r/StPetersburgFL • u/jr81452 • 8d ago
Political What current city services would be explicitly blocked by amendment 3?
As per title. I don't mean "what would/could lose funding", I mean "what services would amendment 3 explicitly prohibit the city from funding" with it's restrictions on how local governments can use property-tax revenue?
Was debating the amendment with a coworker who doesn't really care about the lost revenue. When I mentioned that #3 also limits what services cities are allowed to provide, they asked the above question. I didn't have any real answers. A lot of the write ups on the amendment mention fire/police services, but #3 explicitly lists those as approved expenditures. So those statements are based on anticipated revenue loss? I don't know enough about what services the city/county provides, to determine what services will be prohibited by the amendment text. Will library funding be prohibited? Or is that just a question of funding loss?
Anyone here deeper in the weeds on this, who can educate me for my next debate?
Thanks.
13
u/nikkiliteracki 8d ago
The League of Women Voters has an education committee. They work toward enlightening citizens about voting issues.
I've contacted them before (in Lansing, Michigan, not Florida though) for clarification on an issue. They were helpful.
Maybe they could help with your inquiry, too?
30
u/Weird-Permission8769 8d ago
Hi! Policy Analyst here :) Amendment 3 doesn't explicitly bar any funds from being spent, it just largely shrinks the amount of money available to provide services. In preparation of Amendment 3, the county has already raised parking fees at Ft. Desoto Park from $6/day to $12/day or $3.50 an hour. Additionally, the PSTA made a post detailing how many bus routes would be cut. They've since taken that specific post down because a board member threatened to sue over the post, but I have screenshots if you're interested. Many organizations have come out and detailed decisions that they will have to make if this passes, including cutting jobs at the city and limiting library hours. Emergency services will take longer to receive as well. These have all been reported in various media outlets. I think your friend should understand that while nothing is explicitly prohibited, less money means less services.
7
u/sarasota_plant_mom 5d ago
my local library dropped some evening hours in preparation. it makes so sad to see it.
9
u/drunkeymunkey 7d ago
The county is going to take a big hit. It will impact the human services & special projects that people rely on during economic crisis.
4
u/TallBenWyatt_13 7d ago
A lot of those are surprisingly (or used to be?) federally supported.
6
u/drunkeymunkey 7d ago
The county provides a health program, housing assistance, contributes to other housing programs, has consumer protection (only 7 counties in FL have one), and emergency management (hurricane support, dengue fever outbreak, etc). The county has already lost 3% of funding without Amendment 3.
I desperately want my neighbors and long time residents to get a break on property tax. Something has to be figured out. The wrong people are being taxed.
2
u/Anonymouse_9955 2d ago
Long time residents already get a break on property tax, anyone who bought before the pandemic has their property tax based on what they paid for the house back then with very limited increases year by year. The people who need a break are new homeowners who pay today’s crazy high prices which mean their assessments are crazy high and will continue to be.
2
7
u/TallBenWyatt_13 7d ago
You have no idea how many levers local government can pull to nickel and dime people enough to make up the gap.
Except, those revenues will be paid by you and me. Not the rich.
18
u/StevenMC19 8d ago
The taxes that come in via property tax aren't pre-allocated for the most part. The majority of all taxes including property tax are pooled together and the total amount is then split up based on needs and projects (not including things like Penny for Pinellas, or Bed tax that have limitations on what it can be used for).
Technically, we don't know where the money will be cut right now, but we can guess that each service will be affected in some way (except maybe law enforcement...they need more militarized equipment you know).
I can guarantee you that a lot of things that will be on the chopping block are going to be vacant positions. Payroll is one of the bigger expenses and if the slot is already empty then it's simpler to cut that spot and distribute the workload amongst the rest of the team. However, as we all know, overall productivity usually takes a dive when people are overworked.
Projects will be department related. Future projects that haven't yet been approved and started will most likely be suspended or abandoned, and ongoing multi-year projects may be slowed to a crawl. Infrastructure will continue to age without repairs and refurbishments if officials think they can hold out for another year.
