Florida Realtors has contributed roughly $19.5 million to the campaign supporting Amendment 3, a proposed property-tax overhaul that Florida voters will decide on in the midterm elections on Nov. 3. By Oct. 9, the Vote Yes on 3 campaign had raised more than $21.5 million, including a contribution of just over $2 million from the National Association of Realtors, campaign-finance reporting shows.

Their argument is that housing affordability doesn't end when someone buys a home. Lower property taxes could make it easier for homeowners to stay put.

But the proposal raises questions for Sarasota and Manatee residents. Would the savings encourage more people to buy? Could those savings drive up home prices? And how would local governments replace the revenue they would lose?

Three local real estate agents see different possibilities.

Lisa Otte of Douglas Elliman thinks the amendment could encourage hesitant buyers and investors. Ryan Hoffman of Wagner Realty doubts the savings would significantly influence buying or selling decisions. Mark Klecka of Coldwell Banker Realty sees benefits for homeowners but wonders whether governments would recover lost revenue through higher fees or other charges.

“You have to know what it is, who it helps, and in what timeframe it helps people,” Klecka says.

Amendment 3 needs at least 60 percent voter approval to pass. If it does, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, with the first changes appearing on property tax bills issued that November.

How Much Could Homeowners Save?

The biggest change would be a larger homestead exemption, which reduces the value of a primary residence subject to property taxes.

In 2026, qualifying homeowners can exclude up to $51,411 of their home's assessed value from non-school property taxes. Amendment 3 would increase that amount to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2029.

That doesn't mean homeowners would save $250,000. It means up to $250,000 of their assessed value wouldn't be taxed by non-school taxing authorities.

Assessed value is the figure used to calculate property taxes and it may be considerably lower than a home's market value, especially for longtime owners.

The amendment wouldn't eliminate school property taxes or charges for services such as waste collection. 

A Real-World Sarasota Example

Consider a qualifying homeowner within the city of Sarasota whose home has an assessed value of $300,000.

Using the Sarasota County Tax Collector's certified 2025 rates, the combined non-school rate for a home within city limits, outside additional neighborhood-specific taxing districts, is 8.7865 mills. That includes taxes levied by the city, county, hospital district and other taxing authorities.

Here's how the homeowner's annual non-school taxes would compare if that rate and the property's assessed value remained unchanged.

The homeowner would save approximately $1,745 annually by 2028 under those assumptions.

Would the Amendment Influence Home Sales?

Otte sees the savings as an incentive for buyers who've been waiting for a reason to move forward.

“I think something like this passing could potentially get [buyers] over the fence, if you will, and get their interest and say, you know what, 'let's do this. We've been waiting,'” she says.

She also thinks lower ownership costs could encourage some homeowners to keep their properties longer, potentially reducing the number of homes for sale and therefore shrinking inventory.

Hoffman is less convinced.

Asked whether the tax savings could influence someone's decision to buy, sell or stay put, he says, “I really don't.”

He believes life changes, including jobs, growing families and retirement, will continue to drive most real estate decisions.

Klecka sees the tax break as a selling point rather than an automatic reason to raise prices. “I think this will be used as leverage to make things more attractive,” he says.

But buyers should be careful when estimating their future taxes. A seller's bill may reflect decades of assessment protections. Property is generally reassessed after a sale, so the new owner's bill could be substantially different.

What About People Moving to Florida?

Amendment 3 would treat established Florida residents differently from newcomers.

People who were permanent Florida residents by Dec. 31, 2026, could generally receive the expanded exemption when they qualify for homestead benefits. That includes current Florida renters who purchase their first home later.

People who establish residency after that date would initially receive a smaller non-school exemption, starting at $50,000, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2028. They would generally qualify for the larger exemption in their fifth year of receiving homestead benefits.

For example, someone moving from New York to Sarasota in 2027 who first qualifies for homestead exemption in 2028 would ordinarily receive the expanded exemption in 2032.

Beginning in 2030, counties and municipalities could shorten that waiting period for their own taxes through a two-thirds vote if officials determine there's a critical local need.

Otte says an out-of-state buyer has already asked her about Amendment 3, but she hasn't seen a rush of purchases connected to it. “I can't necessarily say that there's been an uptick,” she says.

