Largo’s property tax forum becomes a political flashpoint

A state lawmaker who represents Largo accused the city of risking taxpayer-funded electioneering by inviting a prominent critic of a proposed property tax amendment to a public forum.

The city responded by inviting the lawmaker to join him.

State Rep. Berny Jacques, whose District 59 includes Largo, sent Mayor Woody Brown a letter Sept. 1 questioning the city’s planned Sept. 9 town hall on Amendment 3. Jacques argued that former state Sen. Jeff Brandes’ inclusion without an opposing voice could make the city-sponsored event appear to advocate against the measure.

City Manager John Curp responded the following day by inviting Jacques to participate.

Brown said Thursday that Jacques accepted and is expected to appear alongside Brandes. The two approach Amendment 3 from different sides, but Brown said neither will be allowed to tell residents how they should vote.

“Regardless, neither one of them should try to convince the people that are there that it’s good or bad,” Brown said. “Both of them should share these are factual things, factual effects of if this goes into place.”

The exchange puts Largo on a line local governments must navigate before voters consider Amendment 3: explaining what the measure could do to their budgets without campaigning against it.

For Largo, Brown said the stakes are substantial.

The city manager is expected to explain at the forum how Largo would reduce its budget by an estimated $15 million if the amendment passes. Police and fire officials will discuss what cuts of 10% or 20% in funding could mean for their departments. Brown said other consequences could include closing parks or significantly reducing their maintenance.

Brown said Largo is large and financially diverse enough to absorb the initial impact. Maintaining the services residents expect, however, could eventually require the city to find money elsewhere through higher fees, a higher property tax rate or other revenue sources.

Amendment 3 would change Florida property tax protections, reducing taxes for many homeowners while cutting revenue flowing to cities, counties and other local taxing authorities.

Jacques took issue not with Largo discussing those potential effects, but with whom the city initially invited to help explain them.

“Mr. Brandes, your only guest panelist, is a known and vocal critic of Amendment 3,” Jacques wrote.

He asked Largo to provide “a more balanced panel, where both viewpoints are presented, to avoid electioneering, or any appearance thereof, on taxpayer dime.”

The Catalyst reached out to Jacques for additional comment Thursday but did not receive a response before publication.

At the center of the dispute is Florida Statute 106.113. It prohibits local governments from spending public money on political advertisements or electioneering communications about ballot questions. But the law makes an exception for communications limited to factual information and does not prevent elected local officials from expressing their own opinions.

Brown said that creates a distinction between speaking for himself as an elected official and participating in an event organized by the city.

“There’s nothing that restricts me as an elected official from speaking my voice,” Brown said. “Now, at a forum that’s put together by the city, they’re very clear with me about what I can say and what I can’t say.”

The distinction can become harder to see when the facts themselves describe substantial consequences.

Brown pointed to emergency medical services. He said the countywide EMS system could lose roughly 30% of the property tax funding that supports it, including county money Largo receives to put paramedics on fire trucks.

Brown said that loss could push emergency response times toward 10 minutes. Largo can present residents with that projection, he said. What city officials cannot do at the forum is use it to tell them whether that outcome makes Amendment 3 good or bad.

Brandes sees plenty of room for local governments to discuss the measure without crossing that line.

“A city can have a conversation about whatever it wants,” Brandes said. “It can’t directly advertise.”

Jacques also pointed to Brandes’ lawsuit challenging Amendment 3 as evidence that the former senator is not a neutral participant. His letter characterized it as an attempt to block the measure from appearing on the ballot.

Brandes said his challenge targeted the title and summary presented to voters.

“There was nothing in my lawsuit that said kick it off the ballot,” Brandes said. “It said, ‘We’re here to change the title or the summary.’”

A Leon County judge subsequently found portions of Amendment 3’s ballot language misleading and ordered several phrases rewritten. Circuit Judge David Frank found the original title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” was not neutral and said other language read more like political advocacy than an explanation of the proposal. The ruling explicitly left Amendment 3 on the ballot and directed the attorney general to prepare revised language.

Brandes remains openly critical of Amendment 3 outside the city-sponsored forum. He has spoken about the proposal with communities around Florida and said his role in Largo will include discussing how the measure reached the ballot and its broader policy implications.

Jacques’ objection has ultimately changed the makeup of the forum. Largo will now have on the same stage the lawmaker who questioned whether Brandes should appear alone – and the former senator whose participation prompted the complaint.