Fact Check

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Amendment 3 initiative record

   Florida Department of State · Locator: Ballot Number 3; Election Year 2026 · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Official ballot record

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review separates ballot designation from electoral outcome.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure is Amendment 3 on the 2026 ballot.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Department of State

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-13

   Context:

   Official initiative record, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Ballot Number 3; Election Year 2026

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The proposal is designated Amendment 3 for the 2026 general election.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The Department of State identifies the proposal as ballot number 3 for the 2026 general election.

   What this revision does not establish

   The designation does not establish whether voters will approve it or what later governments will do.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: The ballot title and summary were revised; the official initiative record is the current controlling ballot record.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Amendment 3 initiative record

      Florida Department of State · Locator: Ballot Number 3; Election Year 2026 · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Official ballot record

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure is Amendment 3 on the 2026 ballot.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The measure is Amendment 3 on the 2026 ballot.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The measure is Amendment 3 on the 2026 ballot.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Ballot Number; Election Year

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Amendment 3 initiative record

      Florida Department of State · Locator: Ballot Number; Election Year · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Constitutional amendments and initiatives

   Florida Department of State · Locator: Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives: 60 percent approval · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Official voter guidance

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure requires 60 percent voter approval.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Department of State

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Official voter guidance, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Section: Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Approval requires at least 60 percent of votes cast on the amendment.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Florida constitutional amendments require approval by at least 60 percent of voters voting on the measure.

   What this revision does not establish

   The threshold does not predict turnout or the election result.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: The threshold is statewide and applies to votes cast on the amendment.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Constitutional amendments and initiatives

      Florida Department of State · Locator: Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives: 60 percent approval · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Official voter guidance

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure requires 60 percent voter approval.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The measure requires 60 percent voter approval.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The measure requires 60 percent voter approval.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Approval requirement

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Constitutional amendments and initiatives

      Florida Department of State · Locator: Approval requirement · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(a) · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Retained first exemption

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review clarifies levy scope.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure retains a $25,000 homestead exemption for school district levies.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Legislature

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-16

   Context:

   Enrolled constitutional text, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Article VII, section 6(a)

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The first $25,000 homestead exemption remains applicable to school-district levies.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The enrolled text retains the first $25,000 homestead exemption for all levies, including school-district levies.

   What this revision does not establish

   It does not make the later expanded exemption applicable to school levies.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: School levies remain outside the expanded $150,000 and $250,000 exemption.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(a) · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Retained first exemption

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The measure retains a $25,000 homestead exemption for school district levies.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The measure retains a $25,000 homestead exemption for school district levies.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The measure retains a $25,000 homestead exemption for school district levies.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Article VII section 6. State as levy-specific

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII section 6. State as levy-specific · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(b); Article XII schedule · Accessed 2026-08-26

   2027 and 2028 non-school schedule

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Corrected evidence-led review replacing the former $25,000 landing error.

   Claim snapshot

   The non-school homestead exemption becomes $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Legislature

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-16

   Context:

   Enrolled constitutional text, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Article VII, section 6(b) and Article XII schedule

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The non-school homestead exemption is $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The enrolled schedule sets the non-school homestead exemption at $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   What this revision does not establish

   It does not guarantee that every homeowner can use the full exemption or state a dollar tax saving.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: School-district levies are excluded, and later amounts are indexed under the text.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(b); Article XII schedule · Accessed 2026-08-26

      2027 and 2028 non-school schedule

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The non-school homestead exemption becomes $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The non-school homestead exemption becomes $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The non-school homestead exemption becomes $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Article VII section 6

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII section 6 · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 4(g) · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Non-homestead cap

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review adds the tax-bill boundary.

   Claim snapshot

   The specified non-homestead assessment cap falls from 10 percent to 5 percent.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Legislature

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-16

   Context:

   Enrolled constitutional text, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Article VII, section 4(g)

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The specified non-homestead assessment-growth cap changes from 10 percent to 5 percent for non-school levies.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The enrolled text lowers the specified non-homestead annual assessment-growth cap from 10 percent to 5 percent for non-school levies.

   What this revision does not establish

   A 50 percent reduction in the cap is not a 50 percent reduction in a tax bill, taxable value, or government revenue.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Actual assessment growth may be below either cap, and school levies are excluded from this change.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 4(g) · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Non-homestead cap

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The specified non-homestead assessment cap falls from 10 percent to 5 percent.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The specified non-homestead assessment cap falls from 10 percent to 5 percent.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The specified non-homestead assessment cap falls from 10 percent to 5 percent.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Article VII section 4. Excludes school levies

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII section 4. Excludes school levies · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

   Orange County Government · Locator: Estimated Impact and 2028 Countywide, Fire and Sheriff breakdowns · Accessed 2026-08-25

   Official estimate; public method inputs incomplete

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · Accurate but IncompleteChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Reframed verified attribution separately from model validity and downstream decisions.

