Know
St. Pete leaders warn property tax proposal could jeopardize city
“We will feel a serious crunch.”
As Gov. Ron DeSantis pushes a proposal that could eventually eliminate property taxes on homesteaded properties, St. Petersburg officials are beginning to raise a question that extends far beyond tax relief:
How does a city continue providing services when one of its largest revenue streams disappears?
During Thursday’s City Council meeting, members approved a resolution urging the Florida Legislature to carefully consider the impacts of property tax reform before moving forward with the governor’s plan, titled “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.”
The proposal, which will be considered during a special legislative session next week, would immediately increase Florida’s homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000 while creating a pathway toward the eventual elimination of property taxes on homesteaded properties.
For many homeowners, the proposal sounds straightforward: lower tax bills. For local governments, the math is considerably more complicated.
“What we pay for with our real estate property taxes is police and fire and it doesn’t cover everything,” Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz said during Thursday’s discussion. “Think about taking a $70 million hit; that money is going to have to come from somewhere.”
The comment reflected a concern repeatedly voiced throughout the meeting: eliminating a major source of local revenue does not eliminate the cost of providing local services.
In St. Petersburg, property taxes help fund much of the city’s day-to-day operations, including police and fire protection, road maintenance, parks, libraries, code enforcement and administrative services. They also support major infrastructure investments, including stormwater improvements and resiliency projects that have become increasingly important following Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
Those concerns are particularly acute in a city that has spent the past several years investing heavily in flood mitigation and climate resilience.
St. Petersburg currently has hundreds of millions of dollars in resiliency projects either underway or planned, including stormwater upgrades, drainage improvements, seawall repairs and neighborhood flood reduction efforts. Much of that work depends on local revenues that city leaders fear could become harder to replace if property tax collections decline substantially.
Vice Chair Richie Floyd argued the proposal risks creating a fiscal hole that local governments would eventually be forced to fill elsewhere.
“Property taxes are a wealth tax that impact people with more wealth and that’s who the state legislature answers to, unfortunately,” Floyd said. “There isn’t going to be a magic wand we can wave to not have to cut services if this goes through. We will feel a serious crunch.”
The discussion comes as DeSantis and state officials have spent months arguing that local governments have become overly dependent on property tax revenues.
According to the governor’s office, local government property tax collections have nearly doubled over the past seven years, increasing from roughly $32 billion to $60 billion statewide. Those collections are projected to reach $83 billion by 2032 if current trends continue.
DeSantis has framed the proposal as both homeowner relief and a way to force local governments into greater fiscal discipline.
The proposal would also require remaining property tax revenues to be spent only on core services such as public safety, schools, infrastructure and natural resources. It would create a state trust fund intended to help local governments maintain essential services if revenues decline.
But several council members questioned whether any state backfill mechanism could realistically replace the scale of revenue cities currently receive through property taxes.
The debate arrives as St. Petersburg’s millage rate has remained relatively stable in recent years despite rising property tax collections. City officials have frequently noted that much of the increase stems from escalating home values and new development rather than dramatic increases in the tax rate itself.
That distinction has become central to critics of the governor’s proposal, who argue that soaring housing prices, not local government spending, are the primary reason homeowners are paying more.
For now, the Legislature will have the final say on whether the proposal advances to voters.
But Thursday’s discussion offered an early glimpse of what may become one of the defining local debates surrounding the governor’s plan: whether Floridians can substantially reduce property taxes without fundamentally reshaping the services cities provide.
Bradley Nelson
June 2, 2026at1:59 pm
Take a look at the past 5 years
54% increase in ad valorem taxes
1.4% increase in population
Yeah……really gonna have to tighten your belt
Kurt Ackman
May 31, 2026at9:39 pm
I think rather then the generic, how will our city and county survive without this money, we should have some facts as to the actual expected tax changes. Total budgets today, if phase one of this takes place, based on the actual property tax of homesteaded properties in our city and county, what’s the impact. And what really has happened the last 7 years? Show facts versus just the typical outcry of how will we pay our fire and police hero’s.
Mark Reynolds
May 31, 2026at4:04 pm
Pretty simple. State wants to eliminate local control. The property tax has been fine when middle class was doing well & busienesses actually paid their share. Freeways Will be toll roads. Police & Fire will be just paid services. It’s the whole socialism is bad problem. All the water, hospitals, roads, every other infrastructure got funded this socialist way. Conservative let wealth stay in wealthy hands gets you here. But yeah bankrupt your cities & this living there will end up with sales tax rates higher than NY, CA, & AZ
John Donovan
May 30, 2026at9:36 pm
The budget surplus creating the condition known as “St. SpeedersBump” seems to be unlimited, with poorly engineered devices, inconsistently applied, frequently unmaintained and massively excessive in number, beyond any reasonably expected benefit. Meanwhile ….. 22nd Ave N (just one example) is complete trash from old Northeast to Tyrone. Tell me I’m wrong.
John Simeone
May 30, 2026at7:04 pm
The city has to learn how to tighten its belt and become more fiscally responsible. Im sure many services can be run more efficiently. The trouble is they think the well will never run dry. Property taxes are absurd, post Covid Property values skyrocketed. Stop funding ridiculous progressive programs and you’ll be surprised what the city could save. I would start with the two Pride parades. The city seemed to have saved a bundle by not having a Memorial Day Parade, honoring those who fought for our freedoms
Steven Sullivan
June 1, 2026at6:19 pm
You’ve heard of inflation right? I know you’ve got a brain, use it
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
May 30, 2026at5:52 pm
Not a smart move, reduce but do not completely remove those taxes. What are the cities to do, wave a magic wand and funds appear??? If there is waste, let’s look at that before a drastic move is made. I do not know what the Governor is thinking and folk need to tell him that is Not a great idea.
Ryan Todd
May 30, 2026at4:32 pm
Jeopardize away. All Ken Welch and Council do is waste our money on their progressive pet projects. Meanwhile, parks and street conditions have never been worse.
Steven Sullivan
June 1, 2026at6:16 pm
Ryan Todd, move cause its going to stay that way. Thank GOD!