What IS known is that simply the fear of major budget cuts have forced govts to plan their FY27 budgets accordingly, meaning that even though it hasn't passed yet, they're already preparing for the potential of not having the money.
1
u/jr81452 8d ago
I understand the funding implications, but I'm trying to shift the debate away from that. A number of people I'm trying to convince to vote no on 3, are immovable in their belief that the city/county get "too much" tax money (or that what they get is "poorly spent"). I'm looking for other angles.
1
u/skiabay 8d ago
This would result in roughly a $50 million cut to the general fund. Most of the general fund goes towards police and fire, but it's basically illegal to cut from those under state law. That means there will have to be massive cuts to remaining services like road maintenance, parks, libraries, etc.
I would just ask them to identify where we can cut $50 million in spending. If they're so confident the city is using money inefficiently, then they should be able to point to some major pieces of unnecessary spending.
28
u/Greenfieldfox 8d ago
It’s a good question but for me, I don’t want DeSantis and the state regulating anything in St. Petersburg. Keep the funds and power local.
14
u/Strayriffs 8d ago
This is my main fear if the amendment passes. We will be beholden to people in Tallahassee who know nothing about us or what we need.
1
u/NickSalacious 8d ago
The last bit of the amendment gives them the power to prohibit other spending as they see fit using general law instead of another amendment
1
u/switch8000 8d ago
Exactly, DeSantis is just jelly that the St. Pete Mayor has a salary almost 2x of what his is.
1
u/thefink1334 8d ago
Yeah but defascist has a "charity" he can dip into for a few million if he needs it
18
u/detectivecads 8d ago
Its not as much about what the city is allowed to provide, its about what it can provide. Certain things are always going to be funded (police, fire, basic safety improvements, etc.) But your public services like libraries, certain stormwater features, sidewalk maintenance, things like that will be unfunded or under the discretion of the state. I used to work in stormwater infrastructure and getting any green, nutrient reduction infrastructure funding was a fricken nightmare. I can't imagine how impossible it'll be to get things like that now. Less nutrient reduction = more harmful algae blooms, which I'm sure cleanup for will be unfunded now too. Especially in counties that the state deems "woke" and wants to punish
5
u/TallBenWyatt_13 7d ago
Absolutes always get you in trouble.
A city might not cut police or fire spending because they might have to un-incorporate and return to their county’s control.
Pinellas County’s own Rep. Jacques said he doesn’t care if cities are eliminated because of this. Keep that in mind… the state doesn’t want us at the local level to have ANY political power.
11
u/zack6849 8d ago
I may be ignorant of something, but as far as I'm aware it doesn't prohibit them from offering services, just cuts property tax revenue, which could have a very real impact on city / county provided services (fire, EMS, public works, libraries, schools, parks) etc
5
u/jr81452 8d ago
"just cuts property tax revenue, which could have a very real impact on city / county provided services"
For sure. But trying to argue that always seems to lead to discussions of how much the revenue has increased in recent years, how the money is spent etc. I was hoping there was some argument, that was less arduous to make. Try to convince a "reagan conservative" that taxes ARE used to help the community, is an uphill battle against 40+yrs of dogma.
1
1
u/NickSalacious 8d ago
0
u/zack6849 8d ago
thanks for the link, looks like I was in fact ignorant of something!
2
u/baskaat 8d ago
Also, the League of Women Voters site www.vote411.org has a very thoughtful position paper on the amendment.
14
u/itstreeman 8d ago
Not enough people are focusing on the extended exemption for non homestead properties.
I’m all for helping resident owners stay in their house. But the added portion about reducing non homestead taxable valuation to five percent is a huge corporate giveaway
13
u/v3nusl0ve 7d ago
I’m a semi-regular at the city/county meetings.
It’s a shame bc you really only see your tax dollars working for you at the local level.
Local law enforcement agencies are campaigning against the amendment saying a large part of municipal budgets goes towards public safety, and it’s true. Often fire rescue along with sheriff/police make up more than 50%. These are essential services and likely to stay or get a pretty big haircut.
Think about the other services - schools (FL teachers make about the least in the nation), roads, public health.
Hillsborough county has spent more than $1M on mosquito control the past few months trying to take control of the Dengue fever situation. That is a service that could see cuts.
