Andrea Keiser
Andrea Keiser

A recent statewide analysis commissioned by the Florida League of Cities found that property taxes account for roughly 43% of municipal general fund revenues in Florida, according to a Florida League of Cities analysis as reported by Florida Politics. Public safety alone consumes more than 56% of municipal general fund spending, according to coverage of the same study as reported by the Miami Times. These figures matter because the debate over eliminating property taxes is often framed as a simple question of whether homeowners will pay less. The more consequential question is what happens to the revenue that funds the services residents rely on every day.

The appeal of elimination is easy to understand. Property taxes are visible, recurring, and tied to a home whose value can rise faster than its owner's income. For homeowners on fixed incomes, the annual bill can feel like a penalty for staying in place. The proposal to eliminate or significantly reduce property taxes speaks directly to that frustration. It is a message that resonates, and it is why the debate has gained traction across the state.

What the debate often does not address is that the revenue does not disappear. It has to come from somewhere. Florida's proposed Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption on non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, according to Florida Politics' coverage of the amendment. The Revenue Estimating Conference projects the measure would reduce local non-school property tax revenue by $4.95 billion in its first year, rising to $8.78 billion in year two, and eventually approaching $12 billion annually, according to Florida Politics' analysis of the state economists' projections. That money can fund police departments, fire rescue, and other essential services and critical programs.

The consequence at the local level is already visible. Orlando projects losing $30 million in 2028 with the $150,000 exemption, rising to $50 million annually once the $250,000 exemption takes effect, according to Orlando Sentinel reporting. The city has started a hiring freeze in preparation. Other municipalities across the state are conducting similar analyses, and the range of outcomes depends on how heavily each local government relies on property tax revenue.

Andrea Keiser, Managing Partner of Keiser Legal, works directly with cities, counties, and development projects across Florida, and she sees the debate from the local-government side rather than the campaign-trail side. Her central point is that elimination does not mean the burden goes away. "The elimination of property taxes doesn't mean that you're no longer going to have a tax burden," she says. "Those taxes are going to shift into some other form, like a fee, an assessment, or another type of revenue tool. We're only going to call it something different."

That shift is not hypothetical. Cities and counties have relied on property tax revenue that has increased consistently every year. When that revenue is removed, they face a structural gap that cannot be closed through internal cuts alone. Keiser argues that the exercise will force municipalities to scrutinize spending more strictly, which she views as a positive. She observes, "The whole exercise will force cities to start tightening their belts and pinching pennies, which is what they should be doing, because they've been free to just collect and spend, even if it's inefficient or wasteful." But she is direct that the belt-tightening will not be enough. "They may not be able to make enough cuts internally to continue to fund the essential services that residents of a city need," she adds.

The mechanism that replaces property taxes matters as much as the amount. Keiser points to fire assessments as an example of how the shift could work. Under the current system, property tax revenue flows into the general fund, where cities have discretion over how it is spent. A fire assessment is different. It is a non-ad valorem fee legally restricted to fire protection, which means the money cannot be reallocated to other priorities. If passed, the amendment would restrict government spending to specific categories including public safety, infrastructure, natural resource projects, and education. She says, "As a resident, I view it as a positive. Because now the tax money that I'm paying for essential services, I know will go directly to essential services, rather than giving the city some wiggle room to play with it."

For homeowners, the practical question is not whether property taxes disappear, but how the financial burden will shift. Keiser believes the net result should be a decrease, even if the form of payment changes. "While they won't be 100% relieved of all the taxes, the goal should be a net decrease," she says. She also flags home valuation as an area residents should watch. Taxes are calculated based on a home's value, which means the valuation formula itself becomes a critical variable and ought not be manipulated. Residents in Florida can dispute the assessed value of their home, and Keiser argues that more homeowners should understand that process.

Her broader concern is that policymakers often pass legislation without understanding how it lands at the local level. "You've got all these lawmakers up at the state level that really have good intentions," she says. "They want to solve a problem, so they make these changes, but they don't have an intimate understanding of how it trickles down to the local level." The result, in her view, is unintended consequences that reach homeowners and communities in ways the legislation never anticipated.

Tax policy is best understood by looking at its real-world effect on communities, not just its headline. The question Florida residents should be asking is not simply whether property taxes go away, but what replaces the revenue, how their individual community will be affected, and which services could change. Well-informed residents are better equipped to participate in the decisions that shape where they live.