Florida TaxWatch says the Legislature rushed Amendment 3, the property tax reform initiative.
It says there is a great opportunity for the Legislature to get it right in the next few years. Florida TaxWatch, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization, said it would be better if voters defeated Amendment 3, a major property tax cut for homeowners, asserting it fails to keep municipal spending in check and hurts vulnerable Floridians.
The Legislature will have a greater opportunity next year when the 25-member Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission convenes to review the state’s overall tax structure, Florida TaxWatch President Jeff Kottkamp said.
Why Florida Tax Watch opposes Amendment 3
Tallahassee forged Amendment 3 in a June special session called by DeSantis, but what is really needed is a data-driven approach rather than a quick ballot fix, Kottkamp said.
In a policy analysis, Florida Tax Watch said Amendment 3 would be “the largest change to fiscal structure of Florida government in our state’s history,” calling it “unwise and unnecessary.”
The Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission is a constitutionally mandated body that convenes every 20 years It can place amendments on the ballot and make recommendations to the Legislature, is next scheduled to meet in 2027.
“We would rather take our time and get it right,” Kottkamp said.
How could local governments find other revenue if Amendment 3 passes in Florida?
Kottkamp argued local governments could simply offset any revenue loss from a reduced tax cap by raising fees or finding other revenue streams — leaving taxpayers no better off.
“There’s no prohibition from local governments just offsetting the revenue losses with increased fees,” he said.
But Amendment 3, Kottkamp said, is a one-size-fits-all for all municipalities and counties when they are hardly homogeneous. Rural counties and bedroom communities would be hit hardest.
“There’s a range from cities from 10 to 90% on how much of their budget is from property tax,” he said. “So there’s some places where it could be catastrophic if you don’t create some mechanism for those places to get alternative funding.”
A well-researched proposal could include protections for vulnerable groups, such as seniors on fixed incomes, he added.