Florida Homeowners Could Win Big Tax Cuts—but Local Hospitals Stand To Lose Millions 

This fall, Florida voters will have a chance to weigh in on an amendment to the state constitution that significantly reduces property taxes.

The “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes" amendment expands homestead exemptions and lowers assessment caps for non-homestead properties. 

The proposed tax cut could deliver some financial relief to Florida homeowners, who like many across the country are seeing higher property tax bills due to inflation, rising costs, and increases in home values. 

But cities, counties, and special taxing districts are raising the alarm, saying that a lack of funding from these taxes could lead to cuts to vital services. Local hospitals, in particular, may lose millions.

What the legislation promises

This plan was originally floated by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who called Florida's legislature into a special session to draft a proposal. The legislature then voted to place a version of it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment—but not before carving out school taxes so they wouldn't be covered by the expanded exemption.

Now, according to Ballotopedia, the amendment “would expand the non-school property tax exemption from $25,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.” 

Today, with the state’s $25,000 exemption, a $500,000 home in Florida would be taxed on $475,000 of its value for property taxes. Under the amendment, that taxable amount drops to $350,000 in 2027, and $250,000 in 2028. This could translate to hundreds or thousands of dollars saved per year, depending on the local non-school millage rate—which would be welcome relief. 

“For many Florida homeowners, property taxes have become one of the fastest-growing components of the total cost of homeownership,” says Jon Brooks, a housing market analyst and the co-founder of Momentum Realty in Florida. “For retirees on fixed incomes, young families stretching to afford a home, and long-term owners who are 'house rich but cash poor,' that savings can be meaningful.”

Brooks says there’s also a broader philosophical argument to be made for cutting these taxes: why, supporters of the plan ask, should they continue paying increasing property taxes after they’ve already purchased their homes?

The potential for a funding crisis is real

Whether you agree with that philosophy or not, the question isn’t so much “Should homeowners pay less in property taxes,” but “If they pay less in property taxes, where does that revenue shortfall get made up?” 

According to the Tax Foundation, property taxes account for 74 percent of local tax collections in Florida, and local government revenue could drop by as much as $8.4 billion after two years. That would create a serious shortfall.

“The challenge,” says Brooks, “is that reducing a major revenue source doesn't eliminate the cost of providing public services.”

Nowhere is that challenge starker than for the state’s health and care infrastructure. Already, state hospitals and children’s health groups say that the property tax plan could force cuts to services like labor and delivery, children’s literacy programs, and school nurses. 

According to the Florida Hospital Association, under the proposal, hospitals could lose almost a third of their tax-collected revenue annually. This comes alongside planned cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill: over the next decade, federal payments to Florida hospitals through the state's Medicaid supplemental payment programs will be phased down by more than $3.5 billion.

Such cuts would be difficult for any state to handle, but it will be particularly challenging for Florida. 

“In a state like Florida, where healthcare demand is growing because of an aging population, maintaining stable funding is especially important,” says Brooks. 

How will this impact Florida in the long-term?

Essentially, the concern is that whatever tax benefits homeowners reap in the short term, they may find themselves giving up elsewhere. 

“If property tax collections decline materially, history suggests governments typically respond by finding alternative revenue sources rather than making proportional spending cuts. That could mean higher sales taxes, new fees, special assessments, or other taxes that ultimately shift, not eliminate, the tax burden,” says Brooks. 

The trade-off is even worse for non-homeowners, or new arrivals to Florida, who won’t receive the same tax benefits but will still potentially experience the effects of budget shortfalls. 

Florida lawmakers will need to make meaningful spending reforms if the state wants to avoid a funding crisis, but former Florida Sen. Jeff Brandes doesn’t have a lot of faith in the decision-making of his old colleagues. 

“The proposal was hastily placed on the ballot and hastily run through the legislature without looking at the data or any of the downstream consequences,” says Brandes. “Even the governor himself has recognized he's going to bankrupt some cities and towns.”

Brandes also believes this amendment will have a longer-term impact on homeownership in the state. He argues that the change will incentivize building apartments over starter homes, because the former generates substantially more tax revenue. 

“Let's make you a county commissioner. Somebody comes to you and wants to build a starter home community, and those starter homes will cost between $250,000 and $300,000. What does it cost the county to build that, and then what is the tax revenue that we generate from that?” Brandes asks. “Now, it’s all costs, and there is no revenue.” 

New arrivals to Florida won’t be eligible for these tax benefits until they’ve lived in the state for five years. But if Brandes’ prediction is right, there will be fewer affordable homes for new arrivals to move into anyway. 

Will the amendment pass?

Election Day is Nov. 3, 2026, and a supermajority of 60% of voters will need to vote yes on the amendment for it to pass. Already, there have been some roadblocks: DeSantis is no longer campaigning for the amendment in its altered form, and a court ruled on Aug. 3 that the ballot's language must be rewritten to be “fair, clear, accurate, and non-misleading.” The judge in the case stated that current phrases in the measure were “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation.” 

Providing an explanation to voters may doom the vote: According to one poll, the amendment has enough support from voters to pass—but not once the voters learn of the trade-offs and what it would mean in practice.