   Claim snapshot

   Year 2 (2028): $250,000 Homestead Exemption would create an estimated reduction of $275,000,000.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Orange County Government

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 public page.

   Locator:

   Estimated Impact, Year 2 (2028)

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Orange County's model estimates a $275 million reduction in 2028 property-tax collections.

   Fiscal Model · Official

   Verdict

   Accurate but Incomplete

   Evidence class

   MODEL

   Evidence strength

   Modeled

   Assumption load

   2 — Modeled

   What this revision establishes

   Orange County officially publishes a $275 million 2028 estimate, broken into $157 million countywide, $72 million Fire MSTU and $46 million Sheriff MSTU.

   What this revision does not establish

   The public page does not provide enough methodology to reproduce the model, does not show a $275 million budget cut from today's budget, and does not establish a service cut.

   Assumptions

   • Qualifying parcel count and tax-roll vintage
   • Future assessed-value growth and new construction
   • Millage and levy behavior
   • The model's baseline definition

   Material omitted context: The page describes the result as an estimate based on current population and homeowner data; the listed components sum to $275 million.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Estimated Impact and 2028 Countywide, Fire and Sheriff breakdowns · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Official estimate; public method inputs incomplete

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   Orange County estimates a $165 million effect in 2027 and $275 million in 2028.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Orange County estimates a $165 million effect in 2027 and $275 million in 2028.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Orange County estimates a $165 million effect in 2027 and $275 million in 2028.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Estimate table. Methodology remains unpublished

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Estimate table. Methodology remains unpublished · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

   Orange County Government · Locator: Estimated Impact and Dollar Breakdown · Accessed 2026-08-25

   Estimate and current allocation, not adopted service plan

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · Contingent ForecastChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Aligned the proposition to the County's exact conditional wording while retaining specific service cuts as an evidence boundary.

   Claim snapshot

   Reductions in property tax collections affect the amount of funds that can be invested into county services.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Orange County Government

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 public page.

   Locator:

   Dollar Breakdown, introductory sentence

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Reductions in property tax collections affect the amount of funds that can be invested into county services.

   Forecast · Official

   Verdict

   Contingent Forecast

   Evidence class

   FORECAST

   Evidence strength

   Circumstantial

   Assumption load

   3 — Behavioral

   What this revision establishes

   Orange County says reductions in property-tax collections affect the amount available to invest in county services.

   What this revision does not establish

   The statement does not identify an adopted number of job losses, service hours, program cuts or a particular budget response.

   Assumptions

   • The modeled revenue change materializes
   • Other revenue and taxable-value growth do not offset it
   • Future County revenue and budget decisions do not compensate for it

   Material omitted context: Budget, millage, fee, reserve, capital and service decisions occur later through public processes.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Estimated Impact and Dollar Breakdown · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Estimate and current allocation, not adopted service plan

2. Revision 1 · UnsupportedChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The Orange County estimate proves a specific number of jobs or service hours will be cut.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The Orange County estimate proves a specific number of jobs or service hours will be cut.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   Unsupported

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The Orange County estimate proves a specific number of jobs or service hours will be cut.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Estimate and allocation sections. Revenue estimates do not identify adopted budget choices

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Estimate and allocation sections. Revenue estimates do not identify adopted budget choices · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

   City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, 2028/2029 estimates and full-elimination sentence · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Official speech transcript

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · Contingent ForecastChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Aligned the proposition and modality to Mayor Dyer's conditional full-elimination statement.

   Claim snapshot

   And 80 million dollars could be lost every year if the homestead exemption is entirely eliminated.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Buddy Dyer

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-14

   Context:

   2026 State of the City speech, Property Taxes section.

   Locator:

   Property Taxes, sentence following the 2028 and 2029 estimates

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   And 80 million dollars could be lost every year if the homestead exemption is entirely eliminated.

   Forecast · Official

   Verdict

   Contingent Forecast

   Evidence class

   MODEL

   Evidence strength

   Modeled

   Assumption load

   2 — Modeled

   What this revision establishes

   Mayor Dyer's transcript presents $80 million as a possible annual loss under a separate full-elimination scenario.

   What this revision does not establish

   The speech does not publish methodology sufficient to reproduce $80 million, establish that the full-elimination condition will occur or identify $80 million as Amendment 3's scheduled 2028 effect.

