2012 LEGISLATIVE ISSUESA C T I O N N E T W O R K

Table of ContentsLetter from the President 1

FRF “Advocacy, Intervention and Political Team” / Contact Information 2

Retail IssuesFRF GENERALDestination Casinos ......................................................................................................... 3

Wage Theft Preemption ............................................................................................... 3

Truth In Damages ............................................................................................................... 3

Pre-Employment Background Screenings ................................................... 4

Debit And Credit Card Fees ....................................................................................... 4

State Court System Funding ................................................................................... 4

Illegal Immigration.............................................................................................................. 4

Drug Repackaging Workers’ Compensation Loophole .......................5

LOSS PREVENTION COUNCILOrganized Retail Crime ..................................................................................................5

TAXESBack-To-School Sales Tax Holiday ...................................................................... 6

Internet Sales/Use Tax Collection ....................................................................... 6

Streamlined Sales Tax ....................................................................................................7

Unemployment Compensation Reform ............................................................7

Retention Of Sales Tax Collection Allowance ............................................ 8

SMALL BUSINESS COUNCILEmergency Declarations ............................................................................................. 8

Moratorium On Impact Fees ..................................................................................... 8

Delinquency Fee Increase ........................................................................................... 8

Credit Card Transaction /Interchange Fees ............................................... 9

PHARMACY COUNCILExpanded Vaccination Authority For Pharmacists .............................. 9

90 Day Supply Of Prescription Medications At Retail ....................... 9

State Regulation Of Pharmacies And Pharmacists ........................... 10

Medicaid Provider Handbook .................................................................................. 10

SUSTAINABILITY COUNCILBottle Deposit Legislation ........................................................................................ 10

Renewable Energy Legislation ............................................................................ 10

RETAIL BEVERAGE COUNCILDram Shop Preservation .............................................................................................11

Pool Buying ..............................................................................................................................11

Non-Active Quota Beverage Licenses .............................................................11

Mandatory Licensee Training ............................................................................... 12

BEAUTY INDUSTRY COUNCILEquitable Enforcement of

Cosmetology Rules And Standards ..................................................... 12

Regulation of The Cosmetology Industry .................................................... 12

GROCERY COUNCILState or Local Mandated Nutritional Labeling ........................................ 12

Florida Retail Federation Contract Lobbyists 13

2012 Board of Directors 13

Pro-Growth Tax Reform 14

ON THE COVERFrom top to bottom: (1) Speaker of the House Dean Cannon (R-Winter Park) and Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R-Melbourne) brief FRF members on the 2011 Legislative Session during Retail Days at the Capitol in February. (2) Governor Rick Scott. (3) Guest speaker Attorney General Pam Bondi addresses FRF members during the Legislative Luncheon at the Hotel Duval in Tallahassee in February. (4) Sen. Don Gaetz (R-Destin), the Senate President Designate, speaks to attendees during Retail Days at the Capitol in February.

The Florida Retail Federation’s mission is to advocate, promote, and safeguard retailing. The Florida Retail Federation is the statewide trade association representing Florida’s second largest employment industry. Florida retailers pay more than $49 billion in wages annually, provide one out of every five jobs in the state, and collect and remit more than $20 billion in sales and retail-related taxes for Florida’s government each year. FRF has served as The Voice of Florida Retailing since its establishment in 1937.

Friends:As we look ahead to 2012, we are encouraged to see the state of

Florida continuing a steady trend of growth. In the capital, a business-friendly governor, Cabinet and Leg-

islature are promising to maintain their focus on improving Flor-ida’s economic climate. Republican majorities in Tallahassee will continue to give us a favorable political climate in 2012, but we will still face challenges in advancing the agenda of Florida retailers.

As we do every year, the FRF team will be actively advocating on behalf of the retail industry on dozens of issues – some favorable to our businesses and some not.

When the Florida Legislature convenes on January 10, there are a few broad issues we think will be important in navi-gating the legislative landscape in 2012:

REDISTRICTINGThe Florida Legislature’s first order of business will be the once-a-decade process of redistricting – drawing new polit-

ical boundaries for the state Legislature and Florida’s congressional districts. Regardless of how the Legislature draws the new boundaries, Democrats and Republicans will take the fight to the courts, who we believe will ultimately determine the new district lines. FRF will be monitoring this process closely to ensure we are prepared to communicate our agenda to the candidates running in the new districts.

THE “JOB CREATORS CAUCUS”During the Legislative Session, our No. 1 challenge will be helping our lawmakers understand the perspective of Flor-

ida’s businesses. Surprisingly, there are precious few actual business owners in the Legislature – people who know what it’s like to make payroll every month and sign the checks on the front. This year, FRF is working to organize the Florida employers who are serving in the Legislature into a “Job Creators Caucus,” encouraging them to educate and advocate to their fellow lawmakers.

CONTROLLING COST INCREASESWhile our economy continues to add jobs, Florida employers are facing a triple threat of cost increases in 2012. As re-

quired in the state constitution, starting January 1, 2012, the minimum wage in Florida will increase from $7.31 to $7.67 an hour - a nearly 5% increase. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has also approved an almost 9% increase in workers’ compensation premiums for 2012. Finally, there will be a nearly $100 per employee increase in the current min-imum rate of unemployment compensation taxes unless the Legislature takes action.

The rebound of our economy over the past two years is strong testimony to the resilience of our state’s businesses, and the ability of the marketplace to create jobs. The massive tax and rate increases we are facing in 2012 can only limit that job creation. If our state’s leaders are collectively willing to take on and solve the big problems, we can be confident we’ll finish the year in better shape than we are beginning it.

On behalf of all of us here at the Florida Retail Federation, I’d like to thank you for being a part of Team Retail. We consider it a privilege to serve as The Voice of Florida Retailing, and we look forward to continuing our work for you.

Yours in retailing,

Richard A. McAllisterPresident and CEOrick@frf.org

Make a difference on issues that impact your business! Join the Team Retail Action Network, FRF’s grassroots member network designed to help retailers be active advocates at the state and federal levels. Call FRF toll-free at 1.888.FL.RETAIL (357.3824). For breaking news and updates throughout the session on issues important to Florida’s retail industry, we invite you to visit www.frf.org.

Go to www.TeamRetail.org and enter your email address to get regular updates from FRF on the issues that will affect your business in 2012.

2 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

A D D R E S SFlorida Retail Federation227 South Adams StreetTallahassee, FL 32301-1720

T E L E P H O N E N U M B E R S1.850.222.4082Outside Tallahassee andNational Toll-Free1.888.FL.RETAIL (357.3824)

FA X N U M B E R1.850.561.6625

W E B S I T Ewww.frf.org

CONTACT US!

