TALLAHASSEE — The Florida House Select Committee on Property Taxes on Nov. 20 advanced seven proposed constitutional amendments and one House bill aimed at reducing or reshaping non‑school ad valorem property taxes, setting the measures on a path that could place some of them before voters in November 2026.

The committee voted to report favorably measures that would, among other changes, slow how often property assessments increase, remove caps on Save Our Homes portability, phase out non‑school property taxes for homesteads over a decade, create targeted exemptions for seniors and for homeowners with property insurance, and permit married couples to combine portability benefits.

Chair Webb Overdorf opened the hearing by saying Speaker Danny Perez directed the panel to examine how property taxes are assessed and collected and to develop proposals ‘‘to permanently put money back in the pockets of Floridians’’ after months of meetings with local officials and state agencies. She reiterated that because ad valorem rules live in the Florida Constitution, fundamental change requires a constitutional amendment and a statewide vote.

Key proposals and what the committee advanced

- HJR 213 (Representative Griffiths): Would move some assessment adjustments to a three‑year cycle. Under the proposal, homestead increases tied to Save Our Homes would be measured every three years (using the lower of 3% or CPI) instead of annually; non‑homestead properties would see an allowable increase capped at 15% over three years instead of 10% each year. The measure also includes language intended to prohibit local governments from reducing current law‑enforcement funding levels. The resolution was presented, drew questions about whether the change would create long‑term structural gaps for local services, and received public testimony from municipal officials and associations opposed to the proposals. The committee reported the resolution favorably (vote tally not specified in the committee record available in the transcript).

- HJR 211 (Representative Overdorf): Would remove the existing $500,000 cap on Save Our Homes portability so homeowners could transfer the full portability benefit to a new homestead, and would allow the full benefit to move with downsizing. The committee reported the resolution favorably (24 yeas, 10 nays).

- HJR 209 (Representative Besada): Would create a homestead exemption from non‑school property taxes for up to $225,000 of assessed value for properties covered by a comprehensive multi‑peril property insurance policy (the sponsor’s technical amendment changed an originally stated $200,000 figure to $225,000). The committee adopted a technical amendment and reported the resolution favorably (24 yeas, 9 nays).

- HJR 207 (Representative Abbott): Would create a non‑school homestead exemption equal to 25% of the remaining excess value after current exemptions are applied. The committee reported the resolution favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).

- HJR 203 (Representative Miller): A phased approach to remove non‑school ad valorem taxes for homesteads over 10 years by increasing homestead exemptions by $100,000 per year beginning in 2027; sponsor argued the phase‑in would give local governments time to adapt. The committee reported the resolution favorably (24 yeas, 10 nays).

- HJR 205 (Representative Porras): A targeted exemption to eliminate non‑school property taxes for homesteads owned by persons age 65 or older. Members praised the targeted approach but asked how services used by seniors would be preserved; the committee reported it favorably (24 yeas, 9 nays).

- HJR 201 (Representative Steele): The broadest measure advanced, which would eliminate all non‑school ad valorem taxes on homesteads while preserving school funding and imposing protections intended to maintain law‑enforcement budgets at a base year level. That resolution drew the most extensive public testimony and debate; the committee reported it favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).

- HB 215 (Representative Albert): A statutory/house bill that would allow married couples to combine their separate Save Our Homes portability benefits up to the existing $500,000 cap and would require a two‑thirds vote of a local governing body to raise its adopted millage rate (unless a higher local threshold already applies). The bill was reported favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).

What supporters said

Proponents and many sponsors framed the measures as relief for homeowners and a return of purchasing power to residents. Representative Griffiths said slowing the frequency of assessment increases ‘‘gives businesses and homeowners predictability’’ and protects against sudden increases in tax bills. Representative Miller said phased reductions would allow local governments time to adjust while returning $11.8 billion in non‑school homestead value over a decade. Supporters repeatedly urged that, ultimately, the voters should decide on constitutional changes.

Concerns from local governments, first responders and special districts

Local elected officials, municipal managers and statewide associations warned of substantial fiscal impacts and asked for clearer implementation plans. Charles Chapman of the Florida League of Cities said the proposals ‘‘create instability, increase taxpayer inequities and risk the quality of life’’ and opposed the measures before the committee. Jeff Scala of the Florida Association of Counties urged caution and said counties rely on ad valorem revenue to meet state mandates and provide public safety, courts and health services.

Fire chiefs asked that proposals explicitly safeguard fire and emergency medical services; the Florida Fire Chiefs Association’s president, Trip Baars, said many fire and EMS systems are funded through property tax revenue and that the current draft language protects ‘‘law enforcement’’ but does not explicitly protect fire and EMS or many special fire districts. Steve Powell, director of the Orange County Library System, warned that independent voter‑approved special districts (such as library districts) have no safety net if ad valorem collections are broadly excluded.

Public testimony and claims

Opponents presented fiscal estimates and worst‑case scenarios. Witness Jack Corey cited EDR figures (as quoted to the committee) saying some proposals could cost local residents billions in lost services in the first year and recurring losses afterward. Others urged preserving home rule and cautioned that eliminating local property tax capacity would force fees, service cuts or regressive tax shifts.

Process, implementation and next steps

Committee members pressed sponsors repeatedly on how lost revenues would be replaced, how ‘‘law enforcement protections’’ would be defined and whether fire, EMS, water management districts and other special districts would be covered. Multiple sponsors and the chair said implementing statutory language would follow if voters approved constitutional changes and that more work remains before any measure reaches a final ballot form. Several members urged additional study and detailed fiscal analyses before asking voters to decide.

Votes at a glance (committee action)

- HJR 2 13 (Griffiths) — modification of assessment limits: reported favorably (vote tally not specified in the committee transcript). Key change: assessment adjustments moved to a three‑year cycle; non‑homestead increases capped at 15% over three years; law‑enforcement funding protection language included.
- HJR 2 11 (Overdorf) — remove $500,000 portability cap: reported favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).
- HJR 2 09 (Besada) — homestead exemption tied to property insurance (amended to $225,000): reported favorably (24 yeas, 9 nays).
- HJR 2 07 (Abbott) — 25% non‑school homestead exemption: reported favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).
- HJR 2 03 (Miller) — phased elimination over 10 years: reported favorably (24 yeas, 10 nays).
- HJR 2 05 (Porras) — exemption for homesteads owned by persons 65+: reported favorably (24 yeas, 9 nays).
- HJR 2 01 (Steele) — elimination of non‑school ad valorem for homesteads (broad proposal): reported favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).
- HB 2 15 (Albert) — married‑couple portability and millage‑increase threshold: reported favorably (24 yays, 10 nays).

What to watch next

If passed by both chambers, any successful constitutional amendment would go to the state Supreme Court for ballot summary review and then to voters. Sponsors and members repeatedly said implementation statutes will be necessary to define terms (for example, which accounts or budget lines constitute ‘‘law‑enforcement funding’’), to create transition timelines and to specify whether special districts (libraries, water management districts, children’s services councils) are included or exempted.

Why it matters

The proposals would affect the primary local revenue source used for public safety, infrastructure, stormwater management and other core county and city functions. Supporters say the measures relieve homeowners and improve affordability and predictability; opponents say the bills risk large reductions in local services, impose implementation burdens on future legislatures and could shift costs to renters, businesses or fee‑paying residents.

The committee’s actions send multiple proposals forward for further consideration; if any reach the ballot and are approved by at least 60% of voters, the state and local governments will face a multi‑year statutory process to implement the constitutional changes and backfill services currently funded by local property taxes.