Florida’s Property Tax Reform Proposal: What It Does, What It Doesn’t, and What Nobody Knows Yet

A plain-language breakdown of HJR-1F, passed during the June 2026 special session

“Florida homeowners have been hearing a lot about “property tax relief” lately, and after a whirlwind three-day special session in Tallahassee that wrapped up on June 2nd, the Florida Legislature made it official. They passed HJR-1F, a joint resolution that places a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot.

But headlines can be deceiving. Whether this reform represents historic homeowner relief or a fiscal ticking time bomb depends heavily on details that are still being sorted out. Here’s a clear-eyed look at what this proposal actually does, what it deliberately leaves untouched, and what remains genuinely unanswered.

WHAT THE PROPOSAL DOES

• Raises the homestead exemption in two phases. The current homestead exemption in Florida is $50,000. Under HJR 1F, that would jump to $150,000 beginning January 1, 2027, and then to $250,000 beginning January 1, 2028. Future inflation adjustments would begin in 2029.
• Immediately eliminates property taxes for a large share of homeowners. Because a significant number of Florida homes are valued at or under $250,000, the phased exemption increase would wipe out the property tax bill entirely for an estimated 60% of Florida homeowners once fully implemented.
• Opens the door to full elimination. The constitutional amendment would also authorize the Legislature to further reduce or completely eliminate remaining homestead property taxes through general law in the future—meaning today’s partial relief is framed as a first step toward total elimination.
• Applies a residency waiting period for newcomers. Any person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027 would be required to maintain Florida residency for up to five years before qualifying for the increased exemption. This provision is designed to ensure the benefit flows to long-term residents rather than new arrivals.
• Requires a supermajority of voters to take effect. Because the proposal amends the Florida Constitution, it needed approval from three-fifths of both the House and Senate to reach the ballot (which it cleared, passing 30–9 in the Senate and 75–26 in the House). Voters must then approve it with at least 60% support in the November 2026 general election.

WHAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DO

• It does not touch school district property taxes. This is the most significant change lawmakers made to Governor DeSantis’s original proposal. The expanded homestead exemption applies only to non-school property taxes. School district levies (which fund local public education including Florida’s universal school voucher program) are fully protected. This school carve-out was a major legislative amendment to the governor’s plan, which had originally included school taxes in the reduction.
• It does not create the state trust fund originally proposed. DeSantis’s initial “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” proposal included a state trust fund to provide grants to local governments to help maintain core services during the transition. That trust fund was removed from the final version lawmakers passed. Local governments are on their own when it comes to absorbing the revenue gap.
• It does not eliminate property taxes on commercial or non-homestead properties. The reform applies strictly to homestead properties—meaning your primary Florida residence. Rental properties, commercial real estate, vacation homes, and business properties are unaffected.
• It does not represent full tax elimination yet. Despite the governor’s stated goal of completely eliminating property taxes on homesteads, what passed is a substantial exemption increase, not elimination. Full elimination would require additional future legislative action under the authority granted by this amendment.

WHAT IS STILL UNCLEAR

• How local governments will fill the revenue gap. Before the school carve-out was added, local governments were projected to lose roughly $8.4 billion in annual revenue. The school exemption reduces that figure, but substantial revenue losses remain unquantified for the final version of the bill. The Florida Association of Counties warned bluntly that cities could go bankrupt and counties could be forced to consolidate. No comprehensive fiscal analysis of the final version of HJR 1F has been completed.
• What happens to services beyond schools. Property taxes fund emergency services, fire departments, libraries, public works, waste management, hospitals, children’s services, and general county administration. If local revenue drops and no replacement source is established, it remains entirely unclear which services would face cuts, and by how much.
• Whether local governments can compensate through other revenue sources. The Tax Foundation has noted that reducing property taxes would shift the burden to “less suitable revenue sources,” potentially including higher local sales taxes or a broadened sales tax base that captures business inputs—outcomes that could harm Florida’s overall tax competitiveness. What those compensating revenue mechanisms might look like, and who would bear those costs, is unresolved.
• The Medicaid funding question. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Bryan Avila, indicated that language protecting “constitutional officers” was intended to shield certain local government transfers to the state used to draw down federal Medicaid matching dollars—specifically the Low Income Pool and Hospital Directed Payment Program funds, which support hundreds of Florida hospitals. Whether that protection is sufficient and how it functions in practice has not been fully analyzed.
• How the Taxation and Reform Budget Commission fits in. The Florida Constitution establishes a commission that convenes every 20 years to examine the state’s tax structure and fiscal health. Multiple stakeholders and even some Republican lawmakers argued that this kind of structural property tax overhaul is exactly what that commission should study—and notably, the commission is scheduled to meet next year. Critics of the rushed timeline called it “legislative malpractice” to pass sweeping constitutional changes without waiting for that body’s analysis.
• What “full elimination” would actually look like. The constitutional amendment authorizes the Legislature to pursue full elimination of remaining homestead property taxes through general law—but how, when, and under what fiscal safeguards that would happen is entirely undefined. Future legislators would hold that authority and shape those decisions.

IN SUMMARY

Florida homeowners will have a clear opportunity to weigh in this November. If approved by voters with 60% support, HJR-1F would deliver meaningful, immediate property tax relief for the majority of Florida homeowners, particularly those in lower- and mid-value homes. The protections for school funding addresses one of the most serious concerns raised during the debate.

For Florida businesses and renters, the picture is murkier. Economists have flagged that reducing property tax revenue doesn’t eliminate the need to fund local government services, and instead it shifts the burden elsewhere, potentially driving heavier reliance on higher local sales taxes or a broadened sales tax base that captures business inputs. Those costs rarely stay with businesses alone. If commercial operating costs rise, they tend to move downstream into higher rents, higher prices at the register, and tighter margins for small businesses that can’t easily absorb new expenses.

Local governments with large residential tax bases like Miramar, Pembroke Pines, and Weston, may experience the most significant revenue impacts, while communities with substantial commercial and industrial property like Pembroke Park and West Park may see slower taxable value growth due to reduced assessment caps. The homeowner who receives a lower tax bill in 2027 may find some of that savings offset by a higher cost of living driven by the ripple effects on local government budgets and the businesses that serve our communities.

But the proposal was passed in two days, without the benefit of a completed fiscal model, without the local government assistance fund that was originally promised, and without the comprehensive review that critics say a change of this magnitude demands. The revenue gap it creates for cities and counties, the services that gap might affect, and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the state all remain open questions.

The Chamber is actively monitoring HJR-1F as it moves toward the November ballot. Our board is reviewing the proposal carefully, weighing the real relief it offers homeowners against the unanswered questions about what it means for local services, businesses, and the broader community. The Board will likely be taking a formal position as more information becomes available and the picture becomes clearer through the work of the Government & Legislative Affairs Committee. In the meantime, the Chamber is committed to making sure our members and the community have the facts they need to make an informed decision at the ballot box. We’ll continue sharing updates as this conversation develops.

Sources: Florida Legislature HJR 1F; Florida Trend; NBC Miami; Tax Foundation; Florida Policy Institute; FICPA; Lee/Angie Suarez Group; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson Government Blog; News4Jax