Florida State Capitol in Tallahassee. [Photo by Jennifer Hunt/Ocala Gazette]
Florida voters will decide three proposed amendments to the state constitution on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. Each needs at least 60% of the vote to pass.
All three were placed on the ballot by the Florida Legislature. No citizen-initiative petition drives qualified this year; the Florida Department of State announced that all 22 active petition campaigns failed to meet the legal requirements.
The amendments deal with the state’s rainy-day reserve fund, a tangible property tax break for farm equipment and a large increase in the homestead exemption paired with new limits on how cities and counties may spend property tax money.
Below is a summary of each amendment, followed by the main arguments supporters and opponents make. The arguments are presented as each side frames them.
Amendment 1: Budget Stabilization Fund
What it does: Amendment 1 would raise the limit on the state’s rainy-day reserve, the Budget Stabilization Fund, from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections. It amends Article III, Section 19 of the Florida Constitution.
The Legislature would have to move $750 million into the fund each year, or whatever smaller amount is needed to reach the 25% cap, unless certain conditions are met. Lawmakers could skip a year’s transfer in limited circumstances, such as after money is withdrawn from the fund.
The amendment also creates a new way to spend the money. Once the fund reaches 15% of general revenue, the Legislature could withdraw money for a “critical state need” by a two-thirds vote. Those withdrawals could not drop the fund below 10%.
Where things stand: The current constitution requires the fund to hold at least 5% of general revenue collections and caps it at 10%. The fund held about $4.87 billion as of August, according to the state’s General Revenue Outlook. A Senate staff analysis put 10% of collections at $4.9 billion and 25% at $12.2 billion.
Supporters say:
- Florida needs a substantial rainy-day fund.
- The 10% cap does not hold enough in reserve for a major hurricane or other catastrophe, a critical state need or a drop in tax collections.
- Spending the money for a critical state need would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
Opponents say:
- A quarter of the state’s general revenue should not be locked in a fund with restrictions on when it can be used.
- There is no need to raise the 10% cap. The fund has grown well beyond 5% only in recent years and the state weathered many hurricanes and emergencies without significant problems.
- The money should be available for ongoing state programs and to keep up with Florida’s growth.
- Requiring legislative approval for spending takes time and could delay money needed in a crisis.
Amendment 2: Exemption of tangible personal property on agricultural land
What it does: Amendment 2 would exempt farm equipment and other tangible personal property from property taxes if it meets three tests. It must be habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural. It must be used to produce agricultural products or for agritourism. And it must be owned by the owner or leaseholder of the agricultural land.
The exemption would first apply to the 2027 tax year. It amends Article VII, Section 3 and Article XII of the Florida Constitution. The Legislature passed it 110-1 in the House and 37-0 in the Senate.
What it would cost: State economists estimated the exemption would reduce city and county tax revenue by about $31 million a year starting in 2027.
Supporters say:
- Farm equipment is expensive to buy and should not be taxed again every year.
- Farmers need support to keep their land in agricultural production.
- Agriculture produces major revenue for Florida’s economy.
- Food security is a national security issue and the exemption helps secure the future of Florida agriculture to provide food for the nation.
Opponents say:
- It is another tax break for a special group. Agricultural landowners already pay taxes on their land based on its agricultural use rather than its market value, which substantially lowers their bills, and they receive numerous sales tax exemptions. Like all businesses, they also receive a $25,000 exemption on tangible personal property.
- Equipment is already taxed only on its depreciated value.
- Either the landowner or a leaseholder can claim the exemption.
- It would be available to large agribusinesses with multiple tangible property accounts. The state’s definition of agritourism is broad and opponents say the break could reach businesses such as wedding venues, concerts and horseback riding and hunting operations.
- Cities and counties would lose about $31 million in revenue a year.
Amendment 3: Increased homestead exemption; lower cap on increases in non-homestead property assessments
What it does: Amendment 3 would make the largest change to Florida property taxes in years. It amends Article VII, Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Florida Constitution and would take effect Jan. 1, 2027. The Legislature placed it on the ballot during a June special session; the House vote was 75-26 and the Senate vote was 30-9.
