Some cities have more financial protection than others
A city made up mostly of qualifying homesteaded neighborhoods can lose a much larger share of its taxable value than a city supported by shopping centers, apartments, hotels, industry, rental property, utilities, and other taxable property. The exemption is the same; the local impact is not.
What can increase a city’s fiscal exposure?
What can reduce a city’s fiscal exposure?
Fiscal Exposure Rankings
The ranking combines four factors: the share of the tax base modeled as lost, the city’s dependence on property-tax revenue, the strength of its commercial/rental/industrial/tangible-property buffer, and the city’s overall revenue exposure.
What Florida’s Own Revenue Estimating Conference Projects
Everything above is this site’s own comparative exposure model, built from public tax-roll and budget data. The figures below are different: they are Florida’s official, state-adopted fiscal estimate for CS/HJR 1F itself, produced by the Revenue Estimating Conference — the same bipartisan process the Legislature uses to score its own bills. They are shown separately, in their own section, so the two are never confused.
This impact only happens if voters approve the amendment
CS/HJR 1F is a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 3, 2026 ballot, requiring 60% voter approval. The Revenue Estimating Conference is explicit on this point: “If the constitutional amendment does not pass, the impact is zero.” Everything below describes what happens only if it passes.
Statewide recurring impact
The reduction phases in over five years as the exemption steps up ($150,000 in 2027, $250,000 in 2028) and existing Save-Our-Homes-protected value is recalculated. The Conference’s adopted cash impact:
| Fiscal year | Statewide cash impact |
|---|---|
| 2026-27 | $0 |
| 2027-28 | $(4,929.5M) |
| 2028-29 | $(8,714.5M) |
| 2029-30 | $(9,647.9M) |
| 2030-31 | $(10,710.2M) |
| 2031-32 (recurring level) | $(11,834.7M) |
What this estimate does and doesn’t tell you
It is the Legislature’s own adopted number for the amendment’s statewide effect on non-school local government revenue — not a school-tax estimate, and not a prediction of city-by-city service cuts.
The model relies on assumptions about future growth, in-migration, and Save Our Homes recapture that are documented in the Conference’s published methodology. Later conferences can revise these numbers as new data comes in.
This site did not build, adjust, or verify this estimate. It is reproduced from the official document, linked below, without modification.
Recurring impact by city, for the 25 cities on this site
From the Conference’s county-and-municipality breakdown (Addendum 1). Figures are the modeled annual property-tax revenue reduction to each city’s own budget, not a countywide or school-district total. FY2027-28 is the first year the amendment would appear on a city’s books if approved; FY2031-32 is the estimate once the exemption is fully phased in and adjusted for population growth.
| City | County | FY2027-28 | FY2031-32 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Altamonte Springs | Seminole | $(2,671,910) | $(6,133,905) |
| Apopka | Orange | $(6,159,132) | $(15,441,994) |
| Cape Canaveral | Brevard | $(728,484) | $(1,674,080) |
| Casselberry | Seminole | $(2,163,373) | $(4,807,148) |
| Clermont | Lake | $(5,848,372) | $(14,960,211) |
| Cocoa | Brevard | $(1,941,622) | $(4,313,636) |
| Cocoa Beach | Brevard | $(2,295,718) | $(5,470,037) |
| Daytona Beach | Volusia | $(7,738,910) | $(19,729,534) |
| DeBary | Volusia | $(2,420,102) | $(5,302,423) |
| DeLand | Volusia | $(5,394,819) | $(12,619,080) |
| Deltona | Volusia | $(12,801,333) | $(25,113,276) |
| Haines City | Polk | $(5,583,978) | $(15,986,471) |
| Kissimmee | Osceola | $(4,999,097) | $(13,945,834) |
| Lake Mary | Seminole | $(1,615,176) | $(4,206,922) |
| Leesburg | Lake | $(2,590,944) | $(6,636,287) |
| Longwood | Seminole | $(1,935,131) | $(4,495,417) |
| Mount Dora | Lake | $(2,892,771) | $(7,427,992) |
| Ocoee | Orange | $(5,436,534) | $(13,422,070) |
| Orlando | Orange | $(31,710,852) | $(100,130,622) |
| Sanford | Seminole | $(6,635,567) | $(15,456,706) |
| Tavares | Lake | $(3,148,224) | $(7,282,917) |
| Titusville | Brevard | $(5,793,009) | $(11,666,312) |
| Winter Garden | Orange | $(5,408,563) | $(13,931,664) |
| Winter Park | Orange | $(3,424,132) | $(10,050,871) |
| Winter Springs | Seminole | $(2,464,590) | $(5,530,947) |
Source
Florida Legislature, Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). Revenue Estimating Conference — Results of the Revenue Estimating Impact Conference for 2026F Special Session, held July 10, 2026. Issue: Homestead Exemption Increases; Assessment Increase Limitation 10% to 5%. Bill: CS/HJR 1F.
