Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New state homestead exemption would shrink St. Pete Beach property tax revenues by staff estimate of roughly $1.1M in 2027
Summary
Finance staff briefed the commission on a constitutional amendment headed to the November ballot that would enlarge the homestead exemption and tighten growth caps, which the city estimates could reduce general‑fund property tax receipts by roughly $1.1 million in 2027 and $1.6 million in 2028 under current assumptions.
Devin Schmidt, St. Pete Beach’s finance director, briefed the commission on a recent state legislative change that will appear on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment affecting property taxes.
Schmidt summarized the measure’s headline provisions as presented to the commission: the homestead exemption on the non‑school portion would increase from $50,000 today to $150,000 in 2027 and to $250,000 in 2028; the cap limiting how fast non‑homestead assessments can rise would drop from 10% to 5%; and new residents would wait five years before qualifying for the larger exemption. He noted a companion change pins the simple‑majority ceiling to the rolled‑back rate and removes the growth factor used to let levies drift, meaning revenue increases beyond the rolled‑back calculation will require a supermajority (four of five votes) or voter referendum.
Using Penellas County property‑appraiser data, Schmidt gave illustrative local numbers: at current millage St. Pete Beach collects about $15.2 million in property taxes; staff’s current run shows roughly a $1.1 million revenue reduction in 2027 (about 7%) and about $1.6 million in 2028 (about 11%), with figures to be refined after official rolled‑back rates are posted. He emphasized these figures are shifting as appraiser data and assumptions update.
Schmidt also laid out budget‑balancing approaches the commission can consider this fall: expenditure reductions, fee adjustments and right‑sizing enterprise funds, reallocating cost allocations (internal service charges), reducing capital project funding, or raising millage subject to the new legal thresholds. He stressed staff will continue to monitor county valuations and present updated options at the next workshop.
Ending — procedural note: staff presented this item as information only; no formal budget decision was made at the work session. Commissioners asked for more refined rolled‑back figures when available and for scenarios showing tradeoffs among expenditure reductions, fee changes and capital deferrals.
