DeSantis' Property Tax Reform Proposal - What Does it Really Say?
Property Tax Reform in Florida:
A Worthy Goal That Demands More Than a Special Session
Published June 2, 2026 | Municipal & Property Law
Florida homeowners have been saddled with some of the highest effective property tax burdens in the Southeast for years. Assessments have climbed in lockstep with a historic run-up in real estate values, and for many residents, particularly retirees and long-term homeowners on fixed incomes, the annual tax bill has become a source of genuine financial stress. That is not a political talking point. It is a documented reality, and it justifies serious, thoughtful reform.
Governor Ron DeSantis clearly understands the politics of that frustration. On May 27, 2026, he called a special legislative session beginning June 2 to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, one he has branded the “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” plan. The proposal, formally filed as Senate Joint Resolution 2-F (SJR 2-F), would immediately raise the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000, wiping out property taxes entirely for roughly 60 percent of Florida homeowners. A further schedule of increases, ultimately reaching $500,000 or beyond, would follow by general law.
As the former Chair of the Ad-Valorem Committee of the Florida Bar’s Tax Section, and an attorney who practices in the property tax arena, I welcome the conversation about property tax relief. But I am deeply concerned about the manner in which this proposal is being advanced. Calling a special session on short notice, bypassing the normal committee process, and asking voters to permanently amend the Florida Constitution before the full fiscal consequences are understood, these are not the hallmarks of responsible governance. They are the hallmarks of an election-year political play.
In this post, I examine what the plan actually proposes, what it would cost, what protections it does and does not include, and why the communities that depend on property tax revenue deserve a more deliberate process before Floridians are asked to make a decision that cannot easily be undone.
What SJR 2-F Actually Proposes
The full text of SJR 2-F is publicly available on the Florida Senate website: Bill Page and History | Full Bill Text (HTML) | Full Bill Text (PDF) | Senate Staff Analysis (PDF). A companion implementation bill, Senate Bill 4-F, addresses property tax administration. I encourage every Floridian with a stake in this issue to read the actual text before the vote.
The proposal amends Sections 4, 6, and 9 of Article VII of the Florida Constitution and adds a new provision to Article XII. Its five major elements are:
• An immediate increase in the homestead exemption to $150,000 beginning January 1, 2027, rising to $250,000 on January 1, 2028, with inflation adjustments annually thereafter.
• A legislative mandate to schedule further increases in the exemption, the ballot language calls for “full elimination” through general law, with the governor projecting an ultimate exemption of $500,000 covering approximately 92 percent of homesteaded properties.
• A restriction on how counties and municipalities may use remaining property tax revenue, limiting it to core services: public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, bond obligations, and employee retirement benefits.
• A small business protection provision reducing the cap on annual assessment increases for non-homestead residential and commercial property from 10 percent to 5 percent beginning January 1, 2027.
• A five-year Florida residency requirement before new residents (those establishing homestead after January 1, 2027) qualify for the increased exemption.
To take effect, the amendment must clear the Legislature by a three-fifths supermajority in both chambers and then be approved by 60 percent of Florida voters at the November 2026 general election.
The Political Context: Process Matters as Much as Policy
Special legislative sessions serve a legitimate constitutional purpose. They exist to address urgent, time-limited issues that cannot wait for the regular legislative calendar. Emergency hurricane response, budget shortfalls triggered by natural disasters, or time-sensitive federal mandate compliance, these are the kinds of situations that justify bypassing the deliberate pace of regular session.
A permanent constitutional amendment affecting $18.5 billion in annual local government revenue does not meet that bar. There is no emergency. Property tax assessments are not changing tomorrow. The primary driver of this special session is an election calendar, not a policy necessity. The governor wants the amendment on the November 2026 ballot, and the deadline to accomplish that is rapidly approaching.
This matters for a practical reason: the normal committee process exists precisely to compel rigorous analysis before major policy is enacted. During regular session, bills are heard in multiple committees. Fiscal impact studies are commissioned. Local government representatives testify. Independent economists weigh in. Competing interests are heard and negotiated. None of that infrastructure is available in a special session called on a week’s notice.
