August 7, 2026

Voter Guide: What Floridians Should Know About Amendment 3

This fact sheet is based on FPI’s summary of Amendment 3. Click here for the full analysis. FPI will update this post if the state rewrites the ballot language for Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 is on the Florida ballot in 2026. The amendment would increase the exemption on homesteads, create a pathway for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteads, and reduce the assessment growth cap on non-homesteaded properties.

1. If Amendment 3 passes, local governments face deep cuts to revenue. Florida families would see cuts to services, increased taxes and fees, or a combination of both.

Under Amendment 3, Florida counties, cities, towns, villages, and special taxing districts —which include public hospitals, children’s services councils, water management districts, and more — would see a significant reduction in property tax dollars that currently go toward public services. State economists predict that Amendment 3 would reduce local revenue by nearly $12 billion on a recurring basis.[1] (See Figures 1 and 2.) As a result, local governments would have to decide whether to cut funding for these services or raise revenue by other means.

2. The loss of property tax dollars under Amendment 3 would ultimately shift costs onto renters, consumers, and small businesses as local governments look to generate revenue.

According to the Tax Foundation, if voters approve Amendment 3, “[e]liminating such a sizeable share of Florida’s 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.”[2] 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.

If property taxes increase for commercial properties, all businesses end up paying more, and they would have to decide whether to absorb those costs or shift them onto renters and consumers.

3. The ballot language for Amendment 3 is misleading.

The Legislature’s statement — language that will be placed on the ballot — claims that it will “benefit Florida taxpayers” through four provisions. However, this assertion ignores the fact that Florida’s 3 million renter households are excluded, even though research shows that landlords often shift some of the property tax burden onto people who rent.[3]

Additionally, Amendment 3 includes a vague promise to “ensure funding for core services” by requiring that local governments spend remaining property dollars on a list of state-selected services. However, the amendment would erode local revenue by billions while overriding local choices about what counties and municipalities are allowed to fund. In short, Amendment 3 seeks to restrict the use of local property tax dollars, yet it does not guarantee that funding levels for state-selected services remain adequate to meet the diverse needs of communities across Florida as the property tax base shrinks.

 

Notes

[1] Office of Economic and Demographic Research analysis of HJR 1-F, June 12, 2026, https://edr.state.fl.us/content/conferences/revenueimpact/archives/2026F/_pdf/impact0612.pdf.

[2] Nicole Fox and Katherine Loughead, June 3, 2026, “The Real November Ballot Question: What Price Are Floridians Willing to Pay to ‘Save Their Homes?’” Tax Foundation, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/florida-property-tax-proposal/.

[3] See Richard W. England, June 2016, “Taxing Incidence and Rental Housing: A Survey and Critique of Research,” National Tax Journal, 69(2), pages 440–448, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-England/publication/301287805_Tax_Incidence_and_Rental_Housing_A_Survey_and_Critique_of_Research/links/570f.96bb08ae38897ba22bd9/Tax-Incidence-and-Rental-Housing-A-Survey-and-Critique-of-Research.pdf.

Downloadable Resources

There are no attachments currently.
No items found.