Meet the Advocacy, Intervention and Political – “AIP” – Team

FACTS ABOUT FLORIDA RETAIL■■ Florida retailers directly employ about 1.7 million Floridians, and support

more than 2.6 million total jobs in the state.■■ Florida retailers pay more than $49 billion in wages annually.■■ Florida retailers collect and remit more than $20 billion in sales and retail-

related taxes for the state government.■■ Florida retailers own and operate more than 250,000 establishments

throughout the state.■■ Retail is directly and indirectly responsible for 21 percent of Florida’s gross

domestic product.

Retail’s economic impact is felt throughout the Florida economy. A robust retail marketplace benefits industries including real estate, construction, manufacturing, distribution, shipping and transportation.

The Florida Retail Federation’s full-time professional lobbying team is based in the state capital year-round to represent the interests of Florida’s retail industry. From our state’s largest employers to the small-est, businesses count on the FRF team to advocate for them on dozens of issues worth billions of dollars every year.

FRF “Team Retail” lobbyists include (top from left): Rick McAllister, president and CEO; Sally West, director, government affairs; John Rogers, senior vice president and general counsel. Front row (from left): Randy Miller, executive vice president; and Samantha Hunter Padgett, deputy general counsel, governmental affairs. Sherry Whitney (front right) serves as the legislative team administrator.

Retail IssuesFRF GENERAL

DESTINATION CASINOSISSUE: Should Florida expand its gambling offerings to in-

clude large destination casinos.DISCUSSION: Legislation proposed in the 2012 session would

allow Florida to become home to up to three large destination ca-sinos. Though it has been stated these destination casinos would focus their marketing efforts on international visitors, there would be a very real impact on Florida’s families and existing businesses.

Destination casinos would have a negative impact on Flor-ida’s retail industry by reducing families’ disposable income available for spending in Florida’s existing entertainment, retail, and restaurant establishments. Money going into these casinos means money coming out of existing Florida businesses. Desti-nation casinos will also harm the family-friendly brand Florida has worked so hard to create.

POSITION: Because of the potential negative impact on Flor-ida’s existing businesses and family-friendly brand, the Florida Retail Federation opposes destination casinos.

WAGE THEFT PREEMPTIONISSUE: Should wage theft be addressed at the local level.DISCUSSION: Wage theft occurs when an employee is not

paid the money due for the work he or she has done. Many dif-ferent state and federal laws exist to insure employers treat em-ployees fairly and pay the appropriate money due. These laws protect employees while also protecting the due process rights of employers. Recently, there has been a movement at the coun-ty level to adopt additional laws and regulations to address the issue of wage theft.

Though there has been no demonstration that the existing state and federal laws are inadequate, one county has already passed an ordinance, and other counties are looking to follow. These wage theft ordinances establish an extra-judicial process, with little of the due process protections that exist in typical ju-dicial and administrative proceedings. Employers may be sub-ject to punitive damages provisions at the county level and may still be vulnerable to additional suits under the existing state and federal laws. An employer is not guaranteed finality from the county proceeding. The constitutionality of such an ordinance is questionable. The Florida Retail Federation has filed suit to chal-lenge the county ordinance.

There is no question that employees deserve to be fairly com-pensated. If the existing protections are indeed inadequate, this is an issue that needs to be addressed statewide. Piecemeal reg-ulation will only create a burdensome business environment without addressing the true issue of fair and balanced dealings between employers and employees.

POSITION: Wage theft regulation should fall under the pur-view of state and federal laws. If additional regulation is deemed necessary, it should be thoroughly vetted and applied consistent-ly throughout the state in the form of a state statute, not local ordinances.

TRUTH IN DAMAGESISSUE: Should Florida’s tort laws reflect payment to a plain-

tiff for actual, true medical bills or should the practice of making medical care claims based on inflated bills be continued.

DISCUSSION: Through complicated procedures in person-al damage suits, plaintiffs can claim and are awarded damag-es based on inflated costs for procedures which are not based on the actual amount paid by the plaintiff or on the plaintiff’s be-half.  The jury is not allowed to know the true amount.  This re-sults in inflated awards for medical claims to the plaintiff and in-creased attorney fees, since personal injury attorney fees are set as a percentage of the dollar amount of the judgment.  The prac-tice of allowing these inflated or untrue damages increases the cost of personal injury suits without a commensurate true bene-fit to the injured party.  Once again, fairness and justice are not part of the suit.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation believes that injured parties should recover their true costs based on real expenses, not phantom numbers.  The Federation supports corrective leg-islation to help restore truthful damage verdicts in personal in-jury lawsuits.

T E A M R E T A I L 2 0 1 2 L E G I S L A T I V E I S S U E S | 3

Rep. Will Weatherford (R-Wesley Chapel), the House Speaker Designate, talks with the FRF Board of Directors during Retail Days at the Capitol in February 2011.

PRE-EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND SCREENINGS

ISSUE: Should employers be allowed to question job applicants about their criminal history.

DISCUSSION: Currently, the Equal Employment Opportuni-ty Commission is considering new guidelines that would pre-vent employers from asking potential employees about wheth-er they have been convicted of a crime. Additionally, some cit-ies and states have passed so called “Ban the Box” legislation, which forces employers to remove the criminal history convic-tion check box on application forms.

Supporters of eliminating questions on criminal history dur-ing the initial application phase say that this allows a person to have a “fair chance” at proving that they would be the one best able to perform the job. Removing the criminal history question from applications ensures that applicants won’t be automatically excluded because of any past mistakes they have made.

For retailers, the ability to keep this question on applications is a necessary tool for keeping our customers – and our inven-tory – safe.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will oppose any proposed legislation that would prohibit prospective employers from using criminal history information in hiring decisions.

DEBIT AND CREDIT CARD FEESISSUE: Should Florida ban surcharges on debit card

transactions.DISCUSSION: For many years, Florida has banned surcharg-

es on credit card transactions, but not on debit cards. This allows a retailer to pass bank fees on debit card transactions on to the customer if necessary. In the 2010 Legislative Session, an effort was made to ban surcharges on debit card transactions. Feder-ation members and the AIP team fought hard to defeat the ban and were ultimately successful. This mirrored an effort by re-tailers at the federal level to rein in excessive charges by banks. While no legislation involving debit card surcharges surfaced during the 2011 Legislative Session, the Federation needs to be vigilant and prepared to again fight any such legislation in the 2012 session.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation opposes any effort to statutorily mandate a ban on debit card surcharges.

STATE COURT SYSTEM FUNDINGISSUE: Should the Legislature revise the way the Court Sys-

tem is funded in order to ensure it has adequate revenue to car-ry out its mission.

