by Donna Bradbrook
On Nov. 3, Florida voters will decide on Amendment 3, a sweeping property-tax proposal that would expand homestead exemptions on primary homes and reduce assessment growth on non-homestead properties (including second homes, vacation rentals, vacant land, and commercial property).
In addition to reduced revenues coming into cities and counties, the state’s proposed tax amendment would dictate how cities, counties, and voter-approved special taxing districts use property tax revenues by mandating a specific list of how those property tax revenues could be used.
In essence, removing any local control, and turning local governments into a puppet of the Republican legislature.
Amendment 3 was passed by the state during a 2 ½ day Special Session in June, where the hastily worded resolution originally stated that only services related to public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resources could be provided by a local government.
As an afterthought, the legislators decided mid-way through the special session to add additional “allowed expenses” including repaying debt, pension payments, and ironically, mandated services such as expenses for the Supervisor of Elections and other constitutional offices.
Considering the state would like Amendment 3 to pass during the November election, it would be important to remember to include the funding for the elections office …
Currently, the resolution is written to ONLY allow local government offices to use property tax revenues as defined by:
“Ad valorem taxes levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only to:
a. Provide for public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service;
b. Provide funding for education and public schools;
c. Finance or refinance infrastructure, including expenditures on road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control;
d. Finance or refinance natural resource projects, including flood control measures;
e. Issue local bonds for uses consistent with this paragraph and to make debt service payments for existing obligations;
f. Meet obligations for retirement benefits of local government employees; or
g. Fund the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners established under Article VIII and municipalities, and the expenditures approved by such county officers or county or municipal governing bodies, except those expenditures prohibited by general law.”
To make matters even worse, if passed in November by the voters of Florida, DeSantis has stated that he plans to work with the state legislature in the late fall on the details of the implementing legislation.
Remember, in their last elections, Trump and DeSantis won Florida by margins of 13 percent and 19 percent, respectively, so it is a stark possibility this state-wide voter referendum will pass in November.
If this proposed bill is the greatest thing to property owners since sliced bread and isn’t going to have unintended societal consequences, why wait to draft the implementation language until after voters have to decide?
By all means, what could go wrong when a lame-duck governor leads the referendum implementation when he will absolutely not have to deal with the fall-out into 2027 and future years?
While we could always use some financial belt-tightening, especially during this economy brought on by ill thought-out federal policy and yet-another never ending war, are you willing to give up the services that we consider important?
The sloppy resolution and scarier unknowns of the yet-to-be-drafted implementation language should cause some serious reflection on what it means to be a member of society.
Are you willing to give up programs and services like jail alternative programs, homelessness prevention programs, animal sheltering and adoption services, mental health and substance abuse treatment, climate mitigation and sustainability, parks and recreation programs, economic development activities, food security, and citizen outreach, engagement, and transparency?
Or as DeSantis states, with the property tax savings, individuals will no longer need to count on local governments for any of the prohibited services.
However, I seriously doubt that will work out as he intends.
Vote NO on Amendment 3!