It is also worth noting that this is not the first time in the current cycle that property tax elimination has been attempted. An earlier legislative effort, House Joint Resolution 203, passed the Florida House but died in the Florida Senate, in part because senators raised unresolved questions about revenue replacement. The governor’s response to that legislative failure was not to convene a working group or commission a fiscal study. It was to call a special session and escalate pressure. That is not a governing strategy. It is a campaign strategy.
The Revenue Reality: $18.5 Billion Is Not an Abstract Number
The non-partisan Florida Policy Institute has calculated that eliminating property taxes on homesteaded properties would remove approximately $18.5 billion in annual revenue from Florida’s local governments. That figure breaks down as follows:
• $7.8 billion lost by Florida’s 67 counties
• $7.7 billion lost by Florida’s school districts
• $3.0 billion lost by Florida’s cities and municipalities
Even the governor’s scaled-back version, raising the exemption to $250,000 rather than full elimination, represents a substantial hole in local budgets. And the plan’s mandate to eventually reach $500,000 means that the full $18.5 billion figure is the destination, not just a hypothetical worst case.
To understand what those numbers mean at the local level, consider the estimates for Florida’s most populous counties. Research published in early 2026 found that Miami-Dade County alone could lose upward of $900 million to $2.3 billion annually depending on the final scope of the exemption. Broward County faces projected losses in the range of $500 million to $1.6 billion. These are not rounding errors in a county budget. They represent structural funding gaps that would require either dramatic service cuts, new replacement revenue sources, or both.
Sadaf Knight, CEO of the Florida Policy Institute, put it plainly: “Eliminating property taxes, even partially through a homestead exemption, will leave local governments and school districts scrambling to balance their ledgers, whether it’s through cutting vital programs and services or by introducing or raising new fees to replace the lost revenue.”
What SJR 2-F Actually Protects, and What It Does Not
Supporters of SJR 2-F will point out that the bill contains provisions intended to protect essential services. A careful reading of the actual bill text reveals that these protections are real but partial, and that several critical gaps remain unaddressed.
What Is Protected: Schools
Schools are the best-protected category in the bill. The homestead exemption increase explicitly does not apply to school district levies. That carve-out is written directly into the constitutional amendment text. School districts retain their full millage authority over homestead properties, which means the $7.7 billion figure cited above would not be lost under the current proposal. This is a meaningful protection.
What Is Partially Protected: Public Safety and Core Services
For fire rescue, law enforcement, and emergency medical services, the bill takes a different approach. Amended Section 9 of Article VII would restrict how counties and municipalities may use whatever property tax revenue remains, limiting expenditures to:
• Public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service
• Education and public schools
• Infrastructure, including road and bridge construction, maintenance, and stormwater control
• Natural resource projects, including flood control
• Bond obligations and debt service on existing commitments
• Retirement benefit obligations for local government employees
The intent is that what remains after the exemption must flow exclusively to core needs. In that sense, public safety agencies are given priority over discretionary spending.
However, and this is the critical point, this restriction does not guarantee any specific funding level. It determines what a shrinking pool of money can be spent on. It does not restore the revenue that disappears. If Miami-Dade County loses $900 million in annual revenue, the bill says the remaining dollars must go to public safety and infrastructure, but it does not replace the $900 million. Fire stations can still lose funding; there are simply fewer permitted categories competing for the leftover revenue.
What Is Not Protected: Libraries, Parks, and Community Services
Libraries are entirely absent from the bill’s list of permitted uses for remaining property tax revenue. The same is true of parks, cultural programs, economic development initiatives, social services, and public health programs. Under the amended Section 9, counties and municipalities would be constitutionally prohibited from using ad valorem taxes for any of these purposes. This is not an oversight, it is a structural consequence of the bill’s “core services only” restriction. Florida’s public library system, which is overwhelmingly locally funded, would have no permissible source of property tax revenue once the amendment takes effect.
What Is Not Addressed: Independent Special Districts
Florida has more than 350 independent special taxing districts, including fire control districts, water management authorities, community development districts, and mosquito control boards. Many of these operate on their own dedicated millage levies and are legally distinct from county and municipal governments. SJR 2-F does not address these districts’ revenue base. An independent fire control district that derives 80 percent of its budget from homestead property taxes would lose that revenue with no constitutional protection and no identified replacement source.
