Analysts present methodology for proposed $100,000 ad valorem exemption; fiscal effect dependent on voter approval
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Analysts from the Department of Revenue and the Legislature’s economic office presented a parcel-level estimate for a constitutional amendment and implementing bill that would create a $100,000 ad valorem exemption for school and non‑school taxable value of all real property.
Amy Baker, economist with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, opened the item and introduced analysts from the Department of Revenue. A DOR analyst identified in the record as Esha presented the methodology used to estimate the potential impact on school and non‑school taxable values.
Nut graf: The proposed change would amend Articles VII and XII of the Florida Constitution and add a statutory section (proposed Section 196.2003, Florida Statutes) to create a $100,000 exemption against both school and non‑school taxable values. Because the change requires voter approval, analysts characterized the conference impact as 0 if voters reject the amendment and as a calculated reduction to collections if voters approve it.
The Department of Revenue’s analysis used the 2024 ad valorem roll and divided parcels into four categories—agricultural, commercial, homestead and non‑homestead residential—then computed per‑parcel school and non‑school taxable values. For parcels currently on the roll the analysts forecasted taxable values for five years using growth rates from the 2024 Ad Valorem Estimating Conference, then deducted either the full $100,000 exemption or the parcel’s remaining taxable value after existing exemptions. For parcels added to or deleted from the roll, analysts used historical parcel counts (2019–2024) to project additions and deletions and applied an average per‑parcel taxable value multiplied by the minimum of the average value or the $100,000 exemption to estimate additional reductions.
Analysts noted the implementing bill is expected to have no separate fiscal impact because the joint resolution is self‑executing; the resolution would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, with the first fiscal impact in the 2027–28 year. The analysis also flagged an incentive in the proposed language for property owners to subdivide parcels to claim multiple exemptions, but it did not attempt to quantify any additional revenue loss that might arise if owners pursued that strategy (analysts cited legal, zoning and transaction costs that could limit such behavior).
Discussion recorded in the conference focused on phrasing of the note and whether language and tables from prior analyses (for example, HJR 07/2015) should be reused. Conference members instructed staff to mimic prior constitutional‑amendment note language and to include the table of estimated impacts after the note. No formal roll call vote or motion text was recorded in the transcript for this agenda item; staff were directed to prepare the written note and table for inclusion in the published analysis.
Ending: Analysts will finalize the write‑up to match prior constitutional‑amendment language, append the table described during the meeting, and circulate the revised analysis to the conference before publication. Because the amendment must be approved by voters, the conference recorded the impact as conditional: 0 if the amendment fails, and the calculated reduction if it passes.
Amy Baker, economist with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, opened the item and introduced analysts from the Department of Revenue. A DOR analyst identified in the record as Esha presented the methodology used to estimate the potential impact on school and non‑school taxable values.
Nut graf: The proposed change would amend Articles VII and XII of the Florida Constitution and add a statutory section (proposed Section 196.2003, Florida Statutes) to create a $100,000 exemption against both school and non‑school taxable values. Because the change requires voter approval, analysts characterized the conference impact as 0 if voters reject the amendment and as a calculated reduction to collections if voters approve it.
The Department of Revenue’s analysis used the 2024 ad valorem roll and divided parcels into four categories—agricultural, commercial, homestead and non‑homestead residential—then computed per‑parcel school and non‑school taxable values. For parcels currently on the roll the analysts forecasted taxable values for five years using growth rates from the 2024 Ad Valorem Estimating Conference, then deducted either the full $100,000 exemption or the parcel’s remaining taxable value after existing exemptions. For parcels added to or deleted from the roll, analysts used historical parcel counts (2019–2024) to project additions and deletions and applied an average per‑parcel taxable value multiplied by the minimum of the average value or the $100,000 exemption to estimate additional reductions.
Analysts noted the implementing bill is expected to have no separate fiscal impact because the joint resolution is self‑executing; the resolution would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, with the first fiscal impact in the 2027–28 year. The analysis also flagged an incentive in the proposed language for property owners to subdivide parcels to claim multiple exemptions, but it did not attempt to quantify any additional revenue loss that might arise if owners pursued that strategy (analysts cited legal, zoning and transaction costs that could limit such behavior).
Discussion recorded in the conference focused on phrasing of the note and whether language and tables from prior analyses (for example, HJR 07/2015) should be reused. Conference members instructed staff to mimic prior constitutional‑amendment note language and to include the table of estimated impacts after the note. No formal roll call vote or motion text was recorded in the transcript for this agenda item; staff were directed to prepare the written note and table for inclusion in the published analysis.
Ending: Analysts will finalize the write‑up to match prior constitutional‑amendment language, append the table described during the meeting, and circulate the revised analysis to the conference before publication. Because the amendment must be approved by voters, the conference recorded the impact as conditional: 0 if the amendment fails, and the calculated reduction if it passes.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting