Property-tax amendments and caps: what nine states actually limit

One tax bill, several different promises

On August 18, 2026, Eagle Mountain’s city council approved a property-tax rate above Utah’s certified rate. The city reported that its budgeted property-tax revenue would rise 69.81%, excluding new growth. That was the city’s portion, not a 69.81% increase in every household’s total tax bill. It also did not contradict Utah’s truth-in-taxation system: that system makes an increase visible and subject to public process rather than imposing an absolute ceiling. [1]

Elsewhere, a longtime California owner can have a much lower assessment than the purchaser of an otherwise similar house; a Michigan buyer can face uncapping after a transfer; and a New York municipality can stay within its levy limit while an individual resident’s bill rises faster. The word “cap” covers different legal promises. Some protect an existing owner’s tax base, some restrain the amount a government collects, and some require voters or elected officials to approve an increase.

This comparison covers nine states and the law verified as of October 7, 2026. It separates constitutional amendments from statutes and current rules from future changes or ballot proposals. Percentages are not comparable effective tax rates: local levies, exemptions, property classes and the timing of reassessment still determine the actual bill.

Assessment, rate, levy and exemption are different parts of the calculation

A simplified property-tax bill starts with a property’s taxable value and multiplies it by the rates imposed by the governments serving it. A mill is $1 of tax per $1,000 of taxable value. An assessment ratio can convert market value into a smaller tax base before exemptions and rates enter the calculation; Colorado uses that structure. Other states distinguish market value, assessed value and taxable value differently. [25]

An assessment cap limits growth in the value used for taxation. A rate cap restricts the tax percentage. A levy or revenue cap restricts a taxing authority’s total collections, usually with adjustments. An exemption removes value from the tax base, while a credit reduces the resulting tax. A notice-and-hearing rule makes a proposed increase explicit without necessarily prohibiting it.

A hypothetical levy illustrates why the distinctions matter. If a town raises the same $10 million from existing property but one home’s share of the taxable base rises from 0.02% to 0.024%, that home’s share of the levy rises from $2,000 to $2,400. Government revenue is unchanged; the owner’s bill rises 20%. Conversely, a capped assessment can still produce a larger bill if the applicable rate increases or an exemption ends. These are arithmetic examples, not predictions for any particular jurisdiction.

The nine-state comparison

The table summarizes the central mechanisms. Each has exceptions and operating details described below; none of these rows is a complete calculation of a homeowner’s bill.

Scroll horizontally to see all columns.

Utah: a revenue baseline, with a public route to an increase

Utah’s certified tax rate is designed to preserve a taxing entity’s prior budgeted revenue from its existing base, with eligible new growth treated separately. Broad appreciation therefore tends to lower the certified rate rather than automatically deliver a windfall. The county’s valuation work and the taxing entity’s budget decision are distinct. A proposed rate above the certified rate triggers truth-in-taxation disclosure and hearing requirements; the governing body can then approve an increase within its other legal authority. [2] [3]

The individual assessment still follows fair market value. A home appreciating faster than the rest of its taxing area can bear a larger share even if aggregate revenue is unchanged. Qualifying primary residences, including homes occupied by full-time tenants, receive a 45% market-value exemption: 55% remains taxable. This is a use-based exemption, not a purchase-price basis or a limit on annual appreciation. A sale consequently does not create the same accumulated-cap reset found in Michigan or California. [4]

An enacted 2026 change also illustrates the difference between changing relief procedures and imposing a cap. The Tax Commission says SB 238 requires specified primary-residence exemption applications beginning January 1, 2027, including after ownership changes. The 45% exemption remains. School finance has further distinctions: Utah identifies exceptions to the usual hearing process for the Basic Tax Rate, debt service and judgment recovery, so the entire school portion cannot be reduced to a single city-style rule. [5] [6]

Ohio: the school floor no longer tells the whole story

Ohio’s HB 920 system restrains revenue from affected levies on existing, same-class property by applying reduction factors as values rise. It does not freeze individual assessments. Residential/agricultural property and other property are treated separately; new construction and newly taxable property do not receive the same carryover treatment. Exceptions include inside millage, fixed-sum or debt levies and specified charter taxes. The familiar 20-mill school operating floor, and two-mill vocational-school floor, historically stopped further reductions and allowed valuation growth to increase receipts. [28]

