Florida voters are facing two statewide ballot questions that deal with property taxes in this election cycle.
Amendment 3, which would dramatically reduce property taxes for homestead property owners while deeply impacting local government revenue and services, has been widely covered and discussed.
But Amendment 2 has received scant attention. And coupled with Amendment 3, if passed, it could have a disproportionate impact on rural Florida.
Amendment 2 would effectively end tangible personal property taxes for land "classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism."
If that sounds confusing, keep reading.
READ MORE: 2026 Election: Amendments, referendums and other questions on your midterms ballot — a guide
“Tangible personal property tax” is an annual tax on machines, equipment or furniture that are used for a business. All sorts of businesses — from beauty salons to factories — are taxed annually on that. In agriculture that can mean things like tractors, harvesting equipment, feeding lines and machinery.
The Florida Legislature placed Amendment 2 on the ballot in 2025, and Republican House Representative Daniel Alvarez of Tampa was largely the face behind the push.
During committee hearings, he said the equipment farmers buy should be taxed once and that’s it.
“They paid for it in sales tax, and every year until they decline it practically to zero, we ask them to pay taxes on the same asset over and over again,” Alvarez said during a House Ways and Means Committee meeting last March.
“They're getting choked out. It's a tough industry, and this is an industry of special consideration for us and national infrastructure. No Floridian should pay taxes on a piece of property they own over and over again. It’s not right.”
Alvarez said that no official study had been conducted to show how much money this would save the agriculture industry across Florida, but he estimated about $30 million every year.
“ It literally is a drop in the bucket to us, but it means everything to agriculture,” said Alvarez.
Fear of a 'concentrated' impact on rural governments
Democratic state representative Anna Eskamani of Orlando pointed out that the agriculture industry is already exempt from paying sales tax on many pieces of equipment that they might buy. She added that sales tax revenue goes to the state government, while money raised from tangible personal property taxes goes to local governments.
“Some of the challenges that I'm having with this question is the impact on fiscally constrained counties,” said Eskamani, referring to rural counties. “You say it's $30 million, and I haven't had a chance to look at the data, but I assume that $30 million is concentrated in fiscally constrained counties, and I would just be curious to see that.”
There is no statewide database that shows where the money lost to local governments would be concentrated. No study of the sort has been conducted by the State of Florida.
Eskamani was ultimately the only member of the House to vote against placing the item on the ballot, records show. The item passed unanimously in the Florida Senate.
If the other property tax question — Amendment 3 — passes, rural counties will be the most affected.
Rural leaders have warned that small counties and cities could actually cease to exist because they no longer have the revenue to exist. If Amendment 2 passes as well, it would undoubtedly help individual farmers and companies, but it would likely add to the issues for rural governments, since the agricultural industry is primarily found in rural areas.
Florida TaxWatch, an independent taxpayer research institute, laid it out in an analysis: "the impact may be felt to a higher degree in smaller, rural counties. This is especially true if Amendment 3 is also approved by voters."
But Florida TaxWatch said that the legistature could step in to reimburse rural governments that are hard hit by the revenue cuts. The group said the Florida Legislature did just that after voters increased an exemption of tangible personal property taxes from $5,000 to $25,000 in the 2008 election. Overall, the group voiced concerns about only granting relief to the agricultural sector, since it could result in "shifting tax burden" to other businesses that would be forced to pay more. Nonetheless, the group suggests that voters approve the amendment.
While Democratic House Representative Kelly Skidmore of Palm Beach County ultimately voted to place the question on the ballot, she expressed reservations about the state’s urge to persistently cut local government’s sources of revenue.
”I'm concerned about — holistically — what we're doing to our local governments and their ability to continue to provide services,” she said. “I do think philosophically there is something wrong with re-taxing people year after year after year for something. However we got there or started there, that is a revenue stream that people are relying on, that counties are relying on.”
The Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services all supported placing the item on state ballots.
Impact on urban counties
The fiscal impact of Amendment 2 on more urban counties would be much more modest.
In Miami-Dade County, for example, the total taxable value of agricultural tangible personal property in 2025 was $161 million, according to the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser’s office. That number barely registers in the picture of the county's overall tax base.
Despite the small overall impact on Miami-Dade’s overall, using combined data from the Miami-Dade Tax Collector and the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser’s Office, WLRN identified the top companies that would benefit if Amendment 2 passes. At least 60% of voters need to approve it in order for it to pass.
If passed, Amendment 2 would largely benefit crop farmers and plant nurseries in Miami-Dade, including large operations like Nature’s Way Farms (which would get $198,717 in savings based on 2025 numbers); Pure Beauty Nurseries ($187,183); and Costa Farms ($91,126).
Atlantic Sapphire, a massive commercial salmon farm company in the Redlands, would save $1.2 million in annual taxes, according to public records, making it by far the biggest beneficiary locally. The Norway-based company opened what it claims to be the largest indoor salmon farm in the world in South Dade in 2020. Much of the equipment used to grow salmon —that is then sold to Publix and other grocery stores — is currently taxed annually.
Another top beneficiary would be Worldwide Primates Inc., a Redland-based company that breeds primates for scientific research purposes, according to public records. The company paid $66,572 in tangible personal property tax in 2025 and operates under the “animal production” agricultural designation.
The ballot amendment, which would go into effect on January 1, 2027, if it passes, would also allow companies that operate “agritourism” businesses to receive some tax relief on equipment. Companies that operate agritourism businesses like wedding and party venues and restaurants on agricultural land have in recent years become a nuisance to some South Dade residents, even as they have grown in popularity with the public.
