Amendment 3

Florida voters will be told that Amendment 3 offers substantial property-tax relief. That is true, but it is only part of the story.

Nearly everyone would welcome a smaller tax bill. But what happens after billions of dollars are removed from local tax rolls, and who will control the decisions that follow?

The Florida Revenue Estimating Conference projects that Amendment 3 would eventually reduce non-school property-tax collections in Martin County by approximately $111 million annually if millage rates remain unchanged.

The Martin County Property Appraiser’s analysis offers an even clearer picture. Using the 2025 tax roll and existing millage rates, the amendment could reduce Martin County Commission property tax revenue by approximately 12 percent under the $150,000 exemption and by more than 20 percent under the $250,000 exemption.

For the City of Stuart, the estimated reductions are 9.6 percent in the first stage and 14 percent under the $250,000 exemption.

These are not insignificant reductions that can be absorbed by eliminating a few new hires, trimming office supplies or postponing the purchase of new vehicles. Property taxes provide approximately 45 percent of Martin County’s budget. Of the county property tax revenue currently allocated, approximately 66 percent supports public safety, including law enforcement, fire rescue, and emergency response. Another 24 percent supports general government operations, while roads, drainage, stormwater, environmental programs, parks and recreation receive the remainder.

When two-thirds of the money already supports public safety, there is no credible way to remove a large portion of the tax base without eventually confronting police, fire rescue, roads, drainage, parks or other services residents expect.

Amendment 3 allows property-tax revenue to be used for public safety and other designated purposes, but it does not guarantee a single dollar for those services. Permission to spend money on fire rescue is not the same as providing the money necessary to operate fire stations.

The most overlooked part of Amendment 3 is its transfer of control from local communities to the state Legislature.

Florida’s Constitution currently gives counties and municipalities broad authority to levy property taxes for their respective local purposes. Amendment 3 would alter that relationship by placing new spending language in the Constitution and expressly allowing the Legislature to prohibit local uses of property-tax revenue through general law.

The current wording is broad enough to allow many local expenditures. However, the constitutional principle would change. Tallahassee would gain an explicit mechanism to decide which locally funded activities are acceptable and which are prohibited.

That matters in Martin County. The needs of Martin County are not identical to those of Miami-Dade, Orange County, Jacksonville or rural North Florida. Decisions about the St. Lucie River, stormwater systems, beach restoration, conservation lands, traffic, public safety and growth management need to reflect local conditions and local priorities.

State legislators from other parts of Florida should not be given greater authority to determine how Martin County may spend revenue collected from Martin County property owners.

The amendment goes even further. It requires the Legislature to create a procedure through which counties and municipalities could increase the homestead exemption up to the entire remaining assessed value. In practical terms, this creates a pathway toward eliminating nearly all non-school property taxes on homesteaded property without requiring another statewide constitutional amendment.

A vote for Amendment 3 is therefore not simply a vote for a $250,000 exemption. It is also a vote to give future Legislatures substantial control over how far the exemption goes and how local governments respond.

Reducing property taxes does not reduce the number of sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, roads, drainage systems or parks Martin County needs. Unless services are reduced, the money must come from somewhere else.

The first possibility is a higher millage rate on the remaining taxable property.

The Property Appraiser estimated that maintaining the county general fund’s existing revenue could require increasing the rate from approximately 6.56 mills to 7.42 mills under the $150,000 exemption or approximately 8.13 mills under the $250,000 exemption. Stuart’s operating rate could have to rise from 4.9 mills to approximately 5.42 or 5.70 mills.

Homestead owners would receive a larger exemption while a greater share of the remaining burden could fall on businesses, rental properties, second homes, new residents and properties with taxable value above the exemption.

A second possibility is greater reliance on non-ad valorem assessments. Fire assessments, stormwater assessments, solid-waste charges and similar fees are not reduced by the homestead exemption. They can appear on the same tax bill, but they are not calculated in the same way as property taxes.

That means a homeowner could receive a property-tax reduction only to see part of the savings offset by higher assessments and service charges.

Another possibility would be an increase in sales tax, shifting more of the cost of government onto consumers, including renters and residents who receive no homestead benefit.

Finally, local governments could reduce services, postpone infrastructure projects, leave positions vacant or use reserves. Reserves, however, are temporary. They cannot permanently replace a recurring annual revenue loss.

Amendment 3 provides real tax relief, but it does not eliminate the cost of local government. It changes who pays, how the money is collected, and most importantly, who controls the rules.

The result could be lower taxes for one group accompanied by higher costs for another.

Martin County voters should therefore look beyond the promise of a smaller property-tax bill. They should ask whether the amendment protects local services, preserves local control, and empowers Tallahassee to dictate how locally raised revenue may be spent.

The tax savings may appear on next year’s bill. The loss of local authority could remain in Florida’s Constitution for generations.

Subscribe to the newsletter