Opinion: Amendment 3 is appealing, but at likely high costs

While most Floridians are focused on the highly competitive races for governor and the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 3 general election, another ballot item of critical importance deserves their attention: Florida Amendment 3.

The amendment has significant implications for the cost of living for Florida homeowners and the revenue budgets of nearly every county and city in the state.

Amendment 3 is a proposed constitutional change to Florida’s property tax system. If approved by at least 60% of Florida voters, it would increase the state’s homestead exemption. The exemption for property taxes on a qualifying primary residence would rise to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with adjustments for inflation afterward.

The annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties, including rental and commercial properties, would fall from 10% to 5%.

The amendment would also restrict how property tax revenue is used, while allowing some additional exemptions and leaving important spending decisions to local governments and state lawmakers.

The school property tax exemption would not increase in the same way, meaning homeowners would continue to pay school property taxes.

Supporters of the amendment argue that Florida homeowners need relief from rising property taxes. A larger exemption could reduce the tax burden on eligible owner-occupied homes, while the lower assessment cap could help businesses and other property owners manage future increases.

Opponents, however, argue that local governments depend on property taxes to fund police and fire services, emergency response, roads, parks and other essential services. Lower revenues could lead to service reductions, higher fees or pressure to raise other taxes. The amendment does not guarantee a minimum level of funding for police or fire departments.

An important distinction is that a reduction in property taxes does not necessarily translate into an equivalent reduction in a homeowner’s overall cost of living. The ultimate impact would depend on the tax savings, changes in local services and whether other fees or taxes increase.

According to a poll commissioned by Associated Industries of Florida, a business organization with an interest in the issue, support for the amendment stood at 53% as of Oct. 14, while 28% said they would vote against it. The remaining 19% were undecided.

Discussions with voters conducted by this newspaper suggest that more people lean toward supporting the amendment than opposing it.

Among voters aged 65 and older, the vast majority expressed support, while the strongest support was among those aged 18 to 35. Surprisingly, supporters did not appear concerned about the effect on municipal revenues. Instead, they prioritized lower property taxes and having more money available for other expenses. Those opposed were more concerned about maintaining municipal services, particularly police and fire services.

Equally interesting, and concerning, was that 40% of those we spoke with were either uninterested in voting for or against the amendment or unaware that it was on the ballot.

There is a tendency in Florida elections, whether municipal or statewide, for voters to pay relatively little attention to constitutional amendments and proposals affecting county or city legislation. In most cases, these ballot measures receive far less publicity than races for governor or state senator.

Voters are urged to read all the amendments on their ballots carefully and make an informed decision on each one.

A critical point is that Florida requires at least 60% voter approval for a constitutional amendment to pass, rather than a simple majority. The reported 53% support in the poll is therefore seven percentage points short of the threshold.

Over the next three weeks, undecided voters are likely to be targeted by campaigns urging them to support or oppose the amendment. Are these voters undecided because they cannot determine whether they should take advantage of potential property tax savings and keep more money in their pockets or prioritize concerns about losing local services?

Opponents argue that the projected savings are overstated because the actual amount saved would depend on the assessed value of a homeowner’s property and local tax rates. School property taxes would also remain.

They are also questioning who would bear the cost of reduced tax revenue. Local governments might have to cut services, increase fees or adjust taxes elsewhere. The amendment does not guarantee that public safety budgets would be preserved.

For homeowners, the immediate tax savings could be meaningful. However, the longer-term effects on municipal finances and other taxpayers also deserve careful consideration.

Once a constitutional amendment passes, reversing it is not easy. Repeal would require another constitutional amendment approved by at least 60% of voters.

In the current difficult economic climate, property tax savings may be appealing to many voters. But should those savings come at the expense of vital services provided by local governments?

Because some of these services are essential to most Floridians, and the amendment’s proponents have not provided a convincing explanation of how municipalities would fund them, this newspaper finds it difficult to support Amendment 3.