IPTI | Property Tax in the News – September 2026

IPTI’s usual monthly newsletter – the “President’s Message” – contains, inter alia, some summarised news articles from around the world. This IPTI publication – “Property Tax in the News” – contains some of the more interesting news articles concerning property taxes in North America and Europe which is where many of our members have a particular interest. Links to these and more, similarly summarised, articles – from North America, Europe and around the globe – can be found in “IPTI Xtracts” on our website: www.ipti.org. Please note that these are news articles; they do not necessarily reflect IPTI’s views.

USA

Florida: The Winners and Losers Under Florida’s Major Property Tax Overhaul

Florida voters are set to decide in November whether they support a constitutional amendment that would significantly cut property taxes for some homeowners and potentially cut millions in funding for local hospitals and other vital services. The proposal, known as Amendment 3, would increase the non-school homestead tax exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and up to $250,000 by 2028. The amendment would also limit local spending to “core services,” such as public safety, public education, infrastructure and natural resource management.

It is similar, though not exactly the same, to the proposal backed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who said last year that he was in favor of abolishing property taxes entirely. The amendment gets close to that goal, creating a pathway for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteads.

Opponents—which include economists, health care officials, former Republican lawmakers, incumbent mayors and local municipalities across the state—say the move would leave a gaping hole in local governments’ budgets, which would force a drastic loss in funding for crucial services, including public health care and law enforcement.

Amendment 3, formerly known as Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes, is set to appear on the ballot on November 3.

The language of the proposal was recently changed after a judge ruled that it was “misleading” in portraying the amendment as something that all Floridians would benefit from, among other issues. The ruling followed a lawsuit by a nonprofit group and three former Florida politicians, who called the original wording a “sales pitch” and accused it of representing the amendment’s impact unfairly.

The new wording of the proposal, as Floridians are set to see it on the ballot, is included below.

Amendment 3: “Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homesteaded Property Assessments”

“This amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same.

“Persons who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution.

“This amendment reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10 percent to 5 percent.

“This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by general law, notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, which allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their respective purposes.

“This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.

” To pass, the proposal for a constitutional amendment would require the backing of at least 60 percent of Florida voters.

Property taxes have risen all across the country since the pandemic, as the homebuying frenzy unleashed by historically low borrowing costs between 2020 and 2022 sent home values through the roof. That was especially true for Florida, a state that saw a surge in newcomers and housing demand during those years.

Between 2019 and 2024, Florida’s total property tax revenue grew by about 62.8 percent, jumping from about $31 billion to $55 billion, according to the latest data from the Florida Department of Revenue. It is a significant increase, even as the property taxes paid by homeowners in Florida remain lower than the national average, according to SmartAsset.

For homeowners in the state who have faced years of property tax increases, the amendment could provide immediate, significant relief, while also alleviating fears over the rising cost of living since the start of the war in Iran. But the measure could backfire on residents when it comes to other aspects of their lives.

State economists have estimated that the amendment, if enacted, would result in a loss of $5 billion in tax revenue for local public services—including law enforcement, emergency services, libraries, parks and road maintenance—in 2027 and of almost $12 billion by 2031.

According to the Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, property taxes account for 74 percent of local tax collections in Florida, and local government revenue could drop by as much as $8.4 billion after two years.

Fearing this loss in revenue, several law enforcement groups in the state have publicly spoken out against the proposal, including the Florida’s Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and Sheriffs Association. In a July 24 Facebook post, FOP—the second-largest police union in the state—said it would oppose the amendment “because it creates far too much uncertainty about how local governments would continue to fund law enforcement, fire rescue, emergency medical services, and other critical public safety functions.” “Public safety should never become collateral damage with uncertain fiscal consequences,” FOP added.

The Florida Professional Firefighters, a union representing more than 32,000 firefighters and emergency medical services personnel in the state, expressed a similar opinion earlier in July, as did the Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association.

