REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Tax: Ad Valorem Tax Issue: Agricultural Classification & VAB Reviews Bill Number(s): CS/SB1200

Transcription

1 Tax: Ad Valorem Tax Issue: Agricultural Classification & VAB Reviews Bill Number(s): CS/SB1200 X Entire Bill: Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Sen. Simpson Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2013 (Applying retroactively on January 1, 2012) Date of Analysis: 4/12/2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Current statute establishes the guidelines on how agricultural lands can be reclassified as nonagricultural (s , F.S.), and the authority the Value Adjustment Board has on reviewing property classifications (s , F.S.; s , F.S.; s , F.S.). b. Proposed Change: The bill eliminates the ability of the Value Adjustment Board to do the following: review, upon its own motion, all lands classified by the property appraiser as agricultural lands, historic property used for commercial or non profit purposes, high water recharge lands or review exemptions. The bill also amends s (4), F.S. on agricultural classification. Land can no longer be reclassified as nonagricultural based on these qualifications: 1. Land that has been zoned to a nonagricultural use at the request of the owner subsequent to the enactment of the statute. 2. The board of county commissioners may also reclassify lands to nonagricultural when there is a contiguous urban or metropolitan development, and the board finds the use of such lands for agricultural purposes will act as a deterrent to the timely and orderly expansion of the community. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources: Ad Valorem Conference, Spring 2013 Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Value Adjustment Board (VAB): No evidence was found of a VAB, under its own motion, reviewing and removing a land classification. The likelihood of future VAB s behaving similarly, however, cannot be assumed. The VAB s composition is diverse with two elected officials, one member of the school board and two citizen members. One of the citizen members is a homestead property owner and the other is a business owner that occupies a commercial space. All 5 members, whether professionally or personally, are affected by ad valorem taxation and land classification decisions. They make take it upon themselves to review and, if deemed appropriate, remove a future land classification. All it takes is just one such action to increase taxable value. Therefore; a negative indeterminate was assigned to this portion of the bill. Agricultural Qualification: In the past, property appraisers have used one of these qualifications eliminated by the bill to restrict parcels from reclassifying as agriculture. The high impact assumes a removal of.03% of the assessed agricultural due to one of these qualifications. The middle impact assumes a removal of.025%, and the low impact assumes a removal of.020%. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact Value Adjustment Board Impact: ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) 378

2 Tax: Ad Valorem Tax Issue: Agricultural Classification & VAB Reviews Bill Number(s): CS/SB1200 Non Agricultural Qualification: ($.30m) ($.30m) ($.23m) ($.23m) ($.18m) ($.18m) ($.31m) ($.31m) ($.23m) ($.23m) ($.18m) ($.18m) ($.31m) ($.31m) ($.23m) ($.23m) ($.19m) ($.19m) ($.32m) ($.32m) ($.24m) ($.24m) ($.19m) ($.19m) ($.32m) ($.32m) ($.24m) ($.24m) ($.19m) ($.19m) List of affected Trust Funds: Ad Valorem Tax Grouping Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted:04/12/2013) VAB Adjustment Board Impact: The conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) ($0/**) Agricultural Classification Impact: The conference adopted the middle estimate as the least amount the fiscal impact would affect revenues. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring

3 CS/SB Agricultural Classification VAB Reviews A B C D E F G H From Spring 2013 REC - Ad Valorem - Forecasted Agricultural Assessed Differential ($mill) Value 47,753 48,605 49,469 50,249 51,098 High 0.03% Middle 0.025% Low 0.020% Impact ($mill) * Millage Rate Tax Impact $0.30 -$0.23 -$ $0.31 -$0.23 -$ $0.31 -$0.23 -$ $0.32 -$0.24 -$ $0.32 -$0.24 -$ REC Impact Conference 4/12/13

