Seminole City Council met Wednesday morning to address a complaint from Republican State Representative Berny Jacques that the city’s web page on Amendment 3 contained material that crossed the line into taxpayer‑funded electioneering. Jacques, a strong supporter of the amendment, argued that six of the seven external links on the page promoted opposition to the measure.

Council decision

After a lengthy debate, council members voted to keep the city’s Amendment 3 information page online but to remove all six outside links that Jacques had challenged. The links included statements from the Florida Association of County Engineers and Road Superintendents, the Florida Library Association, the Florida Professional Firefighters, the Florida Recreation & Parks Association, and two news articles critical of the proposal. Councilmember Trish Springer cast the lone dissenting vote, preferring to remove the material entirely.

Council members directed staff to retain a Pinellas County analysis of the proposal, the full text of the amendment, a state financial analysis, and graphics and information previously presented by City Manager Ann Toney‑Deal during a city workshop. The revised page will therefore continue to inform residents while eliminating the most overtly critical external content.

Background on Amendment 3

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

Supporters, including Rep. Jacques, say the measure will provide substantial property‑tax relief for homeowners. Opponents warn that reducing the taxable value of homesteaded properties could shrink municipal revenue, potentially affecting recreation, library operations, public works, and other city services.

Legal context

Florida Statute 106.113 restricts the use of public funds for certain communications concerning ballot measures but permits local governments to post factual information and accurately report official actions. City Attorney Jay Daigneault told council members that there is little legal precedent defining when a city’s presentation of factual information becomes unlawful advocacy. “You’re dealing with an uncertain legal landscape,” Daigneault said, noting that the statute was amended in 2022 and has generated limited case law.

Vice Mayor Chris Burke acknowledged that the information on the page leaned against Amendment 3 but argued that this does not necessarily make it illegal. “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.”

Council members’ perspectives

Several council members expressed confidence that the city had not violated the law, though they differed on whether the city should risk a legal fight over the webpage. Councilmember Trish Springer argued that the city had more pressing work, such as a new fire station, and questioned whether taxpayers should shoulder the cost of litigation over a webpage.

Other members, including Vice Mayor Chris Burke, emphasized the importance of providing residents with information that could affect the city’s finances. Councilmember Trish Springer’s lone dissent highlighted the tension between transparency and legal risk.

Public response and next steps

City staff reported that the Amendment 3 section had received 407 unique visitors since it was posted over the summer. Council members directed Attorney Daigneault to prepare a formal response to Rep. Jacques explaining the decision. Daigneault said he would attempt to send the letter Wednesday, though the process could take longer.

The council’s action resolves the immediate dispute but leaves open the question of whether the revised page fully satisfies Jacques’ concerns. The city plans to keep the information page online without the external links, and Daigneault noted that the lack of clear legal guidance means the city must continue to monitor the situation.

Related disputes

Jacques’ challenge follows a similar disagreement with the city of Largo earlier this month, where he questioned Largo’s decision to invite former state Senator Jeff Brandes, an opponent of Amendment 3, to a city‑sponsored forum without initially including a pro‑amendment voice. Largo later invited Jacques to appear alongside Brandes at the event.

Original reporting: St. Pete Catalyst — read the source article.