What Is Not Addressed: Constitutional Officers
Florida’s constitution mandates the existence of certain county officers: the property appraiser, the tax collector, the supervisor of elections, the clerk of courts, and the sheriff. These offices are funded through county general revenue, which is derived substantially from property taxes. SJR 2-F makes no mention of how these constitutionally required offices would be funded as the tax base contracts. The supervisor of elections, in particular, funds the infrastructure of Florida’s own elections, the same elections through which this constitutional amendment would be decided.
What Is Vague: The State Trust Fund
The bill creates a state trust fund to “provide grants to assist in the implementation of the amendments.” This sounds like meaningful relief, but the constitutional text provides no dollar amount, no funding formula, no dedicated revenue source, and no schedule for disbursement. The Legislature “shall create” the fund, but appropriating actual money into it is left entirely to future legislative discretion, in future budget cycles, under whatever political conditions exist at that time. There is no enforceable guarantee that the trust fund will be funded at a level sufficient to offset actual local revenue losses.
What That Revenue Actually Funds: Concrete Examples of What Is at Risk
Abstract fiscal figures are easy to dismiss. What is harder to dismiss is a specific accounting of the services those figures support.
Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services
Across Florida, fire rescue departments, whether operated as county agencies or as independent special fire control districts, are funded substantially through ad valorem taxes. In many communities, a dedicated independent fire district millage is the sole revenue source for fire stations, apparatus, and personnel. The bill provides no protection for these independent districts. A fire district that loses the majority of its tax base faces a direct choice between closing stations and reducing staffing or imposing new non-ad valorem assessments on residents, which shifts the tax burden rather than eliminating it.
Law Enforcement
County sheriff’s offices and municipal police departments depend heavily on property tax millage. In counties where the sheriff’s office is the primary law enforcement agency, the county budget is effectively the only funding source. Loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from a county budget forces a direct trade-off between law enforcement staffing and every other category on the permitted-uses list. The bill offers no minimum funding floor.
Libraries
As noted above, the bill’s restriction on permitted uses effectively eliminates property tax funding for libraries. Most Florida public library systems are funded almost entirely through local ad valorem taxes. Under SJR 2-F, that funding would have no constitutional home. The closure or severe reduction of library services would disproportionately harm the residents with the fewest alternatives: children, seniors, job-seekers, and lower-income residents who depend on public computing and connectivity.
Infrastructure: Roads, Drainage, and Water Management
County and municipal road maintenance, stormwater systems, and drainage infrastructure are funded in large part by local property taxes. Florida’s vulnerability to flooding makes stormwater infrastructure an existential necessity. Independent water management and drainage districts draw almost exclusively on ad valorem revenue and receive no protection under the bill.
Rural Counties: A Disproportionate Impact
The burden of this proposal is not evenly distributed. Urban and suburban counties with large commercial real estate bases have alternative taxable value to partially offset homestead losses. Rural counties do not. In counties like Gilchrist, Jefferson, Liberty, and Dixie, homestead properties constitute a much higher proportion of total taxable value, and the commercial base is minimal. For these communities, the exemption increase could be fiscally catastrophic, threatening the viability of essential services in counties that are already operating on thin margins.
The Replacement Revenue Question: Still Unanswered
The governor has suggested, without specificity, that the state could step in to replace lost local revenue. This is an extraordinary representation. The State of Florida does not currently have $18.5 billion in annual surplus revenue available for redistribution to local governments. Florida has no income tax. Its reliance on sales tax and tourism-driven revenue makes it particularly sensitive to economic downturns. The idea that the Legislature would reliably appropriate replacement funds to every county, school district, and municipality in perpetuity, regardless of which party controls state government in any given year, requires a leap of faith that no responsible fiscal analysis supports.
What is more likely, if history is any guide, is that local governments facing a structural revenue gap would pursue some combination of the following: imposing or increasing non-ad valorem assessments and special assessments, raising utility fees and service charges, cutting services, deferring maintenance and capital investment, and lobbying the state for revenue sharing that may or may not materialize. None of these outcomes are disclosed to Florida voters in the text of the proposed amendment.
