(1) The apportionment factor for all eligible counties shall be composed of three equally weighted portions as follows:
(a) Each eligible county’s percentage of the total population of all eligible counties in the state.
(b) Each eligible county’s percentage of the total population of the state residing in unincorporated areas of all eligible counties.
(c) Each eligible county’s percentage of total sales tax collections in all eligible counties during the preceding year.
(2) The apportionment factor for all eligible municipalities shall be composed of three equally weighted portions as follows:
(a) The proportion of the population of a given municipality to the total population of all the eligible municipalities in the state, as adjusted by the following factors:
1. For a municipality with a population in excess of 50,000, the population shall be adjusted by multiplying its population by a factor of 1.791.
2. For a municipality with a population in excess of 20,000, but less than 50,001, the population shall be adjusted by multiplying its population by a factor of 1.709.
3. For a municipality with a population in excess of 5,000, but less than 20,001, the population shall be adjusted by multiplying its population by a factor of 1.425.
4. For a municipality with a population in excess of 2,000, but less than 5,001, the population shall be adjusted by multiplying its population by a factor of 1.135.
(b) The proportion of the sales tax collected within a given municipality to the total sales tax collected within all the eligible municipalities in the state. The sales tax collected within a given municipality shall be derived by allocating the amount of sales tax collections for the county in which the municipality is located to each municipality in the county on the basis of the proportion of each municipality’s population to the total population of the county.
(c) The ratio of the relative local ability to raise revenue, to be determined:
1. By dividing the per capita nonexempt assessed real and personal property valuation of all eligible municipalities by the per capita nonexempt real and personal property valuation of each eligible municipality.
2. By multiplying the population of an eligible municipality by the percentage applicable to that municipality as established under subparagraph 1.
3. By dividing the population, as recalculated to reflect the relative local ability, by the total recalculated population of all eligible municipalities in the state.
(d) For a metropolitan or consolidated government, as provided by s. 3, s. 6(e), or s. 6(f), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, the population or sales tax collections of the unincorporated area or areas outside of urban service districts, if such have been established, as determined in paragraphs (a)-(c) above and after adjustments made as provided therein, shall be further adjusted by multiplying the adjusted or recalculated population or sales tax collections, as the case may be, by a percentage which is derived by dividing:
1. The total amount of ad valorem taxes levied by the county government on real and personal property in the area of the county outside of municipal limits, as created pursuant to general or special law, or outside of urban service district limits, where such are established; by
2. The total amount of ad valorem taxes levied on real and personal property by the county and municipal governments.
(3) Revenues attributed to the increase in distribution to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for Municipalities pursuant to s. 212.20(6)(d)5. from 1.0715 percent to 1.3409 percent provided in chapter 2003-402, Laws of Florida, shall be distributed to each eligible municipality and any unit of local government that is consolidated as provided by s. 9, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885, as preserved by s. 6(e), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, as follows: each eligible local government’s allocation shall be based on the amount it received from the half-cent sales tax under s. 218.61 in the prior state fiscal year divided by the total receipts under s. 218.61 in the prior state fiscal year for all eligible local governments. However, for the purpose of calculating this distribution, the amount received from the half-cent sales tax under s. 218.61 in the prior state fiscal year by a unit of local government which is consolidated as provided by s. 9, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885, as amended, and as preserved by s. 6(e), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, shall be reduced by 50 percent for such local government and for the total receipts. For eligible municipalities that began participating in the allocation of half-cent sales tax under s. 218.61 in the previous state fiscal year, their annual receipts shall be calculated by dividing their actual receipts by the number of months they participated, and the result multiplied by 12.
...218.21 (3) and is not within the definition of a `unit of local government' as defined in s. 218.21 (1) and accordingly would not be eligible to receive a municipal share of revenue-sharing trust funds created under s. 218.215 and as apportioned under s. 218.245 (2)....
...part III of Ch. 218, F. S. The entire concept of revenue sharing and the formula for the apportionment of funds is designed to embrace only those entities specifically included therein, cf ., AGO's 073-246 and 074-367. This is clearly recognized in s. 218.245 , F. S. Therein the apportionment factor for all eligible counties is carefully delineated and the apportionment factor for all eligible municipalities is set forth in considerable detail. Furthermore, in s. 218.245 (2)(d), the apportionment factor for a metropolitan or consolidated government, as provided by ss....
...e of urban service districts, and areas within the entire county or the municipalities found therein. The specific attention given to metropolitan or consolidated governments provided for in s. 6(e) and (f), Art. VIII, supra , and ss. 218.21 (3) and 218.245 (2)(d), F....
...The monetary ramifications are quite significant also. For instance, Dade County and Duval County, because both are metropolitan and consolidated governments as provided in s. 6(e) and (f) of Art. VIII, supra , would be required to receive funds allocated based upon the apportionment factor found in s. 218.245 (2)(d), F. S., while, if Broward County's contention is correct, Broward County would be eligible to receive both a county share and a municipal share based on the apportionment factor in s. 218.245 . This would mean that a charter county would receive a considerably larger portion of revenue-sharing funds than a metropolitan or consolidated government because the formula defined by the Legislature in s. 218.245 (2)(d) in apportioning funds to a metropolitan or consolidated government takes into consideration the areas of the county in the unincorporated area or areas outside of urban service districts and outside of municipal limits....
...rticipate in a county portion of revenue sharing. To participate in a municipal share, that portion of the county general millage levied only in the unincorporated area is the test of eligibility. Due to the ad valorem reduction factor as defined by s. 218.245 (2)(d), F. S., charter counties would have a clear advantage over the consolidated and metropolitan governments. Section 218.245 (2)(d) requires that the apportionment factors for the metropolitan and consolidated governments (when treated as a city) be reduced by a ratio of total tax levied within the county (both municipal and county) to those levied in only the unincorporated area....
...the Department of Revenue is required to reduce the share for Metro-Dade and Jax-Duval. Admittedly, the Legislature could have defined the term `municipality' to include charter counties and brought them within the apportionment factor set forth in s. 218.245 (2)(d), F....
