpayers have gone from one of the least taxed in the 1970s to one of the most heavily taxed now, climbing 38 places from 45` high- est to 7 highest. The state is currently in the midst of a five -year tax makeover that lowers personal income tax rates and eventually re- peals the regular corporate income tax. Meanwhile, a new gross receipts tax on busi- ness is phasing in. During the transition the state is levying both of the business taxes. Other states where the taxpayers' burden ranks much higher than it used to: Annual Total Increase 381.2 397.3 billion 6.9% billion 4.2% 428.8 436.2 Annual Total Increase billion 4.3% billion 1.7% 290.3 298.0 billion 7.6% billion 2.7% 59.2 55.3 billion 10.9% billion -6.6% 1,270.9 billion 12,853.2 billion 1,301.3 5.9% billion 2.4% 13,412.3 6.4% billion 4.4% 8 Table 6 State and Local Trx Collections Per Capita Fiscal Year 2008 Total State Taxes Taxes and Local Collected Collected Tax from from Collections Residents Non residents State (per capita) Rank (per capita) Rank (per capita) Rank US average 4,294 2,924 1,370 Alabama 2,949 50 1,977 42 972 48 Alaska 7,864 1 1,433 50 6,431 1 Arizona 3,286 43 2,170 35 1,116 36 Arkansas 3,284 44 2,315 29 969 49 California 4,752 10 3,683 6 1,069 39 Colorado 3,989 26 2,684 18 1,305 27 Connecticut 6,081 5 4,498 2 1,583 19 Delaware 4,670 11 2,364 27 2,306 5 Florida 3,613 33 2,384 25 1,230 32 Georgia 3,612 34 2,579 21 1,033 43 Hawaii 5,284 6 3,699 5 1,585 18 Idaho 3,400 40 2,374 26 1,026 44 Illinois 4,428 16 2,948 14 1,479 23 Indiana 3,459 39 2,348 28 1,110 37 Iowa 3,763 28 2,263 32 1,500 22 Kansas 4,185 22 2,460 24 1 ,725 13 Kentucky 3,205 46 2,201 34 1,004 45 Louisiana 4,374 17 2,093 37 2,281 6 Maine 4,543 15 2,701 17 1,842 9 Maryland 4,945 8 4,062 4 883 50 Massachusetts 5,227 7 3,609 7 1,617 16 Michigan 3,751 29 2,536 23 1,215 34 Minnesota 4,623 12 3,328 8 1,295 29 Mississippi 3,076 48 1,773 48 1,303 28 Missouri 3,327 42 2,261 33 1,066 40 Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Dist. of Columbia 3,670 4,144 4,023 3,747 6,127 3,890 7,206 3,570 4,618 4,084 3,620 3,525 4,303 4,586 3,133 3,209 3,033 3,502 3,354 4,852 4,345 4,331 3,596 4,270 6,947 8,316 31 23 25 30 4 27 2 36 13 24 32 37 20 14 47 45 49 38 41 9 18 19 35 21 3 (1) 1,960 2,611 1,952 1,824 4,376 2,051 4,845 2,597 2,167 2,937 2,280 2,538 3,054 2,900 2,048 1,645 1,779 2,082 2,305 3,072 3,281 2,957 1,982 3,047 1,925 4,344 43 19 44 46 3 39 1 20 36 15 31 22 11 16 40 49 47 38 30 10 1,710 1,532 2,071 1,923 1,752 1,839 2,361 973 2,451 1,147 1,340 987 1,249 1,685 1,085 1,563 1,254 1,420 1,048 1,780 9 1,063 13 1,374 41 1,614 12 1,223 45 5,022 (3) 3,972 14 21 7 8 12 10 4 47 3 35 26 46 31 15 38 20 30 24 42 11 41 25 17 33 2 (3) Notes: As a unique state -local entity, D.C. is not included in rankings, but the figures in parenthe- ses shows where it would rank, The local portions of tax collection figures rely on projections. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data from multiple sources, primarily Census Bureau, Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation. and Travel Industry Association. 9 Oklahoma's taxpayers have gone from 42nd to 19th in the tax burden rankings over the period of this study. During the 1970s Oklahoma residents ranked in the bottom ten for state -local tax burden. During the '80s they hovered in the below- average range, and since the mid -'90s they mostly paid a slightly above average tax burden. Maine's taxpayers have risen 20 places in the rankings, from 35` in 1977 to 15 this year. It had risen further, reaching 5th highest in 2005, but it has dropped 10 places since then due to property tax re- forms. Connecticut, currently 3` highest, has risen 21 places over the last three decades. Similarly, Georgia, at 16 has risen 20 places. Arkansas has risen 15 places from 32nd highest in 1977 to 14th in 2008. Recent Trends in Tax Collections Despite the importance of non resident collec- tions and the increasing efforts to boost them, the driving force behind a state's long -term rise or fall in the tax burden rankings is usually in- ternal, and most often a deliberate policy of raising government spending backed by higher taxes. Although final collection data are not com- plete for fiscal year 2008 (ending last June 30 in most states), total collections appear to have