What Responsible Property Tax Reform Actually Looks Like
To be clear: our concerns about process and fiscal impact are not arguments against property tax reform. They are arguments for doing it correctly. There are legitimate, well-designed reform mechanisms that could provide meaningful relief to Florida homeowners without creating a structural fiscal crisis for local governments.
A responsible approach might include a phased increase in the homestead exemption over multiple years, allowing local governments time to adjust their budgets and identify alternative revenue sources. It could include a circuit breaker mechanism that caps property taxes as a percentage of household income for qualifying lower-income and fixed-income homeowners, targeting relief precisely where the burden is greatest. It might explore assessment growth caps indexed to inflation, or enhanced portability provisions that reduce the lock-in effect discouraging homeowners from downsizing.
These approaches share one characteristic that the current proposal lacks: they require careful revenue modeling, stakeholder input from local governments, independent fiscal analysis, and deliberate legislative process. None of them can be properly designed in a special session called on a week’s notice.
A constitutional amendment is among the most permanent of policy instruments. Once ratified by voters, it can only be reversed by the same supermajority process. If the revenue consequences prove worse than projected, if rural counties lose fire stations, if libraries close, if municipal infrastructure falls into disrepair, there is no administrative fix. The damage is locked in until another constitutional amendment reverses it. That permanence is exactly why this decision deserves more deliberation than the current process allows.
The $5,000 "Raise" - And Why It May Not Last
Supporters of SJR 2-F often frame the expanded homestead exemption in terms a homeowner can feel immediately: eliminate taxes on $250,000 of assessed value, and at a typical combined millage of around 2 percent, that is roughly $5,000 back in your pocket each year. It is a compelling number. But for most Florida homeowners, the reality is more complicated, and the hidden costs that follow could easily erase those savings, or more.
The Actual Savings Are Smaller Than Advertised for Many Homeowners
The $5,000 figure assumes an assessed value high enough that a full $250,000 of value is newly exempt above the current $50,000 exemption. But Florida's existing Save Our Homes cap limits annual assessment increases to 3 percent or the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower. Long-time homeowners typically carry assessed values well below current market value as a result. A homeowner who purchased in 2010 may have an assessed value of $190,000 even if the home is worth $450,000 today. Under the current exemption, that homeowner pays taxes on $140,000. Under the new $250,000 exemption, they pay on nothing, but their actual annual savings is $140,000 multiplied by their local millage rate, not $250,000 worth. At a 2 percent combined rate, that is $2,800. That is meaningful, but far from the headline figure.
For newer homeowners who bought at peak market values with assessed values at or near $400,000 or $500,000, the full benefit materializes. But for the long-term Florida resident that this proposal is ostensibly designed to help like the retiree, the fixed-income homeowner, the family that has been in the same house for twenty years, the actual dollar savings may be considerably more modest.
The Silent Tax Increase: Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments
Here is what the proponents of SJR 2-F do not put on a bumper sticker: when local governments lose ad valorem revenue, the most politically viable replacement is the non-ad valorem special assessment. These are flat charges levied per parcel, or per unit of service, to fund fire rescue, stormwater management, solid waste collection, street lighting, and similar services. They are entirely separate from property tax, they appear as line items on your annual tax bill, and, critically, they are not reduced by the homestead exemption. Not by the current one, and not by the expanded one under SJR 2-F.
The most consequential feature of a non-ad valorem assessment is that it is profoundly regressive. A homeowner with a $100,000 house pays the exact same fire rescue assessment as a homeowner with a $2 million waterfront estate. The property tax system, whatever its flaws, at least scales with value. Special assessments do not. As a preview of what is coming, Marion County recently proposed raising its fire assessment fee from approximately $200 to $284 per dwelling unit, representing a 42 percent increase driven in part by structural funding pressures. If fire, stormwater, and solid waste assessments all increase simultaneously in response to lost ad valorem revenue, a typical homeowner could face $800 to $1,500 or more in new annual charges. For many homeowners, that wipes out most or all of the property tax savings, and shifts the burden disproportionately onto those with the lowest-value homes.
