October 13, 2026 – Charlotte County, FL
“Over the past several weeks, I have received considerable criticism for my position on Amendment 3. I understand that criticism, and I respect the fact that people have strong opinions when it comes to their hard-earned money and the taxes they pay. I have always said that I will be honest with you and will stand for what is right, even if unpopular. That’s what being a leader necessitates.
Let me begin by making something very clear: I support meaningful property tax relief for Florida families. I believe the Governor and our state legislators are trying to address a very real problem. However, I have serious concerns about the proposed solution and its potential consequences for the essential services our communities depend on. Right problem, wrong solution. We can agree on the problem without agreeing on the solution.
Like so many of you, my family feels the financial pressures of everyday life. Groceries, insurance, housing, utilities, childcare, and nearly everything else cost more than they did just a few years ago. I pay property taxes, too. My parents and in-laws live on fixed incomes, and my children are working to raise their families here in Florida. I understand the frustration because I share it. We all want relief, and we deserve a thoughtful conversation about how to achieve it. But we also deserve to understand the full consequences of any proposed change before making a decision that could permanently affect our communities.
One of the most important things I can do as your Sheriff is explain how your tax dollars are spent and what those dollars provide. More than 99% of the Sheriff’s Office budget is funded through ad valorem, or property, taxes. Those funds support the deputies who respond when you call 911, the detectives who investigate crimes, the corrections personnel who operate our jail, and the many other essential services required to keep our community safe. Of our total budget, approximately 83% to 85% goes directly toward personnel costs. This fiscal year, that number is 84%. That leaves just 16% for everything else, including fuel, equipment, technology, vehicle maintenance, jail operations, and capital purchases. Our capital budget consists primarily of patrol vehicles, totaling approximately $1.8 million.
These numbers matter because they demonstrate something that is often overlooked in discussions about government spending: The Sheriff’s Office is, first and foremost, a people-driven organization. Public safety depends on trained professionals being available when our citizens need them.
Based on our budget projections, the proposed changes would reduce funding available to the Sheriff’s Office by approximately $26 million in fiscal year 2028 and $47 million in fiscal year 2029. To put that into perspective, $47 million represents the approximate cost of 275 deputy positions. Think about that number for a moment. These are the men and women who patrol our neighborhoods, respond to emergencies, investigate crimes, protect our schools, and work around the clock to keep our community safe.
I want to be clear: This does not mean that 275 deputies would automatically lose their jobs. It does mean that reductions of this magnitude would force extremely difficult decisions about staffing, equipment, and the level of service we could continue providing.
Now, some have suggested that government simply needs to tighten its belt. I agree that government has an obligation to spend responsibly, and I welcome that scrutiny. But there is an important difference between eliminating unnecessary spending and eliminating essential services. As Sheriff, I take my responsibility to taxpayers seriously. We continually evaluate expenditures, seek grants, and look for opportunities to obtain equipment and resources without placing additional burdens on local taxpayers. Much of our specialized equipment has been acquired through grant funding for precisely that reason. However, the Sheriff’s Office is not immune to inflation. The same rising costs affecting your household also affect our operations. Fuel, vehicles, insurance, medical care, equipment, and maintenance have all become more expensive.
There are also significant expenses we are legally required to provide. For example, we must provide inmates with necessary medical, dental, and mental health services, along with three meals each day. I must carry various forms of insurance. I must have vehicles to respond to calls. I must provide training and the necessary equipment to keep my people safe and to handle any given situation. These are substantial costs, but they are not optional expenses that can simply be eliminated.
We could consider reducing patrol vehicle purchases, in-car cameras, body-worn cameras, and other equipment. However, many of these tools have proven invaluable for officer safety, accountability, transparency, and criminal investigations. Even if we eliminated approximately $4 million in these expenditures, we would still face a projected $43 million funding gap. When personnel account for 84% of the budget, there is simply no realistic way to absorb such a significant reduction without affecting our workforce and the services we provide. I share these figures not to frighten anyone, but to explain the financial reality we would have to confront.
Another concern that deserves serious discussion is how local governments would continue funding the services they are required to provide. If a substantial portion of property tax revenue is eliminated, those costs do not necessarily disappear. Communities may face difficult choices involving reduced services, alternative revenue sources, or some combination of both. Depending on what state law permits, those alternatives could include special taxing districts, Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs), or other taxes and assessments. Changes to statewide sales taxes would require action at the state level. This is especially important for homesteaded homeowners like me, who currently benefit from the Save Our Homes assessment limitation of generally 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Before changing our tax structure, we should understand whether the result would be genuine long-term savings or simply a redistribution of costs among homeowners, renters, businesses, and consumers. Tax relief should be evaluated not only by what disappears from a tax bill, but also by what families may ultimately pay elsewhere.