“Our position is not about opposing tax reform, it is about protecting the people we serve every day. Public safety is the foundation that allows Florida’s families, businesses and economy to thrive, and any lasting reform must ensure reliable funding that keeps those services strong,” Wayne “Bernie” Bernoska, the president of the Florida Professional Firefighters, said in a letter to its members cited by local news media.

The Florida Sheriffs Association joined this group of opponents on August 3, issuing a statement of concern on social media. It said the ballot initiative “potentially allows Tallahassee to control your local budgets, creates longer law enforcement response times, limits communities’ abilities to provide road repairs and stormwater removal—these are a few of the things voters deserve to be aware of.”

Local public hospitals, which receive funding through local property taxes, could lose millions in funding. Last month, The Florida Roundup reported that the Halifax Health public hospital in Daytona Beach collected about $21 million in property tax revenue in 2024. That revenue could disappear with the passing of Amendment 3.

In Florida, while the state funds Medicaid, counties are also required to make annual contributions based on the number of enrollees into the program living in their communities. With less revenue coming from property taxes, local municipalities would have less money to allocate to Medicaid, as they would have to balance their limited budget among all the services they fund. The Florida Hospital Association, which represents over 300 hospitals and health systems in the state, warned that hospitals could lose almost a third of their tax-collected revenue annually if Amendment 3 passes.

It would be yet another blow to the funding for the Florida health care system, after the One Big Beautiful Bill ordered that federal payments to the Sunshine State’s hospitals through the state’s Medicaid supplemental payment programs be phased down by more than $3.5 billion over the next 10 years. According to Florida Health Charts, more than 4 million Floridians, some 17 percent of the state’s population, were enrolled in Medicaid last year.

Health care officers in the state warn that the impact could be disastrous. “These hospitals see patients that other hospitals generally are not willing to see,” Justin Senior, the chief executive officer of the Safety Net Hospital Alliance of Florida, said in a statement reported by local radio station WUWF 88.1. “They run every line of business regardless of the margin and are located in areas where they end up with a lot of uninsured patients and a lot of low-income Medicaid patients,” he continued.

Renters and Floridians who have not yet stepped onto the property ladder would not benefit from Amendment 3 and could be harmed by the measure, according to critics. As the independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Florida Policy Institute (FPI) put it, eliminating such a significant source of revenue for local governments would force them to a “cost shift as localities turn to nonhomesteaded properties like rental units or commercial properties to raise property taxes.”

Essentially, they would have to find the money they use to fund key public services elsewhere and may need to raise the sales tax and other levies.

If property taxes increase for commercial properties as a result of the amendment, and all businesses end up paying more, “they would have to decide whether to absorb those costs or shift them onto renters and consumers,” FPI wrote.

Will Amendment 3 Pass?

Amendment 3 is set to appear before voters as a “yes/no” question on November 3. But its passing is far from certain. DeSantis has taken a step back, refusing to campaign for the amendment in its current form.

A recent survey by the James Madison Institute found that 55 percent of voters supported the amendment when they were told it could reduce funding for local government services, which is below the required 60 percent support.

Pennsylvania: Allegheny County must begin full property reassessment by 2027, judge rules

Allegheny County is set for a major change in how properties are valued after a judge ordered the county to begin a new, full property reassessment by July 2027. The order, signed Monday by Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth Valasek, comes after more than a decade of debate and litigation over the county’s property assessment system. The county’s last full countywide reassessment took place in 2012. Since then, Allegheny County has continued to use those 2012 market values as the basis for property assessments.

The order came in the case of Flavia Laun v. Allegheny County. Laun, a local property owner, sued the county and ultimately helped push the issue back into the spotlight. Mike Suley, chairman of the Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment Appeals, told KDKA-TV on Monday that the reassessment will create winners and losers.

“There are winners and losers now, but they don’t know it,” said Suley. “There are people paying way less than they should be paying in property taxes. They don’t even know it. There are people paying thousands of dollars more than they should be paying.”