The Insurance Risk: What Happens When Fire Stations Close
Florida homeowners already carry some of the highest property insurance premiums in the nation. Insurance companies rate fire risk in part using ISO fire protection classifications, a scoring system that runs from Class 1 (best) to Class 10, and that is directly tied to the availability of fire stations, staffing levels, and response times within a geographic area. When fire departments face budget cuts, whether from lost ad valorem revenue or from the collapse of independent fire districts that SJR 2-F leaves entirely unaddressed, ISO ratings can deteriorate.
The financial impact of a rating downgrade is immediate and measurable. A home in a Class 3 protection area that drops to Class 6 can see its annual premium increase by 15 to 30 percent. For a Florida homeowner already paying $5,000 per year in insurance, that is an additional $750 to $1,500 annually. For many homeowners, that single consequence eliminates the entire property tax savings, and unlike a tax bill, an insurance premium increase is not recoverable through any exemption or political process.
The Property Value Risk: School Quality and Long-Term Equity
Real estate professionals consistently identify school quality as one of the most reliable predictors of residential property values. Homes in well-regarded school districts command measurable premiums, and when school quality declines, values follow. While SJR 2-F protects school district millage from the homestead exemption increase, school districts are not immune to the broader fiscal environment. Loss of county and municipal revenue affects the services that support schools indirectly, transportation networks, public safety near campuses, infrastructure maintenance, and long-term funding uncertainty creates instability that markets price in.
A homeowner who saves $3,000 per year in property taxes but sees a $30,000 decline in home equity over five years due to school quality deterioration in their district has not come out ahead. The tax savings is annual and visible. The equity loss is gradual and easy to miss until it is realized at sale. For most Florida homeowners, the home is their primary financial asset. Policies that threaten its long-term value in exchange for short-term tax relief deserve scrutiny that cannot happen in a week-long special session.
The Bottom Line for the Typical Homeowner
Supporters of SJR 2-F are asking Florida homeowners to vote for what looks like a straightforward gain: less property tax, more money in your pocket. What they are not advertising is the full ledger. Smaller actual savings than the headline for long-tenured homeowners. Higher non-ad valorem assessments that offset or exceed the savings, charged per parcel with no exemption and no relation to your home's value. Potential insurance rate increases driven by fire service degradation. Long-term property value risk tied to school and infrastructure quality. The common homeowner looking at this proposal should ask not just what it saves them today, but what it costs them over the next ten years.
Conclusion
Florida’s homeowners have carried a heavy property tax burden for too long, and the political appeal of the Save Our Homes plan is easy to understand. A constitutional amendment that eliminates property taxes for most primary homeowners is a compelling promise. But a promise is not a plan, and a special session is not a substitute for due diligence.
SJR 2-F contains real provisions like a school district carve-out, a core-services restriction, a trust fund placeholder. But when you read past the ballot language and into the actual constitutional text, what you find is a framework full of gaps: independent special districts left unprotected, constitutional officers left unfunded, libraries effectively defunded, a trust fund with no dollars attached, and a millage cap that prevents local governments from compensating on their own. The bill does not solve the revenue problem it creates. It delegates that problem, without resources or guarantees, to local governments and future legislatures.
As an attorney, I am accustomed to reading documents carefully, not just for what they say, but for what they omit. What SJR 2-F omits is a credible answer to the most basic question any responsible lawmaker should ask before permanently altering a state’s fiscal architecture: when the revenue disappears, what exactly fills the gap? Floridians deserve that answer before they vote, not after the amendment is ratified and the consequences become irreversible.
Property tax reform done right is worth fighting for. A constitutional amendment drafted in haste, offered without complete fiscal analysis, and rushed to a ballot to serve an election calendar is not reform. It is a risk, and the communities that depend on local government services are the ones who will bear it.
OFFICIAL BILL DOCUMENTS, SJR 2-F (2026 Special Session)
• Bill Page & History: flsenate.gov, SJR 2-F • Full Text (HTML): flsenate.gov, Bill Text • Full Text (PDF): Download PDF • Staff Analysis (PDF): Senate Appropriations Analysis • Companion Bill SB 4-F: Property Tax Administration
This blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed represent the opinions of the authors. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.