And after the meeting, as gambling lobbyists flocked around Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller, he stormed out of the room, saying the proposal he wanted wasn't drafted properly and led to the confusion.
''I'm outta here! I was clear!'' he said after the Senate Finance and Tax Committee passed his plan to reduce the tax rate from 50 percent to 35 percent on Las Vegas-style machines.
Geller, of Cooper City, said the proposal would encourage four pari-mutuels to offer slot machines sooner in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, thereby boosting gambling and tax collections for schools to nearly $290 million annually in four years.
But Sen. Ronda Storms of Valrico doubted Geller's rosy view of less taxation for more gambling. She also objected to Geller's plan because he had the committee vote on a hand-written amendment that was filed the morning of the meeting and was so tough to understand that even a gambling lobbyist balked at it.
''You're going to tell me that this generates as much for education as it would at 50 percent and it's not in the plain language of the bill? There's absolutely no way that can be true at this point. It's completely not believable,'' said Storms, the lone no-vote.
Geller said his plan would guarantee the gambling companies would pay about $287 million a year by 2012, just under the $294 million that state economists forecast in February. Geller and the gambling industry said the state forecast was unrealistic because the tax rate is far too high to allow some pari-mutuels to start offering slot machines.
Under his plan, the seven pari-mutuels would together have to guarantee the state about $41 million each yearly. If one facility makes more money and can pay more tax than that and another less money, the latter facility could use the surplus of the former to make up some of what it owes. But the under-performing facility is ultimately liable for paying its designated share to the state.
Gulfstream Park Racing Association lobbyist Pete Dunbar objected. He said he thought the plan would make all the pari-mutuels pitch in to guarantee the bottom-line amount to the state, regardless of whether there are surpluses or not.
Storms said Geller's explanation didn't match what his amendment said and called it ``inappropriate.''
''With all due respect to Sen. Storms,'' Geller said, ``it's a complicated issue. There's no way of making a simple amendment on a complicated issue.''
