Modification of Limitations on Property Assessment Increases
H0213 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how Florida property assessments can increase for both homestead and nonhomestead real property. For homestead property, it would replace the current annual assessment cap structure with a three-year cycle for most non-school levies, limiting increases to the lower of 3% or the change in CPI over the prior three years, while school district levies would continue to be adjusted annually but still capped at the lower of 3% or CPI. For nonhomestead residential property with nine units or fewer, and for other real property not already covered by existing caps, the bill would also impose a three-year assessment cycle with increases limited to 10% rather than the current 15% in the text, and it would require assessments to stay flat when just value has not increased over the relevant period.
The measure also expands or clarifies several property-tax provisions, including portability-style relief for new homesteads, special assessment treatment for working waterfront properties, and authority for the legislature to exempt certain wind-hardening and solar or renewable energy improvements from assessed value. It preserves and reorganizes existing constitutional language on agricultural, conservation, historic, and other special-use property classifications, while adding new language to support assessment reductions for multigenerational living space for older parents or grandparents.
A separate major provision would amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit local governments from reducing total funding for law enforcement, firefighters, and other first responders below the higher of their 2025-2026 or 2026-2027 budgeted levels, beginning with the 2027-2028 local fiscal year. The ballot language indicates the amendment would take effect January 1, 2027, and would apply notwithstanding any reduction in ad valorem revenue caused by the property-tax changes.
The overall sentiment in committee votes appears generally favorable, with the bill advancing through the House Select Committee on Property Taxes, House State Affairs Committee, and House Ways & Means Committee by comfortable margins. That pattern suggests support for property-tax relief and first responder funding protections, though the no votes indicate meaningful reservations among some members.
The main point of contention is the tradeoff between limiting property-tax growth and preserving local government revenue. Supporters likely view the measure as a taxpayer protection and a way to restrain rapid assessment increases, while critics may be concerned about reduced fiscal flexibility for counties and municipalities, especially because the amendment simultaneously locks in first responder funding levels despite potential revenue losses. The shift from annual to three-year assessment changes and the lower cap for some property classes are also likely to be debated as to whether they provide appropriate relief or create uneven treatment across property types.
If approved, the amendment would change Article VII of the Florida Constitution to impose new limits on assessment increases for homestead, residential, and other real property, reducing the frequency and size of reassessments and altering how just value changes are applied. It would also add a new constitutional restriction on local governments in Article VIII, requiring them to maintain first responder funding at or above specified prior-year budget levels. These changes would affect property owners, county property appraisers, school districts, municipalities, and local public safety budgets, and would require implementing general laws to define and administer several of the new assessment rules.
Committee voting shows the bill moving forward with solid support at each stop, suggesting a broadly favorable reception to the proposal’s tax-relief and public-safety funding components. The votes were not unanimous, however, indicating that some members remained concerned about the fiscal and administrative consequences. Overall, the discussion context points to cautious support rather than consensus.
The central controversy is fiscal: the bill limits property-tax assessment growth while also preventing local governments from reducing funding for police, fire, and other first responders, which may constrain local budgets if ad valorem revenue falls. Supporters are likely focused on homeowner and business tax relief and protecting public safety services, while opponents or skeptics may argue that the amendment shifts pressure onto local governments, reduces flexibility, and could force cuts in other services. Additional debate may arise over the different treatment of homestead versus nonhomestead property, the lower 10% cap for certain nonhomestead properties, and the complexity of the new reassessment rules.