Seminole pushes back on Jacques, removes disputed links

Seminole will remove several links critical of Amendment 3 from its website after state Rep. Berny Jacques accused the city of illegally campaigning against the property tax measure.

The City Council voted Wednesday morning to keep its Amendment 3 information page online but remove two news articles and position statements from outside organizations opposing the proposal. The decision stops short of Jacques’ demand that the city remove the disputed material or face a possible complaint with the Florida Elections Commission.

Council members instead directed staff to retain a Pinellas County analysis of the proposal and add the amendment’s full text, a state financial analysis and information previously presented by City Manager Ann Toney-Deal about its potential impact on Seminole.

The decision followed a special meeting called in response to Jacques’ Sept. 25 letter to Mayor Leslie Waters. Jacques, a Seminole Republican who supports the amendment, argued that six of the seven links on the city’s webpage promoted opposition to the measure and amounted to taxpayer-funded electioneering.

Amendment 3 would increase Florida’s homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward. It would also establish a process for local governments to increase the exemption further and lower the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.

Supporters, including Jacques, say the proposal would provide substantial property tax relief to homeowners. Local governments have warned that reducing the taxable value of homesteaded properties could leave them with less money for services. Seminole officials have raised concerns about the potential effects on recreation, library operations, public works and other city programs.

The disagreement with Jacques is not over whether cities can discuss the amendment. Florida Statute 106.113 restricts the use of public funds for certain communications concerning ballot measures but allows local governments to post factual information on their websites and accurately report official actions.

Jacques contends Seminole crossed that line by choosing material overwhelmingly critical of the proposal. City officials maintain they have a responsibility to explain what the amendment could mean for residents.

City Attorney Jay Daigneault told council members Wednesday that there is little legal precedent establishing when a city’s presentation of factual information becomes unlawful advocacy.

“You’re dealing with an uncertain legal landscape,” Daigneault said. He explained that the statute was amended in 2022 and has generated little case law, leaving cities with limited guidance about what they can publish.

Several council members said they did not believe Seminole had violated the law, although they disagreed about whether the city should risk a legal fight over the webpage.

Vice Mayor Chris Burke acknowledged that the information leaned against Amendment 3 but argued that did not necessarily make it unlawful.

“If you read it, you might come away with an opinion that I shouldn’t vote for Amendment 3,” Burke said. “But is it illegal? No.”

Burke wanted to preserve the city’s ability to inform residents about a measure that could affect its finances. He initially proposed removing the two news articles while keeping the outside organizations’ statements.

Councilmember Trish Springer took a different position. She favored removing the material altogether, arguing that the city had more pressing work than defending itself against a potential lawsuit. She pointed to ongoing projects, including a new fire station, and questioned whether taxpayers should shoulder the cost of litigation over a webpage.

City staff reported that the Amendment 3 section had received 407 unique visitors since it was posted over the summer.

Other council members favored keeping information available but removing the more overtly critical material. The discussion turned to whether the position statements themselves posed a problem, since several of the organizations explicitly encouraged voters to reject the amendment.

After a lengthy debate, the council settled on removing all six outside links that Jacques had challenged.

Those included statements from the Florida Association of County Engineers and Road Superintendents, Florida Library Association, Florida Professional Firefighters and Florida Recreation & Parks Association, along with two news articles focused on criticism of the proposal.

The revised page will retain Pinellas County’s analysis and add the ballot language, a state financial analysis and graphics and information Toney-Deal presented during an earlier city workshop. The council approved the changes with Springer casting the lone opposing vote.

Wednesday’s meeting also brought pointed criticism of Jacques himself. Several council members questioned why he sent a letter threatening legal action rather than contacting city officials directly. Others accused him of political grandstanding or seeking publicity during his reelection campaign.

The Catalyst reached out to Jacques for comment on the council’s decision and the criticism directed at him but had not received a response by publication time.

Jacques has maintained that his objection is to the use of public resources to promote opposition to a ballot measure, not to cities providing residents with impartial information.

His challenge to Seminole followed a similar dispute with Largo earlier this month. Jacques questioned that city’s decision to invite former state Sen. Jeff Brandes, an Amendment 3 opponent, to a city-sponsored forum without initially including someone presenting a different view. Largo subsequently invited Jacques, who appeared alongside Brandes at the Sept. 9 event.

Council members directed Daigneault to prepare a formal response to Jacques explaining their decision. He said he would try to send the letter Wednesday but that it could take longer.

Whether the changes satisfy Jacques’ concerns remains unclear. Seminole plans to keep its information page online, although without the outside material that prompted his complaint.

Daigneault said he understood council members wanting a firm answer about what the city could legally publish, but the available law did not provide one.

“I don’t know where the tipping point is,” he said. “I want to give you clear answers and direction, but if I had a clear answer and direction, I probably wouldn’t have the need for this meeting.”