The amendment would:
- Raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, then adjust it for inflation starting in 2029. Today, homeowners receive up to $51,411 in exemptions: $25,000 against all taxes, including school taxes, plus up to $26,411 against non-school taxes. School taxes would keep the $25,000 exemption.
- Set a waiting period for newcomers. People who are not Florida residents on Dec. 31, 2026, would receive a $50,000 exemption, adjusted for inflation, after qualifying for a homestead. They would get the larger exemption beginning after their fifth year.
- Allow further cuts. The Legislature must create a uniform procedure for counties and cities to raise the exemption, up to a home’s full assessed value. Special districts could do the same with voter approval.
- Lower the cap on assessment increases for non-homestead property, such as businesses, rentals and second homes, from 10% a year to 5%.
- Limit how cities and counties spend property taxes to public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt, employee retirement benefits and the operations of county officers, commissions and city governments. Other spending approved by those officials is allowed unless general law prohibits it.
An August court ruling found the original ballot title and summary misleading. The language voters will see was rewritten by the attorney general.
What it would cost: The state Revenue Estimating Conference projects local governments would lose about $4.9 billion in the 2027-28 budget year, $8.7 billion in 2028-29 and about $11.8 billion a year once fully in effect in 2031-32. A state trust fund to make up local losses was removed from the proposal before final passage.
In Marion County, the conference estimates combined losses for county government, cities and special districts of $87.6 million in 2027-28, growing to $170.9 million a year. Marion County government’s share of that loss would grow from about $78.3 million to $152.2 million. The city of Ocala’s share would grow from about $6.9 million to $14 million.
Supporters say:
- Homeowners should not have to pay what amounts to rent to the government for using property they own.
- It expands the homestead exemption for most Floridians who own their homes.
- It focuses property tax dollars on essential services such as law enforcement, fire and emergency services, and the offices of the sheriff, clerk of court, property appraiser, tax collector and supervisor of elections.
- It sets spending priorities that will cut frivolous programs and spending.
- It will make Florida more attractive to new residents and businesses.
- Newcomers must wait five years for the larger exemption, which protects long-time residents.
- It leaves school taxes in place, so everyone continues to pay for public education.
Opponents say:
- It leaves school taxes in place and in some counties school taxes exceed all other property taxes combined, which limits the relief homeowners will see.
- It will draw more people and businesses to Florida, adding to growth pressures.
- Homeowners will still pay full non-school taxes on assessed value above the exemption.
- Local governments would lose about $11.8 billion a year once the amendment is fully in effect, threatening services residents value, such as parks, recreation, libraries, boat ramps, camps, some childcare services, animal shelters, veterans services, health care and hospitals.
- It will hurt local governments’ ability to help with housing and social services, including the health department.
- New or higher fees and assessments will be needed to pay for some services.
- Service levels will drop while demand for services stays the same.
- It does not stop cities and counties from raising tax rates up to the legal maximum.
- Florida’s 29 “fiscally constrained” counties, mostly rural counties with small tax bases, would become more dependent on the state. Some, including Bradford, Lafayette and Union, already levy the 10-mill maximum county tax rate.
- Limiting what property taxes can pay for reduces local control and decision-making. Having Tallahassee dictate how local tax money is spent does not reflect the “Free State of Florida.”
- Florida needs a better, fairer plan. The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which the constitution requires to convene every 20 years to review state taxes and budgets, is due to meet in 2027. It should be allowed to do its job and propose improvements to what opponents call an archaic and regressive tax structure.
Before you vote
Amendments appear on every Florida ballot and all registered voters may vote on them regardless of party. Election Day is Nov. 3. Sample ballots, early voting sites and vote-by-mail information are available from the Marion County Supervisor of Elections (votemarion.gov).
Judy Johnson, Esq. is a local retired attorney who presents an explainer on proposed constitutional amendments for each election cycle to local civic groups.