TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — In a year where cost of living is front of mind for voters, Floridians approved a constitutional amendment that would significantly cut property taxes for people who own the homes they live in.

Amendment 3, which is expected to save Florida homeowners thousands and cost local governments billions, passed with about 62% of the vote. It needed at least 60%.

Its approval means Florida’s tax and budget landscape is set to dramatically change as early as January. Under the new rule, the homestead exemption for all non-school taxes will rise to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

Homestead exemptions reward Floridians who live in the property they own by cutting the amount of taxes they owe. People who own multiple properties only get the exemption on their main residence.

A Times mockup of how much hypothetical homeowners could save found cuts to tax bills in the thousands, though savings vary depending on many factors, like how long someone has owned.

The amendment will also limit increases in assessments for non-homesteaded properties to no more than 5% each year. That means a break for things like businesses, second homes and rental properties.

People who are not Florida residents by the end of this year will have to wait five years before they can benefit from the increased homestead exemption. Some have questioned whether that provision is constitutional.

Local governments could lose $12 billion annually by 2031, estimates from the state showed, prompting dire warnings from leaders about inevitable cuts to both popular and essential services, from park maintenance to fire response.

Amendment 3’s success is a victory for Gov. Ron DeSantis, who for more than a year pushed for a plan to lower Floridians’ property taxes.

Despite frustration that the Legislature amended his original plan by protecting property taxes for schools, the governor still advocated for the amendment.

Its passage cements one of DeSantis’ final political pushes. It is also a success for the trade group Florida Realtors, who put millions toward the campaign.

Florida voters who approved the amendment did so despite a large coalition opposing it, including Florida sheriffs, law enforcement officers, firefighters and more.

Cities and counties had warned the amendment could dramatically affect their ability to function. Now, to make up for the tax loss, local governments will need to decide to either cut spending or potentially levy new fees and taxes.

DeSantis will likely call lawmakers back to Tallahassee for a special session to craft legislation implementing the change.

Here’s how Florida voters weighed in on the other two amendments on the ballot.

Amendment 1 failed, garnering only about 41% of voter support as of 8:45 p.m.

Florida’s Legislature introduced the proposal, which would have put more money into the state’s budget stabilization, or rainy day, fund.

The plan emerged from the House speaker’s desire to limit state spending and pad the state’s reserves.

The amendment would’ve increased the fund’s cap to 25% of general revenue collections. Each year, the state would have had to add money: either $750 million or whatever it took to max out the fund, whichever was less.

The Florida GOP backed the amendment. But DeSantis opposed it, saying it was unnecessary. The last time the Legislature withdrew from the rainy day fund was in 2008.

Amendment 2 would have given Florida farmers a tax break. It seems poised to fail as of about 8:45 p.m.

About 58% of voters supported the amendment, short of Florida’s required 60% threshold.

The amendment would have affected the “tangible personal property” tax, which charges businesses annually for some of their equipment.

Amendment 2 would have exempted farmers from property taxes on equipment they own that is used in agricultural production and on farmland.

Supporters said the amendment would help support struggling agriculture businesses, pointing to food security as a national security issue.

Opponents, including some county Democratic groups, said the amendment would diminish local government budgets and would benefit mega-farms the most.

_____

©2026 Tampa Bay Times. Visit at tampabay.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.