Florida's Amendment 3 Property Tax Cut Could Push Rents Higher, New Study Finds

Florida voters will decide in November whether to sharply expand the share of a home's value shielded from local property taxes, and a study released this week put a number on a side effect that has received comparatively little attention: what the measure could do to rent.

The analysis, released Wednesday by the Florida Housing Coalition, modeled what happens if local governments respond to the revenue loss from Amendment 3 by raising property tax rates on the remaining tax base. Because rental property does not receive the homestead exemption, the burden of any such rate increase would land disproportionately on landlords, and research on past tax changes suggests most of that cost reaches tenants.

The study estimated that under that scenario the average Florida apartment unit's annual property tax bill could rise by about $406, or 14.8 percent, in 2028, growing to roughly $554, or 15.75 percent, by 2031. Renters of single-family homes could see larger increases, with the analysis projecting an average $1,081 increase in 2028 rising to $1,471 by 2031.

The pass-through assumption is the pivot of the whole calculation. The coalition cited research finding that landlords typically pass at least 60 percent of a property tax increase on to tenants, and often close to all of it over time. On that basis, a $400 tax increase on an apartment translates to roughly $240 a year in additional rent, and a Tampa single-family rental might see about $780.

What Amendment 3 actually does

The proposed constitutional amendment would increase the non-school homestead exemption in two steps, taking it to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. The exemption applies only to the non-school portion of a property tax bill, meaning school district levies would continue to be calculated against the property's full assessed value.

That structure is deliberate. Florida funds public schools through a formula that blends state dollars with a required local effort millage, and exempting a large share of the tax base from school levies would either force a state backfill or reduce school funding directly. Confining the exemption to non-school taxes concentrates the effect on counties, cities and special districts.

The measure also tightens the annual assessment growth cap on non-homesteaded property. Currently, non-homestead property assessments can rise up to 10 percent a year for non-school purposes. The homestead cap, known as Save Our Homes, limits growth to 3 percent or the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower.

Florida's Revenue Estimating Conference has estimated the combined recurring revenue reduction at roughly $12 billion once the provisions are fully phased in. That figure is the starting point for essentially every argument about the measure, on both sides.

The case for the amendment

Supporters frame the measure as overdue relief for homeowners who have watched tax bills climb alongside a decade of Florida property appreciation. For a homesteaded owner, the math is direct: shielding an additional $200,000 of value from non-school millage removes a substantial piece of the annual bill, and the savings are largest in counties with the highest combined non-school rates.

The argument extends to housing affordability more broadly. Property taxes and insurance together make up the portion of Florida housing costs that has grown fastest, and both are components of the monthly payment lenders use to qualify borrowers. Reducing one of them improves the affordability math for owner-occupants at the margin.

Proponents also argue that local governments have been the beneficiaries of an appreciation windfall they did not vote for. When values rise and commissions hold nominal millage rates flat, revenue grows without any elected official casting a vote to raise taxes. From that perspective, the amendment forces a reckoning that the rolled-back rate process was supposed to produce but often does not.

Governor Ron DeSantis advanced a unified property tax relief plan during a special session earlier in the cycle, and the Legislature moved a joint resolution to put the question before voters. The measure needs 60 percent approval to pass, the threshold Florida applies to all proposed constitutional amendments.

The case against, and the renter question

Opponents start from the $12 billion figure and ask what fills the hole. Counties and cities fund police, fire, parks, roads, libraries and utilities substantially from property taxes, and Florida law constrains local option revenue sources tightly. The realistic menu is to cut services, raise the millage rate on the remaining base, increase fees, or spend down reserves.

The Florida Housing Coalition study focuses on the second option, and that is what produces the renter numbers. If a county or city raises its millage rate to recover revenue lost to a larger homestead exemption, the higher rate applies to every taxable property, including the rental housing stock that receives no exemption at all.

The effect compounds because the amendment also tightens the assessment cap on non-homesteaded property. A tighter cap slows assessment growth on rentals, which reduces their tax base contribution, which in turn increases the rate required to raise a given amount of revenue from the remaining base.

