Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrowly advances H.J.R. 213 to change property assessment cycle despite heavy municipal opposition
Summary
House Joint Resolution 213 would shift many property assessment increases from annual to once every three years (keeping a 3% homestead cap and adjusting non‑homestead caps), exclude school taxes and prohibit defunding public safety; the committee adopted an amendment and voted 10–4 to report the resolution, after extensive testimony from municipal officials warning of a projected $5.2 billion fiscal impact.
House Joint Resolution 213, sponsored in committee as a proposed constitutional amendment, would change how local governments apply assessment increases on property. Representative Gruith told the committee H.J.R. 213 would move assessment increases for homestead properties to an every‑three‑years schedule (keeping the 3% Save Our Homes cap but applying CPI over the prior three years), apply a 15% cap over three years for non‑homestead property, limit the change to county, city and special district taxes (excluding school district taxes), and add a prohibition on local defunding of public safety.
Representative Ponchowski explained an adopted amendment that would prevent an assessment increase when a property’s just value decreased or remained the same over the three‑year span; the committee adopted the amendment by voice vote.
Municipal officials and associations lined up in opposition. Charles Chapman of the Florida League of Cities cautioned that spreading assessment increases over three years would not reduce municipal costs and cited a $5.2 billion projected fiscal impact from the Revenue Estimating Conference. Mayors and city commissioners from DeLand, Coral Springs, Tequesta, Largo, Bellaire Bluffs and others described contracts, pension and public safety costs that they said would be difficult to meet if ad valorem revenue growth were constrained.
Committee members debated for an extended period. Opponents inside the committee warned the measure would constrain local revenue, shift costs to fees, and lacked an implementing replacement revenue plan; supporters said H.J.R. 213 is a cap—not a cut—meant to slow rapid assessment growth and protect homeowners. After closing remarks by the sponsor the clerk recorded a roll call with the committee reporting the resolution favorably, 10 yeas and 4 nays.
The committee’s favorable report does not itself place the constitutional amendment on the ballot; further procedural steps and potential implementing legislation would be required to describe how local governments would adapt to the change if voters approve it.