Enacted reforms now change that account. HB 186’s Inflation Cap Credit became effective March 20, 2026. At a county reappraisal or triennial update, it provides qualifying property a credit when applicable floor-generated school revenue exceeds an indexed amount. The inflation measure is the nonnegative cumulative change in the GDP deflator, a broad economy-wide price measure, over three preceding years, not annual CPI or a flat 2% cap. Business and nonbusiness classes are calculated separately, and the credit generally continues through the following two years. Coverage exclusions mean it is not a ceiling on every owner’s full bill. [29]

HB 129 also brings specified fixed-sum operating levies into floor calculations, with transition rules beginning in tax year 2026. That can put more operating millage above the floor and make reduction factors relevant again. Separately, HB 335 restricts valuation-driven growth in revenue from inside millage, the unvoted portion of the levy, at reappraisal or update, using three-year GDP-deflator inflation and excluding new growth. The current statute incorporates HB 479 amendments effective September 23, 2026. [30] [31]

The practical result is several interacting controls rather than one household guarantee. Reappraisal still redistributes the base; qualifying levies receive different reductions or credits; and newly approved taxes can change the bill. A description that says simply “Ohio has a 20-mill floor, so increases below it are unlimited” misses enacted 2026 protections. [28] [29] [31]

Michigan: Proposal A protects taxable value until qualifying transfer

Michigan’s 1994 constitutional Proposal A separates the current value of property from the taxable value used on the bill. Annual taxable-value growth is generally limited to the lesser of inflation or 5%, adjusted for losses and additions, and cannot exceed state equalized value, normally half of true cash value. For 2026 the inflation multiplier is 1.027: prior taxable value minus losses, multiplied by 1.027, plus additions. The commonly quoted 5% is a maximum, not the automatic annual increase. [32] [33]

A qualifying ownership transfer generally uncaps taxable value to the following year’s state equalized value. The buyer can therefore face a substantial increase even if the seller’s last bill looked modest. Statutory exclusions, including qualifying family transfers, can change that result. New construction enters through additions; ordinary ownership continuity protects the capped base. [32]

Headlee, the separate 1978 constitutional amendment, works at the taxing-unit level. When existing taxable value grows faster than inflation, authorized millage is rolled back, with new additions excluded; voters can approve an override. Proposal A and Headlee thus restrain different parts of the calculation. Neither means every individual bill is capped at inflation after rate changes or transfer. The principal-residence exemption is separate again: it removes up to 18 mills of local school operating tax, not the six-mill State Education Tax or all school-related charges. [34] [35]

California: Proposition 13 protects an acquisition-based assessment

California voters adopted Proposition 13 in 1978. It combined a generally 1% basic ad valorem rate with an acquisition-based assessment: a property’s factored base-year value grows by inflation, up to 2% annually, rather than automatically following every increase in its market price. Qualifying ownership changes establish a new market-value base; assessable new construction adds value. The system broadly covers locally assessed real property, including commercial property, rather than only owner-occupied housing. Additional rates for qualifying voter-approved debt and other charges mean 1% is not an all-in bill ceiling. [7]

The protection is durable but has a less obvious recession exception. Proposition 8 allows a temporary assessment below the factored base when market value falls. As that market value recovers, the assessment can rise more than 2% in a year until the factored base is restored. The 2% rule limits growth of that underlying base; it does not cap recovery from every temporary reduction. [9]

Proposition 19, approved in 2020, altered who can carry a protected basis forward. From April 2021, eligible owners 55 or older, severely disabled owners and qualifying disaster victims gained broader replacement-home transfers across California, subject to conditions. Seniors and disabled owners can use three transfers, with excess replacement value added where required. Since February 2021, qualifying parent-child inheritance relief has generally centered on family homes used as the recipient’s principal residence, and family farms, rather than unrestricted inherited rental property. Value thresholds and filing conditions also apply. [8]

The distributional consequence is built into the mechanism. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office documents large differences in tax bills for similar properties purchased at different times. A long holding period can shelter appreciation regardless of whether the owner currently has a low income. A new buyer starts much closer to market value unless an exclusion or portability rule applies. [10]

