Florida Legislature Passes 'Save Our Homes' Property Tax Amendment, Sending It to November Voters

Florida lawmakers have approved a constitutional amendment that would dramatically reduce property taxes on owner-occupied homes, moving one of the most consequential tax questions in a generation onto the November 2026 ballot. During a special session called by Governor Ron DeSantis for the week of June 1, the Legislature passed the joint resolution branded "Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes," clearing the way for voters to decide whether to enshrine the cut in the state constitution.

What the Legislature approved

The measure passed both chambers with the required supermajority. According to legislative records, the Senate approved the joint resolution by a 30 to 9 margin and the House followed with a 75 to 26 vote. Constitutional amendments referred by the Legislature must clear each chamber by a three-fifths vote before they can reach the ballot, and the totals comfortably exceeded that threshold.

The path to those votes ran through a compressed special session, a format that concentrated the debate into a matter of days rather than the weeks a measure of this magnitude might otherwise consume. Lawmakers heard from local government representatives, fiscal staff, and a steady stream of constituents who have watched their tax bills climb in recent years. The lopsided margins in both chambers reflected the political appeal of cutting taxes in an election year, even as a sizable bloc of members registered opposition over the long-term consequences for local budgets.

At the center of the plan is a sharp increase in the homestead exemption. The proposal would exempt the first 250,000 dollars of a homesteaded property's assessed value from taxation, a figure far above the current exemption structure. The governor's office has said the change would eliminate property taxes entirely for roughly 60 percent of Florida homeowners with homesteaded properties, with the largest proportional relief flowing to lower-value homes.

The resolution also directs the Legislature to set a schedule, through general law, for the eventual full elimination of homestead property taxes. In other words, the constitutional language establishes the framework while leaving the phase-out timeline to future statutes. Supporters describe it as a generational shift in how Florida funds local government; opponents warn it could destabilize the budgets that pay for schools, police, and fire service. The two-step design, enshrining a principle in the constitution while delegating the mechanics to ordinary legislation, gives lawmakers flexibility but also leaves significant questions about timing and implementation unresolved.

How the proposal would work

Beyond the headline exemption, the plan carries several guardrails that shaped the debate in Tallahassee. One provision would require local governments to direct remaining property tax revenue toward what the proposal defines as core public needs, including public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resources. The intent is to prevent the narrowed tax base from being spread across discretionary spending, effectively forcing cities and counties to prioritize essential services as the pool of available dollars shrinks.

That requirement is more than symbolic. By writing spending priorities into the constitutional framework, the proposal would limit how much discretion local officials retain over the revenue that remains. Supporters argue this protects the services residents care about most. Critics counter that it ties the hands of elected local leaders who are closest to their communities and best positioned to judge local needs, and that a one-size-fits-all definition of core services may not fit every county equally well.

Another provision addresses newcomers. Under the language advanced by lawmakers, a person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027, would need to maintain residency for a period of up to five years before qualifying for the increased homestead exemption. The waiting period is designed to reward long-term residents and to blunt concerns that the benefit could be claimed immediately by new arrivals. It also creates a two-tier system, at least temporarily, in which established residents and recent transplants living on the same street could face very different tax bills until the newcomer satisfies the residency requirement.

To cushion local governments, the measure would establish a trust fund to provide grants that help cities and counties continue core services as the tax base shrinks. The structure acknowledges what every analysis of the plan has flagged: removing homestead taxes leaves a substantial hole in the revenue that Florida's 67 counties, hundreds of municipalities, and local school districts rely on. How that trust fund would be financed and replenished over time, and whether its grants would keep pace with the lost revenue, are among the central uncertainties that local officials have raised.

The fiscal stakes for local government

The numbers are large. Legislative fiscal analysis estimated that local government revenues could fall by roughly 4.6 billion dollars in the first year and by about 8.4 billion dollars in the second year if the amendment takes effect. Property taxes are the single most important locally controlled revenue source in Florida, funding the bulk of county and municipal operations as well as a significant share of public school budgets.

Because Florida has no personal income tax, local governments lean heavily on property levies to pay for day-to-day services. City and county officials across the state have spent recent weeks modeling what the change would mean for their budgets, with some warning of pressure on millage rates for non-homestead properties, fees, and sales-tax-dependent programs. The proposed grant trust fund is meant to ease that transition, but its long-term adequacy is unproven.

The challenge is compounded by the structure of local budgets. Many of the largest costs a county faces, such as personnel for law enforcement and fire service, debt payments on past capital projects, and contractual obligations, are difficult to reduce quickly. When revenue contracts faster than those fixed costs can adjust, the result is a budget gap that must be closed somewhere, whether through service reductions, higher charges on the properties that remain taxable, or new revenue sources. That math is part of why the projected second-year shortfall, nearly double the first-year figure, has drawn particular attention from budget officers.