4 Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: License Tax Surcharge Transfer Bill Number(s): SB1522 REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE x Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Month/Year Impact Begins: October 1, 2013 Date of Analysis: 4/11/2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Surcharge on License Tax is a surcharge in the amount of $4.00. $2.00 is deposited in GR and $2.00 is deposited in the State Transportation Trust Fund. b. Proposed Change: The language proposes of the $2.00 deposited into the State Transportation trust fund, $1.00 shall be deposited in the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources HSMV Conference Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) October 1, 2013 effective date subjects roughly 80% of the FY 13/14 surcharges to be subjected to the new fund breakout. STTF should have deposited 20% of the entire year plus half of the remaining 80%. In ensuing fiscal years the deposits traditionally headed towards STTF will be split 50/50 between the STTF and HSOTF. The biennials are handled as current law upon the day they are distributed in July. The effective date of the bill is October 1, 2013 and thus the FY 13/14 biennials fully go to STTF. Starting FY 14/15 the biennials are split 50/50 between the two funds. Section 4a: Proposed Fiscal Impact to STTF ($13.2m) ($18.0m) ($18.4m) ($18.4m) ($18.9m) ($18.9m) ($19.4m) ($19.4m) ($19.8m) ($19.8m) Section 4b: Proposed Fiscal Impact to HSOTF $13.2m $18.0m $18.4m $18.4m $18.9m $18.9m $19.4m $19.4m $19.8m $19.8m List of affected Trust Funds: HSOTF and STTF Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/12/2013 ) The conference adopted the proposed estimate which nets to zero for TF. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring

5 A B C D E F G SS Surcharge Forecast FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 STTF SS Forecast 33,018,095 33,738,737 34,589,990 35,461,804 36,340,648 37,195,127 HSOTF 0 13,169,090 17,294,995 17,730,902 18,170,324 18,597,563 STTF 33,018,095 20,569,647 17,294,995 17,730,902 18,170,324 18,597,563 SS Biennial Forecast FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 STTF Biennials Forecast 2,315,834 2,377,922 2,437,919 2,499,365 2,561, ,621,530 STTF SS Ratio Forecast 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% SS Biennials Forecast 2,210,300 2,269,559 2,326,822 2,385,467 2,444,586 2,502,065 HSOTF 0 0 1,163,411 1,192,734 1,222,293 1,251,033 STTF 2,210,300 2,269,559 1,163,411 1,192,734 1,222,293 1,251,033 Total FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 HSOTF 0 13,169,090 18,458,406 18,923,636 19,392,617 19,848,596 STTF 35,228,395 22,839,206 18,458,406 18,923,636 19,392,617 19,848,

6 Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: RLC Affidavits, Violations in Lieu of Citations Bill Number(s): CS/HB 1061 & CS/SB 1342 x Entire Bill X Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Economic Affairs, Rep Artiles & Others & Transportation, Sen. Abruzzo Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2013 Date of Analysis: 4/10/2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Currently under section , F.S., when the owner of a vehicle who has received a notice of violation as a result of a traffic infraction detector provides an affidavit establishing that another person had care, custody and control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation, the person having care, custody and control is subject to issuance of a traffic citation. In addition to the base fine amount of $158, a person receiving a traffic citation is responsible for the payment of an additional $98 to $106 in add on assessments and charges. b. Proposed Change: Section , F.S., is amended to provide that a person having care, custody and control of a vehicle owned by another person at the time of a traffic infraction detector violation for which an affidavit has been filed is subject to the issuance of a notice of violation instead of a citation. Therefore, only the base fine amount of $158 would apply to persons in these instances. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Highway Safety Licenses and Fees REC Results, February 26, 2013 Sample Florida RLC Violations , ATS Sample Florida RLC Revenues Sample Florida Transfer of Liabilities 2012 Actual RLC Revenues FY & FY (YTD) Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) Compiled the base fine amounts from clerk remitted RLC revenues resulting from traffic citations for FY 2012 from actual revenue reports. Applied the sample provider proportion (84.93%) of total RLC revenue to the 2012 compiled citation revenue amounts to project the amount of citation revenue resulting from provider programs. Derived the number of effective citations by dividing the sample provider revenue by the state revenue amount ($83) Divided the sample provider number of 2012 affidavits (3774) by the derived number of provider citations (118,851) to establish the sample provider s proportion of affidavits to total citations. Derived the total number of citations provided in the 2/26/2013 REC RLC forecast by dividing by the state revenue amount ($83) to obtain total forecast citations. Multiplied the total forecast citations times the sample provider s proportion of affidavits (3.18%) to derive the number of citations in the REC forecast resulting from affidavits. Multiplied the derived citations times the add on revenue amount and allocated by fund and calculated the GR service charge amount. Assumed a 30 day lag in start up to establish the first year cash amount. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact GR GR Ser. Ch. State TF GR GR Ser. Ch. State TF 383

