Florida Voters to Decide on Bigger Homestead Tax Break in November

Florida homeowners will decide this November whether to sharply expand the property tax break on their primary residences, after the Legislature passed a joint resolution in a special session called by Gov. Ron DeSantis placing a constitutional amendment on the general election ballot. The measure, titled "Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes," cleared the House on a 75 to 26 vote and the Senate 30 to 9, with the votes recorded around June 2, 2026. If at least 60 percent of voters approve it in November, the amendment would more than triple the standard homestead exemption over two years and tighten the cap on how quickly non-homestead assessments can rise.

The proposal sits at the center of Florida's long-running debate over the cost of homeownership, an issue that has grown sharper as property values, insurance premiums and tax bills climbed together following the pandemic-era housing boom. For longtime homeowners squeezed by rising assessments and for newcomers absorbing some of the nation's steepest housing costs, the amendment promises a meaningful break. For county commissions, city halls, school boards and the agencies that fund police, fire and other services, it raises a difficult question: how to replace billions of dollars in lost revenue.

DeSantis has cast the measure as a first step toward a far larger ambition, the eventual elimination of homestead property taxes through general law. That goal has shaped his second-term agenda and turned property taxes into a defining theme heading into the fall campaign. The special session that produced the amendment came immediately after the Legislature approved a separate $114.5 billion state budget for fiscal year 2026-27, with line-item vetoes from the governor still pending.

What the Amendment Would Change

Under the proposal, the standard homestead exemption would rise from the current $50,000 to $150,000 for the 2027 tax year and then to $250,000 in 2028. The expanded exemption would apply only to non-school property taxes, meaning it would not reduce the portion of a homeowner's bill that funds local school districts. That carve-out matters because school taxes typically account for a large share of a Florida property tax bill, and the exclusion is designed to shield public education funding from the deepest cuts.

The measure also lowers the cap on annual assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10 percent to 5 percent, beginning next year. That provision targets second homes, rental properties and commercial real estate, slowing how fast their taxable value can climb from one year to the next. For homesteaded properties, the existing Save Our Homes protections, which already cap annual assessment growth at 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, would remain in place alongside the larger exemption.

Taken together, the changes would reshape the arithmetic behind hundreds of thousands of tax bills. A homeowner whose property qualifies for the full exemption would shield an additional $200,000 of assessed value from non-school taxes once the amendment is fully phased in, a shift that could translate into several hundred dollars in annual savings depending on local millage rates.

The phased structure also gives homeowners and local governments time to adjust. Rather than imposing the full exemption increase at once, the two-step approach moves to $150,000 in 2027 before reaching $250,000 in 2028, spreading the revenue impact across two budget cycles. That gradual rollout was likely intended to soften the shock to local finances, though analysts note it merely delays rather than diminishes the eventual cost. By the time the exemption reaches its full level, the structure of Florida property taxation for owner-occupied homes would look markedly different than it does today.

The Revenue Question

The most contested aspect of the amendment is its cost to local government. State estimates put the initial revenue loss at about $4.6 billion annually, rising to roughly $8.4 billion for non-school entities as the exemption reaches its full $250,000 level. Those figures represent money that counties, municipalities and special districts now collect to pay for services ranging from law enforcement and fire protection to road maintenance, parks and libraries.

Analysts, including the Tax Foundation, have raised concerns about how local governments would make up the difference. Officials face a limited menu of options: raise millage rates to offset a shrinking tax base, cut services, draw down reserves, or lean harder on fees and other revenue sources. Because the exemption shifts the burden away from homesteaded property, part of the cost could fall on owners of non-exempt property, including landlords and businesses, depending on how each jurisdiction responds.

The Tax Foundation and other observers have also noted that the benefits would not land evenly. Newcomers and recent buyers, who often carry higher assessed values because their property was reassessed at the time of purchase, could see proportionally larger relief than longtime homesteaders whose taxable values have been held down for years by the Save Our Homes cap. That dynamic complicates the message of universal tax relief and could shape how different groups of homeowners view the measure.

There is also a question of how the revenue loss interacts with the state's broader fiscal posture. While the amendment reduces local government collections, it does not directly cost the state general revenue, since Florida does not levy a statewide property tax. That separation means the political incentives differ: state lawmakers can champion the cut without absorbing the budgetary consequences, which fall instead on counties, cities and special districts. Critics argue that arrangement allows Tallahassee to claim credit for tax relief while leaving local officials to manage the fallout, a tension that has surfaced repeatedly in Florida's debates over tax policy.

How It Reached the Ballot

Placing a constitutional amendment before voters through the Legislature requires a joint resolution to pass both chambers, and the votes recorded around June 2 cleared the necessary thresholds. The House approval came on a 75 to 26 tally and the Senate signed off 30 to 9, sending the question directly to the November 2026 general election ballot without the petition-gathering process that citizen initiatives must navigate.

