As the 2026 legislative session approaches, Florida lawmakers have introduced a sweeping slate of proposals aimed at significantly reducing or restructuring property taxes – changes that could reshape how local services are funded.
What are the proposed changes?
The core of the reform is a set of proposed House Joint Resolutions that must be passed by both the Florida House and Senate before being put to a statewide vote for the public to approve or reject. Key proposals include:
- HJR 201: Eliminates all non-school property taxes on homestead properties, meaning homeowners would only pay school-district levies on their primary residences.
- HJR 203: Gradually phases out non-school homestead taxes over a 10-year period – giving homeowners a larger exemption each year until complete elimination.
- HJR 205: Exempts residents aged 65 or older from paying non-school property taxes on their homestead.
- HJR 207: Introduces a new homestead exemption on non-school property taxes equal to 25% of a home’s assessed value – a benefit for both current homeowners and first-time buyers.
- HJR 209: Grants an additional $100,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes for homeowners who maintain comprehensive multiperil property insurance.
- HJR 211: Removes the cap on “portability,” meaning homeowners could transfer their accumulated tax-benefit from the previous home to a new home – for non-school levies.
- HJR 213: Limits how much the assessed value for non-school homestead property taxes can increase – capping increases to 3% over three years (instead of 3% per year), and for non-homestead properties capping growth at 15% over three years (instead of 10% per year).
Advocates argue these changes would give homeowners significant tax relief, potentially lowering annual tax burdens and making housing more affordable.
What are proponents saying?
Supporters claim that property taxes in many parts of Florida have become burdensome, especially for long-time residents and retirees. By reducing or eliminating non-school property taxes, the legislation aims to:
- Lower monthly and yearly housing expenses for homeowners.
- Make it easier for first-time buyers and seniors to afford to stay in their homes.
- Offer predictability and stability by limiting how quickly assessed values (and taxes) can rise.
For many homeowners – especially on fixed incomes – these changes could provide substantial financial relief.
Why are some critics and local leaders worried?
Not everyone supports the proposals. Some major concerns include:
- Erosion of municipal and county budgets: Cities may lose a major source of revenue, threatening services such as roads, libraries, law enforcement, emergency services, fire protection, and infrastructure maintenance.
- Inequity across counties: Counties with lower property values or a larger share of non-homestead properties may shoulder disproportionate burdens, making funding gaps wider – especially in less affluent regions.
- Unclear replacement revenue: To offset lost property-tax revenue, county and municipal governments may need to find alternative revenue streams – which could mean new taxes or fees, potentially shifting burdens onto residents in forms less predictable than property taxes.
- Uncertainty about long-term sustainability: Because these proposals still must be approved by voters (with at least 60% support) and then require legislative follow-through to implement, there is uncertainty around what the final outcome would look like and whether alternative funding plans will be adequate.
What could this mean for public schools and local services?
At first glance, the proposals seem to protect school funding as the reforms are explicitly written to exempt school-district property taxes from the cuts.
Still, the potential impact on public school funding and other local services is complex:
- Property taxes (school-district levies) currently form a major portion of how public schools are funded – roughly 46% of school funding statewide (amounting to around $21 billion) under current tax levies.
- Because the reforms would reduce revenue from non-school property taxes – which fund municipalities, counties, law enforcement, infrastructure, and other services – some local governments may struggle to maintain budgets without making cuts or raising revenue elsewhere.
- Local governments might need alternative funding mechanisms (fees, consumption taxes, increased millage rates, sales taxes, etc.) if property tax revenues shrink dramatically.
- While school district taxes are preserved under the proposals, broader destabilization of county and municipal budgets could indirectly affect school services – for instance, funding for school transportation, building maintenance, extracurricular programs, or community-based support that relies on shared local revenues.
In short, although school-district levies are not directly targeted, the shake-up in local government revenues could ripple into how well schools and related services are maintained.
What could this mean locally?
For homeowners, these proposals might bring real savings, especially for long-time residents or seniors. But local governments – and by extension, public services – could feel pressure to adjust budgets or seek new revenue sources. Schools might not see immediate cuts, but dependent services (transportation, maintenance, extracurriculars) could face strain if municipalities or counties recoup lost revenue elsewhere.
As local budgets tighten, there might also be increased competition between essential services (roads, public safety, schools, infrastructure), potentially leading to tough choices at the county or city level.
Bottom Line
The 2026 property-tax reform proposals in Florida represent a bold rethinking of how local government and homeowners share the tax burden. While they promise substantial relief for property owners – particularly homeowners and seniors – the long-term effects on local services, infrastructure, and even public schools are uncertain. What appears designed to protect school funding might still leave school support vulnerable – not directly via the education tax levy, but indirectly through broader financial strain on local governments.
School districts who partner with Neola can be confident that we will continue to monitor the progress of these proposals and will provide additional information and updates as they become available.