   Assumptions

   • The homestead exemption is entirely eliminated
   • The City's fiscal baseline and unpublished model inputs hold

   Material omitted context: The same speech separately presents possible effects of $30 million in 2028 and $50 million in 2029.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, 2028/2029 estimates and full-elimination sentence · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Official speech transcript

2. Revision 1 · FalseChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   Orlando's cited $80 million is Amendment 3's scheduled 2028 effect.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Orlando's cited $80 million is Amendment 3's scheduled 2028 effect.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   False

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Orlando's cited $80 million is Amendment 3's scheduled 2028 effect.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: State of the City property-tax section. The speech ties $80 million to full homestead-exemption elimination

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: State of the City property-tax section. The speech ties $80 million to full homestead-exemption elimination · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

   City of Orlando · Locator: General Fund expenses and property-tax revenue tables · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Official accounting record

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · Accurate but IncompleteChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review adds the accounting and allocation boundary.

   Claim snapshot

   Orlando's police and fire general-fund expenses exceeded its property-tax revenue in the 2025 PAFR.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   FY 2025 PAFR tables, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   General Fund expenses and property-tax revenue tables

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The FY 2025 PAFR reports police and fire general-fund expenses greater than property-tax revenue.

   Numerical Fact · Official

   Verdict

   Accurate but Incomplete

   Evidence class

   DATA

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   1 — Minimal

   What this revision establishes

   The cited PAFR tables report combined police and fire general-fund expenses greater than reported property-tax revenue.

   What this revision does not establish

   The comparison does not show dedicated funding, marginal cuts, or a one-to-one allocation of any future revenue change.

   Assumptions

   • The compared PAFR table categories are read on the same accounting basis

   Material omitted context: General-fund services draw on multiple revenues, and property-tax revenue supports multiple purposes.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

      City of Orlando · Locator: General Fund expenses and property-tax revenue tables · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Official accounting record

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   Orlando's police and fire general-fund expenses exceeded its property-tax revenue in the 2025 PAFR.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Orlando's police and fire general-fund expenses exceeded its property-tax revenue in the 2025 PAFR.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Orlando's police and fire general-fund expenses exceeded its property-tax revenue in the 2025 PAFR.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: General fund and revenue pages. Do not infer dedicated funding or a one-to-one loss allocation

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

      City of Orlando · Locator: General fund and revenue pages. Do not infer dedicated funding or a one-to-one loss allocation · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/SB 4-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Section 1, amended section 200.065(5)(a)1.d. · Accessed 2026-08-26

   110 percent and two-thirds provision

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review distinguishes authority from a decision.

   Claim snapshot

   CS/SB 4-F allows a local board to adopt up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds vote.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Legislature

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-19

   Context:

   Enrolled statutory text, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Section 1, amended section 200.065(5)(a)1.d.

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   CS/SB 4-F permits up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds local-board vote.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The enrolled act permits the specified local board to adopt up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds vote.

   What this revision does not establish

   It does not require a board to adopt that rate or guarantee a particular revenue response.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Other statutory notice, hearing and rate-setting rules continue to apply.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/SB 4-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Section 1, amended section 200.065(5)(a)1.d. · Accessed 2026-08-26

      110 percent and two-thirds provision

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   CS/SB 4-F allows a local board to adopt up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds vote.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   CS/SB 4-F allows a local board to adopt up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds vote.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   CS/SB 4-F allows a local board to adopt up to 110 percent of the rolled-back rate with a two-thirds vote.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Millage provisions. Use statutory definitions

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Enrolled CS/SB 4-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Millage provisions. Use statutory definitions · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — 2026 election dates

   Florida Department of State · Locator: 2026 General Election: November 3, 2026 · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Official calendar

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review.

   Claim snapshot

   The 2026 general election is November 3.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Department of State

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Official election calendar, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   2026 General Election: November 3, 2026

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Florida's 2026 general election is November 3, 2026.

   Numerical Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   DATA

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The Department of State calendar lists November 3, 2026 as the general election.

   What this revision does not establish

   The calendar does not predict participation or the result.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Registration, vote-by-mail and early-voting deadlines are separate dates.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — 2026 election dates

      Florida Department of State · Locator: 2026 General Election: November 3, 2026 · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Official calendar

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The 2026 general election is November 3.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The 2026 general election is November 3.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The 2026 general election is November 3.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: 2026 election dates

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — 2026 election dates

      Florida Department of State · Locator: 2026 election dates · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Article XII schedule · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Conditional effective date

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review preserves the approval condition.

