Introduction<\/p>\n
In response to Gov. Ron DeSantis\u2019 call for a special session on property taxes,[1] the Florida Legislature passed House Joint Resolution (HJR) 1-F \u2014 and its companion Senate Bill (SB) 4-F \u2014 which would increase the state\u2019s homestead exemption, reduce the assessment growth cap on non-homesteaded properties, and create a pathway for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteads. The proposed amendment to Florida\u2019s constitution, soon to be known as Amendment 3, will be in front of voters in the upcoming November 2026 general election.[2]<\/p>\n
As explained by research organizations such as Florida Policy Institute and the Tax Foundation,[3],[4],[5],[6] proposals to eliminate property taxes on primary residences like HJR 1-F would erode local revenue and leave counties, municipalities, and special districts with limited options to pay for the local services Floridians rely on, including public hospitals, emergency preparedness and management, police and fire rescue, sanitation, public parks, community centers, and libraries. As the Tax Foundation affirms, \u201c[w]hile a proposal to phase down property taxes on the primary residences of Florida homeowners may grab headlines, it risks severely undermining the competitiveness of Florida\u2019s overall tax structure and leaving the state worse off.\u201d[7]<\/p>\n
Ultimately, if 60 percent of Florida voters approve Amendment 3, costs will shift, as localities either raise taxes and fees or cut public services. The Tax Foundation adds that the amendment would \u201cshift property tax burdens in highly distortionary ways and make Florida\u2019s tax code far less stable and competitive.\u201d[8]<\/p>\n
In terms of impact, Florida\u2019s Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) determined that Amendment 3 would cost $12 billion annually. REC\u2019s estimate includes the cost of the proposed $250,000-exemption on homesteaded properties and the proposed reduction in the state\u2019s assessment growth cap for non-homesteaded residential and non-residential properties from a maximum of 10 percent to 5 percent. (See Figure 1.) Notably, the $12-billion figure does not include the cost of fully eliminating non-school property taxes on homesteads.<\/p>\n
\u200d
The summary below includes a more detailed breakdown of what the Legislature included in Amendment 3 as it heads to voters in November 2026.<\/p>\n
About the Title: \u201cSave Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes\u201d<\/p>\n
The Legislature\u2019s statement \u2014 language that will be placed on the ballot \u2014 \u00a0refers to the constitutional amendment as \u201cSave Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes\u201d and claims that it will benefit Florida taxpayers through four provisions (discussed below).[9] However, the proposed constitutional amendment would do nothing to reform Florida\u2019s assessment growth cap for primary residences, also known as \u201cSave Our Homes\u201d (SOH), which voters passed in 1992 .[10],[11] The title implies that excessive property taxes are a widespread issue, yet it does not acknowledge that due to Florida\u2019s SOH and current homestead exemptions, homeowners\u2019 assessments \u2014 on average \u2014 are 50.3 percent lower than market values.[12] Florida\u2019s SOH costs about $9.1 billion, revenue that would otherwise go to local governments.[13] While there are known issues with the state\u2019s property tax code that disadvantage new homeowners and shift the burden onto non-primary residences,[14] long-standing homeowners are already protected from excessive property taxes.[15] Moreover, the Legislature\u2019s assertion that the amendment \u201cbenefits Florida taxpayers\u201d ignores the fact that Florida\u2019s 3 million renter households \u2014 including 905,000 renters who have low income and spend over 40 percent of their money on housing costs[16] \u2014 are excluded, even though research shows that landlords often shift some of the property tax burden onto them.[17]<\/p>\n
The Amendment Lacks Clarity Surrounding the Homestead Exemption and the Full Elimination of Non-School Property Taxes on Homesteads \u00a0Provision #1:\u201cExempting homestead properties from taxation. Exempts the first $250,000 of a homestead\u2019s value from taxation for all levies other than school district levies and requires, through general law, a schedule for full elimination.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Florida\u2019s Department of Revenue (DOR) explains, when someone owns a property and makes it their permanent residence or the permanent residence of their dependents, they may be eligible to receive a homestead exemption to decrease taxable value by over $50,000.[18] In Florida, there are two homestead exemptions. The first is a $25,000 homestead exemption that all localities, including school districts, must offer. The state also has a second $25,000 homestead exemption that applies to non-school property tax collections. In 2024, Florida voters approved Amendment 5 to index the second homestead exemption to inflation, ensuring it increases from year to year.[19] The homestead exemption also qualifies a property for SOH.<\/p>\n