I also want to address two issues that have come up repeatedly in public discussions: my salary and the Sheriff’s Office helicopter.
First, my salary.
As an elected Sheriff, my compensation is established through a formula prescribed by Florida law. It is not a salary that I personally set, nor is it independently determined by the County Commission. Population is one of the factors used in that statutory calculation. As our county grows, the formula can result in changes to compensation. I understand why citizens ask questions about government salaries, and I believe those questions deserve straightforward answers.
Second, the Black Hawk helicopter.
There has also been considerable discussion about our decision to acquire a refurbished Black Hawk helicopter. Let me explain the reason behind that purchase. Our previous helicopter was a single-purpose aircraft approaching the end of its useful life. Maintenance costs were increasing, and its operational capabilities were limited. Rather than simply replacing it with a comparable aircraft, we worked with the County to evaluate alternatives that could provide greater capabilities and better long-term value. A new helicopter was estimated to cost $14 million or more, before adding the specialized equipment and avionics needed for our operations. Instead, we acquired a refurbished 1986 military Black Hawk helicopter, equipped with avionics, along with a second flyable Black Hawk intended to support our parts needs, for approximately $7.5 million.
The aircraft provides multiple capabilities, including law enforcement patrol and aviation support, aerial firefighting, with a water capacity of approximately 950 gallons compared with the previous aircraft’s 150 gallons, search-and-rescue operations, long-line rescue and heavy-lift capabilities, offshore response and mosquito control support.
I believe this purchase represented a responsible investment in equipment that can serve our community in a variety of emergencies. I also recognize that every significant government expenditure should be open to public scrutiny. That is part of accountability, and I welcome the opportunity to explain the decisions we make.
Beyond the projected financial impact, I am concerned about how quickly this proposal was developed. The legislation was advanced during a special session over approximately three days, without the benefit of a comprehensive impact study. When we are considering changes of this magnitude, particularly changes that could affect public safety, emergency response, infrastructure, and other essential services, I believe a thorough analysis should be part of the process.
There is also an important distinction between passing a law and amending our state constitution. Laws can be revisited and changed through the legislative process. Constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to modify or reverse once adopted. That makes it especially important for voters to understand not just the intended benefits, but also the potential long-term consequences.
I do not believe this conversation will end with Amendment 3, regardless of the outcome. In fact, I believe the public’s frustration with property taxes has made it clear that meaningful reform needs to remain a priority. Florida’s Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which assembles every 20 years, is scheduled to be convened in 2027. That process offers an opportunity to bring together individuals with expertise in taxation, budgeting, public finance, and government services to examine potential reforms. It is an opportunity to ask difficult questions, evaluate the financial impacts, and explore ways to provide meaningful relief while maintaining the services you expect and deserve. We should be willing to examine every reasonable option.
I recognize that some people will disagree with my position, and I respect their right to do so. I also recognize that many taxpayers are frustrated with government spending. They expect efficiency, transparency, and accountability. As your Sheriff, I believe those expectations are entirely reasonable. My responsibility, however, extends beyond managing a budget. It includes ensuring that our community has the resources, personnel, and capabilities necessary to respond when people need help. When you call 911, you expect someone to answer. When a crime occurs, you expect it to be investigated. When a loved one goes missing, you expect us to have the resources to search for them. And when a hurricane or other disaster strikes, you expect your Sheriff’s Office to be prepared. Those expectations do not disappear when funding changes.
I support tax relief. I support responsible government spending. And I support protecting the essential public safety services our community relies upon. These goals should not be treated as mutually exclusive. You deserve meaningful tax relief. You also deserve to know how proposed changes could affect the safety and services of your community. Above all, you deserve a government that does the hard work of finding responsible solutions, rather than leaving families and communities to deal with unintended consequences.
That is the standard I believe we should expect, and it is the standard I will continue to work toward as your Sheriff.
Amendment 3 sounded too good to be true. Voters can have tax relief and protected public safety, but only if lawmakers do the work to design it responsibly through a body like the 2027 Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, rather than locking an unfunded cut into the state constitution.
Be Strong, Be Safe, and Never Quit!“
Sheriff William Prummell