10/21/2026
I was concerned to see the city publish a brochure warning residents, in bold red lettering, that Amendment 3 could result in slower emergency response times. There is something particularly ironic about invoking the possibility of delayed 911 responses when this city transferred dispatch operations to the county, a transition that has introduced operational challenges of its own.
The brochure goes on to assert that there is no way to absorb Amendment 3 without, quote, "cutting public services." When I asked our city manager for the proposed breakdown of those service reductions, I was informed that no such plans exist. To be clear, the city council has neither adopted nor proposed a plan of public service cuts resulting from the amendment. There may come a time when difficult choices must be made. There may be expenditures we must reconsider or revenue sources we must restructure. But the possibility of future cuts is not the same as the unsubstantiated cuts referenced in the brochure, which I believe amount to fearmongering.
There is another claim in the brochure. It suggests that if one tax becomes smaller, everything else will become more expensive. But this argument assumes that the existing level and structure of government spending must remain essentially unchanged. This is not the case.
In the 2016-17 fiscal year, the City of New Port Richey operated with a general fund of approximately $19 million. Today, as we enter the 2026–27 fiscal year, that figure stands at $35 million, an increase of more than 80 percent in just ten years. And that figure represents only one part of our financial obligations. Across all funds, our city's budget now approaches $105 million. Amendment 3 would reduce the city's general fund revenue by approximately $1.98 million in fiscal year 2027-28, $3.01 million in 2028-29, and $3.41 million in 2029-30. Those figures represent roughly five to ten percent of our present general fund, and approximately two to three percent of the city's current $105 million total budget.
I believe in the ambition of this community to accomplish what individuals cannot accomplish alone in confronting the challenges that threaten our neighborhoods and using government and nonprofits to improve people's lives. At the same time, it is fair to expect the same financial discipline for government that has been expected of us for so long.
This is the central question of Amendment 3.
Homeowners would still have to pay into the local budget. Amendment 3 is not a handout. The only difference is that the costs would be more transparent and the exemption would be more equitable. Today, a homeowner may examine a property tax bill and find broad categories such as “County Operating” or “Municipality Operating” without any details on how those dollars are distributed among public safety, infrastructure, administration, and other obligations. With Amendment 3 and the passing of alternative revenue sources, a resident will see a breakdown of specific assessments and tax units, and our local community will be able to directly vote on those new revenue sources. For example, you would see exactly how much you are paying for a special assessment for fire protection or a municipal special taxing unit (MSTU) for parks. These revenue sources serve to offset the amendment's losses in a transparent way. Additionally, those who just moved here would not receive the full exemption for five years. Non-exempted land, such as commercial and rented properties, would see a cap in annual increases, and increases in the millage would still require a vote of the community.
Under this backdrop, it is clear the sky is not falling. Government is not going to collapse. The city may not be able to waive developer impact fees, or give unlimited overtime, and it may have to cut a position that has been vacant for six months, and it may not be able to fund a $1 million gateway sign. But, rest assured, the real work of bettering the community will continue, and your roads will still be paved, your 911 calls will still be answered, nonprofits will still be supported, and your library and parks will remain open.
Public service should inspire confidence in what the government is capable of accomplishing, not guilt over what it might withhold.
Every level of government has become accustomed to asking more of the people it serves, even as it struggles to demonstrate what people get in return. You see developers receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in waived fees while the cost of accommodating new growth falls on the community around them. You see state dollars going toward private school tuition for families who could already afford it, while public schools continue to struggle with the resources available to them. And you see a federal government willing to extend substantial tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans, even as it reminds you of the difficult choices that must be made under $40 trillion in debt.
Amendment 3 holds local government accountable. For this reason, I respectfully ask you to vote yes.
