TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The proposed property tax amendment that is supposed to go before voters in November is misleading, a Florida judge ruled Tuesday.
According to a report from News4JAX sister station WKMG in Orlando, the judge is ordering the Florida attorney general to rewrite the ballot measure, which he says is full of “political taglines” that do more to make the amendment appealing for voters than actually tell them what the amendment will do.
Recommended Videos
Attorney General James Uthmeier has to submit the revised ballot language to the Florida Department of State within 10 days.
Anyone challenging the new ballot language has 10 days to do so once it’s submitted to the Dept. of State.
At least 60% of voters must approve the amendment on the November ballot for it to pass.
What is the amendment?
A group called Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language sued the state over the amendment passed by the Florida Legislature earlier this year.
That amendment, titled “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes,” would expand the homestead exemption to $150,000 starting in 2027, and to $250,000 beginning in 2028.
It also reduced the cap on increasing the tax assessment on non-homesteaded properties to 5% per year, and limits how local governments can use tax revenue to “core services,” which include: public safety (law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical services), public schools, infrastructure (road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control), natural resource projects (like flood control measures), fund county administration officers, and meet obligations for local government employees’ retirement benefits.
You can read the full ballot language HERE.
What the judge says
In his ruling, Judge David Frank said he can’t strike the amendment from the ballot, and he is not assessing the merit or wisdom of the amendment. His job is simply to determine whether the ballot title and summary “pass muster under longstanding Florida law that demands fairness and accuracy in its description before placement on the ballot.”
“They fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten,” the judge added.
Frank ruled the ballot title and summary are full of “political taglines” that give reasons for voters to say yes to the amendment, but that is not the purpose of the title and summary. The purpose is to explain what the amendment does, not advocate for its adoption.
In one example, Frank writes, “The summary states that the amendment is ‘Ensuring funding for core services’ because it ‘requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs.’ Yet the proposed amendment does not ‘ensure’ funding for police, fire protection, schools, infrastructure, or any other ‘core’ public service, nor does it create any new restrictions on how property tax revenues may be expended. In fact, by substantially reducing the local property tax base, the proposed amendment is likely to decrease the revenues available to local governments to fund core services. The amendment cannot fairly or accurately be described as ‘ensuring funding.’”
Frank also says the ballot summary claims the amendment will ultimately lead to the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homestead property. Except the amendment does not require “full elimination.”
“Rather, it would require the Legislature to establish procedures through which local governments may choose to grant additional exemptions in the future ‘up to’ the full assessed valuation,” Frank writes.
Frank also points out that the ballot summary omits the fact that the amendment proposes “major change[s] in the function of government” by giving the Legislature the right to control ad valorem tax spending, thus changing the home rule powers local governments currently enjoy under Florida’s constitution.
Read the full ruling here.
Property taxes in Florida
Florida’s property tax system is a multi-level system that includes homesteaded and non-homesteaded properties.
Homesteaded properties are primary homes that get a special exemption. Annual tax assessments are also capped at 3% each year, which means people who have owned their homes a long time are more likely to enjoy lower property taxes than newer neighbors across the street.
“So, for example, if you live in your home for 10 years, you bought it for $100,000, you then live in it for the 10 years, and it’s worth $300,000,” Orange County Property Appraiser Amy Mercado told WKMG in an interview earlier this year.
“The savings between your market and your assessed value for those 10 years, you have the opportunity to take with you,” Mercado said. “The person that buys your home doesn’t pay the (tax) rate that you’re paying. You may be at $1,000… a year in taxes because of the years you’ve been in it. You bought it at $100,000, and it slowly progressed. That person is going to pay on the $300,000 mark because it resets as soon as you sell.”
Non-homesteaded properties include any primary homeowner who has not filed for a homestead exemption, along with vacation homes, rental properties, and business properties.
According to the Florida Association of Counties, 55 of 67 counties have lowered or maintained their operating millage rates since 2020. Millage rates are the tax rates used to calculate local property taxes.
However, Florida TaxWatch says property tax levies have risen 108.1% from 2014 to 2024, while population and inflation rose 54.9%.
How is that possible?
Because property values have exploded, particularly in the last six years, and property values are a key factor in determining property tax bills.
Local government concerns
The most vocal critics of the property tax amendment are county and city governments, particularly in communities that do not have a diverse property tax base.
In a report by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, local governments would lose nearly $5 billion in revenue the first year, and nearly $12 billion in the fifth year.
The Florida Association of Counties offers a breakdown HERE of the data by county.
Clay and Baker would be the hardest hit Northeast Florida counties. Clay would lose more than 33% of its property tax revenues in year two if the amendment passes, while Baker would lose over 32%
Duval County and St. Johns counties would both lose 20.71%; Nassau County would lose 19.47% and Flagler County would lose 26.28%.
The area’s more rural counties would be affected similarly:
- Alachua: 20.16%
- Bradford: 23.24%
- Columbia: 25.45%
- Putnam: 22.08%
- Union: 22.91%
Cities also stand to lose because a greater portion of their tax rolls rely on ad valorem taxes. The Florida League of Cities also points out that its governments already, on average, spend more on public safety than they take in from property taxes.
On Monday, the Florida Sheriffs Association became the latest public safety group to speak out against the amendment, joining the Florida State Fraternal Order of Police, Florida Professional Firefighters, and the Florida Fire Chiefs Association.
The amendment “potentially allows Tallahassee to control your local budgets, creates longer law enforcement times, limits communities’ abilities to provide road repairs and stormwater removal – these are a few of the things voters need to be aware of,” the FSA statement reads.