Florida: a homestead cap, portability and a pending 2026 amendment

Florida’s Save Our Homes constitutional framework limits annual increases in a homestead’s assessment to the lesser of 3% or the applicable Consumer Price Index (CPI) change after its initial homestead year. It is an assessment limit, not a limit on millage or the final tax. An assessment below market value can continue increasing while market value declines, provided the assessment does not exceed just value. A non-exempt ownership change generally resets the property to just value the following January 1. [11]

Eligible movers can transfer up to $500,000 of their accumulated assessment difference to another Florida homestead, with a proportional limit when downsizing and a statutory three-year timing window. Ordinary additions and improvements generally enter at just value; specified rebuilding exceptions exist. Separate 10% annual assessment limits apply to eligible nonhomestead property, but those limits do not apply to school-district taxes. Ownership changes and improvements have their own reset rules. [12] [13] [14]

The homestead exemption is another layer. The first $25,000 applies to school and non-school taxes; the additional non-school exemption applies above $50,000 of assessed value and is inflation-indexed. That additional amount is $26,411 in 2026, not a permanently fixed $25,000. [15] [45]

Amendment 3 is on the November 2026 ballot and is not enacted law as of this review. It would increase the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, then index it, and reduce the nonhomestead assessment-growth limit from 10% to 5%. It would also provide routes to further local exemptions and impose specified spending provisions. People not resident on December 31, 2026 generally would receive the expanded exemption beginning in their fifth exemption year, subject to the U.S. Constitution. The proposed effective date is January 1, 2027, conditional on adoption. It does not eliminate school property taxes or replace Save Our Homes with a 5% homestead cap. [16] [17] Passage requires at least 60% voter approval. [43]

Texas: appraisal caps sit beside exemptions and voter-approval rates

Texas’s residence-homestead appraisal limit generally sets the taxable appraisal at the lesser of market value or a ceiling equal to 110% of the preceding appraised value plus new improvements. It starts January 1 after the owner qualifies for the homestead exemption. An ordinary purchaser does not inherit the seller’s continuing capped base. Repairs and routine maintenance are distinguished from new improvements. The protection therefore slows recognition of appreciation; it does not guarantee a 10% ceiling on the complete bill. [18]

Texas also has a temporary 20% appraisal-growth limit for qualifying nonhomestead real property. Its eligibility ceiling is $5.32 million for 2026, and new improvements can be added. It remains operative at this review date but is scheduled to expire December 31, 2026. Although Texas calls this provision a “circuit breaker,” it is not a credit based on property taxes as a share of household income. [18]

Current mandatory school-district homestead exemptions are $140,000, plus an additional $60,000 for qualifying owners 65 or older or disabled. They are not universal exemptions against every local levy. Texas Education Agency guidance describes additional state aid associated with the 2025 exemption legislation, underscoring that reducing a school’s local tax base and reducing its funded entitlement are different events. [19] [21]

For many cities and counties, the voter-approval tax-rate calculation generally allows prior operating revenue plus 3.5%, potential unused increment and separate debt-service funding before voter approval is required. Special taxing units and school districts use different calculations; schools combine a maximum compressed rate, enrichment and debt. These are government-level rate-adoption constraints with adjustments, not promises that each household’s taxes will rise by only 3.5%. [20]

Colorado: Gallagher is gone, while TABOR and newer statutory caps remain

Colorado’s old Gallagher Amendment managed the statewide balance between residential and nonresidential assessed values. It was not a fixed cap on each home’s bill. Voters repealed Gallagher in 2020. TABOR, the 1992 constitutional tax-and-spending framework, remains separate: it requires voter approval for specified tax increases and limits revenue, with voter-authorized changes. Removing Gallagher did not repeal TABOR. [22] [23]

The 2024 legislative settlement layered statutory property-tax limits onto that framework. For covered local governments, HB 24B-1001 uses the greatest prior qualified revenue increased by 5.25% times the number of years in the reassessment cycle: 10.5% for a two-year cycle, not two years of compounded 5.25% growth. Scope, excluded revenue and waiver provisions matter. The school formula is separate, using the greater of 6% times the cycle length or the specified growth in base per-pupil funding and enrollment. A waiver of that school limit requires statewide, rather than individual-district, voter approval. [24] The older 5.5% annual levy law remains relevant for jurisdictions that have not waived it; the newer limit applies to covered waived jurisdictions. [26]

