A proposed constitutional amendment on Florida's November ballot could change how much homeowners pay in property taxes and how local governments pay for public services.
The change could lower property tax bills for homeowners. It could also reduce property tax revenue for local governments, including Alachua County.
What would Amendment 3 change?
The homestead exemption applies to a homeowner's primary residence and reduces the portion of the home's value that is subject to certain property taxes. School district property taxes would not be affected.
Amendment 3 would increase the state's homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 then to $250,000 in 2028. New Florida residents arriving after the end of 2026 will receive a smaller exemption until they've lived in the state for five years.
The amendment would also lower the annual cap on how much the taxable value of non-homestead properties can rise, from 10% to 5%. The cap applies to rental homes, second homes and commercial properties.
How are homeowners affected?
Alphonso Long, who has lived in Alachua County for almost four decades, said his property taxes have increased dramatically in that time.
“I currently own less than a quarter of an acre, and I'm paying almost $5,000 a year in property taxes, where some homeowners own a lot more acreage, and we're paying almost the same,” he said.
He said he supports Amendment 3 because lower property taxes would help current homeowners keep their homes and make it easier for others to afford buying one.
Alachua County homeowner Mark Hostetler said the amendment would shift where the county collects revenue rather than simply lower taxes. He said the county could respond by raising the sales tax or fees for services.
“It's not as if it's dollar-to-dollar savings," he said. "We'll pay the price more over the long term if it passes.”
How much does Alachua County rely on property taxes?
Revenue from property taxes make up about 23% of Alachua County's overall budget, the largest source of revenue for the county. Property taxes provide much of the recurring revenue for the general fund, which pays for many county departments and services.
This fiscal year’s tentative budget projected $184 million in property tax revenue for the general fund, out of $324 million in total general fund revenue. Property taxes, therefore, account for about 57% of the fund.
How much money could the county lose?
A $250,000 homestead exemption would cut general fund property tax revenue by at least $48.9 million. Tyler Foerst, chair of the Alachua County Democratic Party, said that would leave an estimated $17 million funding deficit for general government services.
“If we eliminate everything, and then we still have to find $17 million, where's it going to come from?” he said.
Long said he felt not all property owners in the county were paying their fair share. The University of Florida, he said, has been in Alachua County for more than 100 years without paying taxes on the properties it owns.
“I am actually paying taxes on properties that I have no use for,” he said.
What would the amendment mean for local services?
Some opponents said reduced property tax revenue could affect funding for services such as police and fire departments.
Tim Marden, chair of the Alachua County Republican Party, said those concerns were a “scare tactic.” He said the amendment addresses them by requiring the remaining property tax revenue to fund core services, including public safety and infrastructure.
Foerst said he was concerned the amendment would cut funding for services that may not be considered core, such as parks and veterans services. He also said he was worried about public safety, citing an NPR report that Citrus County now uses artificial intelligence to answer non-emergency 911 calls.
“You're going to have more AI answering phones, or worst-case scenario is you get a busy line when you call 911, and you have to wait on hold,” he said. “That's my biggest fear.”
Long said he was worried his current property taxes were paying for excessive salaries for elected officials rather than for essential services such as sheriff's deputies and emergency response.
"How about we stop giving out raises to people who are supposed to be working for us and making the city and county more economically safe?” he said.
Still, Hostetler said the amendment is not well-thought-out, and the cost would eventually be passed on to consumers.
“The cut is too draconian,” he said. “Yes, we want some type of tax relief, but we need a more targeted one, one with a better plan, not just taxing everything and then if municipalities don't have enough, then they can beg from the state.”
He also said this amendment allows the state to interfere with local spending decisions by regulating what is considered a core service.
Marden said this interpretation is a misreading of the amendment.
“What the opponents are saying is sort of twisting the language,” he said. “It's not an overreach. It's more just a reassertion of what the priorities of government are supposed to be.”
Could the county make up the difference?
Local governments would have limited options if the amendment cuts their revenue.
Hostetler said the cost could fall on renters. He said local governments could raise taxes on non-homestead properties to make up the difference, and landlords would pass those costs along.
“There's no benefit to the renters,” he said. “Renters are now beginning to wake up and say, ‘Wait a minute here, the cost is going to shift onto myself.’”
Marden said the lower assessment growth cap would keep the cost from fully shifting to businesses and other non-homestead properties.
Both Marden and Foerst said the county could increase its sales tax or millage to offset the shortfall. Millage is the property tax rate, with each mill equal to $1 in tax for every $1,000 of a property's taxable value.
“Just because you cap property taxes doesn't mean you would do away with taxes,” Foerst said.
What happens next?
The amendment would allow the Florida Legislature to create a process to increase the exemption further over time, potentially up to the full value of a home for non-school property taxes.
It does not create a new dedicated source of state funding to replace the local revenue that could be lost.
The ballot measure requires at least 60% of the vote to pass. If enacted, the amendment would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