7 Tax: Highway Safety Fees Issue: RLC Affidavits, Violations in Lieu of Citations Bill Number(s): CS/HB 1061 & CS/SB GR GR Ser. Ch. State TF GR GR Ser. Ch. State TF GR GR Ser. Ch. State TF List of affected Trust Funds: State Radio Trust Fund Additional Court Cost Trust Fund Clerks of Court Trust Fund State Courts Revenue Trust Fund State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund Public Defenders Revenue Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/12/2013) The conference adopted the proposed estimate. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) 384

8 RLC Affadavit Violations in Lieu of Citations Analysis RLC Base Fine Amount Remitted by Clerks Jan-Jul ,434,448 Jul-Dec ,179, TOTAL 11,614,381 Sample Provider %* 84.93% Sample Provider Derived Amount of 2012 RLC Base Fine Revenues Remitted by Clerks 9,864,639 Derived Citations (revenue/83) state portion of fine amount 118,851 Sample provider Affadavits in ,774 Sample Provider % Affidavits 3.18% REC Forecast RLC Citation Revenue GR State TF Total GR GR SC. State TF Total FY Amount State Amt. Eff. Trans. Aff. % Aff. Trans. AO. Amt. Rev. Imp % 45.75% 37.74% % (76,208) (16,896) (194,310) (174,191) (461,605) Cash ,417, , % 4,751 (106) (503,569) (83,136) (230,407) (190,026) (503,569) (83,136) (18,433) (211,974) (190,026) (503,569) ,948, , % 4,954 (106) (525,122) (86,695) (240,268) (198,159) (525,122) (86,695) (19,221) (221,047) (198,159) (525,122) ,129, , % 5,023 (106) (532,463) (87,907) (243,627) (200,929) (532,463) (87,907) (19,490) (224,137) (200,929) (532,463) ,315, , % 5,094 (106) (539,994) (89,150) (247,073) (203,771) (539,994) (89,150) (19,766) (227,307) (203,771) (539,994) ,500, , % 5,165 (106) (547,495) (90,388) (250,505) (206,602) (547,495) (90,388) (20,040) (230,465) (206,602) (547,495) * Sample provider's percent of revenue remitted 7/1/12 through 2/28/13 Assumed 30 days start up lag 385

9 Tax: State & Fees and Taxes Issue: Interest Earned on Eminent Domain Deposits Bill Number(s): CS/HB 179 x X Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Civil Justice Subcommittee, Rep. Young and Others Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2013 Date of Analysis: 4/10/2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section , F.S., provides that in eminent domain proceedings in which an order of taking is provided, upon deposit of the required sum in the registry of the court, the clerk is authorized to invest the deposit with 90% of the interest earned paid to the petitioner. b. Proposed Change: Section , F.S., is amended to provide that 90% of the interest earned shall be allocated in accordance with the ultimate ownership on the deposit. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources FDOT revenue data from s , F.S., interest payments by the Clerks of Court Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) Survey Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) FDOT s , F.S., Interest Revenue SFY Revenue , , , , ,380 3 Year Avg. 9,151 5 YearAvg 115,245 According to FDOT staff, taking is typically associated with new construction projects. The work plan over the last 3 years has consisted of widening, improvement and maintenance projects which minimize the need for taking proceedings. They also indicated that the mix of projects in the plan over the next 5 years is similar to that of the last 3 year period. FCCC Survey Data The FCCC surveyed the individual clerk s offices regarding registry deposit information. There were 26 responses or a 38.81% response rate. Of the 26 responses, 16 (61.54%) either did not place registry deposits in interest bearing accounts or had no such deposits in SFY Of the remaining 10, 7 (26.92%) reported deposits from local or regional governmental entities and 3 (11.54%) from state governmental entities. The combined amount of deposits reported by the offices ranged from a low of one deposit totaling $15,600 to a high of 3 deposits totaling $3,387,664. Interest rates acquired during the period ranged from a low of 0.106% to a high of 0.9%, while a majority ranged from 0.25% to 0.4%. Assuming all deposits placed in interest bearing accounts were on deposit for all 12 months of FY at the particular interest rates reported, 90% of the interest earned for the 3 clerks offices reporting state entity deposits would be $29,953 and $17,208 for the 7 reporting local entity deposits. GR Service Charges are not assessed on STTF revenues. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact STTF STTF STTF 386

10 Tax: State & Fees and Taxes Issue: Interest Earned on Eminent Domain Deposits Bill Number(s): CS/HB STTF STTF List of affected Trust Funds: State Transportation Trust Fund Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted:04/12/2013) The conference adopted a negative insignificant impact for state trust fund and local revenues. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 387