It is worth stating plainly what the study is and is not. It is a projection built on an assumption about how local governments will respond, and local governments may respond differently, including by cutting spending instead. The estimates are not a forecast of what will happen; they are an estimate of what happens under one specific and plausible policy response.

How the numbers land across Florida

The effect of the amendment varies widely by county, because Florida's combined non-school millage rates vary widely. A homeowner in a county with a high aggregate non-school rate captures a larger dollar benefit from the same exemption increase than a homeowner in a low-rate county.

Renter exposure varies too. Counties with the highest renter shares, concentrated in South Florida and in the urban cores of Tampa Bay and Central Florida, would see any pass-through effect reach a larger share of households. Counties that skew heavily toward owner-occupancy would see the reverse.

There is also a timing dimension. The exemption phases in across 2027 and 2028, and local budget responses would follow on a lag as commissions work through the first budget cycles under the new base. The study's projections stretch to 2031 precisely because the adjustment is not a single-year event.

Households that own a homesteaded property and also own rental property would experience both sides of the ledger. So would communities where a large share of the housing stock is second homes or investment property, a category that includes much of coastal Florida and the state's vacation rental markets.

What local governments are saying

County commissions across the state have spent this budget season modeling the measure's effects on their fiscal 2028 plans. The Florida Association of Counties has tracked the issue closely, and individual commissions have raised it during the September budget hearings where fiscal 2027 plans were adopted.

Broward County adopted a $9.2 billion budget this week while holding its rate at 5.6 mills. Volusia County adopted a $1.7 billion budget and took its general fund to the rolled-back rate, funding the difference partly by cutting 70 percent of its law library program budget and transferring $4.8 million in one-time money from economic development reserves.

Those two decisions illustrate the tradeoff the amendment would intensify. Volusia's rollback was achievable this year through program cuts and one-time transfers. Neither of those tools scales to absorbing a permanent reduction in the tax base of the magnitude the Revenue Estimating Conference has projected.

Smaller cities and special districts face the sharpest version of the problem, because they have narrower tax bases, fewer alternative revenue sources and less reserve capacity. A municipality that is majority homesteaded residential could see a large share of its base disappear at once.

What Floridians should watch before November

Property appraisers in several counties have published calculators and explanatory material that let homeowners estimate their own savings under the measure using their actual assessed value and their county's non-school millage. The Pinellas County Property Appraiser is among those with a public explainer on the proposal.

Voters who rent should look for the same specificity. The relevant questions are what share of the local tax base is non-homesteaded, what the local government has signaled about its response, and whether the rental market in that area has enough vacancy for tenants to resist a pass-through.

Independent analyses will continue to appear between now and the election, from local government associations, from policy organizations on both sides and from academic researchers. Readers should check who commissioned each analysis and what response scenario it assumes, because those two choices drive most of the variation in the published numbers.

The ballot summary itself is worth reading in full before voting. Florida ballot language on tax measures is technical, and the difference between school and non-school levies, and between homestead and non-homestead assessment caps, is where the practical consequences live.

What's next

Amendment 3 appears on Florida's November 2026 general election ballot and requires 60 percent voter approval. If it passes, the expanded exemption begins phasing in for the 2027 tax year, with the second step following in 2028.

If it fails, the current exemption structure and assessment caps remain in place, and the property tax debate almost certainly returns to the Legislature when lawmakers convene for the 2027 regular session. Property tax relief has been a recurring item on the legislative agenda for several cycles.

Either outcome leaves local governments planning under uncertainty through the winter. County and city staffs will build fiscal 2028 budget scenarios both ways, and the first real test of how commissions respond arrives during next year's budget hearings in August and September.

For households, the practical step before November is to run the numbers for their own situation rather than the statewide average. A homesteaded owner in a high-millage county, a renter in a tight market and an owner of non-homesteaded property each face a materially different calculation from the same ballot question.