DISCUSSION: The Court Administrator has demonstrated that insufficient funding of the court system adversely impacts its abil-ity to handle and resolve civil cases in a timely manner, dispropor-tionately affecting Florida businesses. The State Courts Adminis-trator, along with representatives of trial and appeals courts, in-cluding the Florida Supreme Court, has asked the business com-munity for assistance in requesting that the Court System be spared any proposed government spending cuts.

The work of the courts and clerks is inter-related, and each entity depends on the other to provide justice to the people.

The two entities should be considered the Core Court System for funding purposes. Filing fees and service charges in the Su-preme Court and District Courts of Appeal should not be direct-ed into general revenue but into the courts’ trust fund, with all court-related revenue being distributed to the courts and clerks in an amount sufficient to support their authorized budgets be-fore distributions are made to other government programs and services. Additionally, there are certain court functions that are a requirement of state government: judges, court reporters, and interpreters. As such, their salaries should be paid from general revenue, not court user fees and costs. These proposals will en-able the courts and clerks to have the funding necessary to sup-port the budget authorized by the Legislature.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports the im-plementation of a more stable funding mechanism for the State Court System.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATIONISSUE: What measures should be taken to deal with the prob-

lem of illegal immigration.DISCUSSION: With the issue of illegal immigration rising to

the level of firebrand rhetoric at the national level, elected lead-ers are expected to provide a thoughtful solution. Two specific ideas which have been brought into the debate are: E-Verify and discretionary checks on immigration status. For the retail in-dustry, both ideas have the potential to do harm if not correct-ly implemented.

E-Verify is a “free” web-based software program that veri-fies the employee’s eligibility to work in the United States. Us-ing the employee’s Form I-9, the employer enters the required in-formation into the E-Verify system. The system then checks the name and social security number of the employee to determine employment eligibility. Unfortunately, according to a report

Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll accepts the Legislator of the Year Award from FRF Chairman Dan Doyle of Bealls, Inc.

4 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

commissioned by and posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s own website, E-Verify is only 48% reliable. E-Veri-fy is reliant on the presumption that illegal immigrants do not use stolen social security numbers in order to gain employment. However, identity theft is commonly practiced by the illegal im-migrant population and there is no way for the employer to de-termine whether that has occurred. Additionally, E-Verify can-not legally be used for prescreening. Therefore, an employer may unintentionally hire, pay wages to, and pay taxes on an illegal immigrant. For those reasons, if the use of the E-Verify system is required of employers, there must be an affirmative defense pro-vided to them for using it.

Like E-Verify, the allowance of discretionary checks of immi-gration status must have parameters. If law enforcement officials are given sweeping authority to run background checks during simple traffic stops, this could have a devastating impact on our tourist industry. Arizona, with the passage of its Senate Bill 1070, lost millions of dollars in canceled convention business. Florida’s economy simply cannot sustain such a loss. A more thoughtful approach would be to encourage law enforcement profession-als to confirm a suspect’s immigration status when conducting criminal investigations.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation favors reasonable action to ensure all foreign born residents and tourists are legal-ly in the state.

DRUG REPACKAGING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LOOPHOLE

ISSUE: Should physicians continue receiving a higher reim-bursement rate than statutorily intended by dispensing repack-aged medications to workers’ compensation patients.

DISCUSSION: According to 440.015, Florida Statutes, “It is the intent of the Legislature that the Workers’ Compensation Law be interpreted so as to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to fa-cilitate the worker’s return to gainful reemployment at a reason-able cost to the employer.” Unfortunately, that “reasonable cost”

is going to see an 8.9% increase this year. A large part of that in-crease is being driven by a scheme known as “drug repackaging.” All medications have a standard national drug code (NDC), a number that is assigned by the manufacturer. That NDC is spe-cific to the product and package size, and has an Average Whole-sale Price (AWP) attached to it, which is used by claims proces-sors to identify and process the claim for payment. Because drug re-packagers remove drugs from their original containers and place them in new containers of different quantities, the orig-inal NDC is removed from the drug and it receives a new one which is set by the re-packager. And, a loophole in Florida’s law allows re-packagers to set a new AWP for repackaged drugs and requires payers to reimburse providers at that new AWP plus a $4.18 dispensing fee. Because of that loophole, repackaging drugs for physician dispensing is now being marketed to medi-cal practices as a tool to increase profit. One re-packager claims on its website that physician dispensing of repackaged drugs is “a profit center producing $20,000 to $100,000 additional net in-come per physician per year.”

Many recent studies on workers’ compensation data show that physicians who dispense repackaged drugs are being reim-bursed between 400 and 700 percent more than pharmacies for the same medication. Paying physicians the inflated rate pro-moted by drug re-packagers has been an enormous cost driv-er in workers’ compensation claims in recent years. While the the Florida Retail Federation understands the service that phy-sicians provide by dispensing certain medications from their of-fice, they should be subject to the same reimbursement rates as pharmacies.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports closing the loophole in the Workers’ Compensation Law to make the reim-bursement fee schedule consistent regardless of where medica-tions are dispensed.

LOSS PREVENTION COUNCIL

ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIMEISSUE:  Organized retail crime continues to plague Florida

retailers despite Florida having some of the strongest retail theft laws in the country.

DISCUSSION:  Unfortunately, retail crime has traditionally been viewed as a minor crime and often doesn’t receive a high priority from law enforcement and prosecutors.  However, oc-currences of organized retail crime are increasing.  Organized groups of thieves have caused increased losses to retailers and, consequently, higher prices to consumers along with loss of sales tax revenue.  The proceeds from organized retail crime have been traced to a number of criminal entities, such as terrorists and Columbian drug cartels.  In the past, bills have been filed that further minimize organized retail crimes by increasing the dollar threshold for felonies from $300 to $600.  This would se-verely hamper retailers’ efforts to protect themselves from orga-nized crime schemes. 

T E A M R E T A I L 2 0 1 2 L E G I S L A T I V E I S S U E S | 5

Left to right: FRF Executive Committee Chairman Dan Doyle, Beall’s Inc.; FRF Legislator of the Year Rep. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota); FRF Vice Chairman Sandy Fortin, Play It Again Sports; and FRF Executive Vice President Randy Miller meet during the Annual Meeting in October.

Additionally, we have seen legislation and other propos-als that would encourage the Department of Corrections to re-lease “non-violent” offenders prior to their serving their full sen-tence. Some of these proposals are being offered as a budget-re-ducing method. The Federation has serious concerns with that philosophy. We maintain that “non-violent” does not necessarily equate to non-serious. Most theft and fraud fall into the catego-ry of “non-violent.” Yet, many of these criminals are as hardened as violent offenders and are as likely to be repeat offenders. Most retail crime falls into the category of “non-violent.”