If approved by voters, Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption for all levies other than school districts. Specifically, the amendment would increase the state\u2019s non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027, followed by an increase to $250,000 in 2028. Thereafter, starting in 2029, the $250,000 homestead exemption would be adjusted annually for inflation.[20] (However, the language does not convey these details to voters.)<\/p>\n
The amendment would give the Legislature the authority to \u201cprescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the amount of assessed valuation exempt from taxation \u2026 up to all remaining assessed valuation.\u201d[21] The amendment would also give special districts (e.g., Children\u2019s Services Councils, Water Management Districts) the ability to increase the exemption up to all remaining assessed valuation through procedures outlined by the Legislature.[22]<\/p>\n
In short, Amendment 3 would create a pathway to non-school homestead property tax \u201celimination\u201d by giving a future Legislature the ability to create a procedure, presumably a \u201cschedule,\u201d for counties and cities to eliminate these taxes. However, beyond the schedule for the $250,000 non-school homestead exemption, it is unclear when a future Legislature would have to prescribe the \u201cuniform procedures\u201d and how much discretion localities would have, if any. Furthermore, Amendment 3 would make it so that these future decisions require no additional voter approval.<\/p>\n
The Amendment Would Impede Decision-Making at the Community Level and Put Funding for Critical Services at RiskProvision #2: \u201cEnsuring funding for core services. Requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources.\u201d<\/p>\n
Property tax dollars, which make up the largest share of county revenue in nearly half of Florida\u2019s counties,[23] fund vital public services like public hospitals, emergency preparedness and management, police and fire rescue, sanitation, public parks, community centers, libraries, and constitutional officers (e.g., sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections). Considering the elimination of non-school homestead property taxes, county revenue loss would range from 2 to 24 percent.[24] Relatedly, the Florida League of Cities notes that if property taxes on homesteads were eliminated, local governments would lose nearly 38 percent of property tax revenue, on average.[25] The loss would strain cities’ ability to pay for services like public safety, which already costs more than property taxes bring in.[26]<\/p>\n
If approved by voters, Amendment 3 would erode local revenue while mandating that counties and cities use property tax (or \u201cad valorem\u201d) revenue to pay for services the state deems a \u201ccore service.\u201d[27] The amendment would restrict local governments\u2019 ability to use property taxes to finance public services that fall outside the following categories:<\/p>\n
Public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical serviceEducation and public schoolsThe finance or refinance of Infrastructure, including expenditures on road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater controlThe finance or refinance of natural resource projects, including flood control measuresLocal bonds for uses consistent with this list and debt service payments for existing obligationsRetirement benefits of local government employeesOperations and administration of county officers and commissioners established under Article VIII and municipalities, and the expenditures approved by such county officers or county or municipal governing bodies, except those expenditures prohibited by general law.<\/p>\n
By codifying a list of allowable expenses at the local level, Amendment 3 would preempt local choices about what services to finance with property taxes. Beyond the mandate to spend remaining property tax revenue on state-defined core services, the notion that Amendment 3 would \u201censure funding\u201d is vague. State lawmakers are not acknowledging that, without replacing the lost revenue due to a $250,000 homestead exemption or the full elimination of non-school homestead property taxes, overall funding for local services would have to decrease and localities would have to prioritize allowable expenditures like public safety over other expenses. As such, Amendment 3 would restrict the use of local property tax dollars, but not guarantee that funding levels remain adequate to meet the diverse needs of localities across Florida.<\/p>\n