View official Revenue Estimating Conference results ↗This is not a homes-only calculation
Parcel counts alone can be misleading. One apartment complex, hotel, shopping center, industrial site, or utility property can represent more taxable value than hundreds of homes. The model therefore uses taxable value—not just the number of parcels—and includes the complete property mix below.
Risk is exposure—not a prediction
Very High / High
A large modeled tax-base loss is combined with meaningful General Fund dependence on property taxes and a comparatively limited unaffected property buffer.
Moderate
The city still has measurable exposure, but commercial, rental, industrial, lodging, tangible property, or lower property-tax dependence provides more protection.
Lower
“Lower” does not mean no impact. It means the city is less exposed than the other cities in this 26-city comparison under the model and available data.
What citizens should understand
Can a city simply make up the lost revenue?
Not automatically. A city can consider reserves, spending reductions, fees, available taxes, transfers, service changes, or other policy choices. Each option has legal, practical, and political limits, and reserves are not a permanent replacement for recurring annual revenue.
Does a High rating mean the city will cut police or fire?
No. The rating does not predict a specific cut. It shows that the city may have less recurring revenue available. Elected officials may protect public safety first and reduce other services, but the entire budget still has to balance.
Why do apartments and commercial property matter?
They generally remain outside the proposed homestead exemption and continue contributing taxable value. A city with a larger unaffected tax base has more financial cushioning than a city dominated by qualifying homesteaded property.
Why use taxable value instead of parcel counts?
Parcels are not financially equal. One commercial or multifamily parcel can carry far more taxable value than many residential parcels. Taxable value is therefore the more meaningful measure of revenue exposure.
Is this an argument for or against the proposal?
No. This page explains how the same proposed exemption could affect cities differently. It does not tell residents how to vote or predict the exact decisions any city would make.
Enough detail to verify the conclusion
The analysis combines 2025 county NAL/property-tax-roll data, tangible personal property values, official FY2026 adopted city-budget data, and the proposed 2028 exemption. Municipal taxing-authority codes were used instead of mailing-city names. Full supporting property-class and budget audit files are retained with the project.
How the exposure score works: each city’s score is an equal-weighted average of three figures shown on its card — the share of the tax base that is homesteaded residential property (the only category eligible for the proposed exemption), property-tax dependence as a share of General Fund revenue, and the inverse of the commercial/rental/industrial/tangible-property buffer. All 25 target cities were re-verified against 2025 county tax-roll data using each city’s official tax-authority codes (not mailing-address city fields), and risk tiers (Very High/High/Moderate/Lower) are re-derived by quartile across all scored cities every time the underlying data changes. Haines City (Polk County) was not part of this verification pass and still uses the site’s original scoring approach; its card is marked accordingly and its rank should not be directly compared to the other 25 cities. A note on the “tax base potentially lost” figure: this reflects the homesteaded-residential share of the complete tax base, not a parcel-by-parcel model of which specific homes fall above or below the proposed $250,000 threshold — it is a directional proxy, not a dollar-loss projection. A note on property-mix accuracy: the property-composition figures on this page reflect a good-faith, reasonably diligent effort to classify every parcel in each city's official county tax roll using Florida Department of Revenue use codes and homestead flags, cross-checked against independently summed tangible personal property totals. It is a careful reading of the county's own data, not a line-by-line audit of every individual parcel record, and county source files can themselves contain occasional coding inconsistencies that this process cannot fully catch. Where a specific limitation is known for a city, it is disclosed on that city's card.
Modeled proposal
The model applies an exemption of up to the first $250,000 of assessed homestead value for non-school property taxes beginning in 2028. It does not remove school taxes or non-ad valorem assessments.
Official Florida House summaryImportant limitations
This is a comparative exposure model—not an audited revenue forecast. Actual collections can differ because of millage decisions, future growth, annexations, assessment changes, exemptions, collection rates, legislative changes, and local budget responses.