Florida property tax fight tests homeowner relief limits
Key points:
- • A judge ordered Amendment 3’s misleading ballot language rewritten.
- • The measure trades homeowner tax relief for billions in projected local revenue losses.
- • Florida is redrafting the language ahead of the November vote.
August 2026 — A courtroom fight over a few dozen words could reshape how billions in property tax dollars flow through Florida’s cities and counties. A Leon County judge has ruled that the state’s contested property tax ballot language misleads voters, finding Amendment 3’s title and summary “clearly and conclusively defective” and ordering them rewritten.
Join us at caa’s upcoming leadership summits! These premier events bring together hundreds of public and private sector leaders to discuss the challenges and opportunities for businesses and investors. Find the next summit in a city near you!
The case concerned what voters would read on the ballot, not whether Amendment 3 is sound policy. Circuit Judge David Frank found that the wording contained advocacy, factual inaccuracies, misleading descriptions and a material omission. The plaintiffs did not ask the court to remove the amendment, and Frank said that remedy was not available in this proceeding. The measure itself remains scheduled to go before voters in November.
What Amendment 3 would do
Amendment 3 would replace Florida’s current homestead-exemption structure for non-school property taxes with an exemption covering the first $150,000 of assessed value in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. The larger exemption would be adjusted for positive inflation beginning in 2029. The existing $25,000 exemption for school-district levies would remain.
People who had not maintained a permanent Florida residence by Dec. 31, 2026, would initially receive a smaller $50,000 non-school exemption, adjusted for inflation beginning in 2028. They would become eligible for the larger exemption beginning in their fifth year. Starting in 2030, counties and municipalities could shorten that period by a two-thirds vote when justified by a “critical local need.”
For non-homestead properties, including second homes, rental properties and commercial real estate, the amendment would reduce the annual cap on increases in assessed value from 10% to 5% for non-school levies. That is an assessment-growth cap, not a direct cap on tax bills.
The measure would also restrict county and municipal property-tax revenue to seven broad spending categories, including public safety, infrastructure, debt service, retirement obligations and local-government operations. It would require the Legislature to create a procedure through which counties and municipalities could increase the homestead exemption further, potentially up to a property’s full assessed value. Special districts could approve further increases through local referendums.
The measure grew out of a year-long campaign by Gov. Ron DeSantis, though lawmakers reshaped his original proposal during a special session. They excluded school-district levies from the expanded exemption, added language allowing property-tax revenue to fund constitutional county officers and other local-government operations, and omitted a proposed state trust fund intended to assist local governments with core services. The proposed trust fund had no identified funding source and was never enacted. Passage requires at least 60% voter approval.
Tradeoff for the state
For qualifying homestead owners, the appeal is direct. At existing millage rates, the expanded exemption would lower the non-school portion of the property-tax bill for many current Florida homeowners with sufficient assessed value. The benefit would not apply equally to all residents: renters would receive no direct exemption, people moving to Florida after the residency cutoff would initially receive a smaller benefit, and owners of second homes and rental properties would benefit only from the lower assessment-growth cap.
The tighter cap could make assessments more predictable for owners of non-homestead property, but neither provision guarantees that total tax bills will fall. Local taxing authorities could respond to a smaller tax base by changing millage rates or imposing special assessments, potentially offsetting some savings.
The counterweight is the revenue local taxing authorities are projected to lose. Property taxes are a cornerstone of local finance, supporting counties, municipalities and special districts that provide police and fire protection, emergency medical services, parks, stormwater management and capital improvements.
The state’s July 10 Revenue Estimating Conference analysis projects that the amendment’s quantifiable provisions would reduce non-school local property-tax revenue by approximately $4.93 billion in FY2027-28, $8.71 billion the following year and $10.71 billion in FY2030-31. The eventual recurring annual reduction is estimated at approximately $11.83 billion. These figures represent the projected impact over time, not a range of competing estimates, and they do not include possible future decisions by local authorities to expand the exemption further.
Because the trust fund included in DeSantis’ original proposal was omitted, the final amendment contains no state backfill for the projected revenue reduction. How local governments respond would vary. Options could include reducing services, raising millage rates where permitted, adopting fees or special assessments, or finding other revenue sources. Those outcomes are possible responses rather than guaranteed consequences.
That potential squeeze is already on the minds of local leaders.
“The big unknown right now is property taxes in Florida. Are they going to be eliminated or reduced? My sense is the state is not going to completely eliminate property taxes, but I do think there will be a reduction. Cities are going to have to come up with creative ways to bring in money and, at the same time, cut their budgets,” said Antonio Arserio, mayor of the city of Margate, in an interview with Invest: Greater Fort Lauderdale.
The concern extends to how cities fund growth. “If something like that happens, it could reduce the funding that municipalities rely on, and it could affect the amount we collect through TIF to reinvest into community redevelopment areas. It could also affect basic services for residents, including infrastructure and other core city functions,” said Cedric McCray, director of the Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency, in an interview with Invest: Tampa Bay.
READ MORE: Debate intensifies over eliminating Florida property taxes
Why the wording landed in court
Those competing stakes are what made the ballot’s wording so contentious. Three consolidated lawsuits argued the title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” reads as advocacy rather than neutral disclosure, and Judge Frank agreed, writing that it “is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral.”
His order also faulted the summary’s declaration that the amendment “benefits Florida taxpayers” and its promotional taglines — “Ensuring funding for core services,” “Protecting small businesses” and “Ensuring fairness for Florida residents.”
Frank identified additional problems. The summary highlighted the $250,000 exemption while the amendment would provide only $150,000 in 2027; suggested full elimination of non-school homestead taxes was required when the amendment instead creates a process for further local exemptions; described a provision applying to all non-homestead property as protection for “small businesses”; and inaccurately described who would be subject to the residency phase-in and when they would receive the larger exemption. The judge also found that the summary omitted the amendment’s change to the constitutional balance of state and local control over property-tax spending.
Public-safety organizations including the Florida Sheriffs Association, Florida State Fraternal Order of Police, Florida Professional Firefighters and Florida Fire Chiefs Association separately opposed or raised concerns about the amendment. They warned that the projected revenue reductions could strain funding for law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services and disaster response.
The state’s next move
DeSantis said on August 6 that the state would not appeal Frank’s ruling and that revised language was already being drafted. He said he had reviewed a draft, although the replacement language had not yet been publicly finalized. Attorney General James Uthmeier, DeSantis’ former chief of staff and appointee as attorney general, has until August 14 to submit a revised title and summary correcting the deficiencies identified by the court.
Before the state confirmed that it would comply, Uthmeier said his team was giving the ruling “a hard look” and would provide updates. DeSantis, who spent the past year touring the state on rising tax bills, has said he will not personally lead the effort to pass the measure as crafted by the Legislature.
Attorney Jamie Cole, who represented several of the plaintiffs, said he hopes the attorney general will “fix these problems and do a fair and accurate ballot statement” rather than risk another challenge. Once the replacement language is submitted, challengers will have a separate 10-day period in which to raise new objections. The court has retained jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the revised wording.
Want more? Read the Invest: reports.
