UPDATE - LEGISLATURE AMENDS TAX PROPOSAL
UPDATE: June 2, 2026 — Legislature Amends the Proposal. Original Blog Post is below.
HJR 1F replaces SJR 2-F | Special Session in progress
My first blog post on this matter was published on May 31st, but the Florida Legislature moved quickly during the June 1 special session to amend the original proposal. The Senate's SJR 2-F has been superseded by a House version, HJR 1F. Two meaningful concessions were made in response to criticism, including concerns raised in this article. But the fundamental problems with the proposal remain largely intact, and my position has not changed.
What Actually Changed in HJR 1F
1. Constitutional Officers Are Now Protected
The most substantive improvement in HJR 1F is the addition of a new permitted use for remaining ad valorem revenue: funding the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners. Under Florida law, county officers include the constitutionally mandated property appraiser, tax collector, supervisor of elections, clerk of courts, and sheriff. The original SJR 2-F was silent on these offices entirely, creating a scenario where counties might be constitutionally prohibited from using remaining ad valorem taxes to fund the very officials who administer county government. That gap has been closed.
This was a legitimate and necessary fix, and credit is due for making it. The supervisor of elections funds Florida's own ballot infrastructure, including the November election at which voters will decide this very amendment. The property appraiser administers the homestead exemption system the amendment expands. Defunding either would have been indefensible.
2. School District Carve-Out Formally Confirmed
The exemption has been formally confirmed not to apply to school district levies. This was already the intent of SJR 2-F, but the amended language removes any ambiguity. School districts retain their full millage authority over homestead properties. As noted in my original analysis, this is the most meaningful protection in the bill, preserving approximately $7.7 billion in school district revenue statewide.
3. The $5.5 Million Public Outreach Budget Was Stripped
In a move that cuts against the spirit of informed democratic participation, lawmakers removed a proposal to spend $5.5 million in state funds to educate property owners about the ballot amendment. If this proposal is significant enough to warrant a constitutional amendment and a special legislative session, one would expect its proponents to want voters to fully understand it. Stripping the public outreach budget suggests otherwise. Floridians will be asked to vote on a permanent change to their state constitution in November with minimal state-funded explanation of its consequences.
What HJR 1F Does Not Fix — And Why the Major Problems Remain
The two concessions above are real. They are not, however, close to sufficient. The structural problems at the core of this proposal are unchanged.
Libraries, Parks, and Community Services: Still Defunded
HJR 1F's permitted-use list for remaining county and municipal ad valorem revenue is identical to SJR 2-F's on this point. Libraries are not on it. Parks are not on it. Public health programs, social services, and cultural programs are not on it. Counties and municipalities would be constitutionally prohibited from directing remaining property tax revenue toward any of these purposes. Florida's public library system, overwhelmingly locally funded, has no protected revenue source in this bill. That has not changed.
Independent Special Districts: Still Entirely Unaddressed
Florida's 350-plus independent special taxing districts, including fire control districts, water management authorities, community development districts, mosquito control boards, and drainage districts, operate on their own dedicated millage levies and are legally distinct from county and municipal governments. HJR 1F does not mention them. An independent fire control district that derives 80 percent of its budget from homestead property taxes loses that revenue with no constitutional protection, no replacement mechanism, and no acknowledgment anywhere in the bill. For many Florida communities, especially in suburban and rural areas, independent fire districts are the primary fire service provider. This is not a minor gap.
Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments: Still Uncapped
Nothing in HJR 1F addresses the most financially dangerous consequence for typical homeowners: the shift from capped ad valorem taxes to uncapped non-ad valorem special assessments. When local governments lose ad valorem revenue, the most politically viable replacement is the flat-rate special assessment, charged per parcel, not based on property value, not subject to the 10-mill constitutional cap, and not covered by the homestead exemption. A homeowner with a $150,000 house pays the same fire rescue assessment as a homeowner with a $2 million estate. HJR 1F does nothing to constrain this mechanism. The advertised tax savings could be partially or entirely offset by rising assessments with no constitutional ceiling.
The Trust Fund: Still Has No Money
HJR 1F, like its predecessor, creates a state trust fund to provide grants to local governments to assist with core services. The constitutional text still provides no dollar amount, no dedicated revenue source, no funding formula, and no schedule. The Legislature shall create the fund, and then appropriate whatever it chooses, in whatever budget year it chooses, under whatever political conditions prevail. This is not a revenue replacement plan. It is a placeholder with a name. The $18.5 billion structural revenue gap identified by the Florida Policy Institute remains entirely unaddressed by any funded mechanism in this proposal.
The Process Problem: Still Unresolved
A constitutional amendment affecting $18.5 billion in annual local government revenue has been drafted, amended, and is being advanced to a ballot vote, all within the span of approximately one week. No independent fiscal modeling has been completed. No formal testimony from affected local governments has been heard through the normal committee process. The concessions made on June 1 were responsive to political pressure, not to rigorous analysis. A constitutional amendment is permanent. The damage from getting it wrong cannot be corrected administratively. It requires another supermajority vote to reverse. The speed of this process is not a feature. It is the central flaw.
Conclusion: The Concessions Are Welcome. They Are Not Enough.
I acknowledged in my original analysis that SJR 2-F contained real provisions worth crediting, including the school district carve-out and the core-services use restriction. I credit HJR 1F for adding constitutional officers to that protection. These are genuine improvements, and they reflect the value of public scrutiny.
But the amendments made in the June 1 session do not resolve the fundamental question that has never been answered: when $18.5 billion in local government revenue disappears, what fills the gap? A trust fund with no dollars attached is not an answer. A restriction on how a shrinking pool of money can be spent is not an answer. Eliminating the $5.5 million outreach budget is not an answer; it is an admission that this proposal cannot withstand the scrutiny that comes with full public understanding.
The communities most at risk, rural counties with thin commercial tax bases, residents who depend on independent fire districts, Floridians who use public libraries, homeowners who will face rising flat-rate special assessments with no constitutional ceiling, have not been made whole by these amendments.
Property tax reform done right is still worth fighting for. HJR 1F is still not that. Florida voters deserve a proposal that answers the hard questions before they are asked to permanently enshrine the answer in their constitution, not one that papers over the gaps and strips the public education budget so fewer people notice what was left out.
UPDATED BILL DOCUMENTS — HJR 1F (June 2, 2026)
• HJR 1F Bill Page: flhouse.gov — HJR 1F • HJR 1F Analysis: House SAC Analysis • Companion: HB 3F — Tax Administration • Original SJR 2-F: flsenate.gov — SJR 2-F
This blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed represent the opinions of the author. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.