Florida Property Taxes Could Change in 2027: What Amendment 3 Would Actually Do

Florida property taxes are once again at the center of the state’s affordability debate.

In November 2026, Florida voters will consider Amendment 3, officially titled “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes.” The proposed constitutional amendment would substantially increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes, reduce the annual assessment-growth cap for non-homestead properties, and allow additional steps toward eliminating certain property taxes on homestead property.

The proposal may sound straightforward: homeowners pay less in property taxes.

But property taxes currently fund counties, cities, special districts, public safety, infrastructure, hospitals, emergency services, parks, libraries, and other local operations. Therefore, the larger question is not simply whether property owners would receive a tax reduction.

The larger question is:

What happens to the services currently funded by that revenue?

Here is what Florida homeowners, buyers, landlords, investors, and business owners should know.

Is Amendment 3 Officially on the Florida Ballot?

Yes.

The Florida Legislature approved House Joint Resolution 1-F during a June 2026 special session. It was filed with the Florida Secretary of State on June 16, 2026, and is listed as Amendment 3 for the November 2026 general election. If approved, its initial changes would take effect January 1, 2027.

Because the proposal would amend the Florida Constitution, it must receive at least 60% voter approval to pass.

What Would Amendment 3 Do?

The amendment contains several major components.

1. Increase the Homestead Exemption for Non-School Taxes

Florida currently provides homestead-property owners with exemptions that reduce the taxable value of their primary residence.

Under Amendment 3, the exemption applicable to most non-school property taxes would increase to:

• $150,000 in 2027

• $250,000 in 2028

Beginning in 2029, the $250,000 amount would be adjusted annually for inflation.

This means that, for many homeowners, a much larger portion of their homestead’s assessed value would be excluded when counties, cities, and certain special districts calculate property taxes.

However, the increased exemption would generally not apply to school district property taxes.

2. School Property Taxes Would Still Remain

This is one of the most important parts of the proposal.

Amendment 3 would not eliminate the property taxes imposed for public-school funding. The enlarged exemption would apply primarily to non-school levies.

Therefore, even a homeowner whose property becomes fully exempt from county or city property taxes could still receive a tax bill containing school district taxes and other charges that are not affected by the amendment.

The proposal should not be understood as an immediate elimination of every item appearing on a Florida property-tax bill.

3. Create a Path Toward Eliminating Additional Non-School Homestead Taxes

The proposal goes beyond increasing the exemption to $250,000.

It would authorize the Legislature to establish procedures allowing counties and municipalities to increase the exemption up to the remaining assessed value of a homestead. Special districts could also be permitted to increase their exemptions under procedures established by the Legislature.

In practical terms, this creates a constitutional pathway toward eliminating most or all non-school property taxes on homestead property.

However, the amendment itself does not provide a complete timetable for eliminating all remaining non-school taxes. Additional legislation and procedures would still be required.

4. Reduce the Assessment Cap for Non-Homestead Property

Amendment 3 is not limited to primary residences.

Florida currently limits annual assessment increases on many non-homestead properties to 10%, subject to certain exceptions such as a change of ownership.

The proposal would reduce that maximum annual assessment increase from 10% to 5% for non-school property-tax purposes.

This category can include:

• Commercial real estate

• Rental properties

• Second homes

• Vacation homes

• Investment properties

• Properties that do not qualify for homestead protection

This provision could help slow how quickly a property’s taxable assessment rises. However, it would not freeze the property’s tax bill.

A local government could still change its millage rate, and a property could still be reassessed following a sale or another event that triggers reassessment.

Would Every Florida Homeowner Receive the Same Benefit?

No.

The amount of savings would depend on several factors, including:

• The property’s assessed value

• Whether the property has an existing homestead exemption

• The owner’s Save Our Homes assessment history

• Local millage rates

• The taxing authorities appearing on the bill

• Whether the charge is a property tax or a non-ad valorem assessment

• When the owner established Florida residency and homestead status

A homeowner with a lower assessed value could see most of the property’s value removed from non-school taxation.

A homeowner with a significantly higher assessed value may continue paying non-school property taxes on the value remaining above the exemption.

Example

Suppose a homestead property has an assessed value of $300,000.

If a $250,000 non-school exemption applies, only approximately $50,000 may remain subject to qualifying non-school property taxes.

That does not mean the entire tax bill would be calculated on $50,000. School district taxes may use a different taxable value, and assessments or charges outside the amendment may still appear on the bill.

