Pensacola council weighs statewide homestead tax exemption and $9.1 million local hit in year one

Council members spent a large portion of the meeting discussing a proposed state constitutional amendment — House Joint Resolution 203 — that, as printed in recent committee markup, would exempt homestead property from non‑school property taxes beginning January 1.

Councilman Matt Baer, who presented the packet and ballot language, read the proposal’s key sentence: “Beginning January 1, the amendment exempts homestead property from all non school property taxes.” He warned that earlier committee language that phased the exemption in over 10 years was removed, raising the prospect of an immediate revenue shortfall for cities.

The issue matters to Pensacola because local services depend on property taxes. Mayor (unnamed) told the council the city’s general fund currently stands at about $80 million and that roughly $48 million of that supports police and fire. “If you look at the snapshot of our general fund, outside of police and fire … every other line item is about what we would lose,” the mayor said, warning that parks, transportation and other services could face large cuts if the revenue is removed and no replacement is found.

Councilman Jones added that exempting homestead properties would likely shift tax burdens to non‑homestead and commercial owners, with potential secondary effects on consumer prices. “What it’s gonna do is shift a lot of the tax burden to … commercial properties,” he said, noting grocery and retail costs could rise if commercial owners pass on higher taxes.

Staff fiscal figures discussed during the meeting were contested. One staff attendee said the 10‑year phase‑in language was removed and that the immediate hit could be about $9,100,000 in year one; county/city packet excerpts referenced earlier estimates of recurring losses (for example, a year‑one figure of roughly $4.08 million under alternate scenarios). Amy Lavoie, who helped compile the packet, told council members she did not believe the numbers were inflated and explained the packet reflects reductions tied to market value calculations.

Members stressed the proposal lacks implementation detail at the state level. Baer noted that HJR 203 is currently a House vehicle and that a Senate companion is not yet before that chamber; even if it cleared the Legislature, a constitutional amendment would require voter approval. Several council members said they would monitor the bills and the possibility of a special session.

The council did not take action on the matter at the meeting; members directed staff to continue tracking developments and to provide updated fiscal analysis as state language changes.