Florida voters decide Amendment 3 on Nov. 3. It raises the homestead exemption for non-school taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, adjusted for inflation after that. It also cuts the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5% and limits property tax spending to core purposes such as public safety, infrastructure, and debt service. It needs 60% approval to pass. Supporters say that after six years of runaway local revenue growth, residents deserve a break and governments need a discipline check. 

The Receipts Reveal Real Waste

Audit findings and state reviews across the Sunshine State highlight specific instances of questionable local government spending in recent years. Here are just a few of many examples:

• Jacksonville. The mayor pitched an airport hologram at about $30,000. Council auditors found it cost closer to $75,000 and was paid from the Business Inspection Fund, which should be reserved for permitting. The state’s DOGE report also flagged a $7.5 million one-mile sidewalk project, which it said ran nearly eight times the average state transportation estimate. It cited $500,000 in excessive overtime, including eight employees who averaged more than 700 overtime hours in a single year. 
• Hillsborough County. A volunteer committee appointed by county commissioners found $682 million in potentially wasteful spending, roughly 6.6% of the budget it reviewed. State DOGE separately cited $950,000 in county employee vehicle allowances with very little transparency. 
• Broward County. State reviewers pointed to $175,000 spent on creating virtual art in the Metaverse. In preliminary findings, the CFO alleged nearly $190 million of wasteful spending over five years. 
• Orlando. The state said the city has spent $460,000 on a tree inventory since 2020.
• Alachua County. The state alleged almost $85 million in wasteful spending. It said the budget, adjusted for inflation from 2019-20, has grown by almost $9,000 for every new resident.

Officials in several of these jurisdictions dispute the characterizations. The pattern is still hard to miss: when budgets swell, discretionary items go unquestioned.

Debunking the Assertion that Amendment 3 Will Cause Local Municipalities to Create or Raise Fees

A central argument against Amendment 3 is that local governments, facing property tax revenue caps, will offset those losses by introducing new fees or raising existing ones. Critics warn this shift will burden residents through indirect costs, but supporters argue that legal constraints, political accountability, and fiscal reality make a widespread fee surge far less likely.

Five Reasons the “Fee Hike” Warning Falls Flat

Although opponents assume cities and counties will simply replace lost property tax revenue with new or higher fees, these obstacles make such changes highly impractical:

• First, Florida law doesn’t let a tax masquerade as a fee. The Florida Supreme Court has held that a city’s transportation utility fee was a tax, not a user fee, and could not be imposed without legislative authorization. Fees must confer a special benefit on those who pay them that is not shared by those who don’t. The Florida Impact Fee Act requires proportionality, earmarking, and limits on increases, and bars courts from deferring to the government. A general-revenue backfill dressed up as a fee invites a lawsuit.
• Second, the fee habit predates Amendment 3. Rep. Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, who helped write the amendment, says local governments already take more money through fees than property taxes and will keep doing so regardless. A spending problem does not become a reform problem just because the reform exposes it.
• Third, the math is manageable. Legislative analysts estimate the amendment cuts local revenue by up to $12 billion annually beginning in 2031. Local property tax revenue climbed by roughly $24 billion to $28 billion since 2019. Even if the full cut hit today’s totals, collections would sit roughly 38% to 50% above their 2019 level, with years of phase-in to adjust.
• Fourth, the amendment forces governments to prioritize. It requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, including police and fire, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, employee retirement benefits, and operations and administration. Public safety is explicitly on that list, so deputies and firefighters are protected. As a result, the first programs to face scrutiny are the discretionary ones, such as the tree inventories and the hologram. Governments that must choose between a vehicle allowance program and a fire station have an incentive to cut the former rather than slap a fee on residents for the latter. The amendment pushes the debate toward priorities, not toward a new charge.
• Fifth, the hit is smaller than the warnings suggest, and many places can absorb it without new fees. The impact varies widely by jurisdiction. If Florida eliminated non-school homestead property taxes entirely, a deeper cut than Amendment 3’s exemption increases, county revenue loss would range from 2 to 24%. Many local governments sit at the low end of that range. After six years of revenue growth of 60% to 160%, they have far more room to trim, defer, or consolidate than the doomsday ads imply. Governments use fees as a last resort when they can’t find savings, and DOGE and local audit findings strongly suggest savings are there.

Five Reasons a Fee Spree Will Backfire

Beyond the immediate legal and practical challenges, attempting to offset tax limits through additional charges carries significant political and strategic risks for local leaders:

• First, raising existing fees or instituting new ones would give reformers the argument to go further. Amendment 3 already creates a pathway to fully eliminate non-school property taxes on homesteads. If local governments respond to a modest cut by piling on stormwater, solid waste, and fire fees while still funding items like tree inventories, they prove the reformers’ point: the money was never the problem. Voters and legislators who might have stopped at Amendment 3 would have every reason to finish the job, and cities and counties would have less control than they do today.
• Second, fees are visible. A new stormwater or solid waste charge appears as its own line item, and local officials appear on the ballot. Overdorf and other supporters say voters could vote out elected officials if fee increases continue.
• Third, Tallahassee would likely respond. The Legislature passed this amendment by a 75-26 vote in the House and a 30-9 vote in the Senate and has already tightened limits on local property tax increases. State law already restricts how much impact fees can rise, and a fee spree would give lawmakers a case for more caps.
• Fourth, courts and housing costs. Florida courts have repeatedly scrutinized local charges. For example, Cooper City appealed a judgment that invalidated its fire-rescue special assessment. Higher development and permitting fees would also raise home prices, even as affordability tops voters’ complaints. That would shrink the construction and tax base governments depend on.
• Fifth, it would erode the trust local governments need to use other revenue tools. Florida cities and counties depend on voters to approve general obligation bonds and local-option sales surtaxes, and those referendums depend on goodwill. A homeowner who votes for Amendment 3 and then sees a new stormwater fee and a solid waste hike will feel they were handed a bait-and-switch. That voter is unlikely to approve the next bond issue or sales tax extension. Governments that treat a mandate for restraint as an invitation to find new revenue could lose access to the tools they rely on most.

The Bottom Line

Statewide, local property tax revenue nearly doubled, from $32 billion in 2019 to between $56 billion and $60 billion by 2025-26. During evaluations by the state’s DOGE task force and legislative property tax committees, officials said growth varied widely across Florida’s 67 counties and 411 municipalities, with many seeing revenue rise 60% to 160%. They attributed that to skyrocketing property valuations and local millage increases. 

By contrast, over the same six-year period, Florida’s inflation-adjusted median household income rose just 7.51%, from $72,480 in 2019 to $77,920 in 2025, a very modest gain of $5,440. This, while consumer prices rose 26% between 2019 and 2025. So governments got far more, and residents got far less.

Follow the St. Pete-Clearwater Sun on Facebook, Google, & X

St. Pete-Clearwater Sun: local St. Pete-Clearwater & Tampa Bay, FL news at PIE-Sun.com

---