increased by 2.4 percent over 2007's level. Corporate income tax collections, always the most volatile major tax source, are estimated to have fallen 6.6 percent after rising 27.8 percent in 2005, 22.3 percent in 2006, and 10.9 per- cent in 2007. Meanwhile, others are projected to have grown, albeit at a much slower pace than in previous years (see Table 5). A 2.4 percent rate of tax revenue growth is less than half the 5.9 percent rate from FY 2006 to 2007. To the government officials who pretended that the 8 -to -9 percent annual increases common during between 2004 and 2006 would continue indefinitely, FY 2008's growth rate is intolerably small. While most states show modest revenue growth, and a few are showing actual declines, the revenue boom actually persisted in 10 or more states, especially those whose severance Table 7 Comparing Tax Burden Measures: Tax Foundation and the Federation of Tax Administrators Fiscal Year 2008 Taxes Paid by Residents Divided State by Their Income United States 9.7% Alabama 8.6% Alaska 6.4% Arizona 8.5% Arkansas 10.0% California 10.5% Colorado 9.0% Connecticut 11.1% Delaware 9.5% Florida 7.4% Georgia 9.9% Hawaii 10.6% Idaho 10.1% Illinois 9.3% Indiana 9.4% Iowa 9.3% Kansas 9.6% Kentucky 9.4% Louisiana 8.4% Maine 10.0% Maryland 10.8% 9.5% 9.4% 10.2% 8.9% 9.2% Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Conclusion When measuring the burden imposed on a Tax Burden Measure FTA's "Tax Burden" Method given state's residents by state and local taxes, one cannot merely look at collections figures for the governments located within that state. 10.9% There is a significant amount of tax shifting 8.9% 48 across states, and the shifting is not uniform. 19.0% 1 9.9% 41 This paper only attempts to measure the 10.6°i° 11.2% 16 amount of shifting that occurs, and how it af- 9.5% 43 fects the distribution of state and local tax 11.0% 21 burdens across states. It is not an endorsement 0 11.510 9.3% 45 of policies that attempt to export tax burdens. 10.7% 25 From the perspectives of the economy and po- 13.2% 5 litical efficiency, states create myriad problems 10'7,1° 24 they 10.7J° 23 w hen the blatantly l shift tax burdens to resi- 10.1% 37 dents of other jurisdictions, the value of 10.5% 30 services provided to non residents being neces- 11.1% 10.1% 38 sarily small compared to the tax payments. 12.1% 9 13.3% 4 10.5 °i° 28 Tax Foundation's Taxes from Residents and Non residents Divided Rank by Residents' Income Rank Montana 8.6% Nebraska 9.8% Nevada 6.6% New Hampshire 7.6% New Jersey New Mexico 8.6% 39 12.0% 10 New York 11.7% 2 14.8% 3 North Carolina 9.8% 20 10.4% 31 North Dakota 9.2% 33 12.6% 7 Ohio 10.4% 7 11.5% 13 Oklahoma 9.8% 19 10.3% 36 Oregon 9.4% 26 9.9% 39 Pennsylvania 10.2% 11 10.9% 22 Rhode Island 10.2% 10 11.4% 15 South Carolina 8.8% 37 9.9% 40 38 50 41 14 6 34 3 24 47 16 5 13 30 28 31 21 25 42 15 4 23 27 12 36 32 40 17 49 46 South Dakota 7.9% 45 Tennessee 8.3% 44 Texas 8.4% 43 Utah 9.6% 22 Vermont 10.3% 8 Virginia 9.8% 18 Washington 8.9% 35 West Virginia 9.3% 29 Wisconsin 10.2% 9 Wyoming 7.0% 48 District of Columbia 10.3% (8) 10.4% 10.6% 11.0% 10.4% 34 27 20 33 9.5% 44 11.1% 17 11.1% 19 9.7% 42 8.9% 50 11.8% 1 12.2% 8 9.2% 46 8.9% 49 9.2% 47 10.5% 29 13.0% 10.4% 35 10.4% 32 11.9% 11 11.6% 12 15.5% 2 13.3% 4 Notes: As a unique state -local entity, D.C. is not included in Tax Foundation rankings, but the figure in parentheses shows where it would rank. The local portions of tax collection figures rely on projections. The figures presented here as the "FTA Method" are calculations by the Tax Foundation using 2008 data or projections thereof, replicating the methodology that the Federation of Tax Administrators uses each year to calculate each state's tax burden. The most recent year FTA has published is 2006. Sources: Tax Foundation calculations using data from multiple sources, primarily Census Bureau. Rockefeller Institute, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Council on State Taxation, and Travel Industry Association. �10 tax payments have grown rapidly thanks to the booming petroleum sector. See Table 6. Methodology The state and local tax burden estimates for FY 2008 presented in this paper use the most re- cent data available on July 30, 2008, from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, state