   Claim snapshot

   If approved, the measure takes effect January 1, 2027.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Legislature

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-16

   Context:

   Enrolled constitutional schedule, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Article XII, schedule to Article VII amendments

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   If approved, Amendment 3 takes effect January 1, 2027.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The constitutional schedule states an effective date of January 1, 2027 if voters approve the measure.

   What this revision does not establish

   The date does not make approval certain or decide every later implementing choice.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Some provisions call for later general-law procedures.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article XII schedule · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Conditional effective date

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   If approved, the measure takes effect January 1, 2027.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   If approved, the measure takes effect January 1, 2027.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   If approved, the measure takes effect January 1, 2027.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Article XII schedule

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article XII schedule · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Attorney General correspondence on Amendment 3 title and summary

   Florida Attorney General · Locator: Page 1, replacement ballot title and summary · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Official correspondence

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review narrows the proposition to what the document proves.

   Claim snapshot

   The Attorney General correspondence is an official source for revised ballot language.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida Attorney General

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-13

   Context:

   Official correspondence, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Page 1, replacement ballot title and summary

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The Attorney General correspondence contains official replacement ballot language.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   DATA

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The Attorney General correspondence is an official record containing replacement ballot title and summary language.

   What this revision does not establish

   The correspondence alone does not establish motive, the complete court chronology, or the legal correctness of the replacement.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Court records and the Department of State initiative record remain separate sources for the litigation result and final ballot record.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Attorney General correspondence on Amendment 3 title and summary

      Florida Attorney General · Locator: Page 1, replacement ballot title and summary · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Official correspondence

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The Attorney General correspondence is an official source for revised ballot language.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The Attorney General correspondence is an official source for revised ballot language.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The Attorney General correspondence is an official source for revised ballot language.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Correspondence. Transcribe and cross-check against case docket before narrating motive or legal findings

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Attorney General correspondence on Amendment 3 title and summary

      Florida Attorney General · Locator: Correspondence. Transcribe and cross-check against case docket before narrating motive or legal findings · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

   City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, slower 911 response bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Verified quote; contingent outcome

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · Contingent ForecastChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Split verified quote occurrence from the first contingent service proposition.

   Claim snapshot

   If funding is reduced, cities will face difficult choices about the services that residents expect every day. It could lead to slower 911 response times; parks and neighborhood centers being open fewer hours; and a reduction in programs and services.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Buddy Dyer

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-14

   Context:

   2026 State of the City speech, Property Taxes section.

   Locator:

   Property Taxes, paragraphs beginning 'If funding is reduced' and 'It could lead to'

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Amendment 3 will cause slower 911 response times in Orlando.

   Forecast · Official

   Verdict

   Contingent Forecast

   Evidence class

   FORECAST

   Evidence strength

   Circumstantial

   Assumption load

   4 — Multi-step

   What this revision establishes

   Mayor Buddy Dyer identified slower 911 response as one possible result if City funding is reduced.

   What this revision does not establish

   Amendment 3 contains no 911 staffing or response-time provision, and the speech provides no probability or adopted service plan.

   Assumptions

   • The amendment passes
   • The modeled City revenue reduction materializes
   • Other growth and revenues do not offset enough
   • The City allocates an adjustment to emergency response
   • Resources change enough to increase response times

   Material omitted context: Millage, reserves, fees, efficiencies, capital timing and other service choices occur between the constitutional change and a response-time outcome.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, slower 911 response bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Verified quote; contingent outcome

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The mayor said possible effects could include slower 911 response and reduced parks hours.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The mayor said possible effects could include slower 911 response and reduced parks hours.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The mayor said possible effects could include slower 911 response and reduced parks hours.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: State of the City property-tax section. Attribute as a contingency stated by the mayor

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: State of the City property-tax section. Attribute as a contingency stated by the mayor · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

   City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, parks and neighborhood centers bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Verified quote; contingent outcome

Revision history

1. Revision 1 · Contingent ForecastChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Derivative card for the parks-hours proposition sharing the verified Dyer occurrence.

   Claim snapshot

   If funding is reduced, cities will face difficult choices about the services that residents expect every day. It could lead to slower 911 response times; parks and neighborhood centers being open fewer hours; and a reduction in programs and services.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Buddy Dyer

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-14

   Context:

   2026 State of the City speech, Property Taxes section.

   Locator:

   Property Taxes, paragraphs beginning 'If funding is reduced' and 'It could lead to'

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Amendment 3 will cause Orlando parks and neighborhood centers to open fewer hours.

   Forecast · Official

   Verdict

   Contingent Forecast

   Evidence class

   FORECAST

   Evidence strength

   Circumstantial

   Assumption load

   4 — Multi-step

   What this revision establishes

   Mayor Buddy Dyer identified fewer operating hours for parks and neighborhood centers as one possible result if City funding is reduced.

