By Bill Kaczor
The Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A proposed state constitutional amendment offered by Republican leaders to slash property taxes on primary homes raced toward a close vote - possibly as early as Thursday - in the Florida Senate but was expected to easily pass in the House.
Committees in both chambers approved the amendment on party-line votes Wednesday but approved a bipartisan tax-cutting bill with only one dissent.
That set the stage for floor votes in both houses Thursday, the third day lawmakers convened for a special session that had been scheduled for 10 days.
Together the two measures would chop property taxes by $31.6 billion, or 16 percent, over the next five years in response to taxpayer complaints of soaring bills caused primarily by sharp increases in real estate values. A third proposal would put the amendment on the Jan. 29 presidential primary ballot instead of waiting until the November 2008 general election.
“We’re on the verge, we’re probably about 24 hours or so away, from passing the single largest tax cut in Florida’s history,” said House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami. “But over the next 24 hours, the opponents of tax relief are going to make their last stand.”
Democrats, local officials and other critics said they support tax relief but the amendment would take such a big bite out of city, county and fire district coffers that it would force them to cut vital services and lay off employees, including police and firefighters.
They also said the amendment, which would cut taxes $16 billion over five years, doesn’t help taxpayers who need it the most - businesses, owners of second homes and renters - and suggested the new tax breaks for homeowners would eventually evaporate.
“Short-term gain, long-term pain,” said Rep. Jack Seiler, D-Wilton Manors.
Republicans control both chambers, but it would take only two defections in the Senate to keep the amendment off the ballot if Democrats maintain their solid opposition. Republicans have 25 seats, one more than the 24 votes it takes to pass an amendment in the Senate.
“I think that we can get the 24,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Jim King, R-Jacksonville. “Most people recognize the fact that though it may not be perfect it’s the best thing we have before us.”
While at least one moderate Republican senator, Alex Villalobos, of Miami, remained undecided, others said they will vote to put the proposal on the ballot although they had serious doubts about it.
“If you only have two choices, I feel I probably have to vote yes,” said Sen. Dennis Jones, R-Seminole. “It’s better than nothing.”
Jones, though, agreed with Democrats and some fellow Republicans by predicting voters would reject the amendment that has drawn opposition from local government officials and employees, teachers, labor unions, environmentalists and others.
“You’re going to have every police department, every fireman, you’re going to have every school teacher, everyone rallying against it,” said Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton.
Jones said he probably won’t vote for it at the ballot box.
“I wouldn’t give up what I have now,” Jones said.
What he and other owners of primary homes, known as homesteads, now have is a 3 percent cap on annual assessment increases under the Save Our Homes Amendment voters adopted in 1992.
The new amendment crafted by Rubio and Senate President Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. Lucie, after behind-the-scenes talks would replace Save Our Homes and a $25,000 homestead exemption with a “super exemption.”
It would exempt 75 percent of the first $200,000 of a home’s value and 15 percent of the next $300,000.
An estimated 73 percent of homesteaders would get a lower tax bill at least initially - an estimated average cut of $1,300, or 44 percent, in the first year. Those who do not gain an advantage would keep their existing benefits. Homeowners, though, would be unable to choose which tax break to take.
Without the cap, though, taxpayers with the super exemption would be subject to bigger percentage increases in the future. Republican leaders said it’s impossible to calculate what would happen beyond five years.
“Am I going to pay more for my home in five years or less?” Villalobos asked. “I don’t know.”
He and many other lawmakers also have a problem with a reduction in school taxes ranging from $1.5 billion to nearly $2 billion a year. Villalobos, though, said he also is feeling pressure from constituents who “want the opportunity to vote on something.”
They are taxpayers like Chris Culley, 32, who pays $6,500 a year in taxes on the home he bought in Lauderhill two years ago.
“I’ve heard the complaints and doomsday predictions voiced by county government officials and union leaders and couldn’t disagree more,” Culley said. “I find it infuriating that the minority (in the) Legislature is standing in the way of providing much needed relief.”
One reason his taxes are so high is Save Our Homes. It has shifted the tax burden from longtime homeowners to recent buyers such as Culley and to non-homestead property including businesses and second homes.
The biggest reason to support the Pruitt-Rubio amendment is that it will phase out Save Our Homes benefits over time, said Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden.
Webster noted that a lawsuit by out-of-state second home owners claims Save Our Homes discriminates against them in favor of Florida residents. Unless Save Our Homes is removed it would increase that disparity and the chances a judge could rule it violates the U.S. Constitution.
“It could come close to bankrupting this state,” Webster said.
The statutory measure, which would not require voter approval, would roll back 2007-08 city and county taxes to their current year level and then add cuts of up to 9 percent. Local governments with the biggest tax increases in the past five years would have to make the largest cuts, a total of $15.6 billion over five years.
Independent special districts for such services as fire and mosquito control also would be rolled back but then cut only 3 percent.
Future taxes would be capped with allowances for new construction and increases in personal income. Local governments, though, could override the rollback and cap, depending on how much, by two-thirds or unanimous votes of their governing bodies or by asking for voter approval.
The House debated the tax plan into the night as a prelude to Thursday’s vote. The Senate planned to debate and vote Thursday.