government websites, and other sources. For all major tax and income catego- ries (except local property taxes), data was available on a state -by -state basis through the second quarter of calendar year 2008. Never- theless, we use BEA timing terminology and refer to the FY 2008 figures presented here as advanced estimates and the FY 2007 figures as preliminary estimates. This geographic determination of who bears the tax burden is similar to the work done by such organizations as the Congres- sional Budget Office and the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center when they measure tax bur- dens by income group. In both cases, researchers start with official data on who wrote checks for how much, but then attempt to account for how those legal payers shift the burden to others, possibly someone in another income group or in another state. Why shouldn't tax collections reported by state and local governments and published by the Census Bureau's Government Finances Di- vision be compared to income to determine the tax burden? Simply because the true tax burden of each state's residents must include the sub- stantial taxes they pay directly or indirectly to out -of -state governments. Alaska provides the best example. Accord- ing to the Census Bureau, Alaska's state and local tax collections are among the nation's highest. If those tax collections are compared to Alaskans' income, the burden appears much higher than in many other states. No one finds these rankings more laughable than Alaskans who know full well how low their taxes are. Alaskans not only pay no state -level tax on income; they actually get checks at tax time from a reserve fund of billions in oil tax rev- enue. And there's also no state -level general sales tax in Alaska, but it does have a special, prodigious source of revenue: severance taxes on oil extraction. This study assumes the economic burden of those Alaskan oil taxes falls not primarily on Alaskans but rather on consumers across the country when they fill up their gas tanks or heat their homes. Therefore, to correctly por- tray how low the Alaskan residents' tax burden is, we allocate Alaska's oil severance tax to other U.S. states based on oil and gas con- sumption. Once this allocation is made, Alaskans' tax burden falls from among the nation's highest to the lowest. Taxes levied on mineral extraction in other states have similar but less dramatic effects. In addition to allocating severance taxes to other states, this study also allocates taxes on corporate income, commercial and residential property, tourism and non resident personal income away from the state of collection to the state of the taxpayers' residences. Tax burden measurements such as these are important, and they should not be con- fused with tax collections which are the best ineasuie of the size of government in a state. Total revenue figures from the Census are the best source for collection data. Table 7 shows how the Tax Foundation estimates of state and local tax burdens differ 1 1 from a popular "tax burden" measure pub- lished by the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA). Operating naturally from the tax collector's perspective, the FTA divides tax col- lections for each state by the state's personal income (BEA measure). This is not a valid measure of the tax burden because a significant fraction of total collections comes from people out of state. In other words, much of the tax revenue in each state's coffers was not paid out of the state residents' personal income, so it wasn't their burden. Many states have made a conscious effort to raise taxes on non residents. This beggar -thy- neighbor effort has included tax hikes on tourism, separate, higher property tax rates on non residents, and higher income tax rates on cross border, commuting workers. The reason the FTA and Tax Foundation series show tax burdens of a different magni- tude is that the FTA uses such a small definition of income. The Tax Foundation's definition, outlined below and in great detail in Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 3, in- cludes much income that BEA excludes from the "personal income" figure that BEA pub- lishes. Each year state and local governments and federal agencies publish more complete data on public finances, and each year the Tax Founda- tion improves its estimates of the state -local burden in each state by quantifying more pre- cisely the portion of each state's tax burden that goes out of state into the coffers of other state and local governments. For this reason, the entire series of state -local burden estimates is revised each year. This year's state -local tax burden methodology has been further revised, reflecting an overall commitment to using the latest advances in data availability. 