The Amendment Would Shift Costs Onto Renters, Consumers, and Small BusinessesProvision #3: \u201cProtecting small businesses. Limits future property tax assessments on businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the Tax Foundation, if voters approve Amendment 3, \u201c[e]liminating such a sizeable share of Florida\u2019s property tax base would not reduce the cost of providing local government services; it would simply require that the lost revenue be generated elsewhere, including from higher millage rates on all property that remains taxable.\u201d[28] In other words, Amendment 3 would lead to a cost shift as localities turn to non-homesteaded properties like rental units or commercial properties to raise property taxes.<\/p>\n
To mitigate a fraction of the cost shift, Amendment 3, if approved, would reduce the state\u2019s assessment growth cap for non-homesteaded properties \u2014 i.e., properties that do not serve as a primary residence, like commercial real estate, second homes, and rental properties \u2014 from a maximum of 10 percent to 5 percent.[29] In other words, from year to year, non-homesteaded property assessments for non-school property taxes would, at a maximum, increase by 5 percent \u2014 this is two percentage points higher than the current maximum allowed for homesteaded properties under SOH. While the amendment would cut annual assessment growth for non-homesteaded properties in half, it does not keep property tax rates or millages from increasing.<\/p>\n
As the Florida Chamber of Commerce wrote to state leaders ahead of the property tax special session, \u201ca shift of the property tax burden to non-homesteaded properties will likely result in higher prices, fewer new jobs, lessened services and\/or diminished investment.\u201d[30] Conclusively, if approved, Amendment 3 would not isolate small businesses to \u201cprotect\u201d them since the assessment changes would apply to all non-homesteaded properties, including large corporations. If property taxes increase for commercial properties, all businesses would end up paying more and would have to decide whether to absorb those costs or shift them onto renters and consumers.<\/p>\n
The Amendment Could Create an Unfair, Two-Tiered Taxation System that Leaves Florida Renters and First-Time Homebuyers BehindProvision #4: \u201cEnsuring fairness for Florida residents. Requires any person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027, to maintain Florida residency for five years prior to receiving the increased homestead exemption.\u201d<\/p>\n
The final provision under Amendment 3 claims to \u201censure fairness for Florida residents\u201d by specifying that a person who establishes residency before January 1, 2027, is eligible to receive the new homestead exemption. In contrast, someone who buys a property and makes it their homestead in 2027 would have to pay property taxes under the current system until their fifth year receiving the homestead exemption, at which point they would become eligible for the same benefits as those who had a homestead before 2027.[31] In effect, Amendment 3 would create two systems of taxation for Florida residents depending on when they bought their property and established a homestead exemption.<\/p>\n
While the language seems straightforward, the resolution does not explain what it means to \u201cestablish Florida residency\u201d for those who do not own a property. This is important because Florida laws related to homestead exemptions use terms like \u201cpermanent resident,\u201d \u201cpermanent residence,\u201d and \u201cpermanent residency\u201d to refer to property owners.[32] In other words, Floridians who rent, have a driver\u2019s license, vote, have a vehicle registration, and live in the state for the majority of the year, based on the amendment\u2019s requirements, may not be eligible for the new homestead benefits unless they buy a home (a permanent residence) by the end of 2026 or become homeowners after 2026 and pay taxes under the current system until the new benefits kick in during the fifth year. More accurate language would underscore that \u201cresidents\u201d and \u201cresidency\u201d is referring to Floridians who own real estate and have a homestead \u2014 as written in the resolution, a person must have \u201clegal or equitable title to real estate\u201d and maintain \u201cthereon the permanent residence of the owner.\u201d[33] As such, Amendment 3 does not ensure fairness to residents who rent and pay some property tax (depending on their landlord\u2019s ability to shift the tax burden). Furthermore, it would continue to disadvantage Floridians who are first-time homebuyers and new property owners.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: About the Cost<\/p>\n
