By Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida
A House proposal that would ask voters to phase out non-school homestead property taxes moved forward Thursday, as lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis try to reach agreement on a November ballot measure.
The Republican-controlled House State Affairs Committee voted along party lines to back a proposed constitutional amendment (HJR 203) that would annually increase the homestead exemption by $100,000 over the next decade, with a full exemption for non-school taxes in 2037.
The proposal, which would require approval by 60 percent of voters, also would seek to prevent local funding cuts for law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders.
While cities and counties have raised concerns about potentially reduced funding for services, Rep. Monique Miller, R-Palm Bay, said local officials need to consider sharing services and “to live within their means.”
“By reducing taxes over years, we are giving local governments time to adjust to new revenue levels, and empowering them to find responsible solutions,” said Miller, the sponsor of the proposal.
But cities and counties warned about the proposal, which would lead to billions of dollars a year in lost property-tax revenue.
“This is truly not tax relief,” Charles Chapman, legislative consultant for the Florida League of Cities, told the committee. “It’ll end up becoming a tax shift, where costs do not disappear. The burden will shift to businesses, the renters, because fees, assessments, higher non-homestead millage rates could replace the homestead tax break.”
Democrats also raised concerns about a loss of local services and costs being shifted.
“Governance requires us to think through consequences, not just concepts,” said Rep. RaShon Young, D-Orlando.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a priority of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot to slash property taxes. The House in October released eight proposals, but Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, said this week he expects a single proposal to go on the ballot.
“I fully expect us to have something on the ballot for our constituents to eventually vote on,” Perez told reporters. “I do expect it to be one proposal for them to vote on.”
Perez added that it is “somewhat still up in the air” what final proposal will emerge.
“We don’t have a position from our friends across the hall (in the Senate) or the executive branch on what details they are proposing for our constituents to eventually vote on,” he said. “We’ve taken the initiative.”
A proposal (HJR 209) that is ready to go to the full House would increase the homestead exemption for residents who have property insurance.
In December, the State Affairs Committee also backed measures to eliminate non-school homestead property taxes (HJR 201), eliminate non-school homestead taxes for homeowners 65 years and older (HJR 205) and to allow people to transfer the full value of accumulated “Save Our Homes” benefits to new homes (HJR 211). Miller’s proposal and those three measures would need approval from the Ways & Means Committee before reaching the House floor.
Save Our Homes places a 3 percent cap on annual increases in taxable values of homesteaded property.
Currently, homeowners can qualify for homestead exemptions from local-government and school-district taxes on the first $25,000 of the assessed values of their properties and from local-government taxes on the values between $50,000 and $75,000.
DeSantis on Wednesday suggested a special legislative session might be needed to resolve the property-tax issue, as “I don’t know that we’re going to have something passed in the regular session.”
“You have until pretty much, I think, Aug. 1, to be able to get that done,” DeSantis said during an appearance at a Florida Chamber of Commerce “fly-in” event in Tallahassee. “I think it’ll get done before then, but we’re working with folks in both chambers (the House and Senate) on that.”
In his proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 budget, DeSantis earmarked $300 million to support rural “fiscally constrained” counties that would be affected by any effort to reduce or eliminate property taxes.
Jeff Scala, deputy director of the Florida Association of Counties, told the State Affairs Committee that under Miller’s proposal, 40 counties would still face a $2.9 billion impact in just the first year if the measure is approved by voters.
“We need to figure out who we want to be as a state,” Scala said. “Do we want to be a state that attracts residents because of our world-class infrastructure, because of those amenities that we provide in our communities. The math doesn’t work. This is a fiscal crisis by design.”
Proposal Backed to Phase Out Property Taxes added by Robert Stewart on
View all posts by Robert Stewart →
While it’s easy to say they are going to get us one way or the other and they probably will, at least they won’t be able to steal my property if I don’t pay them for the privilege of owning it.
I’m thinking the people that throw their hands up and say “they are going to get us any way” don’t really have much. If they did, they wouldn’t be so servile about the issue.
Proud Rural Redneck is right. If they get rid of Property Taxes they will tax us somewhere else with the guise of ” service fee” to make up for it. They will get us one way or another.
It’s disappointing. And the devil is in the details. Unless the law prevents counties and cities from simply creating a “service fee” that replaces taxes this is all for nothing.
It will take years before Florida Seniors are fully executed.
Our local Governments need to think more about Reeling in Wasteful Spending, a big start will be to end the CSC now, then look at other Programs that is receiving Tax Dollars (even through 3rd Parties). I would like to see a List from each of the Local Governments, City, County, LCS, ETC. that shows what they spent our Taxes on, an actual itemized list with Cost, not a Pie Chart. I bet some of that list could have been avoided and the Money saved. Too much money is wasted on frivolous items and projects. Taxes are needed, we just need responsible and practical people in our Local Government overseeing those Taxes.
IMO: There are two comments that stand out here.
1. “This is truly not tax relief,” … “It’ll end up becoming a tax shift…”
2. “Governance requires us to think through consequences, not just concepts,”
Both are completely true.