Business groups and homeowners' associations have largely welcomed the relief, framing it as overdue help for residents squeezed by years of rising assessments and insurance costs. Local government associations and some education advocates have been more cautious, noting that schools and emergency services depend on a stable property tax base and that voter-approved constitutional language is difficult to adjust later. Once a provision is in the constitution, undoing or modifying it requires another statewide vote, a far higher bar than amending an ordinary statute, which means any flaws in the design could prove durable.

The Florida context

Property taxes have climbed alongside Florida's housing values over the past several years, and the political appetite for relief has grown with them. Homeowners who bought during the run-up in prices have watched assessments rise, and the squeeze has been compounded by some of the highest property insurance premiums in the country. For many households, the combined cost of taxes and insurance now rivals the mortgage principal and interest on the home itself.

That affordability pressure has reshaped the state's politics. Tax and insurance costs have moved to the center of campaigns and legislative agendas, displacing some of the issues that dominated earlier cycles. The Save Our Homes amendment is in many ways a direct response to that shift, an attempt to address voter frustration with the most visible and recurring bill many homeowners receive.

The existing Save Our Homes framework already caps how fast assessed values can rise for homesteaded properties, but it does not reduce the underlying tax bill. The new proposal goes further by removing a large slice of taxable value outright. That distinction matters: the cap slowed the growth of bills, while the amendment on the November ballot would cut them. The shared branding can blur the difference, but the mechanisms are distinct, and the new measure represents a more aggressive intervention than the assessment cap that preceded it.

The plan also fits a broader pattern of tax-focused policymaking in Tallahassee, where leaders have repeatedly emphasized affordability for residents. The special session structure allowed lawmakers to move quickly, outside the regular legislative calendar, and to place the question before voters during a general election when turnout is highest. Timing the question for a November general election, rather than a lower-turnout primary, ensures the broadest possible electorate weighs in on a change of this scale.

What it means for Floridians

If voters approve the amendment, the immediate effect for most homesteaded owners would be a lower annual property tax bill, with many lower- and middle-value homes seeing their homestead liability eliminated. Renters and owners of non-homestead property, including second homes, investment properties, and commercial real estate, would not receive the same exemption and could feel indirect effects if local governments adjust other rates or fees to compensate.

The distributional question is likely to feature prominently in the campaign. Because the exemption applies to assessed value rather than scaling with income, the benefit is structured to deliver the largest proportional relief to owners of lower-value homes, many of whom would see their homestead tax disappear entirely. Owners of higher-value homes would still benefit from the exemption on the first portion of their assessed value, but would continue to owe tax on the remainder. Renters, who do not pay property tax directly, are the group whose relationship to the measure is least direct and most debated.

Homeowners weighing the measure will want to understand how their own county and school district plan to absorb the revenue change, since services like classroom funding, road maintenance, parks, and first responders are paid for locally. The state has promoted an online calculator to help residents estimate their potential savings under the plan, a sign of how central the affordability message has become. Because the effects vary so widely by county and by property, residents are likely to find that the practical consequences of the amendment depend heavily on where they live and what they own.

It is important to be precise about the timeline. The Legislature's vote does not by itself change anyone's tax bill. It places a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. Florida requires 60 percent voter approval for constitutional amendments to pass, a high bar that has defeated past measures with majority but not supermajority support.

What's next

The amendment now heads to the November 2026 general election ballot, where it will need at least 60 percent of the vote to become part of the state constitution. Expect an intense campaign on both sides through the summer and fall, with proponents emphasizing tax relief and opponents focusing on the impact to schools and local services. The 60 percent threshold means that even a measure with clear majority support could fall short, which raises the stakes for the persuasion campaigns each side will mount.

In the meantime, local governments will continue budgeting under existing rules while preparing contingency plans for both outcomes. The Legislature's directive to set an elimination schedule through general law means that, even if voters approve the framework, the specific pace of any full phase-out would be decided in future sessions, giving lawmakers room to calibrate the change against the state's fiscal picture. That sequencing also means the campaign debate will turn partly on uncertainty, since the constitutional language sets a direction without locking in every detail of how and when full elimination would occur.

For Florida homeowners, the message from the special session is straightforward: a historic property tax cut is now on the table, but the final decision rests with voters in November. Until then, the debate over how to balance immediate relief against the long-term funding of local services will dominate the state's political conversation, and both supporters and opponents will be working to define what the amendment would mean for the everyday cost of living in Florida.