In another twist on existing organized retail crime tactics, we are seeing “flash mobs” descend on a store with a large number of juveniles committing multiple thefts while attempting to over-whelm store security and law enforcement. Current law needs to be revisited to adequately address this new phenomenon.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation continues to support legislation that will deter organized retail crime.  The Florida Retail Federation will oppose any effort to weaken laws against retail crime by increasing the felony theft threshold or releas-ing “non-violent” offenders prior to the completion of their sen-tence. We also support any effort to strengthen existing laws to more adequately address “flash mob” crimes.

TAXES

BACK-TO-SCHOOL SALES TAX HOLIDAYISSUE: Should Florida continue the Back-to-School Sales Tax

Holiday.DISCUSSION: The Florida Legislature once again granted cit-

izens a Back-to-School Sales Tax Holiday at the conclusion of the 2011 Legislative Session. This was in part due to our strong grass-roots efforts and a study by the Washington Economics Group that showed the actual positive economic effects of the 2010 sales

tax holiday. The study showed that the 3-day sales tax holiday ac-tually generated increased revenues to the state in the amount of $7 million based on increased sales of taxable items of $115 mil-lion, rather than costing the state approximately $24 million in lost sales taxes as asserted by the state revenue estimates. The results of this study are in keeping with the 2009 Washington Economic Group study which concluded that a sales tax holiday would result in increased sales tax revenue to the state and, fur-ther, should be adopted on a continuing annual basis.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports the Back-to-School Sales Tax Holiday.

INTERNET SALES/USE TAX COLLECTIONISSUE: Since Florida currently has no effective or efficient way

to collect sales or use taxes that are due and owing on purchas-es made over the Internet or from other remote sellers, should the Florida Retail Federation seek legislation during the 2012 Legis-lative Session to enhance the collection efforts of these taxes by changing/expanding the definition and application of “nexus” for sales tax purposes related to companies that exploit the Florida retail market through remote means.

DISCUSSION: The state of Florida does not actively attempt to enforce the collection of sales/use taxes on purchases made over the Internet or from other remote out-of-state vendors. Florida law is very specific in stating that if the sales tax is not collected at the time of sale, the purchaser is required to remit a use tax di-rectly to the state of Florida, but since there is no active enforce-ment of this requirement, it is necessary to establish ways to re-quire the remote vendors to collect the sales tax at the time of sale that would not violate the Federal Constitution.

Several states have now begun to tackle this collection issue by creating a broad-based grassroots effort, known as Main Street Fairness, to pressure the various state governments to enhance the nexus provisions related to physical presence and extended

6 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

Roxanne Parker, Macy’s Inc.; FRF Executive Committee Member Victor Gavalas, Nic’s Toggery; FRF Treasurer Tom Petrillo, The Salon People/Aveda; and FRF Chairman Paul Imbrone, Macy’s Inc. huddle at the Capitol during Retail Days in February.

“The back-to-school sales tax holi-day has always been a way to boost retail sales and help customers save on necessities. In these difficult eco-nomic times, a sales tax holiday to help prepare students for the class-room is a win for both families and our economy.”

—Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Palm Beach

“Everyone wins with this tax break. It is a good, conservative measure that allows all Floridians to partici-pate.” —Senate Majority Leader Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando

nexus to click-through sellers located within the jurisdiction of a particular state. Recently, the state of California was success-ful in settling the dispute with Amazon.com by having Ama-zon agree to the conditions of the California law, which will al-low Amazon.com to continue to not collect the sales tax for one year, but they must give notice to California citizens in the inter-im period that the tax is due and should be paid directly to the State. This occurrence has resulted in the desired effect of having the world’s largest Internet vendor being placed on the same lev-el playing field as brick and mortar retailers, which eliminates a government created price differential. Hopefully Florida will be able to negotiate a similar resolution

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will encourage the Florida Legislature to clarify its position on the collection of the sales/use taxes and pass additional legislation on nexus which resembles the California statute that will eliminate the current price disparity between Internet purchases and purchases made at brick and mortar retailers.

STREAMLINED SALES TAXISSUE: The Streamlined Sales Tax Project would revise the

Florida sales tax statutes to standardize them with 24 other states that have already adopted the same model legislation. This would allow Florida to collect sales taxes on remote sales, meaning those occurring on the Internet, through catalogues and from television solicitations. If Florida adopts this model legislation before the U.S. Congress passes federal legislation, there would be a $44 mil-lion cost to the state treasury due to certain mandated changes to Florida’s sales tax statutes which are currently not recognized in Florida law. Recognizing this cost, should the Florida Retail Fed-eration continue to pursue passage of the model legislation prior to the Federal law being changed.

DISCUSSION: Currently, Florida relies on the honesty of its individual citizens to remit the “use tax” to the Florida Depart-ment of Revenue on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Since many citizens aren’t aware of the requirement to pay the tax on items purchased from remote sellers, very little money is collect-ed and, as a result, Florida’s main street merchants are placed at a competitive disadvantage in pricing. The out-of-state mer-chant not only does not collect or pay taxes in Florida, but uses this fact to gain a price advantage through being able to sell an item at a lower cost simply because he or she doesn’t collect the tax due on the sale.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will be actively en-gaged and encourage the 2012 Florida Legislature to adopt a Joint Resolution requesting that the U.S. Congress pass federal legislation authorizing the states to implement legislation to col-lect these taxes. In addition, the Florida Retail Federation will support passage of legislation which will clarify the nexus pro-visions of the current state sales tax law that will allow the De-partment of Revenue to enforce the requirement to collect sales tax on Internet sales.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION REFORMISSUE: What steps can be taken to ameliorate the impact of im-

pending unemployment compensation tax increases on Florida’s employers.

DISCUSSION: Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Tax System continues to be an area of crucial concern for Florida’s employers. Without intervention by the Legislature, employers paying at the minimum rate will have a tax rate of $171.70 start-ing January 1, 2012. This is an increase of $99.60 per employee. Employers will also have to pay an additional special assessment of around $10.00 per employee in order to make a payment on the interest due to the federal government.

Two significant changes need to be made to Florida’s Unem-ployment Compensation Tax Policy in order to ensure Florida’s employers don’t suffer further negative consequences as a result of the expected tax increase.

First, we need to stretch out fund balance recoupment over a longer period of time. Fund balance recoupment is designed to provide a cushion to Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. There is no federal requirement to maintain such a cushion and, in dire times such as these, this is just extra mon-ey that’s being pulled from the pockets of employers. Current-ly, Florida Statutes require $2 billion dollars be recouped from employers over a three-year period. Stretching out fund balance recoupment over a longer period of time will not impact bene-fits. It will simply reduce the tax burden on employers and allow them to have more money available to create jobs.

Second, we need to maintain the taxable wage base at $7,000. A minimum taxable wage base of $7,000 complies with feder-al policies. Like stretching out fund balance recoupment, main-taining the minimum wage base at this level will reduce the tax burden on employers and encourage job creation. And, it will not impact the ability of claimants to receive benefits.

