With elections less than three months away it is important that local residents understand why voting “Yes” on Amendment 3 is in their best interests.
Many local politicians, such as a quartet of free-spending Fernandina City Commissioners, anticipate solving issues the traditional Democrat way, by raising taxes.
A local gentleman, who knows much more than most of us about local taxes and how they are calculated, has provided a simple and clear analysis of the upcoming ballot’s Amendment 3 and how it will impact Fernandina tax payers.
For those of you who don’t know what Amendment 3 is and why it is important if you own property hereabouts, here’s a brief explanation:
Amendment 3 (“Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes”) would exempt the first $150,000 of a homestead’s assessed value from all non-school property taxes starting January 1, 2027, rising to $250,000 on January 1, 2028, with annual inflation adjustments beginning in 2028 — while school taxes continue unchanged. It also halves the assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property (10 percent → 5 percent from 2027) and restricts what county and city property taxes may fund.
To pass it needs 60 percent approval on November 3, 2026. The amendment is endorsed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The math man, a local resident known as Dr. D. has a doctorate in mathematics from one of the finest schools in the U.S. and understands the numbers better than those in city hall running the town tax cash registers.
Dr. D says that according to the arithmetic of Amendment 3, the likely impact of the proposed homestead exemption on Fernandina’s actual property tax bills are as follows:
- Your tax is determined by your property’s assessed value, less any exemptions, and the city approved millage rate.
- For homestead-qualified properties, your assessed value is capped at 3% per year.
- For non-homestead properties, the cap is 10%, reduced to 5% by Amendment 3.
- Recently, the annual increase of Fernandina’s assessed total value (ATV) has hovered around the 10% cap (10.2%, 8.5%, and 7.5% for the last 3 years), which will come down to around 5% for 2027 under Amendment 3.
- The millage rate also has a cap of 10% above the “roll-back” rate, in that an increase of 10% requires a 4-1 vote, and anything higher requires a 5-0 vote of city commissioners. Rate increases above 10% are rare. Apopka recently tried that and was roundly shot down by public outcry, settling on the 10% cap.
- So, everything hinges on the “roll-back” rate – which is the millage that yields the same property tax revenue as the last tax year.
Now, here’s more of Dr. D’s arithmetic:
- Amendment 3 increases your homestead exemption from a max of $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and up to $250,000 in 2028.
- To keep the numbers as simple as possible, he uses a 2026 assessed taxable value of $288K, which results in a $1,400 city tax bill based on the city’s recently approved millage.
- Turning to 2027, there are approximately 4,400 city homesteads that would qualify for the $150,000 exemption.
- If the Property Appraiser increases Fernandina ATV by 5%, and the new exemption is universally applied, the “roll-back” rate would be about 5.27 mils.
- 2027 taxable value would now be $200k (after applying the 3% cap and new exemption).
- Your 2027 tax, if the city goes with the “roll-back” is $1,055 – a $345 savings!!
- Now, Fernandina’s commissioners will likely go with a “modified” millage, maybe even repeat this year and settle just under the 10% cap, which means your tax savings are smaller. At the cap rate, your bill is $1,160 – still a nice outcome.
What do we learn from this arithmetic exercise?
- Your individual city property tax should indeed be significantly lower.
- The city does NOT lose any money – unless they adopt a rate below the “roll-back” – which I do not think has ever happened.
- Fernandina is prosperous with over $5 billion in taxable assets, so with a typical increase in assessments, the new homestead exemption does not create a major impact–it reduces the 2027 ATV by 8.5%, and by about 4% in 2028.
- 2028 is more difficult to predict since we don’t know the baselines as well, but using the above parameters, the “roll-back” jumps to 6.02, the “10% max” to 6.62. And your tax bill is roughly half your original $1,400. The city, again, does not suffer.
Under Florida law, jurisdictions always collect the prior year’s ad-valorem unless they adopt a millage below the “roll-back” rate and generally collect more by adopting a higher rate (subject to statutory caps as explained above).
Under Amendment 3 individual homestead property owners should see lower bills, which could eventually drop to zero over a number of years. Non-homestead properties will carry a bigger (and growing) share – which may become a political issue in time.
Amendment 3 is a good step because it benefits homeowners immediately, does not deprive cities and counties, and will set in motion much needed changes to a broken system.
Where are any of Dr. D’s calculations and reasoning going wrong?
***
A Bribe? It’s obvious that Democrats don’t understand a bribe, or don’t want voters to understand what it is.
At the Republican midterm convention in Dallas this week President Donald Trump said he plans to give every adult American $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.
The Democrats say President Trump is attempting to bribe voters.
A bribe is a payment, gift, or favor offered to subvert a person’s honesty to induce them to act dishonestly to do what they want.
Asking a person to do their patriotic duty by voting is not dishonest. Telling them you will give them back some of their own money is certainly not dishonest, particularly when even Democrats will be beneficiaries.
What is dishonest is Democrats who offer illegals who cross into the U.S. free housing, welfare, education, medical care, etc. and then look the other way when they vote illegally.
***
Oooops! Local resident and author Pat Keogh, attempted to post the following item on this blog recently after my comment about the hapless 1962 Mets. For some reason it didn’t post but here it is from a guy who actually witnessed America’s worst and most beloved baseball team in person.
“I worked for the ’62 Mets. It was the first year I was eligible to sell beer. Little known fact is that beer consumption at the blue-collar Polo Grounds was twice the per capital consumption of the fans in suits at the Yankee Stadium right across the Harlem River. Loved the Mets and all their colorful guys like Choo Choo Coleman, Marvelous Marv Thronberry, Casey Stengal, Hot Rod Kanehl and Clem Labine. My guys’ favorite was the one from the Bronx, Ed “Kid” Kranepool. Seven years later the Mets went on to win the World Series with manager Gil Hodges. Two years after that, in 1971, the Mets drafted our own Nassau County Sheriff, Bill Leeper, right out of high school.”
Pat is author of several books on finance (www.makeyourfamilyrich.com).
***
Is It Just Me? Or does anybody else find it weird that our computers are now asking us if we are computers?
***
