Transcript Highlights:

• These include surplus properties, tax title properties, underutilized properties, and other publicly
• We came to find out that most surplus property, most tax title property, and most properties that governments
• So it really allows us to pull those properties in and get them back into the community as assets.
• Holding the property, improving the property, getting it to the developer.
• property to real property.

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• communities.
• As of today, there are 1,800 or more community land trust properties across the state, and community
• > across</c> community land trust properties across community land trust properties across the<00:04:
• And the community land communities.
• Community land trusts are a communities.

Bills: HF3600 , HF3809 , HF3608

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Almost every community in the state has had more than a 20% rate increase in their property insurance
• This issue isn't about choosing between communities and property rights. In Idaho, we expect both.
• properties.
• I believe, as I'm sure you do, in property rights, but the full-time residents of our communities should
• The length of stay alone does not change the nature of the property or the impacts on a community.

Committee: House Business

Transcript Highlights:

• change the words to “property tax and local community service reductions.”
• , because they have very little, most of their property, As bedroom communities because they have very
• little, most of their property is homesteaded, their bedroom communities.
• Property taxes are the financial foundation that allows local communities to function.
• That means proposals to drastically reduce property taxes would disproportionately affect communities

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• If this property tax plan passes, our residents will be paying higher user fees to use community resources
• change the words to 'property tax and local community service reductions.'
• , because they have very little, most of their property is homesteaded; they're bedroom communities.
• Property taxes are the financial foundation that allows local communities to function.
• That means proposals to drastically reduce property taxes would disproportionately affect communities

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• change the words to 'property tax and local community service reductions.'
• We went out of our way to not make it snarky or anything and just say 'property tax and local community
• Property taxes are the financial foundation that allows local communities to function.
• The loss of property tax revenue will result in a cascade of service losses to communities that will
• That means proposals to drastically reduce property taxes would disproportionately affect communities

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops supports the right to private property but recognizes that communities
• on all other property owners in our small community and communities like ours.
• We see it as a property rights issue as well, and churches should be allowed to provide for their communities
• property or is it properties within 200 feet of the property?
• This rule doesn't just protect us, property owners, or the community; it hurts us and often causes stress

Bills: HB24 , HB2015 , HB2149 , HB2559 , HB2701 , HB2797 , HB3172 , HB24

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, you know, I know if I own a property in law and the value of the property is a million dollars,
• Allowing seniors to defer their property taxes until the property is sold would be an immense relief
• She asked whether, if the community gets the funding later when the property is sold, the local option
• We recognize that property taxes are a vital source of revenue for our communities, supporting schools
• unfairly by zip code; use Community Preservation Act, CPA, funds to offer free property assessments

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hearing on bills related to senior and disability property tax relief, with a focus on helping older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes. Testimony supported H. 3968, which would make certain senior and disability property tax exemptions permanent so eligible residents would not have to refile annually, and H. 3198, which would expand the senior circuit breaker tax credit by indexing income and credit limits to cost of living and raising the home valuation cap from $1.1 million to $1.5 million. Representative Scanlan also testified in favor of several additional bills, including a local option motor vehicle excise tax exemption for low-income seniors and veterans, a local property tax cap for low-income seniors, an expanded senior property tax exemption, and a senior property tax deferral program designed to be revenue neutral over time. Witnesses from the City of Boston, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and the Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers generally supported local-option property tax relief measures and said they would help seniors age in place while giving municipalities flexibility. Committee members raised concerns about possible abuse or fraud if exemptions became permanent, and about how assessors would verify continued eligibility without annual reapplication. Supporters responded that eligibility could still be tied to real estate transactions and other documentation, and that the current annual filing requirement causes many eligible seniors to miss out on benefits. Mass Senior Action Council members testified that many seniors are struggling with rising property taxes, insurance, and other costs, and urged broader reforms such as freezing assessed values, improving outreach, strengthening the work-off program, and allowing more flexible payment or deferral options. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded after testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 674, bonuses for employees of county tax collectors and property appraisers, simply permits property
• An ad valorem exemption on tangible personal property that, on items that must be located on properties
• It's really a tax shift to the business community and the other non-homesteaded properties in your community
• lease property by Senator Avila.
• That's almost half of our real property... ...taxes, particularly the homestead property.