We cannot change the amount we owe the federal govern-ment, but we can make smart choices about the impact on Flor-ida’s employers.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports the re-view and adoption of key taxation policies that will minimize the negative impact on Florida employers and help get Florid-ians back to work.

T E A M R E T A I L 2 0 1 2 L E G I S L A T I V E I S S U E S | 7

VISIT FLORIDA President/CEO Chris Thompson; FRF Chairman Paul Imbrone, Macy’s, Inc.; FRF Board Member Vickie Kunkle, Hard Rock International; and Luanne Lenberg, Sawgrass Mills, at the Hotel Duval during Retail Days.

RETENTION OF SALES TAX COLLECTION ALLOWANCE

ISSUE: Should Florida sales tax dealers be allowed to keep the small sales tax collection allowance currently authorized by the Florida sales tax statutes.

DISCUSSION: As legislators review the current fee and tax structure, some discussion may be directed at the dealers’ col-lection allowance, which has been the subject of previous news coverage alleging retailers are not remitting all of the tax they collect. However, retailers are authorized by Section 212.12 (1), F.S. to keep 2.5 percent of the sales tax collected, up to a maxi-mum of $30 per month, per store location. This fee is supposed to offset the retailers’ cost of collecting and remitting sales tax for the state. While this collection allowance doesn’t come close to the actual cost to the retailers for their collecting and remit-ting the sales tax, the allowance shouldn’t be eliminated and re-directed to the state treasury. Currently the collection allowance is worth approximately $60 million annually to Florida retailers.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will actively oppose any effort by the Florida Legislature to revoke the payment of the Dealer Collection Allowance.

SMALL BUSINESS COUNCIL

EMERGENCY DECLARATIONSISSUE: Should declarations of emergency be more narrowly

defined.DISCUSSION: When Florida declares a state of emergency,

this triggers state laws that protect Florida’s consumers from price gouging. These laws are in effect in every area that is cov-ered by the declaration, for the duration of the declaration.

In order to avoid being viewed as non-compliant with these laws, many businesses significantly alter their typical and lawful pricing practices in the areas in which an emergency has been declared. When the declarations of emergency are overly broad,

encompassing areas of the state that are unlikely to be impacted by an emergency, this creates additional operational challenges and expenses for businesses.

For a major disaster of statewide impact, a sweeping decla-ration is desirable. However, for the more localized emergency, declarations of emergency can and should be narrowly drawn in order to prevent confusion and instability in the marketplace.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports declara-tions of emergency that protect consumers without hindering compliant businesses.

MORATORIUM ON IMPACT FEESISSUE: Should the Legislature adopt a statewide moratorium

on impact fees.DISCUSSION: Growth and development have slowed to a

near halt in Florida. The cost of new development is daunting, and impact fees are a significant part of those costs. Many local governments have been proactive, reducing impact fees or put-ting moratoriums in place in order to encourage development. A statewide moratorium would go even further to defray the cost of development and encourage new construction and business growth throughout Florida.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports a statewide moratorium on impact fees in order to encourage business growth.

DELINQUENCY FEE INCREASEISSUE: Should Florida increase the fee a merchant creditor can

collect on a late credit payment.DISCUSSION: Florida’s credit laws have capped the delin-

quency fee that merchants are allowed to collect on a late pay-ment. During this time major credit-granting and neighboring states have increased their late fees, creating an incentive for a debtor to pay the out-of-state retail creditor first and the Florida retail creditor later or not at all. This has resulted in Florida busi-nesses, by virtue of the operation of Florida law, being at a dis-advantage in collecting rightful bill payments. Retail creditors who opt to operate under Florida’s credit laws do so with a built-in advantage for out-of-state retail lenders in getting their bills paid. The question is often posed as to why Florida credit regu-lators cannot regulate the out-of-state lenders. Federal law al-lows each state to set its own credit laws without being subject to other states’ laws. Consumers may more easily qualify for credit from states with laws more friendly to credit operations. A mer-chant can have retail operations in Florida, yet domicile its cred-it operations in another state or contract with a credit grantor in another state to manage its credit program. Either way, cred-it with late fees higher than what Florida law allows is already in the hands of Florida citizens. Again, this puts Florida’s creditors in the position of their bills being paid later or not at all com-pared with bills from credit grantors in other states.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation favors increasing credit delinquency fees to an amount that is competitive with those allowed by other states.

Wogan Badcock III, Badcock Home Furniture & More, chats with Attorney General Pam Bondi at the Retail Days Legislative Luncheon.

8 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION /INTERCHANGE FEES

ISSUE: Should retailers and other sales tax collectors be re-quired to subsidize the state of Florida by paying credit card trans-action / interchange fees on sales taxes collected as a part of a credit card purchase transaction.

DISCUSSION: Currently the state of Florida doesn’t autho-rize a governmental entity to accept credit cards for the pay-ment of taxes or fees without the addition of a “convenience fee” surcharge. This surcharge is imposed to offset the transaction / interchange fees associated with processing the transaction, which guarantees that the governmental entity receives the to-tal amount of the tax or fee, not a discounted amount resulting from the transaction fee assessment. The provision in the credit card companies’ master processing agreement which allows for this treatment, however, does not allow a commercial entity to implement the treatment. A commercial entity may not charge a surcharge to any customer electing to use a credit card instead of cash. Therefore, all commercial credit card transactions are sub-jected to the transaction / interchange fees, which can be as high as 2.5 percent of the entire amount of the transaction processed, and would include any applicable sales taxes.

When the credit card transaction is settled and funds are dis-tributed to the merchant’s account, the transaction processing fee is subtracted from these funds causing the net distribution to be reduced by the transaction fee charge, usually a percent-age of the entire amount of the transaction. When the merchant files his or her sales and use tax return, the entire amount of the sales tax collected on the sale of the item is expected to be remit-ted to the state even though the sale was made by credit card and discounted by the assessed amount of the transaction processing fee. This results in retailers and other sales tax collectors having to make up the difference between the actual amount of tax dol-lars collected versus the total amount of tax calculated to be due

on the sales transaction. The state receives 100 percent of taxes due even though the retailer only has 97.5 percent of the actu-al cash received for the tax collection. This situation results in a cash subsidy to the state of Florida on all sales taxes collected as a part of a credit card transaction.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports legislation that would allow a retailer or other sales tax collector to be held harmless for any credit card transaction fees that may be applied to any sales tax collected as part of a credit card transaction.

PHARMACY COUNCIL

EXPANDED VACCINATION AUTHORITY FOR PHARMACISTS

ISSUE: Should pharmacists be given expanded authori-ty to provide vaccinations for shingles and pneumonia to senior citizens.