Assessment ratios are a further layer. For tax year 2026, payable in 2027, the residential school ratio is 7.05%; the other-local-government ratio is 6.8% after a reduction of 10% of actual value, capped at $70,000 and subject to the minimum-assessment provision. These percentages convert property value into assessed value; they are not tax rates charged directly against the full home price. The applicable mill levies then determine the bill. [25]

Colorado’s 2026 HB 1209 proposed temporary 4% parameters for several statutory revenue limits but was postponed indefinitely on March 10. It is not current law. Separately, Proposition NN on the November 2026 ballot would allow the state to retain additional TABOR revenue for education and other specified purposes. That pending state-revenue measure is not a new parcel-level property-tax cap. [26] [27]

New York: the 2% label understates a levy formula

New York’s statutory tax cap, introduced in 2011, generally uses the lesser of 2% or inflation as its allowable levy-growth factor. The Comptroller’s current schedule gives a 1.0200 factor for fiscal years beginning in 2026, including the July school year. That is one component of the calculation. Physical tax-base growth, payments-in-lieu-of-tax adjustments, limited carryover and statutory exclusions can produce a permitted levy increase above 2%. The cap does not constrain an individual parcel’s assessment or bill to 2%. [36] [37] [44]

New York City is outside the general local-government cap. Local governments generally can override with at least 60% approval of their governing boards. For covered school districts, a budget exceeding the calculated limit requires 60% voter approval. School exclusions include specified capital costs, pension-rate increases and tort judgments; after two budget defeats, a district cannot increase its levy above the previous year’s amount. The school statute excludes city districts in cities of at least 125,000 residents, an important warning against treating the rule as universal. Revaluation can still shift burdens among owners while a district stays within its limit. [38] [36] [44]

Massachusetts: 2½ describes both a ceiling and an annual allowance

Massachusetts voters adopted Proposition 2½ as a statutory initiative in 1980. Its levy ceiling generally equals 2.5% of the community’s full and fair cash property value. Its annual levy limit ordinarily grows 2.5% from the previous levy limit, plus qualifying new growth. These are different constraints: one compares the levy with the total property base; the other controls the year-to-year permitted amount. Neither freezes assessments or guarantees a 2.5% ceiling on each household’s bill. [39]

The prior-year base is the levy limit, not necessarily what the municipality actually collected. A community with unused levy capacity can raise actual collections faster than 2.5% without an override. New construction and other qualifying additions add capacity; ordinary market appreciation does not constitute new growth. [40]

A majority-voter override permanently increases the levy limit but cannot push it above the levy ceiling. Voter-approved debt exclusions or capital-outlay exclusions permit additional temporary taxation for specified costs and can exceed both limits. Schools are financed within the municipal budget structure rather than receiving a separate household-level 2.5% promise. A property sale does not trigger the acquisition-value uncapping found in Michigan because this mechanism controls the community’s levy, not the seller’s protected assessment. [41] [39]

Who receives the protection, and who finances it?

Acquisition-based assessment limits especially protect continuing owners whose properties appreciate faster than the permitted growth factor. Relief is connected to ownership history and value appreciation, not necessarily present income. California’s nonpartisan legislative analysis documents unequal bills for comparable homes and cautions against assuming that every broad claim about a homeowner-versus-business shift follows from Proposition 13 alone. Transfer exclusions and portability determine how much of that advantage survives a move or inheritance. [10]

Levy caps spread protection across a government’s tax base but do not fix the distribution within it. Homestead exemptions concentrate relief on qualifying residences; whether another group ultimately pays more depends on rate adjustments, spending decisions and state support. Renters do not receive a homeowner exemption directly, and the amount of any landlord tax change passed into rent cannot be inferred from the statute alone.

Schools make the financing trade-off visible. California’s school-finance system combines local property taxes with state funding; the Legislative Analyst explains how state support fills much of the gap under the applicable funding framework. Texas likewise provides specified additional aid tied to expanded exemptions. Ohio’s floor credit expressly reduces affected local school-tax collections; that alone does not establish the net funding effect after any state payments. A smaller local bill can therefore mean a changed state-local funding mix, lower local receipts or another budget adjustment. The cap alone does not establish which outcome occurs. [42] [21] [29]

The common thread is the choice of what is being protected: a parcel’s assessment, a government’s revenue, or a group’s exemption. Transfers, new construction, voter approval and school-funding rules determine the boundary. As of October 7, 2026, Ohio’s described reforms are enacted, Utah’s specified application changes begin in 2027, Texas’s temporary nonhomestead cap approaches its statutory sunset, and Florida Amendment 3 remains a ballot proposal. Those status differences matter as much as the headline percentages.