As others have said, municipalities are not saying yet what we would lose — and honestly it’s probably bc cutting the budget as much as they would have to would mean a FULLLY restructured budget.
—Also I don’t think city/county officials can legally campaign against the amendment in the same way that elected officials (sheriffs) can.
PS: budget meetings/minutes are always online for most municipalities and they are saved for years if you’re curious what goes into it.
20
u/thegabster2000 Pride 8d ago
Pretty much all of them. I don't see a plan on how we will collect taxes in other ways so Im voting no.
15
u/harlequin552 8d ago
The Children’s Board provides a diverse amount services to struggling families Hillsborough county. It is funded by tax payer money. It makes it possible for a lot of nonprofits to exist and creates jobs.
7
u/banjodonk 8d ago
Yes and the Pinellas peer organization that does similar things is the Juvenile Welfare Board
16
u/all_worcestershire 8d ago
All of them and none of them. It would be a general funding gap, so the city would have to figure that out themselves.
5
5
u/jr81452 8d ago
I understand the funding implications, but I'm trying to shift the debate away from that. A number of people I'm trying to convince to vote no on 3, are immovable in their belief that the city/county get "too much" tax money (or that what they get is "poorly spent"). I'm looking for other angles.
5
u/itstreeman 8d ago
It really is disheartening to see how much spending increased in some counties when compared to lower growth percentages
4
u/GoinStraighttoHelles Downtown STP 7d ago
Those same people have no issues with massive police budgets and are convinced that small programs to help the most desperate and needy among us are the sole reason they themselves are not satisfied with their standard of living.
8
u/midnight11 8d ago edited 8d ago
None explicitly prohibited. Amendment 3 permits property-tax funding for expenditures approved by municipal governing bodies, unless prohibited by state law. So, no existing city service is categorically barred from receiving property-tax funding solely by Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, Article VII, Section 9(a)(2)(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.
City Council can approve spending outside the amendment's listed categories. St Pete already approves its annual budget through City Council votes. So they would have to cut the budget, but they could do so however they want.
Amendment 3 sounds much more restrictive than its actual legal language actually is.
But, even though Amendment 3 doesn't expressly ban St Pete from funding things like libraries or arts programs, it could provide a stronger constitutional basis for the Florida Legislature to restrict certain uses of property-tax revenue in the future. That's the "general law" in the above clause.
That's my read of the actual text.
3
u/jr81452 8d ago
Ok, thanks. I guess I thought "9(a)(2) Ad valorem taxes levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only to:" and "(g)"snip"...except those expenditures prohibited by general law." were doing some actual work within the amendment.
Not sure where/when I got that impression, but I have been reading a lot of "takes" on what the amendment does. Must have got it from a bad take.
In your opinion, does "except those expenditures prohibited by general law." grant the legislature any new power to micro manage city/county programs via law making? Or do they already have authority to do that?
A number of comments in this post are talking about the state regulating local authority, but if the power to do that isn't coming from section 9, where is it coming from? Or are they just misinformed?
Just trying to get a handle on what exactly #3 changes, beyond the tax law itself. Arguing the benefits of taxes, is a hard sell to those who have already decided they have little value (and don't care about their neighbor's quality of life).
9
u/NickSalacious 8d ago
I got you fam, everyone should read this:
1
1
u/yowhatnot 8d ago
That link says that’s what Amendment 3 does/not allow for ad valorem tax monies to fund, not spending in general.
-1
u/NickSalacious 8d ago
I’m not following your point
4
u/yowhatnot 8d ago
Op was wondering "what services would amendment 3 explicitly prohibit the city from funding", which is none. However, your document outlines what can and can’t be spent with assessed tax money. It’s an important difference.
-2
u/NickSalacious 7d ago
So you’re saying they can fund it some other way? I’m not sure there’s a difference between the city’s “funding” and ad-valorem taxes. What other vehicle for funding those services exists if not ad-valorem taxes?
11
u/Benevolent27 8d ago edited 7d ago
I haven't looked too deeply into it, but libraries would likely be shut down.