DISCUSSION: Florida is one of only four states that do not al-low pharmacists to administer a wide range of vaccinations. In fact, across the border into Alabama, pharmacists can admin-ister a number of different vaccinations to patients as young as 9 years of age. Vaccinations are a simple service that can be provided safely by a pharmacist, expanding low cost preven-tive health care to a large segment of Florida’s population. Since pharmacists were allowed to begin administering the influenza immunization in 2008, they have provided vaccinations for ap-proximately 3 million patients with the Department of Health reporting NO adverse incidents. If we allow pharmacists the ex-panded authority to provide immunizations for shingles and pneumonia, Florida’s 65 and older population will have an addi-tional resource for low cost health care.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports expanded vaccination authority for pharmacists.

90 DAY SUPPLY OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS AT RETAIL

ISSUE: Should state employees be required to use mail order to fill their maintenance prescription medications.

DISCUSSION: Last year, Florida adopted a policy which forc-es state employees to obtain their maintenance medications through mail order in an effort to control the costs associated with prescription drug plans. However, because of the competi-tive environment of retail pharmacy, it is doubtful that mail or-der plans offer a significant savings to the consumer, particularly when a retail pharmacy location can dispense a 90-day supply of medications at the same cost. Furthermore, it is clear that man-dating the use of mail order pharmacy robs patients of vital in-teraction with their local community pharmacist. These highly trained experts provide guidance to patients on appropriate use of medications and offer a range of patient-oriented services to maximize a medication’s effectiveness.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports convenient, cost-effective access to prescription medications by authorizing

T E A M R E T A I L 2 0 1 2 L E G I S L A T I V E I S S U E S | 9

Rep. Denise Grimsley (R-Sebring), Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, and FRF President/CEO Rick McAllister share a laugh at the Capitol.

pharmacies to dispense 90-day maintenance prescription medi-cations to State Employees.

STATE REGULATION OF PHARMACIES AND PHARMACISTS

ISSUE: Should local governments regulate the operation and practice of pharmacies.

DISCUSSION: In the past several years, Florida has struggled with the growing problem of prescription drug abuse and traf-ficking. In the 2011 Legislative Session, a sweeping reform bill was passed bringing stricter regulation to the entire prescription drug industry. From manufacturers, to distributors, to communi-ty pharmacies, controlled substances will be tracked and report-ed into the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Additionally, physicians will no longer be able to dispense controlled substanc-es. With all of the reforms that were implemented at the state level, Florida will begin to see a drastic drop in the illicit pill mill indus-try. During the time that the Legislature was struggling with ex-actly how to address the problem, local governments were becom-ing desperate to control this very real threat to their communities. They began to pass strict local ordinances in an effort to mitigate the problem, and understandably so. However, now that there is very strict regulation from the state, these local ordinances may not only be unnecessary, they may be in conflict with the state regulation. Because the practice of healthcare already operates in a highly regulated environment, streamlining is crucial to ensur-ing compliance; there should be one ultimate authority responsi-ble for the regulation of pharmacy and pharmacists.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports restricting the regulation of the practice of pharmacy to the state level. The Florida Board of Pharmacy, which operates under the Depart-ment of Health, is best equipped to oversee regulatory issues re-lated to the practice of pharmacy.

MEDICAID PROVIDER HANDBOOKISSUE: Should Medicaid providers be given proper notification

in advance of changes made to the Medicaid Provider Handbook.DISCUSSION: Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, governs the way

the state handles Medicaid. It allows for the Agency for Health Care Administration to set forth the methodologies by which it will reimburse Medicaid providers. Those methodologies, which include reimbursement methods and fee schedules, are pub-lished in the Agency’s Florida Medicaid Provider General Hand-book, Coverage and Limitations Handbooks, and Reimburse-ment Handbooks. The authority granted to the Agency to imple-ment provider reimbursement methodologies is so broad that it has allowed for a system to develop in which the provider com-munity has little or no input. The Agency is not required to hold public workshops on changes to the handbooks, and they may apply changes retroactively, applying retroactive changes even to reimbursement rates. Such measures create confusion and insta-bility in the industry that cares for Medicaid recipients.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports giving Medicaid providers advance notice of changes to claims submis-sions and rate reductions, as well as giving providers adequate opportunity for input prior to rule changes.

SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL

BOTTLE DEPOSIT LEGISLATIONISSUE: Are additional mandates and regulations such as bottle

deposit legislation necessary to increase Florida’s recycling rates.DISCUSSION: Members of the retail industry are setting

the standard for environmentally responsible practices. With-out regulations, requirements, or mandates, many retailers are successfully establishing innovative practices that reduce waste, conserve resources, and provide greater value to consumers.

Much attention has been given to regulatory measures such as bottle bills and advanced disposal fees. Such measures are certainly well-intentioned, but their effectiveness is question-able. The potential for negative unintended consequences must be considered before the state and its citizens invest their time and limited resources in pursuit of these measures.

Bottle deposit regulations impose significant burdens on Florida’s individual and corporate citizens, yet address only a very small portion of Florida’s waste stream. In order to estab-lish effective and worthwhile policies, there needs to be a com-prehensive evaluation of the state’s current recycling rates and waste reduction practices. We need to adopt clear and measur-able goals based on solid information, and our efforts need to fo-cus on the areas of greatest opportunity. Further, policies adopt-ed by the state need to supplement and encourage – not hinder - the voluntary efforts already taking place.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports voluntary efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle and divert. The Florida Retail Federation opposes bottle deposit legislation, which is an expen-sive and burdensome mandate that sounds good, but has little long-term benefit.

RENEWABLE ENERGY LEGISLATION ISSUE: Should Florida’s renewable energy legislation be

amended. DISCUSSION: Yes, Florida’s renewable energy statutes

should be amended to promote economic growth, economic

10 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

Dan Doyle, Beall’s Inc.; Paul Imbrone, Macy’s Inc.; Rep. Alan Williams (D-Tallahassee) and Debbie Harvey, Ron Jon Surf Shop.

development, job creation, Florida’s economic and energy inde-pendence and long-term sustainability, and cost-effective devel-opment of renewable power in Florida.

Florida’s current renewable energy statutes declare sound policy goals – e.g., as set forth in Section 366.92(1), Florida Stat-utes, “to promote the development of renewable energy; protect the economic viability of Florida’s existing renewable energy fa-cilities; diversify the types of fuel used to generate electricity in Florida; lessen Florida’s dependence on natural gas and fuel oil for the production of electricity; minimize the volatility of fuel costs; encourage investment within the state; improve environ-mental conditions; and, at the same time, minimize the costs of power supply to electric utilities and their customers.”

