Orlando officials warn property-tax amendment could cut $75–85 million from city budget

Orlando officials used a Feb. budget workshop to warn that a proposed state constitutional amendment on property taxes could sharply reduce the city’s revenue and force cuts to services. Mayor (S1) framed the risk as a direct threat to public safety, parks and neighborhood services, and asked CFO Jose Fernandez to outline the amendment and its estimated fiscal effects.

“The change would dramatically reduce local government’s most important and most reliable general revenue source without providing a sustainable replacement,” the mayor said, arguing the amendment would remove dollars that pay for 911 response, firefighters and routine maintenance.

CFO Jose Fernandez summarized the amendment’s key provisions and its projected fiscal impact. He said exemptions would rise—citing a phase‑in to $150,000 in FY2028 and $250,000 in FY2029—changes would cap non‑homestead assessment growth, and there would be a residency waiting period for nonpermanent residents. Fernandez estimated the city would lose about $30–35 million in property‑tax revenue in the first year the amendment takes effect and an additional loss that brings the second year shortfall to about $40–45 million, yielding a cumulative two‑year impact of roughly $75–85 million.

“Every dollar removed from local government revenue is a dollar that can no longer be invested in local priorities unless an alternative funding source is identified,” Fernandez said, urging the council to plan now for multiple scenarios.

To blunt the shock of an abrupt revenue reduction, Fernandez recommended two near‑term actions: establishing a property‑tax reform stabilization fund from any FY2025 surplus and implementing a general‑fund hiring freeze to limit recurring personnel growth. He said the stabilization fund would be used to fill gaps caused by the amendment while preserving core reserves; the hiring‑freeze measure would exclude enterprise funds and positions funded outside the general fund.

Council members pushed for greater specificity so voters could see concrete tradeoffs. Commissioner Chapman (S3) asked for clearer visuals showing impacts without certain hires, and Commissioner Rose (S5) urged departments to explain to the public how taxes translate into services in specific neighborhoods.

Next steps included monitoring the state implementation process if the amendment passes, continuing to track and forecast general‑fund revenues, and returning to the council with updates in April or May. Fernandez and the mayor stressed that the city would pursue public education about how the amendment would affect local budgets; they said staff would avoid advocacy and instead present both sides of the mechanics to residents.

The council did not take any formal action on the amendment at the workshop; staff said they would revisit options as legislative implementation details and possible litigation outcomes become clearer.