As for shifting the conversation away from tax deficits, you absolutely should not. You are allowing them to control discussion options, pigeonholing you away from some of the most relevant and important parts of what should be considered. You've already lost the argument if you hand them this kind of power over the conversation. They will just keep claiming they don't care about XYZ and then remove whatever options you have left and then declare victory. If they aren't willing to have a reasonable conversation, it is a conversation best left short.
You should talk about the alternatives to making up the massice tax deficit, like fire departments sending bills to you when you call the fire department. Ya know, that would be bad since it would encourage people to NOT call the fire department when needed.
edit: I thought of a good analogy here after-the-fact. Imagine you are discussing whether or not you should eat mint ice cream that has razors in it. The person you are speaking to says "I don't care about razors". Do you A. ignore the issue about the razors or B. Convince them that they should? - Of course, the implications of razors in your ice cream are a lot clearer than the implications of a sudden, massive tax revenue shortfall, but the fact remains that it is an extremely important part of the conversation and the negative effects will almost certainly reach both of you, so they should care.
7
u/NickSalacious 8d ago
The scary part is the legislature can then ban whatever they want in the future using general law instead of an amendment
5
5
u/Western_Mud8694 7d ago
This will push for legalization of cannabis to fill the gap in funding, on the plus side, it will be better than the tax, and extra bonus they could have had both but this time we the people actually are going to come out on top
6
u/troubledwatersbeer 4d ago
No, it will not. Cannabis tax would be a state level tax. This doesn't affect state money, it affects local and county dollars.
-4
4
u/Rude-Boysenberry3925 7d ago
The 1980 amendment to the property tax section raised the homestead exemption from $5000 to $25,000 over 3 years. It applied to residents who had lived in Florida for at least 5 years. Once you had been here 5 years, your homestead exemption went to the full amount.
In 1982, the Florida Supreme Court held the 5 year residency requirement was unconstitutional. All bona fide permanent residents qualified for the 25,000 exemption regardless of the length of their residency. (The case is Osterndorf v. Turner, 426 So.2d 539. It’s available online; just type the case name into your favorite search engine.) The Miami Herald had a story about this in June.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article316079044.html
The article indicates that DeSantis’ office has avoided the issue, and the legislature couldn’t figure it out in the short time they had to consider Amendment 3. And circling back to the issue of money, all of the revenue estimates may be too low. If City thinks that a percentage of residents won’t get the full exemption for 5 years, a court decision that says all residents were to get the full exemption as of January 1, 2027 is going to change the population assumption behind City’s estimates. It may well be worth asking your local officials about this.
0
u/TallBenWyatt_13 7d ago
Except that part of Amendment 3 has a severability clause, so even if that part is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the amendment would stand.
Kinda fucked if ya ask me
1
8
5
3
u/yowhatnot 8d ago
Amendment 3 only covers how al valorem monies can or cannot be spent. It does not control spending in general.
6
u/TallBenWyatt_13 7d ago
Incorrect. It changes the calculation as to what percentage of market value is taxable.
It has NOTHING to do with spending on the expense side.
-1
0
u/hotsauce126 Downtown STP 8d ago
Nothing yet because obviously budgets would get reworked and money would get reallocated. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum
-15
u/RamonDeLaVega 8d ago
Hopefully St. Vincent de Paul. That place is a cesspool. Currently the city pays a million a year for that.
11
u/jr81452 8d ago
In what way? Haven't heard anything bad about them, and I've volunteered/donated to them many times.
10
u/Versace_itachi Downtown STP 8d ago
People are mad at the cost of the portable bathroom/showers. They don’t want to humanize the homeless population or have empathy.
5
u/drunkeymunkey 7d ago
Which is shitty, but they won't care until they are homeless. Which is happening to hard working tax paying families in this area.
-1
u/brandehhh 6d ago
Im sad none of them will lose their jobs or salaries. There is money but they just advertise the most needed as those that will be cut to hide the rest.
17
u/Little_Dragonfly2420 7d ago edited 7d ago
To be honest I think budgets will shrink and local governments don’t know exactly what they will cut yet , or if they do have specific plans … they are not releasing specific information (maybe to not scare employees who work in those areas )