Three state-wide amendments, six county-wide referendums and one local referendum provide the Key Biscayne electorate with plenty of homework before stepping into the Community Center polling booth on Nov. 3 or filing an early ballot.

Here is a glance of what to expect:

Key Biscayne: Voter Approval Required for Certain Stormwater and/or Flood Prevention Projects Exceeding $50,000,000

It is proposed that the Village charter be amended to require a majority vote of the qualified electors to approve any stormwater and/or flood prevention project(s), whether separated into separate projects and/or phases, that are estimated to collectively cost over $50 million within a period of three fiscal years.

Shall the above-described amendment be adopted?

Yes ( ) or No ( )

The referendum for Village of Key Biscayne voters — the first since the $100 million General Obligation Bond passed in 2020 with a 56.54% approval – would require a 51.1% approval when it comes to certain $50 million-plus (over a three-year cycle) infrastructure projects, like the current stormwater proposal being considered.

The Key Biscayne Neighbors Association gained enough signatures to earn this a spot on the Nov. 3 ballot after some $8 million had been spent putting an overall stormwater plan in place that was eventually abandoned.

Also on the Key Biscayne ballot, all five candidates for the three available seats for Village Council will be listed, including Claire London, who decided this past week to step aside from the race.

Constitutional Amendment 1: Budget Stabilization Fund

This measure proposes to increase the amount of funds that may be retained in the budget stabilization fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the legislature to transfer the lesser of $750 million or the amount required to reach 25% of the general revenue collections each year unless certain conditions are met, and allow the Legislature to withdraw funds for “critical state needs.”

Basically, this amendment would increase the amount of money that goes toward the state’s rainy day fund each year.

The amendment would allow the Legislature to pull money from the fund during times of “critical state need” with a two-thirds vote. The Legislature could suspend the constitution’s requirement to transfer the money in financially difficult years.

The last time the state withdrew money from its rainy day fund was in 2008, when the Great Recession was taking place.

Constitutional Amendment 2: Exemption of tangible personal property on agricultural land from taxation

This amendment proposes to exempt tangible personal property habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agri-tourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land from ad valorem taxation.

If approved, this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning Jan. 1, 2027.

Floridians on agricultural land pay annual taxes on their farm equipment and other “tangible personal property” — basically everything of value that isn’t the land or the buildings on it. Florida law already allows certain personal goods, like cars, to be exempted from that tax.

This proposed amendment would end personal property taxes for Florida farmers on farm equipment and “other tangible personal property” if they are on agricultural land, used in agricultural production and owned by the landowner, starting in 2027.

If voters support it, the plan would cost Florida’s local governments about $31 million in the first year, rising to $32 million and then $34 million in the two years after.

Constitutional Amendment 3: Increased homestead exemption; lower cap on increases in non-homesteaded property assessments

The most talked-about amendment, this amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same.

Persons who are not Florida residents on Dec. 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution.

This amendment also reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.

This amendment also requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies and would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.

In August, the State of Florida’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research revised what the passage of Amendment 3 would cost the Island. Village of Key Biscayne CFO Benjamin Nussbaum said the revised potential loss changed to:

• $1,051,068 in 2027-28

• $2,039,220 in 2028-29

• $2,245,804 in 2029-30

Key Biscayne, where some 71% of its revenue is derived from ad valorem taxes, also has a direct line into the legal fight over how the measure is described to voters. Former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey was one of several former officials who sued over the amendment’s original ballot language, which a Leon County judge ordered rewritten after ruling it read more like a campaign slogan than a neutral description.

Amendment 3, like the other two amendments, needs support from at least 60% of voters on Nov. 3 to take effect.

Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniela Levine Cava cautioned that the amendment could have dire financial consequences. Her office estimates that if the measure passes, the county could lose $385 million in revenue in the first year alone and more than $650 million in the second year.

Just this past week, Miami-Dade County Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz told voters on X that they don’t have to fear weaker public safety if they vote yes for property tax relief in November.

“Voters should not be led to believe that saving money on their property taxes must mean fewer deputies or weaker public safety,” the sheriff said on X last Wednesday. “Tax relief and public safety are not competing priorities. Every government agency, including a sheriff’s office, has a responsibility to carefully examine its spending, identify efficiencies, eliminate unnecessary costs, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely.

“We can respect taxpayers while continuing to provide strong and effective law enforcement. As sheriff, I will always protect the resources necessary to keep Miami-Dade safe.”

The proposal was pushed initially by Gov. DeSantis, who said local governments have mismanaged their money and that he believes people should not have to repeatedly pay the government for their property.

Florida Realtors has also backed the amendment, saying it would make home ownership more attainable.

County Referendum 1: Charter Amendment Establish an Independent Salary Commission

Shall the Charter be amended to replace the fixed annual salary for County Commissioners with an independent, five-member Salary Commission — appointed by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, State Attorney, Public Defender, Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics, and Inspector General — that annually reviews and sets Commissioner salaries based on specific criteria, with all decisions being final without modification by the Board of County Commissioners?

County Referendum 2: Charter Amendment Increase Length of District Residency to Run for County Commissioner

Shall the Charter be amended to change the residency requirement for Commission members, increasing the minimum time a candidate must reside within their district from six months to one year before the start of the qualifying period?

County Referendum 3: Charter Amendment Allow Vacancy Election to Sync Up with Other Election; Establish Municipal Qualifying Standards

Shall the Charter be amended to allow the Board to align the timing of special elections to fill vacancies in the offices of Mayor or County Commissioner with other scheduled elections when such vacancies are caused by resignations to run for other offices, and to establish minimum standards for municipal candidate qualifying periods?

County Referendum 4: Charter Amendment Revisions Due to Reestablishment of Elected County Constitutional Offices

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to make certain changes that (1) address the re-establishment of the elected County Constitutional Offices of Sheriff, Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, and Supervisor of Elections, (2) clarify the respective duties of Clerk and County with respect to finance and budget, and (3) require County employees to take leave of absence when running for an elected constitutional office?

County Referendum 5: Charter Amendment Miscellaneous Matters and Technical Changes

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to make certain technical changes, including updating certain listed County locations to current name, allowing for additional methods of public notice and participation when otherwise allowed by state law, and ensuring consistent stylistic conventions for numbering, gender, capitalization, and grammar?

County Referendum 6: Charter Amendment Expanding Allowable Advertising at Parks

Shall the Charter be amended to expand permissible advertising in parks subject to Article 7 of the Charter by removing the requirement that advertising in those parks must be related to sponsorship of events or facilities in the parks, provided that such advertising does not unreasonably impair the public use of the park or damage the park and any revenue generated be for the exclusive use of the park system?