The judge’s order also lays out requirements for how the reassessment will be conducted, including the appointment of a person to oversee the process. “There will be a master appointed within 60 days. A master is like getting [Pittsburgh Steelers] coach [Mike] McCarthy to run the team. So, the county isn’t going to be running this, and the plaintiffs won’t. The master will report directly to the judge,” said Suley.

A countywide reassessment will not necessarily mean every homeowner’s taxes will go up or down by the same amount. Suley said on average about 15% of people will appeal. The last reassessment in 2012 saw 90,000 appeals.

“The state constitution says there must be uniformity in taxes and if you and I live next door to each other and have the same house, we should have the same tax bill,” said Suley.

State Sen. Wayne Fontana, D-42nd District, has been pushing legislation that would require property reassessments across Pennsylvania. Fontana said he understands why the judge ordered Allegheny County to act, but he is disappointed the Commonwealth Court did not issue a broader ruling.

“In this case, you have a reassessment going on in Allegheny County, but there’s not reassessments going on in counties around it,” said Fontana. “It’s not fair to Allegheny County.” Fontana also warned that differences between counties could potentially influence where people choose to live.

Ira Weiss, an attorney representing Pittsburgh Public Schools, issued a statement saying, in part, “This is a win for all those who have claimed for years that the system was broken and illegal. We look forward to a fair and timely process.” Pittsburgh Public Schools is among the local taxing bodies that could be affected by changes to property assessments.

Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato said the county will comply with the court order and will continue making protection of taxpayers a top priority. Innamorato said, “Regular countywide reassessments will be an improvement over the current ad hoc approach.

Property owners deserve transparency about how their property is valued, while school districts and municipalities deserve predictability as they plan their budgets.”

The court-ordered reassessment is expected to begin by July 2027.

Nevada: Legislators could fix property tax, they ‘just don’t politically want to,’ says revenue chair

If Nevada lawmakers want to reform the state’s complicated and widely criticized property tax structure, a number of already vetted options are available.

State Sen. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas) this week had the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal staff lay out several options to members of the interim committee on revenue, which she chairs. Neal said she included the “educational only” presentation after hearing rumblings about the need for the state to conduct a study on property tax.

“We should not spend another hot dime, or six pennies, on another property tax study,” said Neal. “Because we know what the answer is. We just don’t politically want to do any of these solutions.”

Studies have already been commissioned and presented by the Guinn Center and Applied Analysis within the last decade.

Options that have been proposed in prior legislative sessions include adjusting the existing 3% cap on increases, creating a property tax that exists outside of the capped one, or resetting the assessed value when a property is sold.

Property tax is not a major contributor to the state general fund, though it does contribute to the State Education Fund, according to Nakamoto. It is also one of the biggest sources of revenue for cities and counties.

Local leaders have for years made the case that Nevada’s property tax structure, which has kept tax burdens low for homeowners, comes at the grave expense of municipal services like law enforcement, firefighters, parks, libraries, and schools.

Sparks Mayor Ed Lawson, a longtime critic of the state’s property tax system, last year told lawmakers his city’s expenses increased 54% over five years while revenue went up only 16%.

“I challenge any of you to run any kind of government or business with those kinds of numbers,” he said.

Legislative Counsel Bureau fiscal analyst Michael Nakamoto on Thursday told legislators it is up to them to make value judgments and balance the competing forces at play.

“This is the reality of how property taxes work in this state,” he added.

In 2005, the Nevada State Legislature capped at 3% the amount an owner-occupied residential property’s tax bill could rise. Other properties were capped at 8%. Home values at the time were rising so rapidly that homeowners were facing property tax raises upwards of 20%.

Those caps, which are effectively tax abatements, are the limiter for lawmakers looking to increase property tax revenue, Nakamoto explained. The property tax rate itself could be raised, doubled or quadrupled even, but the amount people actually pay would not increase because of the cap.

An estimated $18.6 billion in property tax has been abated since 2007, according to an analysis by legislative staff.

