Florida Amendment 3
Prepared by David Blount, CFP®
Florida voters will decide this November whether to approve Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment that could significantly reduce property taxes for many homeowners.
On the surface, the proposal is attractive. Who wouldn't welcome a lower property tax bill?
But after more than 20 years of helping families navigate their finances, I've learned that good financial decisions require looking beyond the immediate benefits to consider the bigger picture.
The purpose of this article is to explore some of the financial considerations and potential unintended consequences of this amendment that may not be immediately apparent.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and I believe voters are best served by understanding these broader implications before reaching an informed decision.
What Would Amendment 3 Change?
Amendment 3 would substantially increase Florida's homestead exemption for most non-school property taxes: [Amendment text]
2027: $150,000 exemption
2028: $250,000 exemption
2029 and beyond: Adjusted for inflation
School district property taxes would remain unaffected by the expanded exemption.
The amendment would also reduce the annual assessment growth cap on many non-homestead properties, including rentals, second homes and commercial real estate, from 10% to 5%. [Florida TaxWatch]
Supporters argue that homeowners deserve relief from rising property taxes and that local governments should exercise greater spending discipline. Those are reasonable considerations.
But reducing property tax revenue doesn't eliminate the cost of providing local services. It leaves cities and counties to determine how to manage the difference.
How Much Could Homeowners Actually Save?
Amendment 3 could provide meaningful property-tax relief, but the savings would depend on a home's assessed value, local property-tax rates and existing exemptions.
According to Florida TaxWatch, a qualifying homeowner receiving the full expanded exemption could save approximately $1,035 annually in 2027 and $2,085 annually in 2028, based on an illustrative statewide non-school property-tax rate of 10.5 mills. [Florida TaxWatch]
Estimated Annual Property-Tax Savings
Assessed Home Value | 2027 Savings | 2028 Savings |
$100,000 | $510 | $510 |
$150,000 | $1,035 | $1,035 |
$200,000 | $1,035 | $1,560 |
$250,000 | $1,035 | $2,085 |
$350,000 | $1,035 | $2,085 |
$500,000 | $1,035 | $2,085 |
Source: Calculations using Florida TaxWatch's published exemption amounts and statewide illustrative millage rate. Figures are rounded and assume eligibility, unchanged tax rates and no additional exemptions. [Calculation basis]
How Does Length of Ownership Affect Savings?
Florida's Save Our Homes provision generally limits annual increases in a homesteaded property's assessed value to 3% or inflation, whichever is lower. [Florida DOR]
Consequently, long-term homeowners may have assessed values substantially below current market values. This can affect how much additional benefit they receive from Amendment 3.
Consider four homes, each with a current market value of $500,000:
Illustrative Ownership Situation | Assessed Value | 2028 Annual Savings |
Recent buyer, eligible for expanded exemption | $500,000 | $2,085 |
Owner with moderate Save Our Homes benefit | $350,000 | $2,085 |
Longtime owner with substantial Save Our Homes benefit | $200,000 | $1,560 |
Longtime owner with very large Save Our Homes benefit | $125,000 | $773 |
Source: Illustrative calculations using Florida TaxWatch's 10.5-mill rate and Florida Department of Revenue's Save Our Homes assessment rules. The assessed values are hypothetical, not estimates based on specific years of ownership. [Assessment rules]
The takeaway: Some long-term homeowners could receive smaller dollar savings than newer homeowners with similarly valued properties because their assessed values are already substantially reduced by Save Our Homes.
These estimates also assume the homeowner qualifies for the expanded exemption. Certain new Florida residents would face a five-year qualification period. Actual savings will vary by location, assessment history, exemptions and future tax rates. [Ballot provisions]
Property Taxes Are Only Part of Florida's Affordability Challenge
Over the past five years, I've had numerous conversations with clients about their household expenses, retirement income and financial concerns. Interestingly, property taxes rarely top the list of complaints.
Homeowners insurance certainly does. And so do health-insurance premiums, energy and healthcare costs. Many families have experienced thousands of dollars in additional annual expenses from these categories alone.
