Jefferson County officials warn homestead‑exemption referendum could cut local revenue by nearly $1 million in first year

The Jefferson County Board convened a special meeting to collect public input on a governor‑backed proposal that would raise the homestead exemption on primary residences and place a referendum before voters.

Property Appraiser Angela Gray told the board she used projected 2026 taxable values and the county’s current millage (7.5261 mills) to produce estimates county staff consider closer to real‑time than earlier statewide projections. "If we take the first year of the exemption ... apply the $150,000 exemption to that, it's a hit of $994,000 to your budget or about 11%," Gray said. She estimated a roughly $1.4 million hit in 2028 when the exemption rises to $250,000, which she described as about 16% of the county budget. Gray also offered a rough per‑household illustration: dividing the first‑year reduction across the county’s 4,211 homestead owners yielded an average savings of about $236 per homestead owner.

Lobbyist Brian McMast, who briefed the board on legislative timing, said the governor’s proposal is a multi‑tiered approach that would direct the Legislature to place referendum language on the ballot and enact conforming measures. McMast cautioned the three‑day special session is short and that both chambers could amend language before any measure reaches voters. He noted any enacted change in the proposal would take effect Jan. 1.

Gray emphasized uncertainties that could change local fiscal outcomes: the proposal would alter the cap on assessment changes (reduction from 10% to 5% was discussed), specify what local governments may spend ad valorem revenue on, and propose a state grant program to offset local revenue losses for eligible public safety and school funding. "There are a lot of trickle things in this bill ... you will have to say okay do we have enough sales tax revenue to cover those because we can't pay out of here," she said, referring to restrictions in the draft language on how ad valorem revenues could be used.

Board members asked technical questions about how the rollback/millage calculation would change, whether constitutional officers (for example, the tax collector) could still draw fees from collected revenue, and residency requirements noted in the draft (a five‑year Florida residency rule was mentioned). Gray said some provisions — including how certain fees are treated — will need legislative clarification.

The board and staff stressed these are estimates based on available language and projected values; Gray said she will continue refining numbers and share updates with the commission as more legislative text becomes available. The special session was described in the meeting as beginning Monday and running through Wednesday, with legislators and lobbyists preparing for rapid negotiations and possible amendments during that short window.