Florida votes for massive property tax cuts, raising fears of local service cuts
Critics of Amendment 3 warn that it would severely reduce the revenue local governments need for roads, emergency services, and other critical items
Alexandra Martinez
Real journalists wrote and edited this (not AI). Independent, community-driven journalism survives because you back it. Donate to sustain Prism’s mission and the humans behind it.
Florida voters on Nov. 3 approved a sweeping expansion of the state’s homestead property tax exemption that could dramatically shrink the revenue available to fund local governments and public services. Supporters promoted the measure as tax relief for homeowners, but local government officials and residents have raised concerns about how counties and municipalities will make up for the lost revenue and whether the financial burden could ultimately shift to other taxpayers.
Under Amendment 3, nonschool property taxes will not be charged on the first $150,000 of a home’s assessed value starting in 2027, up from $50,000 currently. The exemption will increase to $250,000 beginning in 2028, with the amount adjusted for inflation starting in 2029. The exemption applies to homeowners who use a property as their permanent residence and who established residence by Dec. 31, 2026. Those who establish residency after that date must wait until their fifth year of qualifying for a homestead exemption to receive the larger benefit.
Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed for the proposal and called a special legislative session to advance it in June. State Rep. Toby Overdorf, a Republican from Palm City, introduced the measure as House Joint Resolution 1, which the Florida Legislature approved and placed on the November ballot. DeSantis is now calling for a special session before his term ends to carry out the amendment.
“This is really going to hurt folks who rent, folks who want to buy, folks who want to save up to buy,” said Jackson Peel, communications director for Save Our Services – No on 3, the political committee formed to oppose the amendment. “If you’re very, very wealthy, if you own a mansion, this is a great day for you. The rest of us, not so much.”
The financial impact could be substantial. Florida estimates local governments could lose $4.9 billion in property tax revenue in the first year, rising to $8.7 billion in the second year, and more than $11 billion annually by 2031-32. In Miami-Dade County, projected losses could reach nearly $697 million annually once the full exemption takes effect. A separate Florida Policy Institute analysis estimates the county, its municipalities, and special districts could lose a combined $1.5 billion over the first two fiscal years, including millions in potential losses for Jackson Health System and The Children’s Trust.
In a post-election press conference in Tallahassee on Nov. 4, DeSantis said he would “[limit] local governments from just doing an end run around the amendment and taxing them in other ways,” by requiring a “taxpayer bill of rights” and a “pool of funding” to issue “grants to local governments for core needs.”
“It’s not going to be a tax shift,” DeSantis said. “It’s going to be a reduction … There’ll be a transition period, so we’ll work with them on that. And I think people are going to be very excited to get some much-needed relief.”
But Peel said, “We believe that Amendment 3 is a scam and is going to end up being a tax shift that’s going to raise the costs on working Floridians and cut the services that we all rely on every day.”
Local services could face difficult budget decisions
Property taxes help pay for roads, drainage and flood protection, public transportation, libraries, parks, emergency response, and programs serving children and seniors. The amendment does not provide replacement state funding to make up for the projected revenue losses, leaving local governments to determine how to maintain services with potentially smaller budgets.
Peel said communities could respond by reducing services, increasing other taxes, or imposing additional fees. But smaller and rural communities that may not have enough commercial properties or rental housing to generate additional revenue could dissolve or disincorporate.
“What you’re going to see are massive, massive cuts to everything from filling potholes in the road to emergency response to police and fire rescue,” Peel said.
Municipalities across the state are already shrinking their operational footprints in anticipation of the revenue cliff. In Jacksonville, which is projected to lose $200 million in revenue in 2027 under the new exemptions, City Council members have called for immediate hiring freezes and salary rollbacks to reduce government spending. Meanwhile, midsize and smaller cities had prepared alternative budgets ahead of the vote: Largo positioned itself to shed 135 full-time personnel, Clearwater targeted its park services for a $9 million reduction, and the tiny panhandle city of Valparaiso preemptively trimmed its first responder roster after calculating that the amendment will eventually swallow nearly a fifth of its entire budget.
Although the measure identifies public safety, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, and other categories as allowable uses for property tax revenue, Peel said that does not guarantee local governments will have enough money to fund those services.
One of the most immediate concerns, particularly in Miami-Dade, is the potential impact on renters. Because the homestead exemption applies only to qualifying primary residences, Peel said local governments could raise taxes on rental and commercial properties to offset some of the lost revenue, potentially adding costs to landlords and businesses.
“There are nearly 3 million rental households in Florida. They’re all going to be paying more because their landlords’ taxes are going to go up,” Peel said.
"We’re not against savings. We’re not against tax cuts. We’re not against reforming property taxes. We just said Amendment 3 is a bad way to do it."
