Budget Watch - Proposed Budgets for FY2017-18 Far Apart

As we enter the penultimate week of the 2017 Legislative Session, the next state budget is still very much up in the air. The House and Senate spending plans are effectively $4 billion apart. The House budget totals $81.237 billion, and the Senate budget comes in at $83.164 billion, but that does not include almost $2 billion in university tuition that is usually included in the budget (and is included by the House).

Some of the major differences include environmental funding, economic development programs, tourism marketing, the amount of local property taxes for public school funding, universities, member projects, and state employee pay raises. The Senate also funds 113,563 state positions, 1,335 more than the House. The House generally appropriates less money for agency operations.

Conference negotiations have not yet begun and behind the scenes negotiations have not gone smoothly. This morning (April 25), the House convened a special meeting of the Appropriations Committee to pass what it called a continuation budget. The means the same budget as last year, with some necessary changes and all non-recurring appropriations taken out. This was portrayed as a “take it or leave it” offer to the Senate, and the Senate President has subsequently said they will leave it.

There are rumblings of a deal on a basic budget framework and allocations for the various appropriations subcommittees could be released soon, setting the stage for a budget conference. The state constitution requires a 72-hour review period after the conference report is printed before it may be voted on. The conference report cannot be amended; if one chamber votes it down, they must start over.

The Legislature is running out of time to pass the budget before the session ends on May 5. If it fails to do so, lawmakers will have to come back in an extended or special session to pass a budget before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.

As the Legislature prepares to go into budget conference, or pushes it to a later date, this Budget Watch examines the two spending plans and highlights some of the differences that are causing the conflict.

Documents to download

Previous Article The Outlook for Tax Relief from the 2017 Legislature
Next Article 2017 Final Tax Package Analysis
Print
3094
0Upvote 0Downvote
«December 2025»
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
24252627282930
1234
OH, SNAP! Federal Policy Changes Threaten the Stability of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

OH, SNAP! Federal Policy Changes Threaten the Stability of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funds to help low-income households afford low-cost, nutritious meals. In July 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (the OBBB Act), tightening SNAP policies that determine eligibility, benefits, and program administration. Florida TaxWatch undertakes this independent research project to better understand how the upcoming changes in SNAP requirements will impact Florida’s budget and its ability to provide much needed food assistance to needy Floridians.

Read more
567
891011121314
15
2025 How Florida Counties Compare

2025 How Florida Counties Compare

This report compares the revenue and expenditure profiles of Florida’s 67 counties to give taxpayers an overview of how their local government stacks up with the rest of the state.

Read more
16
The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Nova Southeastern University on Florida’s Economy

The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Nova Southeastern University on Florida’s Economy

NSU generated an estimated $293.1 million in state and local taxes within the Tri-County region in FY 2024-25 and an estimated $305.1 million in state and local taxes in FY 2024-25.

Read more
17
Transferring Utility Profits to a Municipality's General Fund Increases the Risk of Undercapitalization of Water Assets and Violate Taxpayer Accountability

Transferring Utility Profits to a Municipality's General Fund Increases the Risk of Undercapitalization of Water Assets and Violate Taxpayer Accountability

Setting water utility rates that incorporate the recovery of the costs associated with standard operating expenses and debt obligations is essential to ensuring the short-term and longer-term financial stability of the utility. Once these costs are covered, many publicly owned utilities make transfers to the General Fund (a practice known as “sweeping”) ostensibly to help pay for governmental services that do not generate revenue (e.g., roadway maintenance, public safety, etc.) and to help keep property taxes lower. Keeping property taxes low often means higher municipal utility rates to balance the general budget, a habitual practice that burdens utility customers with cross-subsidies and normalizes underinvestment in infrastructure.

Read more
18
Florida Sheriffs’ Offices Staffing Analysis

Florida Sheriffs’ Offices Staffing Analysis

In May 2025, Florida TaxWatch and the Florida Sheriff Association conducted a joint survey to local sheriff offices to learn more about law enforcement’s workforce challenges.

Read more
192021
22232425262728
2930311234

Archive