Since proposals to eliminate property taxes were announced, I’ve been asked one question more than any other: What would this mean for Hillsborough County’s economic competitiveness?
That’s an important question because the Tampa Bay EDC doesn’t advocate for one tax policy over another. Our mission is to ensure Hillsborough County remains one of the best places in America to invest, grow a business, create jobs, and build a future. Any significant change to the way local government is funded should ultimately be evaluated through that lens.
Over the past two decades, Hillsborough County has become one of the nation’s leading destinations for corporate investment. We’ve attracted hundreds of business expansions and relocations, created tens of thousands of high-quality jobs, and built nationally recognized industry clusters in financial services, cybersecurity, life sciences, defense, advanced manufacturing, and technology. That success has been driven not only by a favorable business climate, but by consistent public investment in the infrastructure, public safety, workforce, schools, and quality of life that companies expect when deciding where to invest.
In Fiscal Year 2025 alone, approximately $3.7 billion in property tax revenue was collected across Hillsborough County to support those public investments. Eliminating that revenue would not simply reduce taxes—it would fundamentally restructure how local government finances the services and infrastructure that underpin our economy.
The question, therefore, is not whether property taxes should exist. It is whether any replacement revenue would be equally stable, predictable, and sufficient to preserve the assets that have made Hillsborough County so competitive.
One of those assets is our financial strength. Hillsborough County’s AAA bond ratings from S&P and Fitch and Aa1 rating from Moody’s are among the strongest in the nation. Those ratings allow the County to finance roads, utilities, public safety facilities, parks, and other long-term infrastructure at exceptionally low borrowing costs. Every dollar saved in interest is a dollar that can instead be invested in projects that improve mobility, support business growth, and enhance residents’ quality of life.
If stable local revenues were significantly reduced without an equally dependable replacement, those ratings could come under pressure. Higher borrowing costs would mean taxpayers receive less infrastructure for every dollar invested, while communities could face difficult choices about delaying projects, reducing services, or identifying new revenue sources. Those outcomes matter not only to residents but also to employers evaluating Hillsborough County against competing markets across the country.
Economic competitiveness is built over decades, but poor decisions can rapidly undermine that success. Businesses considering relocation don’t evaluate tax rates in isolation. They also evaluate infrastructure, workforce, public safety, schools, fiscal stability, and a community’s ability to deliver on long-term commitments. Those are the very assets that have positioned us among America’s most competitive markets.
As this conversation continues, we encourage policymakers to clearly articulate how any replacement for property taxes would preserve those competitive advantages. Residents, employers, and investors deserve to understand not only how taxes may change, but how our community will continue funding the infrastructure, public services, and financial stability that have helped make Hillsborough County one of the nation’s leading economies.
The question is ultimately not whether we can change the way local government is funded. The question is whether we can do so while preserving the competitive advantages that generations of public and private investment have worked so hard to build. That is the standard by which any proposal should be measured.
Craig