Peel also warned that small businesses could face higher property taxes or commercial rents, potentially passing those expenses on to customers. Other possibilities include increases in local sales taxes, county fuel taxes, or special assessments for services such as fire protection and garbage collection.
“At the end of the day, Florida families won’t be saving much or anything. They’re going to be paying in different ways,” Peel said.
He described the measure as “a sledgehammer solution to a screwdriver problem,” arguing that lawmakers could have provided relief without creating uncertainty over the future of local services.
“We’re not against savings. We’re not against tax cuts. We’re not against reforming property taxes,” Peel said. “We just said Amendment 3 is a bad way to do it.”
Voters have questions
Helen Varela, a Florida homeowner who voted yes on Amendment 3, said she supported the measure because she and her husband were hoping for relief from rising property taxes.
Varela, who worked in banking for more than three decades and now works in servicing Small Business Administration loans, said she tried to educate herself about the amendment before voting, including through conversations with her husband and neighbors.
Varela said she and her husband downsized to a townhouse several years ago, but rising property assessments have continued to push their tax bill higher. They currently pay approximately $5,400 annually in property taxes, despite receiving the homestead exemption.
“We’re not opposed to taxes,” Varela said. “Taxes are needed for our roads, for schools, for firefighters, for everybody.”
But Varela said she still had some questions about the amendment. She pointed to the differences between affluent areas such as Windermere, near Orlando, and communities in North Miami and Homestead, questioning how the financial burden would be distributed among residents and local governments with different property values and tax bases.
“Hindsight is twenty-twenty,” Varela said. “It was pushed through with not sufficient evidence that, in fact, it’s going to help.”
For Danielle Bender, a Miami-Dade resident who opposed Amendment 3, the measure’s passage was devastating.
“I can understand why, from a different perspective, this seems really great,” Bender said. “But as somebody who lives in a small municipality and works at a larger municipality … I just don’t see the long-term value on the day-to-day, the things that me and my family depend on for a happier quality of life.”
Bender estimates that her household pays approximately $6,000 annually in property taxes with the homestead exemption.
Beyond emergency response and public safety, Bender worries that services considered less essential by some residents could be among the first to face reductions.
She specifically pointed to arts programs, libraries, and parks, which she said are important to residents’ health and well-being even when they are not viewed as basic government necessities. Bender also highlighted services for seniors, including transportation to community centers and subsidized meals, as examples of programs that residents might overlook when considering the role of local government.
She said public works employees also play an important role in preparing communities for storms by clearing drainage systems and helping prevent flooding.
“Sometimes the unsexy things like that get forgotten,” she said.
Promise of tax relief was central to campaign
In Florida, which staved off a full blue wave unlike some other parts of the American South, Peel questioned the political motivations behind placing Amendment 3 on the ballot. He suggested it was intended, in part, to encourage Republican voter turnout during an election in which the party faced political challenges. Gov. DeSantis confirmed that logic during a Nov. 4 presser.
“The truth is—and this is something that I pushed for over many months—had Amendment 3 not been on the ballot, I don’t know that we’d turn out the voters that we ended up turning out,” said DeSantis. “To call it a wave I don’t think would be fully accurate; it’s the political equivalent of a meteor strike that went all around the United States … And the one state that was able to hold the line and withstand that was right here in the free state of Florida … This is close to an extinction-level event for Republicans in many parts of the country, as we have seen probably in the last 100 years.”
But Peel also acknowledged that the same economic frustrations that drove voters across the political spectrum to demand change may have helped the amendment succeed.
“Unfortunately, it’s the affordability crisis … that really helped propel support for Amendment 3 because people are struggling and they need relief and they wanted relief,” Peel said.
The consequences have prompted second thoughts among some Republican lawmakers who helped advance the proposal. Former Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, who voted to put the amendment before voters, later announced she would vote against it, describing it as well-intentioned but expressing reservations about its potential consequences. The measure’s House sponsor, Republican Rep. Toby Overdorf, also acknowledged that communities heavily dependent on property taxes could face difficult choices.
Passidomo and Overdorf did not immediately respond to Prism’s request for comment.
What happens next?
The amendment, set to take effect Jan. 1, requires the Florida Legislature to establish procedures allowing counties and municipalities to increase the homestead exemption further, potentially up to the full assessed value. Special districts may also do so through referendum approval.
Peel said this process will be important in determining how the changes are carried out. He cautioned that lawmakers and local governments will have to work together to determine how essential services will be funded.
He expects communities to begin feeling the financial effects as they prepare budgets for the coming fiscal years, with the reductions increasing as the exemption expands.
“It’s really critical that the state and local governments work together to figure out how to make sure that the service cuts and the tax increases do not fall on Florida’s working families and seniors,” Peel said. “This tax shift cannot fall on working people.”
Alexandra Martinez
