HomeProperty Tax Proposal 2026

Vote No! - Amendment 3 - Property Tax Proposal

Vote NO on #3 - Property Tax Amendment

The League of Women Voters opposes the homestead exemption amendment because it shifts, but doesn't eliminate, the cost of municipal government. Many local government officials, policy organizations, and advocates of local control view this proposal as part of a broader effort to weaken Home Rule and transfer decision-making authority from locally elected officials to the state

The Health Care District of Palm Beach County will see a three-year loss of $66 million. This translates to increased wait times, less staff, and decreased funding for community health programs.

Read Article from FL Policy Institute

Summary of Proposal to Expand Homestead Exemption

Governor DeSantis and the Florida Legislature have proposed a substantial expansion of Florida's homestead exemption and placed it on the November 2026 ballot. The League of Women Voters opposes the amendment because it shifts—not eliminates—the cost of local government. Palm Beach County's constitutional officers have likewise expressed concern that the proposal would reduce local revenue while leaving taxpayers responsible for funding the same essential services through other means.

Many local government officials, policy organizations, and advocates of local control view this proposal as part of a broader effort to weaken Home Rule and transfer decision-making authority from locally elected officials to the state. They argue that decisions regarding local taxes, public safety, infrastructure, parks, libraries, and community services are best made by local representatives who understand the needs and priorities of their communities, rather than by state officials in Tallahassee. From this perspective, reducing local governments' ability to raise and manage their own revenue makes them increasingly dependent on the state and diminishes local control over local issues.

Click Flyer for Printable Version

Full Explanation of Amendment

The key sentence is:
This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for:
- public safety
- education and schools
- infrastructure
- natural resources
- bond debt service
- retirement benefits for employees
- operations and administration.

In practical terms:
- It attempts to restrict what county and city governments may spend property-tax revenue on.
- However, the next sentence creates an important exception: county officers and county or municipal governing bodies may approve other expenditures, unless state law prohibits them.

What that means in practice:
Today, Florida's Constitution broadly allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their governmental purposes. This amendment would reverse the presumption somewhat:
- Certain purposes would be "automatically authorized" uses of property-tax money: police/fire/public safety, infrastructure, environmental/natural-resource programs, debt payments, employee pensions, and government administration.
- Programs falling outside those categories would not necessarily be prohibited.
- Instead, spending property-tax revenue on those other purposes would apparently require specific approval by the appropriate county officer, county commission, or city commission.
- The Legislature could go further and enact a law prohibiting particular uses altogether.

For example, suppose a city currently uses property-tax revenue to support an arts program, community festival, economic-development initiative, nonprofit grant program, or some other activity that doesn't clearly fit the listed categories. The amendment does not appear to automatically eliminate that spending. The city commission could approve it, unless the Legislature subsequently enacted a law saying property-tax revenue could not be used for that purpose.

Why the final phrase matters:
The paragraph says this applies "notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a)”. That's legal language meaning, essentially: Even though another part of the Florida Constitution currently gives counties and municipalities broad authority to levy property taxes for their purposes, this new restriction overrides that authority. That is probably the most consequential part. It would put into the Florida Constitution a new limitation on local governments' use of property-tax revenue and simultaneously give the state Legislature greater ability to restrict local property-tax spending by general law.

One important distinction: it does not appear to prohibit a city or county from operating programs outside those categories using other revenue sources, sales taxes, fees, state/federal grants, etc. The restriction in this paragraph is specifically about property-tax revenue.

Bottom line:
This isn't simply “property taxes can only be spent on the things listed.” The exception makes it considerably broader than that. But it changes the constitutional framework and potentially gives Tallahassee more control over what local governments may finance with property taxes.

Save Our Communities from Excessive State Control
Less Taxes or Less Voice?
By George W. Kruse, Manatee County Commissioner
Available on Substack - June 4, 2026 Original Full Article

Summary:
The problem isn’t the idea of tax relief. The problem is the “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” bill and what it actually does, what it removed, what it left undefined, and what it hands off to Tallahassee.

What Actually Passed (And Didn’t)
Here’s where the final bill landed this week. It would be a $150k exemption in 2027 and $250k in 2028. Eventually, the exemption is intended to maybe reach $500k (or possibly more, no one actually knows). Except for your school board taxes, which were removed from the proposal.

The Budget Math Reality
Here’s the reality of local budgets that rarely makes it into this manufactured campaign slogan: public safety and debt service already consume a massive share of what counties can spend.

When you cut revenue, you don’t squeeze “a little” from everything. You have to fully fund the public safety, the contractual debt service and the state mandates. Then you squeeze “a lot” from the services that aren’t untouchable.

Issue: The Debt Service Timebomb
We have $44 million in debt service payments annually. Covenants require coverage tests tied to revenue. If revenues drop dramatically, you can breach those covenants, which damages credit ratings, raises interest costs across municipalities, and, in worst cases, trigger defaults or restructuring.

We may have no path forward to avoid default except to ask Tallahassee for help - on whatever terms Tallahassee sets.

The Actual Issue: Control
The biggest issue with this proposal is big government control.

Local government isn’t perfect, but it is close to you. You can replace your entire county commission over two election cycles. You can push for a millage cut, and you can see the results quickly or vote to change your representation. That’s the conservative view of small government closest to the people.

With a state-controlled system, you’re forgoing the most meaningful revenue stream and hoping it comes back in the amounts you need, on the timeline you need, with no strings attached when you have an inevitable shortfall.

Between Now and November
- What happens to voter-approved millage that fund programs your community specifically asked for like children services and environmental land conservation?
- What’s the actual plan for rural counties with no commercial tax base?
- What happens to fire district funding, mosquito control, hospital districts?
- What benefit will our Floridian renters receive?
- What protects bond covenants and credit ratings when revenues drop?
- And who, exactly, is accountable when the shortfalls hit?

The Property Tax Blast Radius Nobody Is Talking About
by Jeff Brandes, President of Florida Policy Project
Saturday, June 6, 2026 (Bradenton Times) Original Full Article

Summary:
Everyone is talking about property taxes. Almost nobody is talking about power.

That's strange because power, not taxes, is what this debate is really about. Florida is not debating a tax cut. Florida is debating a fundamental redesign of how local government is financed.

Imagine counties and cities that can no longer fund themselves. Imagine local officials traveling to Tallahassee not to seek a grant for a new project, but to keep deputies on patrol, firefighters in stations, and ambulances on the road. At that point, who is really running local government? The answer is not the county commission. The answer is not the city council.

The answer is whoever controls the money.

Property taxes are not simply a revenue source. They are the mechanism that allows local governments to govern themselves.

When counties and cities become financially dependent on Tallahassee, the governor effectively becomes the mayor of communities he was never elected to run. Local government becomes less local. Home rule becomes a slogan instead of a governing principle.

The real question is whether Florida wants independent local governments or dependent local governments.

The question is not whether Floridians will pay for local government. The question is how. And more importantly, who will decide.

Jeff Brandes is President of the Florida Policy Project, a nonpartisan public policy research organization focused on Florida’s biggest challenges, including affordability, housing, transportation, and insurance. He served for 12 years in the Florida Legislature, including service in both the Florida House and Senate.

This article first appeared on Florida Trident and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.