My experience appears consistent with broader public sentiment. A 2026 University of North Florida survey found that 63% of insured Florida homeowners were more concerned about property insurance costs than property taxes, compared with 36% who identified property taxes as the greater concern. [UNF survey]
Florida's insurance market has recently shown signs of improvement, with some insurers filing for rate decreases or no increases. That's encouraging, but it doesn't erase the substantial premium increases many homeowners have already experienced. [Florida OIR]
Property taxes certainly affect affordability. But if we're trying to make Florida more affordable, shouldn't we also focus on the expenses creating the greatest financial pressure?
A $1,500 or $2,000 property-tax reduction is meaningful. However, if insurance, healthcare and other living expenses have increased substantially more, the overall affordability problem remains.
What Happens to Police, Fire and EMS Funding?
This is one of my greatest concerns, particularly here in Seminole County where I live.
Property taxes fund many essential local services, including law enforcement, Fire Rescue, EMS, 911 communications, county jails and emergency management.
Seminole County officials have projected that Amendment 3 could ultimately reduce county revenues by approximately $119 million, creating difficult budget decisions. This is a planning estimate, not an enacted budget reduction. [County budget work session] [News 6]
Public safety leaders in Seminole County and elsewhere in Florida have outlined what these potential reductions could mean.
In a public-safety budget scenario, Sheriff Dennis Lemma estimated a potential $41 million funding reduction, approximately 20% of his department's budget. Because most of the Sheriff's Office budget is personnel-related, he warned of a hiring freeze and the possible elimination of up to 300 positions, along with reductions in training, crime-prevention programs and potentially slower responses to non-emergency calls. [County work session] · [News 6]
In the same planning exercise, Fire Chief Matt Kinley projected a potential $33 million funding reduction, approximately 23% of his department's budget. He estimated that staffing could decline by approximately 175 positions, essentially an entire shift of firefighters. Planned station improvements and other capital projects could also be delayed. [Local reporting] · [News 6]
These projections may represent more severe scenarios, and actual outcomes would depend on decisions made by local officials, including spending efficiencies, budget adjustments and alternative revenue sources.
However, even if the projected staffing reductions were only half as large, approximately 150 Sheriff's Office positions and 88 Fire Rescue positions, the potential impact on public safety would still deserve careful consideration.
These figures are hypothetical illustrations, not forecasts. The amendment does not automatically require these reductions, and the actual effects on staffing and emergency response would depend on how local governments adapt.
The question worth considering is whether essential services could be maintained at the levels residents expect while accommodating a substantial reduction in property tax revenue.
Can Government Simply Cut Waste Instead?
Supporters of Amendment 3 make an important counterargument: Government should become more efficient rather than automatically assuming essential services must be reduced. I think that's a fair point.
Every government should continually examine its budget for waste, unnecessary spending and programs that no longer justify their cost. Taxpayers have every right to demand accountability.
And Amendment 3 does not automatically require Seminole County to eliminate hundreds of public-safety positions.
There may be opportunities to improve efficiency, consolidate services, delay projects or eliminate unnecessary spending. Those possibilities deserve serious consideration. However, whether efficiencies alone could offset revenue reductions of this magnitude is an important question that deserves a more detailed answer.
I'd like to better understand how local governments could maintain essential public-safety services under the proposed funding structure, what adjustments might be necessary and whether alternative revenue sources would be required.
The objective should be to provide meaningful tax relief while maintaining the services residents reasonably expect and depend upon.
Could the Costs Simply Shift Somewhere Else?
A lower property tax bill doesn't necessarily mean an equivalent reduction in a family's overall expenses.
Cities and counties still have financial obligations. If they respond by increasing permissible tax rates, special assessments, new parking fees, utility charges or other fees, some of the savings could reappear elsewhere. [TaxWatch analysis]
Consider a homeowner who saves $1,800 annually in property taxes but subsequently pays $600 more in local assessments and fees. The household still benefits, but the actual savings are $1,200 rather than $1,800. That's a hypothetical example, not a prediction. It illustrates why we should consider the total financial impact rather than one line item on a tax bill.
Not everyone benefits equally, either. If landlords or businesses face higher assessments, taxes or fees, some of those costs could eventually be passed along through rents or consumer prices.