2 The only corrections to Census's data incorporated into this report are property rax estimates for Indiana in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 that were implausible and that we replaced with data from stare officials in Indiana. TAXI FOUNDATION SPECIAL REPORT (ISSN 1068 -0306) is published at least 6 times yearly by the Tax Foundation, an independent 501(c)(3) organization chartered in the District of Columbia. 4 -20 pp. Single copy: free Multiple copies: $5 each The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and public education organization, has moni- tored tax and focal activities at all levels of government since 1937. ©2008 Tax Foundation Editor and Communications Director, Bill Ahern Copy Editor, Alicia Hansen Tax Foundation 2001 1. Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 (2021 464 -6200 (202) i61 -6201 fix wunv. Ta'Fnundation.org TF@TaxFoundation.org What Is a Tax? The tax burden estimates include those items defined as a state and local tax by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is essentially equivalent to the Census Bureau's definition of a tax (codes TO I, T09, etc.) plus special assess- ments. Note that this includes licenses such as occupational and business licenses, as well as motor vehicle licenses. The time frame for the estimates is the standard state fiscal year, July 1 through June 30, not the calendar year as in previous reports in this series. Data from the few states that use a different fiscal calendar have been adjusted to the standard, July 1 June 30 fiscal year. Despite the importance of non- resident collections, the driving force behind a state's long -term rise in the tax burden rankings is always internal, and most often a deliberate policy of raising government spending backed by higher taxes. No measure of the tax burden is perfect. Our tax exporting estimates do not account for the federal deductibility of state and local taxes paid within the federal individual and corpo- rate tax codes. Essentially, payers of high state and local taxes get a large deduction on their federal tax returns, and that money is then made up with payments from people who have a small state local tax deduction. This dispro- portionately favors high- income individuals because of the progressivity of the federal indi- vidual income tax. Another component of an ideal tax burden study would be compliance costs and economic efficiency losses. Neither is included here. Also, the tax burden estimates presented here do not weigh the value of the government services provided with tax revenue. This is the norm in such studies. No organization that regularly estimates tax burdens at either the federal or state /local level attempts to account for the 12 compliance and economic costs (i.e. dead- weight loss or excess burden) of taxation, or the value of government services provided that are financed by those tax dollars. What Is Income? The definition of income used in this study is different from the one used in previous Tax Foundation state -local burden estimates. It is a hybrid between the Bureau of Economic Analysis's calculation of "personal income" and the income concept used by the Congressional Budget Office in its annual "Effective Federal Tax Rates" study. The income measure used here adds to personal income the following: capital gains realizations, pension and life insurance distri- butions, corporate income taxes paid, and taxes on production and imports less subsidies. It subtracts from personal income the non -fun- gible portion of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the estimated Medicare benefits that are provided via supplementary contributions (the same for veterans' life insurance). This measure also subtracts the