Florida voters approved Amendment 3 in the Nov. 3 general election, paving the way for changes to the state’s property tax system beginning in 2027.
The amendment increases the homestead exemption for qualifying homeowners from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with future adjustments for inflation. The expanded exemption applies to non-school property taxes, meaning homeowners could see lower property tax bills while school taxes remain unchanged.
The amendment also lowers the annual assessment cap for non-homestead properties, including rental and commercial properties, from 10% to 5%. However, the changes could affect local governments collecting less property tax revenue, according to the Florida Department of State.
The nonpartisan Florida Policy Institute says Hillsborough County stands to lose $971.1 million in revenue over two fiscal years.
Community Members have raised questions about the status of the Rays stadium deal and if there will have to be changes made to the agreement.
Laura Lawson, an attorney who’s spent a lot of time at Tampa City Hall and Hillsborough County Commission criticising the use of public money to help with the stadium, said the deal should not have been decided before the election and it needs to be canceled.
“With the college, Amendment 3 makes the situation with funding reconstruction, which has to come from the state legislature, worse. They are going to be bailing out local governments. They say they will have it rebuilt by 2030. But that’s just a pinky swear,” Lawson told Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, alluding to the Florida officials’ promises to help the stadium move along. “There is no guarantee. It’s very risky and it’s cruel to current students and staff.”
In a 5-2 vote, last August, Hillsborough County committed up to $796 million, about 83% of it from tourist development and sales tax revenue, said Commissioner Chris Boles.
Boles—who voted to approve that deal—said throughout the negotiations he has focused on the surrounding development generating real, recoverable value for taxpayers.
“I don’t believe the passage of Amendment 3 alone is a reason to reopen the agreement.. That said, if the amendment changes the financial projection in a meaningful way, we should take another look,” Boles said in an email.
Boles said the 5% assessment cap could affect projected property tax revenues, but he said that generally applies to annual increases on existing properties. He said new construction can be assessed at its full taxable value, but how the Amendment will affect revenue will depend on what is being built, the value and when it’s completed.
When looking at who covers the difference if the property tax revenue falls short, Boles said it doesn’t automatically fall to taxpayers.
“That depends on what shortfall we’re talking about. Lower-than-projected property tax revenue doesn’t automatically create an obligation for taxpayers to make up the difference,” Boles said. “ Separately, the agreement expressly requires the Rays to cover construction cost overruns, not the City of County. Any additional financial responsibility would depend on the specific obligations established in the agreements.”
A day before the county commission’s 5-2 vote, Tampa City Council voted 4-3 to commit up to $80 million for public infrastructure tied to the project, paid in four $20 million installments. Council members say the city expects to recover that money through tax increment financing, using future property tax revenue generated by the surrounding development.
Chairman of Tampa City Council Alan Clendenin—who’s been one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Rays move to Tampa—also agreed that Amendment 3 shouldn’t affect the Rays agreement.
“If anything, Amendment 3 makes projects like this even more important. Tampa is going to face a difficult financial decision in the coming years. We can’t simply cut our way out of those challenges. We also have to find ways to grow our economy and expand our tax base,” Clendenin said in an email. He claimed that, “The Rays project brings substantial private investment, new businesses, jobs and opportunity to develop property that could generate tax revenue for decades.”
Clendenin said if the development doesn’t generate the projected tax revenue, the City could recover less than anticipated and that is a concern. However, he said without the development there is no additional tax revenue either, so this project can still help generate some.
While city council discusses the deadline for its TIF ordinance, Clendenin said councilmembers will have to see what revenue comes in, if Amendment 3 affects that and the property doesn’t perform as anticipated, but the deal overall will continue.
City Councilman Charlie Miranda voted no on the Rays agreement because he wanted to wait to see if Amendment 3 would pass. He told CL that he doesn’t think the TIF will generate what they want it to.
“What you are doing is putting the whole thing in jeopardy,” Miranda said. “I asked before the vote not to pass anything, not even to discuss it because we didn’t know if Amendment 3 was going to pass, what consequences we were going to have and how we could make the payment up.”
Tampa City Council also voted 4-3 to approve a Community Benefits Agreement with the Rays, which critics say has no teeth. With the recent departure of District 7 Councilman Luis Viera—who voted to approve the city’s $80 million commitment and the CBA—council is split 3-3 on matters related to the stadium.
Applications to be appointed the next Tampa City Councilmember are now open.
Pitch in to help make the Tampa Bay Journalism Project a success.
Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.
Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky
This article appears in Nov. 05 – 11, 2026.
