- An additional $225 million is appropriated to RFLPP for conservation easements on large agricultural properties that have not previously received funding through the program.

- The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is directed to purchase unspecified "public access conservation lands in Okaloosa County," effectively skirting the science-based prioritization and transparency and accountability of the Florida Forever process.

- Any amount remaining may then be used for approved Florida Forever projects within the Caloosahatchee Big Cypress Corridor and the Ocala to Osceola Wildlife Corridor, and finally for projects on the Florida Forever priority list. Of the acquisitions in this third category, the legislation requires that at least 50 percent of those remaining funds be spent on conservation easements rather than outright land purchases. Easements do not allow public access.

While Audubon has long supported RFLPP as an important and valuable component of Florida’s broader conservation strategy — protecting working farms and ranches through conservation easements — Florida leaders historically recognized that both programs are essential because they serve different purposes in preserving the lands and waters that define our state. Florida Forever protects irreplaceable natural landscapes from development, while RFLPP helps sustain agricultural lands and rural heritage. One cannot replace the other.

By pitting these programs against each other, the Legislature has broken faith with the people of Florida and abandoned a longstanding bipartisan commitment to balanced conservation. 

We will continue working with elected officials, agency leaders, and conservation partners ahead of the next legislative session to ensure Floridians understand what is at stake. Protecting these lands is not only vital to our wildlife and natural heritage, but also to our economy, water quality, resilience, and quality of life for future generations

Next week, the Legislature will be back in Tallahassee to take up the Governor's priority of reducing property taxes. The language proposed for a constitutional amendment (to be voted on in November) would significantly increase Florida's homestead exemption, raising it to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028 for current Florida homeowners. This would have sweeping impacts on local government budgets and their ability to provide services to residents. The Florida Association of Counties estimates county revenue losses of $3.57 billion in FY 2027-28 and $6.32 billion in FY 2028-29.

In addition to the homestead exemption changes, the proposed constitutional amendment includes another provision that would limit how cities and counties can spend ad valorem revenues, significantly restricting how local governments can use property tax dollars.

Under the language currently being considered, cities and counties could only use ad valorem revenues for:

- Public safety, including law enforcement, fire services, and emergency medical services;

- Education and public schools;

- Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and stormwater control;

- Natural resource projects, including flood control measures;

- Debt payments and local bonds; and

- Retirement benefits for local government employees.

If a service or program is not included on this list, local governments may no longer be able to fund it with property tax revenue.

That raises significant questions about the future funding of programs such as parks and recreation, libraries, civic centers, pollution control efforts, land-use planning, and other local government services that communities rely on. Without definitions for terms such as "natural resource projects," and without language making clear that the examples provided in each category are illustrative rather than limiting, it is possible that local conservation land acquisition programs, land management, habitat restoration, and other environmental initiatives may not qualify for funding.

If approved by voters without further changes, this proposal would not only significantly reduce the amount of funding cities and counties have available to support their communities, it would also narrow the range of services they are able to fund with the property tax revenues that remain. Local governments may increasingly have to rely on state appropriations or alternative revenue sources to address needs that have traditionally been funded and managed at the local level.