The Gulfport Democratic Club hosted an educational presentation by the League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg Area (LWV) at the Gulfport Neighborhood Center on Sept. 29. LWV Voter Services co-chair Heidi Rosenthal-Davis explained the proposed amendments on the 2026 Florida ballot and answered questions about their potential effects on residents and local services.
Florida voters will decide on the three proposed amendments during this year’s Nov. 3 general election.
Amendment 1: Budget Stabilization Fund
Amendment 1 would expand Florida’s Budget Stabilization Fund, often called its rainy-day fund. It would raise the fund’s maximum balance from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections. General revenue is money the state collects from sources such as sales taxes and other taxes and fees that are not set aside for a specific purpose. The state would increase the limit over time.
Lawmakers would generally put $750 million into the fund each year. If that amount would push the fund over its limit, lawmakers would transfer only enough money to reach the limit. The amendment would also let lawmakers use the fund for one-time critical state needs if they meet certain requirements and approve the withdrawals.
Florida last used the fund during the 2008 Great Recession.
Rosenthal-Davis explained the arguments for and against Amendment 1. Supporters say a larger reserve would help Florida prepare for disasters and recessions. They also say it could help the state maintain strong bond ratings. Bond ratings measure how likely a government is to repay money it borrows. Strong ratings can help lower borrowing costs.
Opponents say the required transfers could take money away from current needs and give lawmakers less flexibility when they build the state budget.
When asked which side voters should support, Rosenthal-Davis said the presentation aimed to educate voters rather than tell them how to vote.
A yes vote would approve the 25% reserve limit, required yearly transfers and rules for using the fund for critical state needs. A no vote would keep the current 10% limit and existing funding and withdrawal rules.
This post first appeared at The Gulfport Gabber, which is part of the Tampa Bay Journalism Project (TBJP), a nascent Creative Loafing Tampa Bay effort supported by grants and a coalition of donors who make specific contributions via the Alternative Newsweekly Foundation. If you are a non-paywalled Bay area publication interested in TBJP, please email rroa@ctampa.com. Help the Gabber keep publishing by making a donation.
Amendment 2: Agricultural Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption
Amendment 2 would remove property taxes from certain agricultural equipment and other tangible personal property. Tangible personal property means physical items that people or businesses own, such as equipment, machinery, and tools. Rosenthal-Davis cited tractors, combines, and other farm machinery as examples.
The property would have to normally sit on land classified as agricultural and be used for farming or agritourism. The landowner or leaseholder would also have to own the property. The exemption would apply to qualifying equipment and other items, not the land itself.
Rosenthal-Davis explained that supporters see the exemption as a way to help Florida’s agricultural industry. Opponents question whether the state should give one industry a tax break if it means local governments collect less money.
The impact would vary across Florida. Counties with substantial agricultural activity could face greater revenue losses than Pinellas County, she said.
A yes vote would create the property-tax exemption for qualifying agricultural and agritourism equipment and other tangible personal property. A no vote would keep the current tax rules and exemptions.
Amendment 3: Homestead Exemption and Non-Homestead Assessment Caps
Amendment 3 would increase Florida’s homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. A homestead exemption reduces the taxable value of a home that qualifies as a person’s primary residence. The exemption would then increase with inflation.
The change would lower the taxable value of a qualifying home. However, the larger exemption would not apply to school district taxes. This means homeowners would not receive the larger exemption when calculating the portion of their property taxes that funds local schools.
According to the state’s explanation, homeowners who live in Florida permanently by Dec. 31, 2026, could receive the larger exemption without a waiting period. People who become permanent Florida residents after that date would generally receive the larger exemption in their fifth year of receiving the homestead exemption. People who move to Florida after Dec. 31, 2026, would generally have to receive the homestead exemption for four years before receiving the larger amount in their fifth year.
The amendment would also lower the yearly cap on increases in the assessed value of non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. The change would slow the growth of a property’s taxable value but would not directly limit the property tax bill.
The proposal also lists how counties and cities could use property-tax money. These uses include public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt payments, retirement costs, and government operations. Local governments could still spend money on other approved needs unless state law prohibits it.
The larger homestead exemption could lower property taxes for qualifying homeowners. At the same time, it would reduce the amount of money local governments collect. Rosenthal-Davis said the impact would vary from one community to another.
Local governments could respond in several ways, she said. They could cut spending, raise millage rates, or increase fees. Millage rates determine how much property owners pay in property taxes. Libraries and parks and recreation programs could face budget pressure. Residents could also see higher parking charges or new fees for services that previously did not have a separate charge.
Those changes could reduce some of the savings homeowners receive from the larger exemption. Renters could also face higher costs if landlords pass along higher expenses, Rosenthal-Davis said.
A yes vote would approve the larger homestead exemption, lower the annual assessment-increase cap for non-homestead properties, and set rules for local property-tax spending. A no vote would keep the current homestead exemptions, 10% non-homestead assessment cap, and spending rules.
Rosenthal-Davis encouraged residents to review their local budgets and visit vote411.org for more information about the amendments.
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