Using his own three bed, three bath split-level in Reno as an example, Nakamoto detailed for lawmakers and the public how an owner-occupied home’s tax bill is determined in Nevada.

Then, Nakamoto estimated what he can expect to pay going forward under the current system, and what he would pay going forward if changes were adopted.

Under the state’s existing tax structure, he can expect to pay $1,873 in property taxes and have $1,711 abated in 2029. Without the abatement, he would owe $3,584. If Nevada lawmakers were to move the cap from 3% to 4%, he would pay $1,892 in property tax and have $1,693 abated in 2029.

If the cap was set at 5%, he’d pay $1,910. At 6%, he’d pay $1,928. And if the owner-occupied residential cap was 8% — the same as commercial properties — he’d pay $1,964.

The difference between the final tax bills under those scenarios is less than $100, though it would add up over time.

Nakamoto calculated that in 2039, under an 8% cap structure he’d pay $4,241 in property tax, whereas under the current structure, he can expect to pay $2,518.

And if lawmakers were to remove the abatement altogether, his tax bill in 2029 would be $3,584 — nearly double the abated prior year. If you zoom out to 2039, the tax bill would be $5,265.

Adjusting the 3% cap isn’t lawmakers only option.

The 2005 bill that established the cap also included language specifying that any new, separate tax on property enacted by the Legislature could exist outside of the partial abatement structure. That means lawmakers could impose a new tax and keep it from being abated.

Under that scenario, Nakamoto contemplated a new tax rate of 25-cents per $100 of assessed value that would not be subject to the 3% cap for the first year only. That would result in him paying $2,118 in property tax in 2029 — a 16.5% spike. But in subsequent years the tax burden would again rise by just 3%.

If lawmakers boldly got rid of the abatement entirely and increased the tax rate by 25-cents per $100 of assessed value, the tax burden on Nakamoto’s house would immediately go up to $3,829 — a 110.5% change.

Another option would be to leave the mechanics of the property tax structure as is but reset the depreciation and partial abatements upon the sale of the property.

Assemblymember Natha Anderson (D-Washoe) last year sponsored a resolution proposing amending the state constitution to do just that. It passed the Assembly mostly on party lines but was never put up for a Senate vote. (Lawmakers passed a similar resolution in 2017 but failed to pass it a second time in 2019. As a constitutional amendment, it would need to pass in two consecutive sessions and then go to voters for final approval.)

The impact of resetting at point of sale would be “fairly dramatic,” said Nakamoto, “especially on older properties. Under that scenario, if Nakamoto sold his home in 2029, the new owners would pay $7,782 in property taxes — 327% more than he paid the year prior. But, as proponents of the proposal have argued, it would be their baseline and more closely reflect the current value of their home.

Legislators on the revenue committee did not discuss any of the proposals at great length after Nakamoto’s presentation. Neal noted that those conversations would likely come at a later date.

Previous efforts to adjust Nevada’s property tax structure have been met with heavy opposition from real estate developers and anti-tax groups. They’ve seen support from progressive groups, which argue the state is overly reliant on the regressive sales tax, and local governments, which would benefit most financially.

“The conversation around property taxes is at its heart about who pays, and in turn what is being provided,” said Andrew Clarke with the Nevada Revenue Coalition, which is pushing for the resurrection of Anderson’s resolution.

“Nevada’s property tax structure has failed to deliver affordable homes and essential services,” he said in a statement to the Nevada Current. “Institutional investors have come out on top in this system while local budgets have run dry. We look forward to ending this two-tiered system and delivering a budget that can offer affordable homes and essential funding to education, childcare, and Nevada’s many other competing needs.”

CANADA 

Saskatchewan: Have your say on future property tax policy

The City of Saskatoon is preparing to engage residents, residential and non-residential property owners and renters on the principles, goals and trade-offs city council may consider when developing a future (property) tax policy. The City’s tax policy Engage page is now available; it provides residents and stakeholders with background information and an overview of the project’s scope, including the areas where public input will be considered. The tax policy public online survey opens in October 2026. Paper copies of the survey will be available.