Actual savings would vary by county, municipality, and individual property.

What About New Florida Residents?

The proposal contains a separate rule for people who establish Florida residency after January 1, 2027.

A person who establishes residency after that date would generally have to maintain Florida residency for five years before receiving the increased exemption available under the amendment.

During that period, the owner could remain subject to the exemption structure that existed before the amendment’s expanded benefit.

This could create different property-tax treatment for otherwise similar neighbors based on when they established Florida residency and homestead status.

That distinction could become important for:

• People relocating to Florida

• First-time Florida homebuyers

• Buyers converting second homes into primary residences

• Retirees planning a future move

• Real estate professionals advising incoming buyers

Where Does Florida Property-Tax Money Currently Go?

Florida property taxes are primarily local taxes.

They do not simply go into one statewide account. They are imposed by different taxing authorities and used to fund different governmental functions.

Depending on the property’s location, the tax bill may include levies for:

• County government

• Municipal government

• Public schools

• Fire and emergency services

• Law enforcement

• Roads, bridges, and stormwater systems

• Water management

• Public hospitals

• Children’s services

• Parks and recreation

• Libraries

• Public transportation

• Debt payments and voter-approved bonds

• Other special districts

The precise taxing authorities differ from one property to another.

If Amendment 3 Passes, Where Will That Money Go?

This question requires an important clarification.

The reduced property-tax revenue would not automatically be transferred into another state fund.

Instead, the money would generally remain with the homeowner or property owner in the form of a lower tax obligation.

From the government’s perspective, the revenue would no longer be collected.

That means local governments and affected districts could have less money available unless the revenue is replaced from another source.

State economists have estimated that the increased exemption and reduced non-homestead assessment cap could produce approximately $12 billion in recurring fiscal impact. That estimate does not include the possible future cost of fully eliminating non-school homestead property taxes.

How Could Local Governments Replace the Lost Revenue?

Amendment 3 does not create one automatic statewide replacement fund for every county, city, or special district affected by the reduction.

Local governments could therefore face several options.

Reduce or Restructure Services

Local governments could reduce spending, delay projects, eliminate programs, freeze hiring, consolidate departments, or reduce the level of certain services.

The actual impact would vary because some communities rely much more heavily on homestead-property taxes than others.

Increase Other Taxes or Fees

Governments may explore other available revenue sources, potentially including:

• Higher user fees

• Utility charges

• Fire assessments

• Stormwater assessments

• Transportation fees

• Permit and development fees

• Special assessments

• Local-option sales taxes, where legally available and approved

• Higher millage rates on taxable property that remains outside the exemption

Whether a specific increase could be imposed would depend on existing law, voter-approval requirements, local political decisions, and the language of the amendment.

Shift More of the Burden to Non-Homestead Property

As more homestead value becomes exempt, a larger share of the remaining property-tax base may consist of:

• Businesses

• Apartment communities

• Rental homes

• Vacation homes

• Second homes

• Newly purchased properties

• Other non-homestead real estate

The proposed 5% assessment cap could slow taxable-value increases for those properties, but it would not prevent changes in millage rates or other taxes and fees.

Therefore, investors and commercial property owners should not assume that a lower assessment cap guarantees a lower overall tax bill.

Seek Additional State Funding

The Legislature could decide to provide replacement funding for certain local services.

However, the constitutional amendment itself does not guarantee that the state will replace every dollar of revenue lost by each local government or special district.

Any replacement plan would likely require additional legislation, budget decisions, and recurring appropriations.

Would the Amendment Protect Public Safety and Infrastructure?

The amendment would restrict the use of remaining county and municipal property-tax revenue to identified categories of public needs.

Those categories include matters such as:

• Law enforcement

• Fire and emergency medical services

• Education and public schools

• Roads and bridges

• Stormwater and flood control

• Natural-resource projects

• Certain debt obligations

• Retirement benefits

• Government administration

However, restricting how the remaining money may be used is not the same as guaranteeing that enough money will remain to maintain every current service level.

Local governments may still have to prioritize among permitted expenses if their overall revenue declines.

Could Hospitals and Special Districts Be Affected?

Yes.

Certain hospitals, children’s services councils, water-management districts, and other special districts receive property-tax revenue.

The Florida Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals could experience a substantial decline in annual property-tax revenue if the amendment passes. Recent reporting identified potential annual losses of approximately $20 million in Hillsborough County and $28 million in Pinellas County for affected health-care services.