In practice, however, Florida lags far behind other states both in renewable energy development and in energy independence. At present, Florida imports approximately 97 percent of the fu-els (coal, natural gas, oil, and uranium) that are burned to gen-erate Florida’s electricity supply from outside the state, and for all practical purposes, Florida imports virtually 100 percent of our transportation fuels. This leaves Florida extremely vulner-able to volatility in world energy prices; remember that in the summer of 2008, gasoline cost more than $4 a gallon, and FPL and Progress Energy filed for mid-year increases in their “Fuel Cost Recovery Charges” of nearly $1 billion between the two of them. These simple facts mean that Florida “exports” very large amounts of dollars to purchase its energy: developing Florida-based renewable energy resources and supplies will keep those dollars here in the state, keep more Floridians employed, and protect the state and our economy against the vagaries of wildly fluctuating world energy prices.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports policies and legislation that will promote Florida-based renewable ener-gy in order to enhance Florida’s energy independence and sus-tainability, promote economic growth and job creation in Flori-da, and promote cost-effective development of renewable energy resources through fair, transparent, market-driven competition in order to get the maximum bang for the bucks that we spend on renewable energy.

RETAIL BEVERAGE COUNCIL

DRAM SHOP PRESERVATIONISSUE: Should the Legislature preserve Florida’s current Dram

Shop Statute.DISCUSSION: The Florida Retail Federation works diligent-

ly to preserve Florida’s Dram Shop Statute. Current law provides that a person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a per-son of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for in-jury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, except that a person who willfully and unlawful-ly sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habit-ually addicted to the use of an or all alcoholic beverages may be-come liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation continues to empha-size education as the key factor in reducing over-consumption and underage sales and encourages Florida’s lawmakers to make no changes to the current statute.

POOL BUYINGISSUE: Should pool buying groups/agents be permitted to place

a delinquent member on the state delinquent list for non-payment of merchandise.

DISCUSSION: Currently, only distributors can place a retail vendor that fails to pay for merchandise purchased from the dis-tributor on the state delinquent list. Retailers have 10 days to pay for the merchandise and if not timely paid then the distributor requests that they be placed on the state delinquent list which prohibits further credit extension and could result in cash-only sales. The retailer loses any discount that was given.

Pool buying groups/agents have no means to place a delin-quent member, whose payment was covered by the pool buy-ing group, on the state delinquent list in order to keep the entire group from going on the delinquent list.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will work toward fa-vorable legislation that will allow pool buying agents to place a delinquent member on the state delinquent list when said mem-ber fails to pay for their part of the pool order and the buy-ing group has made payment good on behalf of the delinquent member.

NON-ACTIVE QUOTA BEVERAGE LICENSESISSUE: Should more flexibility be given to licensees that need to

place their quota licenses in a non-active status.DISCUSSION: The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and To-

bacco, effective January 1, 2012, will only approve quota licens-es being placed into escrow (non-active status) if the licensed premises has been physically destroyed through no fault of the licensee; the licensee has suffered an incapacitating illness or injury which is likely to be prolonged; or the licensed premis-es has been prohibited from making sales as a result of any ac-tion of any court of competent jurisdiction. Current statute and

T E A M R E T A I L 2 0 1 2 L E G I S L A T I V E I S S U E S | 11

Scott Dick, executive coordinator of the Retail Beverage Council of the Florida Retail Federation, and Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R-Miami) during the FRF Annual Meeting in October.

administrative rule conflict with one another. A change in the statute will give more flexibility to place licenses into escrow. Quota licenses are required to be active a certain number of days per calendar year.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will work toward more flexibility with the escrowing of quota alcoholic beverage licenses.

MANDATORY LICENSEE TRAINING ISSUE: Should training be required of all alcoholic beverage

licensees.DISCUSSION: Florida currently encourages voluntary train-

ing for alcohol beverage licensees under Florida’s Responsible Vendor Act. Many licensees participate in such training pro-grams that are typically offered by the private sector, or pro-grams that are conducted in-house by the licensee. The Florida Retail Federation is seeing a trend with local governments pro-posing training at the local level, contradictory of the Responsi-ble Vendor Act.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will continue to sup-port voluntary responsible vendor training. However, the Flor-ida Retail Federation will be working with the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and the Florida Legislature to explore whether current law needs to be modified. In addi-tion, Florida’s Responsible Vendor Act could be amended to al-low additional mitigation to those licensees that use ID scanners for underage sales compliance.

BEAUTY INDUSTRY COUNCIL

EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT OF COSMETOLOGY RULES AND STANDARDS

ISSUE: Should Florida consider changes to its cosmetology regulations to ensure equitable enforcement across all business models.

DISCUSSION: Currently, salons in Florida operate under one of two business models.  In the first model, a salon is staffed by salaried cosmetologists, who are employees of the salon.  In the second model, cosmetologists operate as independent contrac-tors in relation to the salon in which they serve clients. Both are thriving business models within Florida.  But, they are not treat-ed equally under existing regulations, and this leaves employ-er salons at a distinct disadvantage.  It also leaves consumers at risk.

We support equitable regulation across all cosmetology business models.  This will ensure that the same safety inspec-tions will take place across all models, which is imperative for the safety of clients.  It will also ensure that all service provid-ers are complying with the state’s tax and occupational licensing laws.  There should be no unfair competitive advantage gained through circumventing lawful regulation.

POSITION: Florida Retail Federation supports the equita-ble enforcement of cosmetology regulations across all business

models.  Ultimately, it is Florida’s consumers who are best served by a level playing field.

REGULATION OF THE COSMETOLOGY INDUSTRY

ISSUE: Should Florida’s cosmetology industry be deregulated. DISCUSSION: There are almost 100,000 cosmetologists cur-

rently licensed and active in Florida, and close to 20,000 salons. Florida’s beauty industry is alive and well, and the continued regulation of this industry is in the best interests of both con-sumers and cosmetology service providers.

It’s not just about looking good. The men and women of Flor-ida’s beauty industry receive extensive training and adhere to strict sanitation policies to insure the health, safety and welfare of their clients. The regulations and requirements in place en-sure that Florida’s cosmetology industry keeps Floridians look-ing good and feeling good.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation does not support de-regulation of the cosmetology industry. However, there are al-ways opportunities to streamline and seek greater efficiency in regulation, and we would support such measures.

GROCERY COUNCIL

STATE OR LOCAL MANDATED NUTRITIONAL LABELING

ISSUE: Does Florida need to require nutritional labeling on food products.

DISCUSSION: While nutrition is a topic of great concern, fed-eral law requires nutritional labeling on a broad array of food products sold in retail outlets. There has been no suggestion that the current federal laws are inadequate or not functional. Addi-tionally, when food is processed and packaged, there is no way of knowing where that particular food product or package is des-tined. Consequently, a workable federal law is preferable to a patchwork of state or local laws.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will oppose any local or state effort to mandate nutritional labeling on food products.

