TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A series of proposals aimed at eliminating or reducing non-school homestead property taxes advanced out of a House committee on Thursday, as local-government officials warned about having to decrease services because of potentially billions of dollars in lost revenue.
The Republican-dominated House Select Committee on Property Taxes voted along party lines to back seven proposed constitutional amendments that, if approved during the upcoming legislative session, would go before voters in November 2026. The committee also approved a bill (HB 215) that would require two-thirds votes by local governments to increase tax rates and allow newly married couples to combine accumulated Save Our Homes benefits. That bill would not have to go before voters.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: DeSantis dismisses property tax proposals brought forth by Florida House, calls approach ‘political game’
The committee took up proposals that House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, released last month. The proposals came as Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a priority of asking voters in 2026 to slash property taxes — though DeSantis has been critical of the House proposals.
In announcing the proposals, Perez said they are designed to shield funding for schools and law enforcement. But local governments rely on property taxes to fund a wide range of services.
Committee Chairman Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, argued that local-government property taxes are growing at an “unsustainable rate” and causing an “undue financial burden” on citizens and businesses.
“It is time to put money back in the hands of Floridians,” Overdorf said.
Overdorf added that lawmakers “should not be afraid” to let voters decide the issues, despite a potential “significant” impact that would require local governments to adjust how they operate.
Charles Chapman, a legislative consultant for the Florida League of Cities, said lost revenue would affect bond ratings, making borrowing for infrastructure more expensive.
“Cities will be faced with some very tough choices to fund the services which make our communities special to our residents,” Chapman said. “In truth, reducing homestead property taxes shifts the tax burdens to others. Property tax reform does not actually yield in-your-pocket cash savings to the taxpayer, it simply rearranges the furniture and how things are actually funded.”
The proposals, for example, call for eliminating all non-school homestead property taxes (HJR 201) and eliminating such taxes for seniors (HJR 205).
DeSantis has been critical of the House proposals, at least in part, because he wants to put a single ballot measure before voters. DeSantis hasn’t offered a detailed plan but has suggested the state could cover lost property-tax revenues for “fiscally constrained” rural counties that have small tax bases.
Democrats raised concerns Thursday about the effects on businesses and renters of cutting homestead property taxes because of potential tax shifts. Also, Democrats said making up lost revenue could result in higher fees on services or a need to increase sales taxes.
“Can you imagine what will happen when the first kid rolls up to a park and is told, ‘You can’t play here unless you have the fee to pay for it?’” House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, said.
After the meeting, Driskell echoed a comment by DeSantis that the series of House proposals is intended to “confuse voters.”
Rep. Judson Sapp, R- Green Cove Springs, said he’s heard overwhelming support for cutting property taxes from people who “don’t want to pay rent to the government.”
But Rep. Mike Gottlieb, D-Davie, said voters “don’t understand” the impacts would weaken infrastructure and result in higher rents and less law enforcement.
“This sounds good on the surface level, we are providing some kind of relief,” Gottlieb said. “But the relief goes to the 1 percenters. The relief goes to the people that own a home, have a homestead. It doesn’t go to the people trying to get into a home.”
Port St. Lucie Vice Mayor Jolien Caraballo told the committee that “broad property tax reform could unintentionally dismantle the very services that make communities like ours safe, livable and resilient.”
“If property taxes were eliminated tomorrow, we would not be able to fund our police department at the same level as it stands today and keep all our other departments going,” Caraballo said.
The measures must still go before the House State Affairs Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee before they could go to the House floor during the legislative session that will start Jan. 13. The Senate has not proposed similar measures.
Here are brief descriptions of the House proposals:
— HJR 201 seeks to eliminate non-school homestead property taxes. It would cut property-tax revenue by $14.1 billion in the first year of implementation, according to a projection by the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference.
— HJR 203 seeks to phase out non-school homestead taxes over 10 years. The projected revenue impact would be $4.4 billion in the first year.
— HJR 205 seeks to eliminate non-school homestead taxes for homeowners 65 years and older. The projected revenue impact would be $5.1 billion in the first year.
— HJR 207 seeks to increase the homestead exemption for non-school taxes. The projected revenue impact would be $3.5 billion in the first year.
— HJR 209 seeks to create an additional $100,000 homestead exemption on non-school taxes for insured properties. The projected revenue impact would be $6.6 billion in the first year.
— HJR 211 seeks to allow people to transfer the full value of accumulated “Save Our Homes” benefits to new homes. That would add to what is known as “portability” of Save Our Homes benefits. The projected revenue impact would be $42.7 million in the first year.
— HJR 213 would limit increases in taxable values for homesteaded property to 3 percent over three years. The current Save Our Homes limit is 3 percent a year. Increases in the assessed values of non-homesteaded property would be limited to 15 percent over three years, rather than the current 10 percent a year. The projected revenue impact would be $1.7 billion in the first year.
— HB 215, would require two-thirds votes by local governments to increase tax rates. The bill would also allow newly married couples to combine accumulated Save Our Homes benefits. The projected revenue impact would be $44.5 million in the first year.
Copyright 2025 by WJXT News4JAX – All rights reserved.