11 Tax: Fees and Taxes Issue: Proportionate Share Contributions & Impact Fees Bill Number(s): CS/SB 1716 x X Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Community Affairs and, Senator Garcia Month/Year Impact Begins: 7/1/2013 Date of Analysis: 4/10/2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section , F.S., provides that sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the only public facilities and services subject to concurrency on a statewide basis. Transportation, schools and parks and recreation were made optional in 2011 with the passage of the Community Planning Act. governments that optionally require concurrency for transportation may impose exactions in the form of proportional share contributions or construction. Section , F.S., provides for counties, municipalities, and special districts to levy impact fees to fund infrastructure necessitated by new growth. Impact fees may be imposed when a municipality or county adopts impact fees by ordinance or a special district adopts impact fees by resolution. b. Proposed Change: Subsection (7) is added to section , F.S., to provide that local governments may not apply transportation concurrency nor proportionate share contributions or construction for new business development before July 1, 2016, unless authorized by an affirmative majority vote of a local government s governing authority. New business development must consist of 6,000 square feet or less and receive a certificate of occupancy by July 1, 2017 in order to maintain the exemption. Some exemptions are provided. Subsection (6) is added to section , F.S., to provide that a county, municipality, or special district may not impose any new or existing impact fee or any new or existing fee associated with mitigation of transportation impacts on new business development until 2016 unless authorized by affirmative majority vote of the governing authority. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Telephone interview with the Senate Community Affairs Committee Staff Attorney Telephone interview with Florida League of Cities staff National Impact Fee Survey: 2012 Government Annual Financial Report Capital Revenues Reported for Fiscal Year ending September, Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) For the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2011, of $982,726,525 in transportation related revenues reported by counties, municipalities, and special districts, $43,984,485 was coded to Permits, Fees and Licenses, Impact Fees Commercial Transportation. Whether revenue resulting from transportation exactions is included in this category could not be positively determined; however, no other revenue category appeared to capture those revenues. The number of new business development projects of 6,000 square feet or less that would otherwise be subject to proportionate share contributions or construction, or the imposition of impact fees is unknown. The number of counties, municipalities and special districts that would exercise the option, by majority vote, of authorizing the application of transportation concurrency, proportionate share contributions or construction, or the imposition of impact fees for new business development, 6,000 square feet or less, until July 2016, is unknown. According to the 2012 National Impact Fee Study, nearly 28% of Florida jurisdictions imposing impact fees have suspended transportation/road impact fees and, in many instances, other impact fees over the last several years in hopes of stimulating new development. For the reasons provided above, the impact was assumed to be negative indeterminate. Staff of the Florida League of Cities raised the issue of whether or not the legislation rises to the level of a mandate due to the ability afforded local governments in the bill to opt out of the requirements by majority vote. 388

12 Tax: Fees and Taxes Issue: Proportionate Share Contributions & Impact Fees Bill Number(s): CS/SB 1716 Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact List of affected Trust Funds: Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/12/2013): The conference adopted a negative indeterminate impact on local revenues through FY GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**)

13 Tax: Sales and Use Tax Issue: Sales Tax on Boat Repair Cap Bill Number(s): Proposed Language Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Month/Year Impact Begins: July 1, 2013(One month delay to Collections) Date of Analysis: April 11, 2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: Section (5) F.S., states: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum amount of tax imposed under this chapter and collected on each sale or use of boat in this state may not exceed $18,000. b. Proposed Change: The proposed language changes section (5) F.S., to read: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum amount of tax imposed under this chapter and collected on each sale or use of boat in this state may not exceed $18,000 and for each repair of a boat in this state may not exceed $36,000. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Department of Revenue Annual Sales Data Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) It is assumed that certain coastal businesses in specific NAICS codes are engaged primarily in the repair of boats. The number of transaction occurring at these locations that are currently over the limit set by the proposed language is unknown. The sales and use tax due in this industry in 2012 was $87 million. The middle estimate assumes that 10 percent of the tax remitted from these entities comes from tax due on transactions above this limit. The High is 25 percent and the low is 5% of tax due. The impact is grown at the other consumer durables growth rate. The 2012 values for these percentages are $21.8 million in the high estimate, $8.7 million in the middle estimate, and $4.4 million in the low estimate. The cash value for is equal to eleven months of collections. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact $(21. 2 M) $(23. 1 M) $(8. 5 M) $(9. 3 M) $(4. 2 M) $(4. 6 M) $(24. 7 M) $(24. 7 M) $(9. 9 M) $(9. 9 M) $(4. 9 M) $(4. 9 M) $(26. 4 M) $(26. 4 M) $(10. 5 M) $(10. 5 M) $(5. 3 M) $(5. 3 M) $(27. 9 M) $(27. 9 M) $(11. 2 M) $(11. 2 M) $(5. 6 M) $(5. 6 M) $(29. 4 M) $(29. 4 M) $(11. 8 M) $(11. 8 M) $(5. 9 M) $(5. 9 M) List of affected Trust Funds: Sales Tax Trust Fund Grouping Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/12/2013) The conference adopted the average of the middle and the low as the least as number. The impact of the bill will be at least the adopted number. GR Trust Revenue Sharing Half Cent Cash Recurring (5.6) (6.2) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.5) (0.6) (6.6) (6.6) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.6) (0.6) (7.0) (7.0) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.7) (0.7) (7.4) (7.4) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.7) (0.7) (7.8) (7.8) (Insignificant) (Insignificant) (0.3) (0.3) (0.7) (0.7) Option Total Total (0.5) (0.6) (1.3) (1.4) (6.9) (7.6) (0.6) (0.6) (1.5) (1.5) (8.1) (8.1) (0.7) (0.7) (1.6) (1.6) (8.6) (8.6) (0.7) (0.7) (1.7) (1.7) (9.1) (9.1) (0.8) (0.8) (1.8) (1.8) (9.6) (9.6) 390

