ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE REFERENDA REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS, 992 So. 2d 190

PER CURIAM. In 2006, this Court approved for placement on the ballot a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that requires local governments to submit a new comprehensive land use plan, or an amendment to an existing comprehensive land use plan, to a vote by referendum prior to adoption. See Advisory Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Referenda Required for Adop tion & Amendment of Local Gov’t Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 938 So.2d 501, 506 (Fla.2006) (Land Use Plans I). While this Court considered the validity of the petition, the Attorney General also requested that we review the corresponding financial impact statement to evaluate its compliance with

section 100.371, Florida Statutes. In our initial decision, we concluded that we possessed jurisdiction to review the financial impact statement, and remanded the statement to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) to be redrafted because the statement in its then-current form did not meet the statutory requirements. See Advisory Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov’t Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 963 So.2d 210, 210-15 (Fla.2007) (Land Use Plans II); see also art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.

On July 31, 2007, the Attorney General filed a revised financial impact statement with this Court and requested an opinion with regard to whether the revised statement complies with

section 100.371, Florida Statutes (2007). ANALYSIS

Article XI,

section 5 of the Florida Constitution, which addresses financial impact statements, provides in relevant part: (

c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by the initiative pursuant to

section 3.

Section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2007), governs financial impact statements and provides: (5)(

a) Within 45 days after receipt of a proposed revision or amendment to the State Constitution by initiative petition from the Secretary of State, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall complete an analysis and financial impact statement to be placed on the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall submit the financial impact statement to the Attorney General and Secretary of State. (c)2.

Principals of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall reach a consensus or majority concurrence on a clear and unambiguous financial impact statement, no more than 75 words in length, and immediately submit the statement to the Attorney General. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Financial Impact Estimating Conference from setting forth a range of potential impacts in the financial impact statement. ... (e)l.

Any financial impact statement that the Supreme Court finds not to be in accordance with this subsection shall be remanded solely to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference for redrafting, provided the court’s advisory opinion is rendered at least 75 days before the election at which the question of ratifying the amendment will be presented. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference shall prepare and adopt a revised financial impact statement no later than 5 p.m. on the 15th day after the date of the court’s opinion. § 100.371(5), Fla. Stat. (2007).

When this Court determines the validity of a financial impact statement, we limit our review solely to the issue of whether the statement is clear and unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-five words, and is limited to addressing the estimated increase or decrease in any revenue or costs to state or local governments. See Advisory Opinion to Attorney Gen. re Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 959 So.2d 195, 202 (Fla.2007).

The first financial impact statement with regard to this proposed amendment, which was submitted to this Court for approval in Land Use Plans II, provided: The direct impact of this amendment on local government expenditures cannot be determined precisely. Over each two year election cycle, local governments cumulatively will incur significant costs (millions of dollars statewide). Costs will vary depending on the processes employed by cities and counties in obtaining approval for plan amendments. The direct impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.

There will be no direct impact on government revenues. Land Use Plans II, 963 So.2d at 214. This Court remanded the statement to the FIEC to be redrafted because we concluded that the second sentence in the statement was misleading: This statement ... assumes that numerous local governments will have out-of-cycle changes to their respective comprehensive land use plans, necessitating special elections.

Although the Financial Impact Estimating Commission is speculating that local government will be holding special out-of-cycle elections, the statement itself does not indicate that the estimated millions of dollars is dependant upon how many times counties and cities throughout the State will attempt out-of-cycle amendments to their comprehensive land use plans. In fact, the apparent purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit the amount of revisions to a county’s or a city’s comprehensive land use plan. The Commission’s assumption assumes that the proposed amendment will not have its intended effect.

Because this sentence is misleading and does not inform the voter that the anticipated costs are contingent upon such factors, the Court finds that the second sentence in the financial impact statement does not comply with

section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes. Id. at 214-15. After remand, the FIEC pursuant to

section 100.371(5)(e)(l), Florida Statutes, prepared the revised statement that has been submitted for our review. The revised statement provides: The direct impact of this amendment on local government expenditures cannot be determined precisely. It is probable that local governments will incur significant costs (millions of dollars statewide) with actual costs dependent upon the frequency and method of referenda. Costs will include those for ballot preparation and additional administrative costs and expenses for the referenda. The direct impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.

There will be no direct impact on government revenues. We conclude that the financial impact statement as revised suffers from the same flaw which led us to hold that the impact statement in Land Use Plans II did not comply with the requirements of

section 100.371. In Land Use Plans II, we noted that the apparent purpose of this amendment “is to limit the amount of revisions to a county’s or a city’s comprehensive land use plan.” 963 So.2d at 215. However, as with the impact statement from Land Use Plans II, the language of the revised statement simply continues to give the misleading impression that the proposed amendment will not have its intended effect, and that “significant costs” will arise due to the need for a special election each time local government seeks to amend its land use plan out-of-cycle.

Indeed, the statement strongly implies that continuing special elections are an inevitable result of this amendment. As drafted, the revised financial impact statement would mislead voters into believing that implementation of the amendment will require the expenditure of millions of dollars. Such an inference is patently contrary to the purpose of the amendment, which is to limit the number of amendments to local comprehensive land use plans.

The revised statement is additionally misleading because the conclusion that local governments will incur “millions of dollars” statewide if the amendment is approved is based upon purely speculative assumptions with regard to how often local governments will seek to adopt or amend their comprehensive land use plans, and whether those local governments that seek to adopt or amend a plan will operate in a time frame that requires a special election — with all of its attendant costs and expenses. Moreover, the vague reference to “significant costs” and “millions of dollars” is problematic.

According to the revised statement, the cost of implementation of the amendment could be anywhere from $2 million to $999 million. Such imprecise terminology would lead citizens to believe that the implementation of the amendment would automatically cost hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result, citizens may vote against the amendment, not because they do not wish to have a voice with regard to the amendment of local government land use plans, but solely because of fear generated by the misleading statement concerning the potential economic consequences of the amendment.

This revision contains the same problems which caused the earlier rejection of the statement. CONCLUSION The revised statement prepared by the FIEC is misleading because it inaccurately implies that the amendment will lead to an increase in costly special elections, contrary to the proposed amendment itself, and because it fails to articulate with any precision the estimated cost of the amendment. See § 100.371(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (a financial impact statement shall describe “the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative”).

Therefore, we hold that the revised financial impact statement does not comply with

section 100.371(5). In accordance with

section 100.371(5)(e)(l), we remand the statement to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to be redrafted. It is so ordered. QUINCE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANTERO, Senior Justice, concurs. BELL, J., dissents with an opinion. . The Initiative Financial Information Statement prepared by the FIEC states that "[o]ver each two year election cycle, assuming local governments continue to amend their plans at least twice per year, special elections will probably be necessary at least three times.'' (Emphasis supplied.)