Mayor Vince Lago put fiscal stewardship near the center of his case for another term at Wednesday night’s candidates forum.
There is a record behind that argument. Coral Gables has strengthened its pension funding, built substantially larger reserves and maintained the same millage rate for years. At the city’s budget hearing the night before, Lago noted that general-fund reserves have grown from about $21.1 million when he joined the commission in 2013 to just under $65 million.
Those changes are part of the fiscal record Lago is asking voters to consider.
So is the challenge now approaching.
Lago strongly supports Amendment 3, the statewide constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot that would substantially increase Florida’s homestead exemption for non-school property taxes and reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homesteaded property.
“I’m 100% behind it and I think it’s a great referendum and everyone should support it,” Lago said Tuesday.
The amendment would raise the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward. It also would lower the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%.
That could lower taxable values and property-tax bills for many homeowners. It also would reduce a revenue source on which Coral Gables relies heavily.
The proposed 2026-27 budget contains about $146.5 million in property-tax revenue. Property taxes account for 48.8% of operating revenue and 63.5% of General Fund revenue. The city lists its 2026-27 budget estimate as the current budget document.
Amendment 3 would not affect the budget now before the commission. Its effects would begin afterward.
City officials are already planning for them.
At Tuesday’s first budget hearing, Finance Director Diana Gomez initially cited roughly $6 million in lost revenue in the first affected year. City Manager Peter Iglesias later broke the estimate into two pieces: about $5.7 million from the larger homestead exemption and another $2 million from the tighter non-homestead assessment cap, putting the combined effect near $7.7 million under the city’s current assumptions.
The exemption rises again the following year, increasing the potential impact.
Those are significant numbers for a city whose costs are also rising. Health-insurance expenses increased sharply in the budget now under consideration. Labor, public-safety and infrastructure costs remain substantial.
Lago has said he does not want the city to respond by reducing services.
“I’m not willing to cut services,” he said Tuesday. “And I know that none of you are willing to cut services.”
That puts the focus on the other side of the ledger.
At Tuesday’s regular commission meeting, Lago said he had been working with the city manager, finance director and procurement director to prepare for the possibility that Amendment 3 passes. He said he had asked staff to examine the city’s 20 largest contracts for possible savings, including contracts containing termination-for-convenience provisions.
Reviewing major contracts is one way governments can look for savings when revenue growth slows.
The question is how much it can produce.
The issue surfaced that same day during consideration of the city’s next external-auditing contract. Six firms responded to the request for proposals. One was deemed nonresponsive. The city’s evaluation process ranked CBIZ CPAs P.C. as the highest-ranked responsive and responsible proposer, and staff recommended awarding the contract to CBIZ.
Lago questioned whether the city should also negotiate with Citrin Cooperman & Company LLP, the second-ranked firm, after price contributed to its lower ranking.
Chief Procurement Officer Celeste Walker-Harmon defended the evaluation process.
“The process is the process,” she told commissioners. “It was open, it was fair, and it’s transparent.”
She noted that price was among the criteria established before proposals were submitted and that the second-ranked proposal was substantially more expensive.
Commissioners ultimately agreed unanimously to permit negotiations with both firms before a final contract returns for approval.
The episode does not establish whether the city can find substantial savings in its contracts. Nor does it establish how large those savings might be.
That is precisely why the larger contract review needs numbers.
If city officials believe the 20 largest contracts could absorb a meaningful portion of a $7 million-plus revenue reduction, the useful information will be specific: which contracts, how much could be saved, over what period and with what effect, if any, on city operations.
The city may have other options as well. Revenue from other sources could grow. Vacancies can produce savings. Projects can be delayed. Expenses can be reduced without necessarily diminishing frontline services.
But each has a number attached to it.
There is another distinction worth noting.
Coral Gables’ adopted 2026 legislative priorities advocate targeted property-tax relief, including expanded relief for people with disabilities, Alzheimer’s patients and low-income caregivers, additional deferral options for certain seniors and limits on some special assessments affecting homesteaded condominium units.
Amendment 3 takes a broader approach, increasing the homestead exemption for non-school taxes statewide and reducing the assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property.
Lago is making two arguments at once: Coral Gables has built fiscal strength through years of restraint, and residents could receive substantial property-tax relief under Amendment 3.
The city’s finances will eventually have to connect those arguments.
Contract reviews and assurances about protecting services are the beginning of an answer. The numbers will show how much further the city has to go: the likely revenue loss, the savings available to offset it and the choices that remain after those savings are counted.
Coral Gables has spent years building the fiscal record Lago now points to.
The next question is whether the math shows how to preserve it with substantially less property-tax revenue.