The special session was convened by the governor specifically to advance the property tax package, a measure of the priority DeSantis has placed on the issue. It followed closely on the Legislature's approval of the $114.5 billion budget for the coming fiscal year, leaving the governor to weigh line-item vetoes against the backdrop of his push for deeper tax cuts.

To take effect, the amendment must secure at least 60 percent of the vote in November, the supermajority threshold Florida requires for constitutional amendments. That bar has tripped up high-profile measures in the past, meaning passage is not guaranteed even for a proposal with broad surface appeal.

What It Means for Homeowners

For the typical Florida homeowner, the practical effect would be a smaller tax bill on the non-school portion of their property taxes, phased in across the 2027 and 2028 tax years. The savings would vary widely by county and city because local millage rates differ, and because the school-tax exclusion means a meaningful slice of each bill would stay untouched.

Homeowners who recently purchased property, particularly in fast-appreciating markets, could see the largest dollar reductions, while those who have benefited from years of Save Our Homes protection may notice a more modest change. Owners of rental and commercial property would not gain the expanded exemption but would benefit from the lower 5 percent assessment cap on non-homestead parcels.

Renters occupy a more uncertain position. Supporters argue that easing the tax load on housing could moderate cost pressures over time, while critics counter that any savings to landlords may not flow through to tenants, and that potential cuts to local services could affect renters and owners alike.

What Local Governments Are Weighing

City and county budget officials across Florida are already modeling scenarios for a post-amendment world. Because the measure protects school funding by excluding school taxes, the sharpest pressure would fall on general-purpose local governments and special districts that handle public safety, infrastructure and community services.

Some jurisdictions may turn to millage rate increases to preserve current service levels, a move that could blunt the savings homeowners expect and complicate the political narrative. Others may pursue spending reductions, deferred capital projects or expanded user fees. The wide variation in local fiscal health means the amendment's impact would not be uniform, with fast-growing counties and built-out municipalities facing different calculations.

Public safety agencies have historically been among the most sensitive to revenue swings, since personnel costs for police and fire departments make up large shares of local budgets. How individual communities balance tax relief against service levels is likely to become a recurring theme as the campaign unfolds.

Special districts present a particular wrinkle. Across Florida, thousands of independent districts fund services such as water management, mosquito control, libraries and fire protection, drawing on property taxes that the amendment would reduce. Many of these districts operate with narrow budgets and limited flexibility to raise alternative revenue, leaving them potentially exposed to the cuts. Their size and number make the cumulative effect difficult to forecast precisely, which is part of why estimates of the total revenue loss carry uncertainty.

The Broader Tax Debate

The amendment is the most concrete expression yet of a campaign DeSantis has waged to reduce, and eventually eliminate, property taxes on Florida homes. The governor has argued that homeowners never truly own their property as long as they must pay annual taxes to keep it, a framing that has resonated with parts of the electorate weary of rising bills. The November measure represents an incremental but substantial move in that direction.

Eliminating homestead property taxes entirely, as DeSantis has floated through general law, would require finding replacement revenue on a far larger scale or accepting deep reductions in local services. Property taxes are the backbone of local government finance in Florida, and removing them would force a fundamental rethinking of how counties, cities and schools are funded. The current amendment, by contrast, stops well short of elimination while pointing toward that longer-term goal.

Opponents and skeptics warn that the rhetoric of elimination can obscure the practical trade-offs. They argue that the services property taxes fund, from classrooms to fire stations, do not become cheaper simply because the tax that pays for them is cut, and that the money must come from somewhere. Supporters counter that government can find efficiencies and that homeowners deserve relief from a tax that rises with property values regardless of income. That clash of philosophies will animate the campaign through November.

What's Next

The amendment now heads toward a November 2026 vote expected to draw heavy attention from both supporters and opponents. DeSantis and allied lawmakers are likely to campaign on the promise of relief for homeowners and the longer-term aim of eliminating homestead property taxes altogether, while local government associations, public-sector advocates and fiscal analysts press the case that the revenue losses carry real consequences for services.

Between now and Election Day, voters can expect a sustained debate over the trade-offs embedded in the measure: lower tax bills for many homeowners weighed against the strain on the budgets that fund the schools, first responders and infrastructure those same residents rely on. The school-tax exclusion and the phased timeline will feature prominently as both sides explain what the change would and would not do.

For now, the decision rests with Florida voters. If the amendment clears the 60 percent threshold in November, the first exemption increase would take effect for the 2027 tax year, with the full $250,000 level arriving in 2028. If it falls short, the current $50,000 exemption and the existing assessment caps would remain in place, and the broader push to overhaul Florida's property tax system would return to the Legislature for another round.