House State Affairs Committee advances HJR 203 to phase out most property taxes for homesteads; members warn of gaps and shifts

Tallahassee — The Florida House State Affairs Committee on Monday voted 15–6 to report favorably HJR 203, a resolution that would ask voters to phase out non‑school ad valorem property taxes on homesteaded properties by increasing the homestead exemption by $100,000 annually beginning in 2027.

Representative Rosa Miller, the sponsor, told the committee the proposal is "a reasonable and measured approach to reduce property taxes while protecting essential public safety budgets," and said the 10‑year phase‑out gives local governments time to adjust. "When passed, this resolution will propose a constitutional amendment to phase out non‑school ad valorem property taxes over 10 years by increasing the homestead exemption by $100,000 per year beginning in 2027," she said.

Supporters and opponents framed the debate in sharply different terms. Fire service representatives backed an amendment to extend funding protections to firefighters and other first responders, citing rising equipment and operating costs. Jim McMillan of the Florida Fire Chiefs Association said fire‑engine prices have jumped from about $650,000 five years ago to roughly $1.5 million today and urged the committee to include first responders in funding safeguards.

Opponents — including municipal and county officials, the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, water and environmental advocates and community groups — warned that eliminating a major local revenue source without implementation language risks deep cuts to services. Charles Chapman of the Florida League of Cities said property taxes make up a backbone of municipal general‑fund revenue, and that the proposal represents a potential $13.3 billion recurring revenue loss. "This is truly not tax relief. It'll end up becoming a tax shift where costs do not disappear," he said.

Committee members asked repeated questions about how local governments would make up lost revenue and whether the change would shift burdens to renters, businesses or non‑homesteaded property owners. Ranking Member Anna Eskamani said she wanted a "scalpel approach, not the sledgehammer," and pressed for analysis of how the change would affect bond ratings and local borrowing. Representative Cross and others raised concerns about water management districts, storm‑response funding and long‑term infrastructure projects.

Miller acknowledged the committee had not drafted implementing language and said such details would be addressed later: "As of now, it hasn't been contemplated…we will have to determine how it's implemented once the voters decide what they wanna do." She and other supporters argued that local budgets have grown since 2020 and can absorb phased reductions, noting a sponsor figure that local budgets are roughly $4 billion higher than in 2020 even after the proposed reduction.

The committee approved an amendment (barcode 036949) offered by Miller that expanded the bill's prohibition on funding restrictions for law enforcement to include firefighters and first responders as defined by general law and adjusted the first year's exemption application to maximize early taxpayer benefit. Representative Gantt offered a strike‑all amendment (barcode 414023) seeking to pause the measure until implementing legislation is drafted; that amendment failed to pass.

Public testimony was extensive. Witnesses opposing the resolution warned it would likely prompt higher fees or new local sales taxes and erode services such as libraries, after‑school programs, evacuation and debris removal after storms, and environmental programs run by water management districts. Proponents in the fire service described immediate cost pressures and welcomed the clarification that first responders would be protected on paper under the amendment.

The committee recorded the final vote after floor debate and public testimony: Tamara called the roll, and the clerk recorded 15 ayes and 6 nays. Chair Robinson announced, "Please show HJR as amended has been reported favorably." The committee adjourned without scheduling further immediate action.

Next steps: Because HJR 203 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it would need to be considered by the full House and — if passed by the legislature — placed before voters with any implementing language to be drafted later, per the sponsor's statements.