Committee: Senate Finance and Tax

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee met and first heard SB 674, which would allow county property appraisers, like tax collectors already can, to budget for and pay hiring or retention bonuses if approved in their Department of Revenue budget. Support came from property appraiser representatives, who said the bill would help them compete for specialized staff without requiring new funding. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered SJR 318, a proposed constitutional amendment on tangible personal property used on agricultural land, along with an amendment clarifying the exemption’s scope and allowing the Legislature to set conditions by general law. Farm Bureau and the Florida Chamber supported the measure, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the joint resolution favorably. Members also took up CS for SB 1664, which would require voter reapproval of local discretionary taxes when they expire; an amendment changed the bill to require expiration dates and tied reapproval to tax expiration rather than a fixed eight-year cycle. Local government and tourism groups raised concerns about impacts on tourist development taxes, transportation surtaxes, beaches funding, and long-term financing, while supporters argued voters should periodically affirm local taxes. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee considered SJR 1510 and its implementing bill SB 1512, both dealing with a homestead-style property tax benefit for certain long-term leased residential properties. After multiple amendments narrowed the proposal substantially, limiting it to one qualifying property and then to single-family homes, mobile homes, and condominium units, counties and cities still opposed the measures as a tax shift to other taxpayers. The sponsor said the changes reduced the scope and fiscal impact, and both measures were reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SPB 7034, the Senate tax package, which includes permanent sales tax exemptions, multiple tax holidays, motor vehicle fee reductions, a property tax study, rural investment tax credits, a freeze on local communications services tax rates, and other tax changes, with an estimated $2.1 billion revenue reduction. Testimony was mixed: property appraisers supported the property tax study, while many public commenters opposed the firearm and ammunition tax holiday and urged inclusion of gun safes and locks instead. County, city, tourism, and lodging representatives raised concerns about tourist development tax limits and other local revenue impacts, while supporters emphasized tax relief and the study’s value. After debate, the committee adopted a motion to submit SPB 7034 as a committee bill and reported it favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a representative of communities that struggle to support local education and pay the real property
• tax, Charlestown is the highest property tax community in the state.
• tax, Charlestown is the highest property tax community in the state.
• tax community in the highest property tax community in the state.<00:14:59.839><c> And</c><00:15:00.000
• community should share property-rich community should share more<00:19:19.679><c> of</c><00:19:19.840

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2261 defines Class 2 property as agricultural real property and renames the article heading
• for property taxes.
• Agricultural property for property taxes.
• the property.
• Again, we're just trying to modernize the way we communicate and are collaborative to our property owners

Bills: HB2120 , HB2173 , HB2261 , HB2786 , HB2792

Committee: House Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll hear them say that reducing property values will harm our communities.
• , taxes, insurance, and repairs; to reinvest in our properties and communities; to fund our retirements
• Small property owner, single-family homeowner, renter—this proposal will hurt everyone in every community
• The consequence of this proposal would decimate small property owners and the communities we live in
• our local communities. 25% of state revenues come from property tax revenues, more than 50% of local

Bills: H5008

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Transcript Highlights:

• The property tax is the property The property tax in Florida is an annual tax paid by owners of real
• property taxes relate to homestead properties specifically.
• For property tax purposes, a property must be owned by a person who makes the property his or her permanent
• properties.
• taxes, I encourage you all to get home and find out in your own communities how those property taxes

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes held its first meeting with opening remarks from the co-chairs and ranking member framing the committee’s task as developing property tax legislation for next session. Staff then gave a high-level overview of Florida property taxes, explaining how ad valorem taxes work, the roles of property appraisers, tax collectors, taxing authorities, value adjustment boards, and the Department of Revenue, and reviewing key concepts such as just value, assessed value, exemptions, taxable value, millage rates, homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, and portability. The presentation also emphasized that property tax law is largely rooted in the Florida Constitution and that local governments choose millage rates, which affects collections. No public comment was taken. The committee then discussed five Speaker-proposed concepts. Proposal 1 would require cities, counties, and special districts to hold a referendum on eliminating property taxes on homestead properties; members raised concerns about local funding, public safety, special districts, renters, and the need for extensive voter education, with some suggesting countywide elections or town halls instead. Proposal 2 would create a new $500,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes and a $1 million exemption for seniors 65+ or long-term homesteaders; members split between seeing it as meaningful relief for seniors and warning it could devastate local tax bases, especially in lower-value or rural counties, while also potentially trapping older homeowners in place. Proposal 3 would authorize the Legislature to raise homestead exemptions by general law; some liked the flexibility, but others worried about statewide one-size-fits-all impacts, political difficulty in reversing changes, and the need for local revenue replacement. Proposal 4 would change assessment caps for homestead and non-homestead property; several members said it would not provide enough relief and could shift burdens to rental properties and non-homestead owners. Proposal 5, eliminating foreclosure on homestead property for tax liens, drew the strongest opposition, with members saying it would undermine lien priority, mortgage and title systems, and incentives to pay taxes. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly stressed the need to understand local fiscal impacts, including police, fire, infrastructure, and other services funded by property taxes, and to consider alternative revenue sources or offsets if taxes are reduced. The co-chairs said the committee is still in the information-gathering stage, that all ideas remain on the table, and that members should do “homework” by meeting with local taxing authorities and learning how property taxes are set and spent in their districts. The meeting ended with no votes on the proposals and adjournment after a motion to rise.

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll hear them say that reducing property values will harm our communities.
• , taxes, insurance, and repairs; to reinvest in our properties and communities; to fund our retirements
• Small property owner, single-family homeowner, renter—this proposal will hurt everyone in every community
• The consequence of this proposal would decimate small property owners and the communities we live in
• our local communities.