In terms of the financial impact associated with Amendment 3, the state\u2019s REC \u2014 made up of principals representing the Executive Office of the Governor, the Legislature, and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research \u2014 determined that the amendment would cost nearly $12 billion on a recurring basis if approved. (See Figure 1 in the Introduction section for the conference\u2019s county-by-county estimates.)<\/p>\n
Notes<\/p>\n
[1] Executive Office of the Governor, May 27, 2026, \u201cProclamation,\u201d https:\/\/www.flgov.com\/eog\/sites\/default\/files\/pdf\/JuneSpecialSessionProclamation_Filed_5.27.26.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [2] Florida\u2019s Department of State (DOS) offers a list of constitutional amendments or initiatives that are actively seeking ballot positions for the next regularly scheduled general election. For the upcoming 2026 general election, DOS enumerates two amendments: \u201cBudget Stabilization Fund\u201d (#1) and \u201cExemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation\u201d (#2). Consequently, FPI expects \u201cSave Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes\u201d to appear as the next amendment (#3). See FDOS, \u201cInitiatives\/Amendments\/Revisions Database,\u201d https:\/\/constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov\/.<\/a><\/p>\n [3] Esteban Leonardo Santis, May 29, 2026, \u201cMap: Projected Revenue Loss for Florida School Districts and Counties Under Governor\u2019s Property Tax Reform Proposal,\u201d Florida Policy Institute, https:\/\/www.floridapolicy.org\/posts\/map-projected-revenue-loss-for-florida-school-districts-and-counties-under-governors-property-tax-reform-proposal<\/a>.<\/p>\n [4] Esteban Leonardo Santis, February 25, 2025, \u201cA Risky Proposition: Weakening Local Governments by Eliminating Property Tax Revenue,\u201d Florida Policy Institute, https:\/\/www.floridapolicy.org\/posts\/a-risky-proposition-weakening-local-governments-by-eliminating-property-tax-revenue<\/a>.<\/p>\n [5] \u00a0Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, \u201cThe Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to \u2018Save Their Homes?\u2019\u201d Tax Foundation, https:\/\/taxfoundation.org\/blog\/florida-property-tax-proposal\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n [6] Jared Walczak, October 7, 2025, \u201cThere\u2019s No Good Way to Pay for Property Tax Repeal,\u201d Tax Foundation, https:\/\/taxfoundation.org\/research\/all\/state\/property-tax-repeal-replace-revenue\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n [7] Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, \u201cThe Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to \u2018Save Their Homes?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n [8] Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, \u201cThe Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to \u2018Save Their Homes?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n [9] \u00a0Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1-F Enrolled, page 19\u201320, https:\/\/www.flhouse.gov\/Sections\/Documents\/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0001Fer.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1&Session=2026F<\/a>.<\/p>\n [10] Select Committee on Property Taxes, 2025, \u201cThe Property Tax Homestead Exemption in Florida: Timeline of Important Events,\u201d Florida House of Representatives, https:\/\/www.flhouse.gov\/Sections\/Documents\/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=3355&Session=2025&DocumentType=General+Publications&FileName=Homestead+Exemption+Timeline.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [11] In 1992, voters approved the Save Our Homes (SOH) assessment cap to limit annual increases in assessed value of homesteaded properties to the lesser of 3 percent or the change in the Consumer Price Index. As implemented, after the first year living in a homestead, SOH takes the market value and applies the growth cap to determine its assessed value; the following year, SOH begins with the already-capped assessed value and applies the cap once again \u2014 since its implementation in 1995, the assessment cap has hit 3 percent only nine times; for the other 23 years (up to 2026), it has been less. In effect, as years go by, the difference between a homestead\u2019s market value and assessed value grows, rewarding homeowners with more SOH benefits (or differential) the longer they stay in their home.