Ballot Amendments
Amendment 1 Budget Stabilization Fund (HJR 5019)
Increase the amount of funds that may be retained in the budget stabilization fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the Legislature to transfer the lesser of $750 million or the amount required to reach 25% each year unless certain conditions are met, and allow the Legislature to withdraw funds for critical state needs.
A Yes Vote:
Supports raising the cap on Florida’s budget stabilization (rainy-day) fund (BSF) from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections and requires annual transfers into the fund until that cap is met, with withdrawals allowed for critical state needs.
A No Vote:
Keeps the current constitutional cap of 10% of general revenue collections on the budget stabilization fund,
with no new required annual transfers.
Note: Currently the Budget Stabilization Fund is $5 billion. This is part of the nearly $18 billion in total reserves. The current BSF is 9.3% of net general revenue. The last time Florida tapped into the BSF was in 2008 during the Great Recession.
Pros
- Larger rainyday cushion: A 25% cap instead of 10% would give Florida more financial reserves to handle hurricanes, recessions, or other emergencies
- Emergency flexibility: Withdrawals are allowed for critical state needs, giving the Legislature tools to address urgent budget shortfalls
- Stability for state operations: A larger fund could reduce the need for drastic spending cuts or borrowing during crises.
Cons
- Reduced immediate spending power: Funds in the BSF are not available for regular state operations, so raising the cap means less money for current programs or services. Opponents believe the state needs to spend more funds to support its citizens now, not less.
- Potential for underfunding: If the state’s revenue is volatile or lower than projected, the fund may not grow as intended, limiting its effectiveness
- Complexity: The amendment adds procedural requirements (annual transfers, withdrawal conditions)
that could complicate budget planning.
Amendment 2 Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation (HJR1215)
Exempt tangible personal property habitually located on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder, from ad valorem taxation. Would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027.
A Yes Vote:
Eliminates taxation of personal property on Agricultural land.
A No Vote:
Keeps the taxation of personal property on Agricultural land.
Note: A revenue estimating conference for the House calculated that the bill would cut revenue for local
governments by at least $28.7 million.
Pros
This amendment would reduce the taxes these businesses pay. This would affect small and large agricultural businesses.
Cons
State economists in Tallahassee said local governments could lose about $31 million a year if voters approved the measure.
Amendment 3 - 2026 November Ballot Initiative
We all Want Tax Relief. But also…We Want our Local Services Funded.
This is the Amendment that is drawing the most attention. This Amendment has four provisions. However, You Vote Yes or No on the entire Amendment; you do not get to vote on the individual provisions. But it is important to understand them all to make an informed decision.
A Yes Vote:
Will put all four following provisions into effect. It will reduce property taxes and reduce funds for local county budgets.
A No Vote:
Leaves property taxes at the same rate as they are now.
Provision #1
Exempting homestead properties from taxation. Exempts the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value from taxation for all levies other than school district levies and requires, through general law, a schedule for full elimination.
Note: Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption for all levies other than school districts. Specifically, the amendment would increase the state’s non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027, followed by an increase to $250,000 in 2028. It would also allow the Florida legislature at a time of their choosing to make a schedule for full elimination of property taxes. (Citizens would not see this as a future amendment.)
In 2027 St. Johns County is estimated to lose $55 Million dollars.
In 2028 St Johns County is expected to lose $102 million in revenue.
Source: fl-counties.com
Provision #2
Ensuring funding for core services. Requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources.
Note: No Public Service is protected from budget cuts in this amendment. This provision requires local governments to use taxes for core public needs, but no core service ranks higher than another core service.
Property tax dollars make up the largest share of county revenue in nearly half of Florida’s counties. The loss will strain city’s ability to pay for services like Police, Fire Service, and EMS services as well as road maintenance, and flood control measures.
Provision #3
Protecting small businesses. Limits future property tax assessments on businesses.
Note: This would reduce the state’s assessment growth cap on properties that do not serve as a primary residence, like commercial real estate, second homes, and rental properties — from a maximum of 10 percent to 5 percent.
Provision #4
Ensuring fairness for Florida residents. Requires any person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027, to maintain Florida residency for five years prior to receiving the increased homestead exemption.
Note: This would create two systems of taxation for Florida residents depending on when they bought their property and established a homestead exemption.
The language is vague as to what is permanent residency. Now it means own a home and live in Florida for the majority of the year. This excludes long term renters, who are trying to purchase their first home. Landlords who own rental property, will pay an even high larger percentage of taxes than homeowners.
Overall Amendment 3 Pros
- Homeowners who have purchased their home before this goes into effect on January 1, 2027 would see their property taxes go down in year one.
- Commercial property owners will see their growth cap lower from 10% to 5%.
Overall Amendment 3 Cons
- County governments would see their revenue decrease substantially. St Johns County would lose approximately $55 million in 2027 and $102 million in 2028.
- New homebuyers would pay at a higher rate for their first 5 years of ownership.
- Counties will need to react quickly and cut services in order to stay solvent. Future fees and other revenue options will need to be evaluated.
- Commercial growth while adding property tax revenue will also require additional infrastructure funding to implement. Since county revenue will be decreased; this funding will be difficult to achieve.