Bills: H5008

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. The chair explained the ballot process under Article 48 and outlined the hearing structure. The first witness, a Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies researcher, described Massachusetts’ worsening rental affordability, explained how rent regulation policies are typically designed, and reviewed research suggesting rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability, while also noting concerns about reduced supply, quality, and implementation details. She compared the proposal to other state and local rent-stabilization laws and said the measure would cap increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain housing types, and apply to new tenants as well as current tenants because it would not allow vacancy decontrol. Supporters of the petition argued that rent stabilization is needed to address displacement and immediate affordability pressures while broader housing production continues. The proponent from Homes for All Massachusetts said the policy is a grassroots response to corporate rent hikes and cited examples of tenants facing steep increases. A tenant from Arlington described a long dispute after a building was purchased by an investment firm and rents were raised sharply, saying the experience showed how rent increases can function as eviction. A union leader said high rents are forcing workers out of the communities they serve, and two experts testified that rent stabilization can reduce displacement and provide broad, immediate benefits. Committee members asked about the proposal’s exemptions, the 10-year new-construction carveout, vacancy decontrol, and whether the policy could discourage development; supporters said the bill targets large landlords, preserves room for small owners, and should be viewed as a complement to new housing production. Opponents, including small property owners, a chamber of commerce representative, a union official, and a landlord, argued the measure would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance rise faster than the proposed cap, and warned that capping rents would lower property values and tax revenues. Several opponents emphasized that many housing providers are not large corporations but local “mom-and-pop” owners, and one said the proposal would discourage pension funds and other investors from financing new projects. Committee members pressed opponents on what alternatives they would support for affordability, and opponents pointed to increased housing production and other housing policies instead of rent control. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's not just property tax that is an issue. It's also property insurance.
• But in my community, we're not hearing—I'm not hearing property tax relief.
• They want lower property taxes. They're screaming for lower property insurance taxes.
• most property taxes.
• They said property taxes and property insurance, which we're not tackling property insurance today, but

Transcript Highlights:

• zone covering multiple properties.
• So with the intention to develop this property, we purchased the property.
• Apparently, if a property is older than 50 years old, you as the property owner, do not have property
• status of their property.
• In my opinion, as a volunteer member of a community development corporation that owns multiple properties

Bills: SB2215 , SB2639

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2215, which would clarify that property owners may challenge municipal zoning ordinances that are adopted without following Chapter 211 procedures, and would expressly waive municipal sovereign immunity for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus actions in those cases. The bill sponsor and witnesses argued it would simply enforce existing notice, hearing, and due process requirements and give landowners a practical remedy when cities fail to comply. Testimony in support came from attorneys and a landowner describing alleged zoning actions in Selma that they said occurred without proper notice or hearings and caused significant financial harm. After questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2639, which would add disclosure and compensation requirements for local historic designations, including compensation based on the greater of repair/restoration costs or the difference in appraised value with and without the designation. The bill author said it was intended to address situations where historic designation delays or blocks redevelopment and to ensure property owners are fairly compensated. A property owner testified in support, describing an Austin case in which a demolition permit led to historic designation and what he said was a costly forced rehabilitation. Opponents, including a preservation advocate and an East Austin resident, argued the current process is already rigorous, rare, and balanced, and that the bill would undermine cities’ ability to preserve historic places and community heritage. During closing on SB 2639, the chair raised a concern that Section 3B appeared to apply retroactively to pending cases, which he said could be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. The committee did not resolve that issue during the hearing, and the bill was left pending. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• what comes from non-homestead properties, and what comes from tangible personal property?
• The average annual property tax for our community and these homes...
• The average annual property tax for our community and these homeowners is $856.87, roughly $2.25 a day
• But I heard a lot more than just property tax for some property.
• , our communities, where they'll end up wanting to sell those properties and that drive the prices down

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• property tax relief.
• properties.
• David Stout: High property taxes in our communities. It's not the case.
• That's not why there are high property taxes in our communities.
• I'll give back to the community as well, the same community that participates.

Bills: HB21 , HB211 , HB223 , HB323 , HB524 , HB530 , HB636 , HB762 , HB21 , HB211 , HB223

Committee: House Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• In a distressed situation, I go out and buy a property, and they buy a distressed property.
• property tax relief.
• A year in property taxes by the properties represented in this book.
• Each property is different.
• taxes in our communities.

Bills: HB21 , HB211 , HB223 , HB323 , HB524 , HB530 , HB636 , HB762 , HB21 , HB211 , HB223

Committee: House Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Property tax revenue.
• The school property tax, yes, depends on what your school property tax is.
• The school property tax, yes, depends on what your school property tax is.
• The other credits for Tier 1 property tax and community college tax are more distributed evenly.
• that levy property taxes.

Bills: LB737 , LB753 , LB788 , LB913 , LB1055 , LB1195 , LB1216 , LB1256 , LB429 , LB721 , LB722 , LB727 , LB743 , LB745 , LB749 , LB778 , LB787 , LB365A , LB823 , LB900 , LB903 , LB940 , LB954 , LB1127 , LB1127A , LB1205 , LB1240 , LR293 , LR296 , LR422 , LR505 , LR507