<\/p>\n [12] Select Committee on Property Taxes, September 22, 2025, \u201cProperty Taxes: Homestead Distribution and Benefits,\u201d Florida House of Representatives, page 23 of 68, https:\/\/www.flhouse.gov\/Sections\/Documents\/loaddoc.aspx?MeetingId=14799&PublicationType=Committees&DocumentType=Meeting%20Packets<\/a>.<\/p>\n [13] Revenue Estimating Conference, 2025, \u201cFlorida Tax Handbook: Including Fiscal Impact of Potential Changes,\u201d Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, page 229, https:\/\/edr.state.fl.us\/content\/revenues\/reports\/tax-handbook\/taxhandbook.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [14] Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, February 15, 2007, \u201cFlorida\u2019s Property Tax Study Interim Report: As Required by Chapter 2006-311, Laws of Florida,\u201d pages 2-5, https:\/\/www.edr.state.fl.us\/Content\/special-research-projects\/property-tax-study\/Ad%20Valorem-iterim-report.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [15] For many Floridians, property insurance is a bigger concern. When asked whether lawmakers ought to tackle property tax or property insurance reform, voters say they want property insurance relief by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. See Florida Policy Institute, January 15, 2026, \u201cFlorida Voters by Nearly 2 to 1 Margin Favor Property Insurance Relief Over Property Tax Relief,\u201d https:\/\/www.floridapolicy.org\/posts\/florida-voters-by-nearly-2-to-1-margin-favor-property-insurance-relief-over-property-tax-relief<\/a>.<\/p>\n [16] Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, June 2025, \u201c2025 Rental Market Study,\u201d University of Florida, page 14, https:\/\/shimberg.ufl.edu\/publications\/2025_rental_market_study.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [17] See Richard W. England, June 2016, \u201cTaxing Incidence and Rental Housing: A Survey and Critique of Research,\u201d National Tax Journal, 69(2), pages 440\u2013448, https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Richard-England\/publication\/301287805_Tax_Incidence_and_Rental_Housing_A_Survey_and_Critique_of_Research\/links\/570f96bb08ae38897ba22bd9\/Tax-Incidence-and-Rental-Housing-A-Survey-and-Critique-of-Research.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [18] Florida Department of Revenue, August 2025, \u201cProperty Tax Information for Homestead Exemption,\u201d https:\/\/floridarevenue.com\/property\/Documents\/pt113.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n [19] For a history, see Select Committee on Property Taxes, 2025, \u201cThe Property Tax Homestead Exemption in Florida: Timeline of Important Events.\u201d<\/p>\n Florida\u2019s Amendment 5, approved by voters in November 2024, increases the second-tier homestead exemption each year to keep pace with inflation.<\/p>\n [20] Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1F Enrolled, Section 6, page 9\u201313.<\/p>\n [21] \u00a0Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1F Enrolled, Section 6, page 12.<\/p>\n [22] \u00a0Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1F Enrolled, Section 6, page 12\u201313.<\/p>\n [23] Florida Association of Counties, August 2025, \u201cFlorida County Property Tax Report,\u201d FAC, page 8, https:\/\/www.fl-counties.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Florida-County-Property-Tax-Report-2-1.pdf.<\/a><\/p>\n [24] Esteban Leonardo Santis, September 22, 2025, \u201cHomestead Property Tax Revenue is Crucial to Florida Counties, School Districts, and Municipalities (Map),\u201d Florida Policy Institute, https:\/\/www.floridapolicy.org\/posts\/homestead-property-tax-revenue-is-crucial-to-florida-counties-school-districts-and-municipalities-map.<\/a><\/p>\n [25] Hai (David) Guo and Shaoming Cheng, December 2025, \u201cFiscal Structure & Revenue Resilience of Florida Municipalities: A Microsimulation Assessment of Homestead Property Tax Reform Scenarios,\u201d Florida League of Cities, page 3, https:\/\/www.flcities.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Fiscal-Structure-and-Revenue-Resilience-of-Florida-Municipalities.pdf.<\/a><\/p>\n [26] Hai (David) Guo and Shaoming Cheng, December 2025, \u201cFiscal Structure & Revenue Resilience of Florida Municipalities: A Microsimulation Assessment of Homestead Property Tax Reform Scenarios,\u201d page 2.<\/p>\n [27] \u00a0Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1F Enrolled, Section 9, page 17\u201318.<\/p>\n [28] Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, \u201cThe Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to \u2018Save Their Homes?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n [29] Florida House of Representatives, HJR 1F Enrolled, Section 4, page 6\u20137.<\/p>\n