The actual effect would depend on each district’s tax base, exemption structure, available reserves, and other funding sources.

Could Renters Be Affected?

Possibly.

Renters do not receive a homestead exemption on property owned by their landlord.

If landlords or apartment owners experience increased operating costs, higher fees, increased millage rates, or changes to assessments, some of those costs may eventually be reflected in rent.

On the other hand, the amendment’s proposed 5% cap on annual assessment growth could provide some protection to rental-property owners by slowing increases in taxable assessed value.

The net effect would depend on local tax policy, the property’s assessment history, market conditions, insurance expenses, maintenance costs, and the landlord’s pricing decisions.

Could Commercial Tenants Be Affected?

Yes, particularly tenants whose leases require them to pay property taxes or operating expenses.

Under many commercial leases, the tenant may be responsible for some or all of the property’s:

• Real estate taxes

• Common-area maintenance charges

• Insurance

• Special assessments

• Operating expenses

This is common in triple-net and modified gross leases.

Therefore, even when the property owner receives the tax bill, the economic cost may be passed through to the business occupying the property.

Commercial tenants should review the tax and operating-expense provisions in their leases rather than assuming the amendment will automatically reduce their occupancy costs.

Would Amendment 3 Eliminate Special Assessments?

Not necessarily.

Florida property-tax bills frequently contain both ad valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessments.

Ad valorem taxes are generally based on the property’s taxable value.

Non-ad valorem assessments may be based on another measurement, such as:

• A flat amount per property

• The number of units

• Lot size

• Road frontage

• A specific benefit provided to the property

Examples may include fire assessments, solid-waste charges, lighting districts, stormwater charges, and neighborhood improvements.

Because Amendment 3 primarily concerns ad valorem property taxation, homeowners should not assume that every charge appearing on their annual tax bill would disappear.

What Are the Main Arguments in Favor of Amendment 3?

Supporters are likely to argue that the proposal would:

• Provide meaningful relief to Florida homeowners

• Help residents remain in their homes as costs rise

• Offset increasing insurance, maintenance, and housing expenses

• Place limits on the growth of commercial and investment-property assessments

• Encourage local-government efficiency

• Keep more money in the hands of property owners

• Move Florida toward eliminating non-school homestead property taxes

For property owners facing higher housing expenses, the immediate savings could be significant.

What Are the Main Concerns?

Critics and local-government advocates are likely to argue that the proposal could:

• Reduce funding for essential local services

• Shift costs to renters and businesses

• Increase reliance on fees and special assessments

• Create different rules for current and future Florida residents

• Benefit homestead owners more than renters

• Place pressure on hospitals and special districts

• Force service cuts or delayed infrastructure projects

• Make local budgets more dependent on economically sensitive revenue sources

The central concern is not that the tax reduction disappears into another government account.

It is that the revenue would no longer be collected, while the cost of providing police protection, fire rescue, roads, hospitals, parks, and other services would continue.

What Should Property Owners Do Before Voting?

Florida voters should review more than the amendment’s title.

Property owners should consider:

1. How much of their current bill consists of school taxes.

2. Which local governments and districts currently tax their property.

3. Whether the property is homestead, rental, commercial, or a second home.

4. Whether any charges are non-ad valorem assessments.

5. How the amendment could affect local services in their community.

6. Whether future taxes or fees could replace part of the savings.

7. How residency timing may affect eligibility for the expanded exemption.

A homeowner may benefit differently from a landlord, commercial owner, renter, first-time buyer, or person planning to move to Florida after 2027.

The Mustang Lawyer’s Take

Property-tax relief sounds simple until we examine how local government is funded.

For many Florida homeowners, Amendment 3 could produce real and substantial savings. Increasing the non-school homestead exemption to $250,000 could remove most of a moderately priced home’s assessed value from county and municipal taxation.

But the amendment does not eliminate the underlying cost of operating a community.

Roads still require maintenance. Fire departments still respond. Police officers still patrol. Stormwater systems still need repairs. Hospitals still provide care. Local governments will have to decide what to reduce, what to restructure, and whether other revenue sources should replace part of the loss.

That is why the ballot question is about more than whether Floridians want lower property taxes.

It is also about which services communities expect, how those services should be funded, and who will bear the cost after the tax structure changes.

Florida voters will ultimately have to decide whether the expected savings justify the possible effect on local revenue and services.

#TheMustangLawyer