Florida’s Proposed Amendment for Property-Tax Reform: What Voters Need to Know

United Is the Way to Helping Our Community Understand the Policies Shaping Our Future

by Bruce Suarez, Director of Public Policy & Strategic Initiatives at United Way Broward


Florida voters will face a significant decision this November. The proposed Florida Property Tax Reform Constitutional Amendment, known as HJR 1-F, is the most consequential tax proposal the state has considered in decades. If it earns support from at least 60% of voters, it would expand homestead property tax exemptions substantially and change how local governments can use property-tax revenue.


Decisions like HJR 1-F are exactly the kind of issues United Way Broward pays close attention to through our work with public policy and community resiliency. Revenue from property taxes helps fund the housing, health, and safety-net services many Broward County residents rely on, so this measure has the potential to affect systems United Way Broward works to strengthen.


United Way Broward does not advocate for or against specific ballot measures. Instead, our public policy efforts are aimed at being a trusted, nonpartisan source of information to help residents and community partners understand how proposed policies will affect Broward County and the people who live here.


Because HJR 1-F could reshape household budgets and local government finances, it’s worth understanding the arguments on both sides before heading to the polls.


Here’s What the Amendment Would Do

At its core, HJR 1-F would increase the homestead exemption available to Florida homeowners, and this increase in exemption means a larger share of a primary home’s assessed value would be shielded from many local property taxes. The amendment also would place limits on how much local governments can rely on property-tax revenue.


The result is a straightforward trade-off: Homeowners could see meaningfully lower tax bills, and the cities, counties, and special districts that depend on the revenue from property taxes would need to find other ways to fund services.


Who Benefits the Most with HJR 1-F?

Supporters of the amendment point to several potential benefits:

  • Lower tax bills: The expanded exemption means many homeowners, especially people with higher assessed home values, would have substantial savings on their annual property-tax bills.
  • Relief from rising costs: As Florida home values have climbed in recent years, property-tax bills have climbed with them. Supporters argue this amendment helps homeowners keep pace with rising costs and remain in homes they might otherwise struggle to afford.
  • Support for retirees and fixed-income residents: Lower annual tax bills could make a meaningful difference for retirees living on fixed incomes, potentially allowing more to stay in their homes rather than move because of rising expenses.
  • Stronger homestead protections: Florida already has homestead protections in place. This amendment would build on these protections, expand relief, and limit certain future tax increases for homesteaded properties.


Broadly, supporters say the people most likely to see the largest dollar savings are homeowners with existing homestead exemptions, retirees, long-term Florida residents, and owners of higher-value homes.


What Is at Risk with HJR 1-F?

Critics of the amendment raise a set of concerns, most centered on what happens to the revenue that no longer would be collected.

  • Less funding for local governments: Property taxes fund a wide range of local services, including police, fire rescue, parks, libraries, road maintenance, and general government operations. Legislative estimates project multibillion-dollar annual revenue reductions if the amendment is fully implemented, which could force local governments to cut spending, delay projects, or seek other funding sources.
  • Pressure on public services: Some hospital organizations and local governments have warned that reduced property-tax revenue could affect emergency services, public-health programs, and infrastructure investments if lawmakers don’t identify replacement funding.
  • Limited benefits for renters: Because the relief is targeted at homesteaded homeowners, renters generally would not see direct tax savings. Whether landlords pass any benefits to tenants would depend on other market and policy factors.
  • Potential cost-shifts: The amendment doesn’t specify how local governments should compensate for the lost revenue. Critics warn that local governments may respond by raising fees, increasing costs for utilities, raising sales- or tourism-related taxes where permitted, or simply reducing services.


Critics identify the entities most likely to be affected include cities and counties with significant needs related to property-tax revenue, special districts, public-safety agencies facing tighter budgets, hospitals and community-health organizations that rely on local funding, and ultimately residents if service levels decline or local fees rise to cover the loss of funds from property taxes.


Weighing the Trade-Offs

What makes HJR 1-F a genuinely difficult decision for voters is that both sides are describing tangible, plausible outcomes. Many homeowners likely would pay less in property taxes, local governments likely would need to adjust their budgets, and these adjustments by local governments will directly affect the services residents rely on every day.


The amendment’s impact would not be felt evenly. Homeowners, particularly people with higher-value homes and long tenure in the state, stand to gain the most in direct savings. Renters, and residents in communities that rely heavily on property-tax revenue for core services, may feel the effects indirectly through service changes or new fees without receiving the offsetting tax relief.


There’s also the question of timing and implementation. The amendment sets the policy in the state constitution, but it leaves many of the specifics of adapting to lower revenue up to local governments. This ambiguity creates uncertainty for both sides: Supporters can’t guarantee smaller government won’t come with quality-of-life trade-offs, and opponents can’t say precisely how much or how quickly services would be affected.


Because HJR 1-F would require 60% voter approval to pass, and because it would affect nearly every Florida resident, it’s worth understanding both the potential savings and the potential costs before casting a vote. This amendment represents a genuine trade-off between individual tax relief and collective public funding.


Understanding this challenge also is where United Way Broward can help. Residents who want to dig deeper into how HJR 1-F or other public policy issues will affect Broward County are invited to connect directly with our Public Policy team.


Because community resiliency depends on more than just information, United Way Broward also welcomes residents to get involved with our extensive range of community-building activities by: 


We welcome your unique insights, talents, and expertise. You can be instrumental in strengthening the very services and systems that policy decisions like this one can affect.


If you have questions about HJR 1-F or other pending legislation in our community, please email Bruce Suarez at BSuarez@UnitedWayBroward.org.