The tax policy engagement is focused on how the total municipal property tax revenue requirement, set through the City’s budget process, is shared between residential and non-residential properties. The tax policy engagement project will not decide or influence the City’s budget process, service levels, individual property assessments or appeals.

Non-residential properties are sometimes collectively called commercial properties. This tax class includes commercial and industrial properties, agricultural land, elevators, pipelines and railways. Non-profit is not a property tax class.

Reassessment updates property values, and some property types may increase in value faster than others. Tax policy can help manage change in the share of municipal property tax paid by the residential and non-residential property classes as a result of reassessment. All property types in Saskatchewan will be reassessed in 2029.

City Council has historically set a tax ratio at the start of each legislated four-year reassessment cycle. In April 2025, City Council set the current tax ratio at 1.71:1. This means that for every $1.00 in property tax paid by a residential property owner, a non-residential property owner pays $1.71 on an equivalent assessment.

The tax ratio approach distributes the overall municipal property tax requirement between property classes. It does not change the total amount of municipal property tax revenue collected by the City.

Public input received on tax policy principles, goals and trade-offs will help the City understand community priorities, including where residential and non-residential property owner perspectives align and where they differ.

Residents and stakeholders are encouraged to visit the City’s Engage page to review the information and prepare to participate in the October tax policy survey.

EUROPE

Germany: Property tax reform 2026 – First time in the utility bill

Germany’s property tax reform (Grundsteuerreform) took effect on 1 January 2025. But its impact on tenants only becomes visible in 2026: the utility bill (Betriebskostenabrechnung) for 2025 will include the new amounts for the first time. For landlords in Berlin, this means the bill that must reach tenants by 31 December 2026 at the latest will be based on the newly calculated property tax values.

The reform completely overhauled the valuation basis for land and buildings. The previous standard values (Einheitswerte) — last determined in 1964 in western Germany and in 1935 in eastern Germany — have been replaced by model-based values. Under the federal model that Berlin applies, the calculation primarily factors in standard land values (Bodenrichtwerte), statistical net cold rents, and building characteristics such as year of construction and floor area.

Berlin lowered its municipal multiplier (Hebesatz) from 810 percent to 470 percent. This was a political adjustment to make the transition revenue-neutral for the city overall. The tax assessment rate (Steuermesszahl) for residential properties is 0.31 per mille, and 0.45 per mille for non-residential properties.

The reassessment shifts the tax burden: for some owners, property tax goes down; for others, it goes up. The direction depends on how the new property tax value compares to the old standard value. Properties in sought-after locations with high land values may face higher charges, while owners in less in-demand areas pay less.

The property tax is calculated as: property tax value x tax assessment rate x municipal multiplier. For residential properties in Berlin specifically: property tax value x 0.31 per mille x 470 percent.

Property tax is an allocable utility cost under Section 2 of the German Operating Costs Ordinance (Betriebskostenverordnung, BetrKV). The prerequisite is that the allocation of operating costs has been effectively agreed upon in the lease. Without such an agreement, the landlord bears the property tax. Allocation is typically based on living area.

For vacant units, the property tax may not be passed on to the remaining tenants. If the new property tax assessment is issued after the utility bill has been prepared, the landlord can claim additional costs within three months of becoming aware, under the conditions of Section 556(3) of the German Civil Code (BGB).

Landlords should review the new property tax assessments and compare them with previous advance payments. If there are significant differences, it makes sense to adjust tenants’ monthly advance payments to avoid large back-payments or refunds.

The reform is particularly relevant for owners of apartment buildings with many units: even moderate changes per unit add up to noticeable totals. If you are considering selling a property, you should factor the new property tax burden into the valuation and review the impact on the sale price with a Berlin real estate agent. It can affect yield calculations and may therefore be relevant for potential buyers.