14 Boat Repair Cap A B C D E F G Total sales tax collections for identified industries 2012 $ 87,028,570 Other Consumer durables growth rates % % % % % Part 5 High-25% Middle-10% Low-5% $ (21. 2 M) $ (23. 1 M) $ (8. 5 M) $ (9. 3 M) $ (4. 2 M) $ (4. 6 M) $ (24. 7 M) $ (24. 7 M) $ (9. 9 M) $ (9. 9 M) $ (4. 9 M) $ (4. 9 M) $ (26. 4 M) $ (26. 4 M) $ (10. 5 M) $ (10. 5 M) $ (5. 3 M) $ (5. 3 M) $ (27. 9 M) $ (27. 9 M) $ (11. 2 M) $ (11. 2 M) $ (5. 6 M) $ (5. 6 M) $ (29. 4 M) $ (29. 4 M) $ (11. 8 M) $ (11. 8 M) $ (5. 9 M) $ (5. 9 M) /12/13

15 Tax:SUT Issue: Yacht Brokers Bill Number(s): Proposed Language REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE Entire Bill Partial Bill: Sponsor(s): Month/Year Impact Begins: July 2013 Date of Analysis: April 10, 2013 Section 1: Narrative a. Current Law: S (1)(e)(3) F.S. states that tax may not be imposed on any vessel imported into this state for the purpose of being offered for sale at retail by a yacht broker or dealer if the vessel remains under the care and control of the broker or dealer. The owner may not make personal use of the vessel at any time. S (4) defines Yacht as any vessel which is propelled by sail or machinery in the water which exceeds 32 feet in length, and which weighs less than 300 gross tons. b. Proposed Change: Amends s (1)(e)(3) to eliminate the term vessel and replace with the term yacht. The definition of yacht is altered to include any vessel which is propelled by sail or machinery in the water which exceeds 32 feet in length, and which is less than 500 feet in length. S (6) is added, outlining a definition for listing agreement. Section 2: Description of Data and Sources Section 3: Methodology (Include Assumptions and Attach Details) This amendment removes the previous provision in proposed language allowing owners to use yachts for up to 90 days per year. Estimates previously presented illuminated the fiscal impact coming from this section of the bill. Changing the term vessel to the term yacht will have little impact based on conversations with the Department of Revenue Sales Tax Collections department. Licensed Yacht Dealers sell specific types of vessels. Clarifying the statutes is unlikely to affect yacht dealer behavior. It is likely yacht dealers would naturally be selling yachts at least 32 ft in length. Altering the maximum from 300 tons to 500 ft will make qualifying yachts easier to determine. However available data has shown very few to no sales of yachts measuring close to 300 tons. As the upper bound was not being reached previously, no additional impact will come from the increase to 500 ft. Section 4: Proposed Fiscal Impact Ind. + Ind Ind. + Ind Ind. + Ind Ind. + Ind Ind. + Ind. 0 0 List of affected Trust Funds: Sales Tax Group Section 5: Consensus Estimate (Adopted: 04/12/2013) The conference adopted the low estimate. GR Trust /Other Total Cash Recurring