12 | F L O R I D A R E T A I L F E D E R A T I O N

Watch for information on the 2012 Retailer of the Year Award for Leadership program coming soon!

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Paul ImbroneChairman of the BoardMacy’s, Inc.Miami, FL

Daniel J. DoyleChairman, Executive CommitteeBeall’s, Inc.Bradenton, FL

W. R. “Sandy” FortinVice ChairmanPlay It Again SportsLakeland, FL

Tom PetrilloTreasurerThe Salon People/AvedaSt. Petersburg, FL

Richard A. McAllisterPresident and CEOFlorida Retail FederationTallahassee, FL

AT-LARGE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Dean ElliottDillards, Inc.Little Rock, AR

Victor GavalasNic’s ToggeryTallahassee, FL

Debbie HarveyRon Jon Surf ShopCocoa Beach, FL

Cindi MarsiglioWal-Mart Stores, Inc.Tallahassee, FL

ADVISORY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Charles R. Wintz, CPACharles R. Wintz, CPA, PAJacksonville, FL

RETAIL COUNCIL

Michael J. AyotteCVS CaremarkRichmond, VA

Wogan Badcock, IIIBadcock Home Furniture & MoreMulberry, FL

Steve BrophyDollar GeneralGoodlettsville, TN

Erika CarterTarget CorporationMinneapolis, MN

Casey CesnovarWalgreen Co.Deerfield, IL

Ken DeHartJC PenneyTallahassee, FL

Jacob DiPietreWalt Disney World Co.Lake Buena Vista, FL

Rory EggersForemost Beverage GroupOrange Park, FL

Mitch KleinBravo SupermarketsWhite Plains, NY

Kent KnutsonThe Home DepotWashington, DC

Vickie KunkleHard Rock InternationalOrlando, FL

Melanie LeeKia AutoSportsTallahassee, FL

John B. LoweSeaWorld Parks & EntertainmentOrlando, Florida

Kevin LundyYum! Brands, Inc.Louisville, KY

Bruce MitchellRally Stores, Inc.Clearwater, FL

Mike MitchellPublix Super Markets, Inc.Lakeland, FL

Rey MontotoKash n’ Karry/Sweetbay SupermarketTampa, FL

John MullenOffice DepotBoca Raton, FL

W. Kelly PalmerThe Hayloft, Inc.Fort Myers, FL

Ray PohlmanAuto Zone, Inc.Memphis, TN

Scott ReamsBest Buy, Inc.Tampa, FL

Bob Smith Albertson’s, Inc.Lake Mary, FL

Henry TuckerSouthside Package & Lounge, Inc.Lakeland, FL

Marian WikenczySearsOrlando, FL

SENIOR ADVISORY COUNCIL

Dr. Susan FioritoFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, FL

M. Clayton Hollis, Jr.Publix Super Markets, Inc.Lakeland, FL

Stephen M. KnopikBeall’s, Inc.Bradenton, FL

William Kundrat, Jr.Sun City Center, FL

Warren R. McCurryKillarney, FL

Nis H. Nissen, IIINissen Advertising, Inc.Lakeland, FL

Thomas S. PetcoffBaron Realty, Inc.Lakeland, FL

Joanne PowersThe Salon Professional AcademyTampa, FL

Ron SacinoSacino’s FormalwearSt. Petersburg, FL

George SandeferRutherfords, Inc.Palatka, FL

Carol SipeSummitLakeland, FL

Bart A. WeitzUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL

Michael Zagorac, Jr.Largo, FL

2012 Florida Retail Federation Board of DirectorsFRF Contract Lobbyists

Travis W. BlantonJohnson and Blanton

Tallahassee

Amy ChristianJohnson and Blanton

Tallahassee

Scott DickSKD Consulting

Group, Inc.Tallahassee

Ron GreensteinTallahassee

Becky KuczwanskiTallahassee

Jon JohnsonJohnson and Blanton

Tallahassee

Specific knowledge and expertise on key retail issues are contributed by each of Florida Retail Federation’s contract lobbyists. Coordinated by and working cooperatively with FRF’s staff lobbyists, they bring additional impact to the association’s comprehensive legislative initiatives.

227 SOUTH ADAMS STREETTALLAHASSEE, FL 32301-1720

PRE-SORTEDSTANDARDUS POSTAGEPAIDTALLAHASSEE, FLPERMIT #422

“Florida’s tax system discourages retailers from locating and creating jobs in Florida. Treating all retailers equally would eliminate the disincentive to buy from local retailers. That will encourage economic growth and foster job-creation in Florida while addressing the priorities of Governor Scott and legislative leaders.”

— Donna Arduin, economist and former Budget Director for Governor Jeb Bush

PRO-GROWTH TAX REFORMC L O S E T H E I N T E R N E T S A L E S TA X L O O P H O L E

A new study conducted by noted economists Ardu-in, Laffer & Moore conservatively estimates that eliminat-ing special tax treatment for online-only sellers would net between $449.6 million and $454 million in 2012, giving Florida lawmakers the opportunity to make meaningful reductions in the state’s tax rates.

According to the study, the Internet Sales Tax Loophole has been encouraging Florida residents to purchase goods and services from sellers that are not residents of Florida. This has narrowed Florida’s sales tax base and punished Florida’s small businesses by increasing government reli-ance on other types of taxes.

For every 10 percent of Internet-only retail sales re-turned to Florida retailers (either through an Internet sale or a sale at a physical store), total Florida retail sales will increase by between $2.8 billion and $3.1 billion by 2020 with an expected impact of 8,300 to 9,200 additional jobs, the study says.

Treating businesses and consumers the same — regard-less of where they decide to shop or locate — will enhance economic opportunity, according to the study, which was prepared for the Florida Retail Foundation in October 2011.

DOWNLOAD the entire study on the web at http://mymainstreetflorida.com

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0 $35.0

$30.0

$25.0

$20.0

$15.0

$10.02010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20102009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

IN B

ILLI

ON

S

IN B

ILLI

ON

S

Projected Florida Retail Internet Sales Tax Revenues Lost 2009-2020

Florida Internet Tax Revenues Lost (historic growth)Florida Internet Tax Revenues Lost (Forrester Projection)*

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0 $35.0

$30.0

$25.0

$20.0

$15.0

$10.02010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20102009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

IN B

ILLI

ON

S

IN B

ILLI

ON

S

Projected Florida Retail Internet Sales 2009-2020

Florida Internet Retail Sales (historic growth)Florida Internet Retail Sales (Forrester Projection)

*Source: ALME projections based on data from Forrester Research, Florida Department of Revenue and U.S. Census. 2009 is estimate and 2010 through 2020 are projections.