Florida voters will decide in the Nov. 3 general election whether to approve Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would significantly expand the homestead property tax exemption while changing other rules governing property taxes collected by counties and municipalities.
The measure, officially titled “Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments,” requires approval from at least 60% of voters to pass. The ballot language was rewritten in August after a Leon County judge ruled that the original title and summary were misleading. The revised language is now included in the Florida Department of State’s official 2026 constitutional amendment booklet.
What Amendment 3 would do
Under Amendment 3, the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes would increase to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 for qualifying Florida residents. Beginning in 2029, the exemption would be adjusted for inflation. The larger exemption would not apply to school district property taxes.
For example, the change could substantially reduce the portion of a homesteaded property’s assessed value subject to county, municipal and certain other non-school property taxes. The actual savings for an individual homeowner would depend on the property’s assessed value, applicable exemptions and local millage rates.
The amendment also establishes different rules for people becoming Florida residents after Dec. 31, 2026. New residents who qualify for homestead would initially receive the existing exemption and generally would become eligible for the expanded exemption beginning with their fifth year.
Another provision would reduce the annual assessment increase cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. Non-homestead property can include second homes, rental properties and commercial properties. This provision could limit how quickly the taxable assessed value of those properties increases.
The amendment also directs the Legislature to establish a uniform process allowing counties and municipalities to increase their homestead exemptions up to the property’s full assessed value. Special districts could increase exemptions with voter approval.
In addition, county and municipal property tax revenue would be directed toward categories including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, employee retirement benefits, and government operations and administration. The revised ballot language notes that other expenditures could still be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by state law.
If approved, the constitutional changes would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
Arguments in favor
Supporters say Amendment 3 would provide substantial property tax relief at a time when rising home values have contributed to higher local property tax collections.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislative supporters have argued that homeowners should receive more direct benefits from Florida’s growth and that local governments should exercise greater spending restraint rather than relying on increasing property values to generate additional revenue.
Supporters also point to the reduction of the non-homestead assessment cap from 10% to 5% as protection for businesses, landlords and owners of other non-homestead property against rapid increases in taxable assessments.
Another argument is that the amendment does not reduce the property tax revenue dedicated to public schools through the expanded homestead exemption. School district levies remain outside the larger exemption.
Supporters also contend that allowing counties and municipalities to eventually increase exemptions further gives communities a pathway toward additional property tax relief while requiring local officials to prioritize core government responsibilities.
Arguments against
Opponents focus primarily on the effect that a substantially larger exemption could have on local government revenue.
Counties and cities rely heavily on property taxes to pay for services, including law enforcement, fire and emergency services, roads and infrastructure, parks, libraries, emergency management and other government operations. Critics argue that removing a larger portion of homestead property from the tax base could force local governments to reduce services, delay projects, increase fees or rely more heavily on other revenue sources.
Opponents also argue that the benefits would not be distributed equally. The expanded homestead exemption directly benefits qualifying homeowners, while renters do not receive the exemption. Owners of properties with lower assessed values may also receive less benefit because they already have relatively little taxable value remaining after existing exemptions.
The Florida Nonprofit Alliance has raised concerns about the potential effect on nonprofit organizations that receive local government grants or contracts. In a statewide survey of 83 nonprofit organizations, 92% of respondents said they anticipated the amendment could affect their organizations or the communities they serve. Among organizations anticipating an impact, 77% expected reductions in local government funding or in-kind services, according to the group’s survey presented in the materials accompanying its opposition campaign.
The organization argues that reductions in local government services could also increase demand for nonprofit programs at the same time government funding available to those organizations becomes more limited.
Critics further contend that property tax relief does not eliminate the cost of providing local services. If property tax collections decline while demand for police, fire protection, roads, parks and other services remains, governments would have to absorb the difference through spending reductions, alternative revenues or some combination of the two.
What a Yes or No vote means
A Yes vote supports increasing the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, providing future inflation adjustments, lowering the assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and making the other property tax changes contained in the amendment.
A No vote would reject those constitutional changes and leave Florida’s current constitutional property tax structure in place.