initial contributions to pen- sion income and life insurance from employers, as well as the annual investment income of life insurance carriers and pensions (much of which is imputed by BEA) that is included in personal income. Note that some small fraction of income is still double- counted over a life- time, most notably the contributions of individual employees to pension and life insur- ance funds. Also, there is a timing problem with respect to the corporate income taxes paid that is included in the income concept here and the fact that capital gains realizations are used as opposed to retained earnings (accrued capital gains). In Tax Freedom Day, we used the latter; but in this paper, due to the fact that there are systematic movements across geogra- phies over life- cycles (e.g. Arizona, Florida, etc.) and the fact that we are only looking at state and local taxes where the corporate in- come tax is relatively minor compared to the federal government, we use capital gains real- izations. For more methodological discussion, see Tax Foundation Working Paper, No. 4. Florida's work force cheapest in U.S. State also last in ratio of worker to resident By BILL COTTERELL, The News -Press Capital Bureau, 3/1/09 TALLAHASSEE With almost 175,000 people on the job, state government is Florida's largest employer. But, in terms of per- capita size and cost, the state work force is the smallest and cheapest in the nation. And it's likely to shrink in the next two months. Ex -Gov. Jeb Bush, an advocate of privatization and automation, presided over declining state payrolls during his eight years in office. Gov. Charlie Crist reversed the Bush trend in state employment. Where total employment fell from 172,069 when Bush was elected in 1998 to 167,268 when he left in 2007, Crist has added about 2,100 to the total mainly through growth in the courts and prison systems and universities. But that includes all permanent job classes. The State Personnel System which makes up almost two- thirds of employees grew by 77 jobs last year. In his new budget, Crist proposes adding about 700 positions, but the Legislature is likely to make cuts when new revenue figures come out this month. "State employees haven't had any kind of raise in three years," said Jeanette Wynn of Quincy, state president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "They always get what's left, which in the last three year has been nothing." Wynn, who worked 28 years as a Florida State Hospital employee, said she was glad Crist used federal stimulus money to balance his $66.5 billion budget without layoffs or furloughs. But he was unable to squeeze in a pay raise for the work force in sending his budget to the Legislature Feb. 20. "We won't know until the Legislature is over if we'll have any layoffs," Wynn said. The possibility of layoffs and lack of raises pale in comparison to one overriding attitude, according to Michael Weston, 30, of Fort Myers, a senior forester with the Florida Department of Forestry. "To be honest, a lot of us are glad that we have a job," he said. "We look at other industries where there were people who were making a lot more money than we are and now they are unemployed." Weston makes $37,000 -plus a year and "can't remember" his last raise. He has been a forester for five years. "It is like the tortoise and the hare," he said. "We are not racing like the hare but we are still walking along." Above all else, Weston said, he is "doing things I like to be doing," chiefly "helping people." Statistically, Florida ranks last among states in its ratio of full -time employees to population, with 118 employees per 10,000 residents. Payroll cost per resident also ranks 50th in the nation, at $36 per Floridian. Department of Management Services Secretary Linda South, whose agency includes the state personnel office, said the administration is trying to do more with less. She said the department has an "in -house learning service" for online training of employees, is negotiating with Microsoft for licensing of more of its programs for training and "pairing up" employees across divisions to sharpen office skills. "I am loath to cut back on training," she said. "We need to use common sense and look for low -cost or no -cost development of skills for our work force."