Another Potential Consideration: Florida's Municipal Bond Market
One issue receiving considerably less attention is how Amendment 3 could affect Florida's municipal bond market and the cost of financing public infrastructure. Municipal bonds help cities and counties finance roads, utilities, water systems, public facilities and other long-term improvements.
Like individuals and businesses, municipalities rely on their financial strength and creditworthiness when borrowing money. Stable revenues and healthy reserves generally support more favorable borrowing terms. A significant reduction in property tax revenue could weaken that financial flexibility.
In a July 2026 report titled Florida Voters Weigh Historic Property Tax Reform, investment management firm Nuveen warned that Amendment 3 could pressure municipal credit quality, constrain borrowing capacity and potentially increase financing costs. [Nuveen report]
Some Communities Could Be Affected More Than Others
Nuveen's research illustrates how differently municipalities could be affected.
Port St. Lucie | Miami | |
Estimated reduction in taxable property value | 39.2% | 6.0% |
Estimated annual revenue loss | $37 million | $35 million |
Revenue loss as a percentage of General Fund budget | 19% | 3% |
Source: Nuveen, July 2026. Estimates assume full implementation without offsetting tax-rate increases or spending reductions. [Nuveen Figure 1]
Communities with diversified commercial and industrial tax bases may be better positioned to absorb the changes than those relying heavily on residential property taxes.
Why Borrowing Costs Matter to Taxpayers
Consider a municipality borrowing $100 million for infrastructure improvements.
If its borrowing rate increased from 4% to 4.5%, that additional half-percentage point would result in approximately $6.5 million in additional total interest paid over 20 years, assuming a fully amortizing loan with equal annual payments. Actual municipal bond structures and borrowing costs can differ. [Nuveen context]
That is a hypothetical illustration, not a forecast of Amendment 3's effect on borrowing rates. But it demonstrates how a relatively small increase in financing costs due to lower municipal creditworthiness can become a substantial long-term expense for taxpayers.
The larger point is that today's property tax savings could have longer-term implications for infrastructure financing, borrowing costs and municipal financial stability.
Lower Taxes are Appealing.
So are Safe, Financially Healthy Communities.
I understand why Amendment 3 is attractive.
I own property, pay property taxes and, like everyone else, would prefer to pay less.
I also believe governments should be held accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars. Rising property values and tax collections shouldn't automatically translate into larger government budgets.
But reducing revenue without a clear plan for the expenses it supports raises legitimate questions.
What services will cost less? What spending will be eliminated? How will police, fire, EMS and 911 services be protected? Could some costs shift to renters, businesses or other taxpayers? And how might the changes affect infrastructure financing and municipal borrowing costs?
These are important questions that I don't believe have been adequately answered as voters consider a permanent change to our state's Constitution.
Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about Amendment 3 depending on how they weigh immediate property-tax savings against potential long-term fiscal consequences.
My reservations center on whether the proposed changes adequately address Florida's broader affordability challenges and how local governments would adapt to a substantial reduction in a major revenue source.
The Bigger Financial Picture
Good financial decisions rarely come from looking at one number in isolation.
Property taxes matter. So do homeowners’ insurance, healthcare costs, other taxes, utility bills, assessments and the quality of the communities where we live.
The relevant question isn't simply whether our property-tax bills decline. It's whether our overall financial circumstances and communities are better positioned for the future.
Before voting, I encourage Floridians to consider both the immediate benefits and the potential unintended consequences, not only for their own household budgets but also for the communities in which they live.
Tax relief has value. So do the public services, infrastructure and financial stability that make our communities desirable places to live.
Sources and Additional Information
This article reflects the author's perspective and is provided for general educational purposes. It is not individualized financial, investment, tax or legal advice. Fiscal estimates, potential staffing reductions and municipal credit implications are projections rather than guaranteed outcomes.
*Investment & Insurance Planning Services, LLC. Securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial, a registered investment advisor and member FINRA/SIPC.*
Municipal bonds involve interest-rate, credit and market risks, including possible loss of principal. Bond values generally decline when interest rates rise, and an issuer's ability to meet its financial obligations may be affected by changes in its financial condition or economic circumstances.
Comments