Sources

1. Eagle Mountain City: approved August 18, 2026 property-tax increaseOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
2. Utah State Tax Commission: certified tax rates and truth-in-taxationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
3. Davis County Assessor: market valuation and truth-in-taxationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
4. Utah State Tax Commission: residential property valuation and exemptionOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
5. Utah State Tax Commission: primary residential exemption and SB 238 changes beginning January 2027Official sourceBack to text: ↑
6. Utah State Board of Education: school property-tax leviesOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
7. California Board of Equalization: California Property Tax, Publication 29Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑
8. California Board of Equalization: Proposition 19 transfer and inheritance rulesOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
9. California Board of Equalization: Proposition 8 decline-in-value FAQsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
10. California Legislative Analyst’s Office: Common Claims About Proposition 13, September 19, 2016Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
11. Florida Department of Revenue: Save Our Homes and portabilitySource · PDFBack to text: ↑
12. Florida Statutes 2026, section 193.155: homestead assessmentsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
13. Florida Statutes 2026, section 193.1554: nonhomestead residential assessment limitationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
14. Florida Statutes 2026, section 193.1555: other nonhomestead assessment limitationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
15. Florida Department of Revenue: inflation-adjusted additional homestead exemptionSource · PDFBack to text: ↑
16. Florida Division of Elections: 2026 Amendment 3, active ballot recordOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
17. Florida Legislature: enrolled 2026 HJR 1F constitutional amendmentOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
18. Texas Comptroller: valuing property, homestead 10% cap and temporary 20% circuit breakerOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
19. Texas Comptroller: property-tax exemptionsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
20. Texas Comptroller: truth-in-taxation and voter-approval tax ratesOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
21. Texas Education Agency: SB 1453 debt tax rates and SB 4/SB 23 additional state aidOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
22. Colorado Legislature: Gallagher repeal history in HCR24B-1002; restoration resolution lostOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
23. Colorado Legislative Council Staff: TABOROfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
24. Colorado Legislature: enacted HB 24B-1001 property-tax frameworkOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
25. Boulder County Assessor: 2025 and 2026 assessment ratios, deductions and tax calculationsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
26. Colorado Legislature: HB 26-1209, postponed indefinitely March 10, 2026Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
27. Colorado Legislative Council Staff: 2026 Blue Book, Proposition NN, pages 41–47Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑
28. Ohio Revised Code 319.301, effective September 23, 2026: reduction factors and school floorsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
29. Ohio Revised Code 319.303, effective March 20, 2026: Inflation Cap CreditOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2↑3
30. Ohio Legislature: HB 129 of the 136 th General AssemblyOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
31. Ohio Revised Code 5705.316, effective September 23, 2026: inside-millage limitationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
32. Michigan Treasury: property ownership changes and taxable-value uncappingOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2↑3
33. Michigan State Tax Commission: Bulletin 14 of 2025, inflation multiplier for 2026Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑
34. Michigan House Fiscal Agency: Headlee rollbacks and millage reduction fraction, January 2023Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑
35. Michigan Treasury: principal-residence exemption backgroundOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
36. New York Comptroller: what is the real property-tax cap?Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
37. New York Comptroller: inflation and allowable levy growth factors, September 2026Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑
38. New York Education Law 2023-a: school-district tax limitationOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
39. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 59, section 21C: Proposition 2½Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
40. Massachusetts Division of Local Services: FY2026 excess levy capacity and levy limitsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
41. Massachusetts Division of Local Services: Proposition 2½ overrides and exclusionsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
42. California Legislative Analyst’s Office: Understanding California’s Property Taxes, 2012Official sourceBack to text: ↑
43. Florida Division of Elections: constitutional amendment approval requirementsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑
44. New York General Municipal Law 3-c: local tax cap scope and formulaOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
45. Florida Statutes 2026, section 196.031: homestead exemptionsOfficial sourceBack to text: ↑