Property Tax Amendment on November Ballot Poses Immediate and Lasting Threat to Florida’s Environment

In a special session this May, the Legislature voted to place a constitutional amendment bringing sweeping property tax reforms on the November ballot. They had only received it days earlier from Governor DeSantis and voted it through without any real analysis of the budget implications for cities, counties, and water management districts, or the public services that would be eliminated. In the weeks since, Florida’s nonpartisan Office of Economic and Demographic Research has completed its analysis of the amendment, predicting that if passed by voters in November, it will reduce local government revenues by $5 billion annually in FY 27-28, rising to nearly a $12 billion reduction annually by FY 31-32. 

The amendment on November’s ballot—which will require 60% approval to pass—would significantly increase Florida's homestead exemption, raising it to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 for current Florida homeowners, and further restrict tax increases on businesses and rental properties. If approved by voters, this proposal would not only significantly reduce the amount of funding cities and counties have available to support their communities, but it also narrows the range of services they can fund with the property tax revenues that remain. 

This raises significant questions about the future funding of programs such as parks and recreation, libraries, civic centers, pollution control efforts, landuse planning, and other local government services that communities rely on. Without definitions for terms such as "natural resource projects" and without language making clear that the examples provided in each category are illustrative rather than limiting, it is possible that local conservation land acquisition programs, land management, habitat restoration, and other environmental initiatives may not qualify for funding. Local governments may increasingly have to rely on state appropriations or federal revenue sources to address needs that have traditionally been funded and managed at the local level. 

Because rural counties have smaller budgets to begin with and higher proportions of their tax base are homesteaded properties, the amendment will hit the budgets of these communities harder than others. 

And while the amendment does not directly reference water management districts, the reduction in ad valorem assessments will reduce water management district budgets as well, which are supported by a percentage (millage) of property tax collections. This will affect everything from flood control to Everglades Restoration, springs protection to combatting saltwater intrusion and water supply protection. The Northwest Florida and Suwannee River water management districts will be most severely impacted due to the higher percentage of homestead eligible properties within their boundaries, but all the districts will see painful reductions at a time when Floridians are clamoring for more services from them, not fewer. 

While no one relishes paying taxes, Floridians are hungry for better growth management to address the accelerating conversion of Florida’s wildlands and farms; better water management to protect communities from flooding, wildfire, harmful algal blooms, and saltwater intrusion; more parks and preserves for wildlife and recreation; and more ability for local communities to shape their own quality of life, instead of one-size-fits-all decisions being made for them from Tallahassee. 

Ultimately, voters will have to decide this issue in November. It will be a priority of Audubon to help ensure they understand the lasting implications of that vote.

This article was published in the Summer 2026 Naturalist.