What Citizens Are Saying

Not in the final amendment. An earlier, separate proposal explored this and was dropped — it is not part of what’s on the ballot.

In spring 2025, a House tax package (HB 7033) proposed letting counties redirect Tourist Development Tax revenue — the hotel/short-term-rental "bed tax," worth about $364 million a year in Orange County alone, home to Disney — toward offsetting property tax cuts. That proposal drew strong opposition from the tourism industry and never became part of the final CS/HJR 1-F that is actually on the November ballot.

Even if it had passed, the numbers don’t close the gap: statewide Tourist Development Tax collections run about $1.8 billion a year, against roughly $16 billion in statewide property tax revenue. The incoming Florida House Speaker has also said publicly he does not support a state backfill for counties at all. As of this review, there is no tourist-tax, Disney-specific, or state backfill mechanism written into the amendment.

Sources: Florida Politics, HB 7033 coverage; Tampa Bay Times, backfill skepticism

Based on the enrolled amendment text and Florida’s existing Save Our Homes rules, it does not appear to create a blanket reassessment of every continuously homesteaded property when the amendment takes effect.

The concern comes from language stating that homesteads are assessed at “just value” following the effective date of the amendment. That sentence must be read together with the provisions immediately following it, which retain the annual Save Our Homes limit of the lower of 3% or the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Florida Department of Revenue guidance also explains that a home is assessed at just value when it first receives homestead status; afterward, qualifying annual assessment increases are limited by Save Our Homes. A sale, loss of homestead eligibility, establishment of a new homestead, or certain property changes can still affect the assessment under existing law.

Sources: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text; Florida Department of Revenue — Save Our Homes guidance; Florida Statutes §193.155.

The amendment lists public safety as a permitted use of remaining revenue. It does not guarantee current funding levels or prohibit cuts.

The enrolled text restricts what remaining county and municipal ad valorem revenue can be spent on, and public safety is one of the listed permitted categories, alongside infrastructure, natural-resource projects, debt and retirement obligations, and general operations. That is a spending restriction, not a funding floor. Nothing in the amendment requires a city or county to maintain its current level of police, fire or EMS spending, and nothing prevents a local government from reducing public safety spending if its overall revenue falls, as long as whatever it does spend from that revenue stays within the permitted list.

Source: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text

The mechanism is real. Whether it happens, and by how much, is not yet known.

It is accurate that non-ad valorem special assessments — flat, per-parcel charges for things like fire rescue, stormwater or solid waste — are legally distinct from ad valorem property tax. They are not subject to the homestead exemption or the Save Our Homes assessment cap, and Florida courts have upheld fire-rescue assessments specifically under Florida Statutes Chapter 170, provided the charge is tied to a measurable special benefit to the property rather than general government operations.

What is not established is that any given city will adopt or raise such a fee, or that a resident's total bill would end up the same or higher. That depends on each local government's own budget decisions. Sanford and Ocoee are both actively discussing fire-assessment fees as of this review; neither has adopted one specifically in response to this amendment, and whether other cities follow depends on their own budgets and elected boards.

Sources: Florida Statutes Chapter 170; Florida DOR — Save Our Homes guidance; local coverage of Sanford and Ocoee fire-assessment discussions, cited above.

No. The five-year wait only applies to people establishing permanent Florida residency on or after January 1, 2027. If you maintained permanent Florida residence by December 31, 2026 and hold a qualifying homestead, you receive the full phased exemption on the regular schedule — up to $150,000 in 2027 and up to $250,000 in 2028 — with no waiting period. Filing the homestead exemption itself is a separate, ordinary step through your county property appraiser; it does not by itself trigger the five-year rule. This point causes a lot of back-and-forth in online comments, so it is worth reading carefully.

This is a real, legitimate worry, not just a talking point. Police and fire spending is funded from the same county and municipal ad valorem revenue this amendment reduces, and several Central Florida cities have already begun budgeting for it.

Public safety is listed as a permitted use of whatever revenue remains — but that is not a spending floor. It does not require any city to keep current staffing or budget levels. Whether a specific department sees cuts depends entirely on that city’s own budget choices, reserves, and other revenue.

Orlando has already proposed a hiring freeze through 2029 tied to this exact concern, and Sanford and Palm Bay are weighing new fire-assessment fees for the same reason. This is not a hypothetical — it is already showing up in real FY2027 budget workshops.

Source: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text, permitted-use provisions

The concern is about fairness between longtime residents and newcomers, and it’s a real design choice in the amendment, not a misunderstanding.

Anyone who established permanent Florida residency by December 31, 2026 gets the full phased exemption on schedule — up to $150,000 in 2027, $250,000 in 2028. Anyone establishing residency on or after January 1, 2027 starts with only a $50,000 exemption and doesn’t reach the larger amount until their fifth year.

Supporters frame this as protecting current residents from subsidizing new arrivals. Critics call it an arbitrary two-tier system that could complicate a move, a divorce, a death, or any other reason someone re-establishes residency. Both are policy judgments about the same provision, not a factual dispute.

Source: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text, residency phase-in provisions

This is a genuine structural change, not an exaggeration. A constitutional amendment is far harder to adjust than an ordinary state law — if it turns out to be badly designed for a specific city, that city cannot simply opt out or petition the legislature for a quick fix next session.

The amendment also lists the specific categories remaining ad valorem revenue can be spent on (public safety, infrastructure, debt, retirement obligations, and general operations). That list is now a constitutional requirement, not a local budget decision, in every county and city statewide regardless of local circumstances.

Whether that produces needed statewide discipline or removes appropriate local flexibility is a genuine policy disagreement — reasonable people land on both sides of it.

Source: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text, permitted-use restrictions

Renters do not receive this exemption directly — it only applies to owner-occupied homesteaded property. A renter’s name is not on the deed, so there is nothing for them to file for.

Apartment buildings and other rental property are classified as non-homestead property. A separate part of this same amendment lowers the annual assessment-growth cap on that category from 10% to 5%, which could modestly slow how fast a landlord’s taxable value rises — but that is a cap on growth, not a tax cut, and it does not guarantee lower rent.

Whether rent goes up, down, or stays the same depends on the landlord’s own costs, the local rental market, and business decisions — the amendment does not set rent and does not require any change to it. Renters also still pay indirectly for local services through their landlord’s costs and other taxes, so a city’s budget response (fees, service cuts) can affect renters even though they receive no direct exemption.

Source: Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F text, non-homestead assessment cap provisions

This exemption is not age- or income-based — it applies the same way to every qualifying homesteaded owner, regardless of age or income. Some citizens specifically want an age-65 cutoff or income-tested relief; that is not what this amendment does.

Many seniors already qualify for other, separate exemptions on top of this one: the existing homestead exemption, Save Our Homes assessment protection, and in many counties an additional low-income senior exemption. Those stack with whatever this amendment provides — they are not replaced by it.

Because the new exemption is a flat dollar amount rather than targeted at need, a senior on a fixed income and a working-age homeowner with the same assessed value get the identical dollar benefit. Whether a flat, universal exemption or a narrower, targeted senior program would help fixed-income homeowners more is a genuine policy question with people on both sides.

Source: Florida DOR — property tax exemptions guidance