Could Investors and Second-Home Owners Benefit?

Yes, but differently from primary homeowners.

Rental properties, vacation homes and commercial buildings wouldn't receive the larger homestead exemption. Instead, Amendment 3 would reduce the maximum annual increase in their assessed value, for non-school tax purposes, from 10 percent to 5 percent.

For example, a rental property assessed at $200,000 could increase to $220,000 under the current cap if its value rose enough. Under the proposed cap, its assessed value would generally be limited to $210,000.

That would leave $10,000 less in assessed value subject to non-school taxes. The actual savings would depend on tax rates. If the property's value rose by less than 5 percent, the lower cap wouldn't provide an additional benefit that year.

The provision limits assessment increases, not tax bills. Tax rates could still rise, and changes in ownership or certain improvements can trigger different assessment rules.

Otte believes the change could renew interest among smaller investors who pulled back from buying second and third properties as ownership costs increased.

“I think again, you know, if this were to pass, that I think that will generate some new interest in investors,” she says.

Hoffman would prefer broader tax relief for investment and commercial properties, particularly because those costs often reach tenants.

“I would personally rather see something that gives relief to the whole,” he says.

What Could Renters Expect?

Renters wouldn't receive a break, and landlords wouldn't be required to pass along any property-tax savings. But tenants could face higher costs if local governments raise tax rates to replace lost revenue.

A September analysis by tax policy researcher Jared Walczak examined that possibility.

Under a scenario in which governments increased property-tax rates to replace lost revenue, subject to existing limits, landlords in Sarasota County could face an additional $261 annually per apartment and $696 per single-family rental in 2028.

In Manatee County, the corresponding estimates were $335 and $1,124.

Landlords might pass some additional expenses to tenants, absorb them or respond differently depending on the market. Local governments could also reduce spending or raise other fees instead of relying entirely on higher property-tax rates.

For businesses, Hoffman points out that commercial leases often pass property taxes directly to tenants, meaning a restaurant or shop owner could be affected even without owning the building.

What Would Local Governments Lose?

Property taxes help fund services residents rely on, including law enforcement, emergency response, roads, libraries, parks and environmental protection.

The state's Revenue Estimating Conference projects the following annual reductions in property-tax revenue if Amendment 3 passes.

A separate analysis by the Florida Policy Institute estimates that property-tax revenue losses across county governments, municipalities and special districts would total $250.3 million in Sarasota County and $255.1 million in Manatee County over the first two fiscal years. 

In Sarasota County, the institute projects $43.4 million less in property-tax revenue for the public hospital district, $20 million for Sarasota County Fire Rescue and $8.5 million for conservation and water management.

In Manatee County, the analysis estimates $19.1 million less for fire and emergency medical service districts and $9.4 million for children's services. How those losses would be addressed would depend on future budget decisions.

The City of Sarasota has identified police, streets and sidewalks, recreation and homelessness services among areas that could face budget pressure. Local officials could respond through spending reductions, operational changes, higher fees or adjustments to permitted tax rates.

The amendment would also establish categories for county and municipal property-tax spending, including public safety, infrastructure, natural resources, debt payments and government operations. It would continue to permit other spending approved locally unless prohibited by state law.

Klecka doubts Sarasota officials would allow a significant decline in services and amenities that contribute to the area's appeal. But he suspects governments would look for other ways to raise money. “Will we be paying less here but more here?”

Hoffman recalls how local governments adjusted to falling property values during the Great Recession and suggests they could find ways to manage another financial disruption. Today's budgets and service demands, however, are considerably different.

For homeowners, the possibility of lower property taxes is clear. Whether some savings would be offset by other costs remains uncertain.

Would Property Taxes Disappear Altogether?

No. School property taxes and applicable assessments would remain. Amendment 3 would also require lawmakers to establish a process for counties and municipalities to approve even larger homestead exemptions for their own levies, potentially up to a home's full assessed value.

But further reductions would require additional action. They wouldn't happen automatically with this vote.

For Sarasota and Manatee residents, the amendment offers the prospect of smaller property-tax bills, with different benefits depending on how and when someone qualifies.

What it might mean for home prices, rents and the services that help define these communities would depend on decisions made long after Election Day.