   What this revision does not establish

   The amendment contains no parks-hours provision, and no adopted budget or quantified probability establishes this outcome.

   Assumptions

   • The amendment passes
   • The modeled City revenue reduction materializes
   • Offsets are insufficient
   • The City allocates an adjustment to parks
   • The adjustment changes operating hours

   Material omitted context: Other budget and rate choices remain available and carry their own tradeoffs.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, parks and neighborhood centers bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Verified quote; contingent outcome

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

   City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, reduction in programs and services bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Verified quote; contingent outcome

Revision history

1. Revision 1 · Contingent ForecastChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Derivative card for the programs proposition sharing the verified Dyer occurrence.

   Claim snapshot

   If funding is reduced, cities will face difficult choices about the services that residents expect every day. It could lead to slower 911 response times; parks and neighborhood centers being open fewer hours; and a reduction in programs and services.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Buddy Dyer

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-14

   Context:

   2026 State of the City speech, Property Taxes section.

   Locator:

   Property Taxes, paragraphs beginning 'If funding is reduced' and 'It could lead to'

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Amendment 3 will cause reductions in Orlando programs and services.

   Forecast · Official

   Verdict

   Contingent Forecast

   Evidence class

   FORECAST

   Evidence strength

   Circumstantial

   Assumption load

   4 — Multi-step

   What this revision establishes

   Mayor Buddy Dyer identified reductions in programs and services as one possible result if City funding is reduced.

   What this revision does not establish

   The amendment names no City program for reduction, and the speech is not an adopted budget plan.

   Assumptions

   • The amendment passes
   • The modeled City revenue reduction materializes
   • Offsets are insufficient
   • The City selects named programs for adjustment
   • The adjustment reduces service

   Material omitted context: The transcript lists examples, while later governing decisions determine any actual response.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Mayor Buddy Dyer's 2026 State of the City prepared text

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property Taxes, reduction in programs and services bullet · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Verified quote; contingent outcome

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

   Orange County Government · Locator: Dollar Breakdown, current allocation table · Accessed 2026-08-25

   Current allocation only

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Aligned the proposition to the County's current-allocation label while retaining future loss distribution as an evidence boundary.

   Claim snapshot

   The following shows the county's current allocation of property tax revenues.

   Attribution: Verified

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Orange County Government

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 public page.

   Locator:

   Dollar Breakdown, sentence above allocation table

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The following shows the county's current allocation of property tax revenues.

   Numerical Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   DATA

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Orange County labels the percentages as its current allocation of property-tax revenues.

   What this revision does not establish

   The table does not allocate the estimated Amendment 3 collection reduction among services or funds.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: A current spending share is not a marginal-cut plan, adopted budget or forecast of which line changes.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Dollar Breakdown, current allocation table · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Current allocation only

2. Revision 1 · FalseChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The county's displayed service-allocation percentages show where Amendment 3 losses will be booked.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The county's displayed service-allocation percentages show where Amendment 3 losses will be booked.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   False

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The county's displayed service-allocation percentages show where Amendment 3 losses will be booked.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Allocation table. The table shows current allocations, not a loss distribution

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Orange County Property Tax Amendment 3 page

      Orange County Government · Locator: Allocation table. The table shows current allocations, not a loss distribution · Accessed 2026-08-25

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Primary — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

   City of Orlando · Locator: Property-tax millage and revenue history, FY 2021–FY 2025 · Accessed 2026-08-29

   Official reported series

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review preserves the non-monotonic boundary.

   Claim snapshot

   City millage remained 6.6500 from 2021 through 2025 while property-tax revenue rose overall.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   City of Orlando

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   FY 2025 PAFR tables, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Property-tax millage and revenue history, FY 2021–FY 2025

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Orlando's millage was 6.6500 from 2021 through 2025 while reported property-tax revenue rose overall.

   Numerical Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   DATA

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   1 — Minimal

   What this revision establishes

   The PAFR reports 6.6500 City millage for 2021–2025 and higher property-tax revenue in 2025 than in 2021.

   What this revision does not establish

   It does not show revenue increased every year or prove that property-value growth will offset Amendment 3.

   Assumptions

   • The PAFR series uses comparable reported measures across the displayed years

   Material omitted context: The 2023 reported revenue is below 2022, so the accurate statement is that revenue rose overall.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Primary — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property-tax millage and revenue history, FY 2021–FY 2025 · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Official reported series

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   City millage remained 6.6500 from 2021 through 2025 while property-tax revenue rose overall.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   City millage remained 6.6500 from 2021 through 2025 while property-tax revenue rose overall.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   City millage remained 6.6500 from 2021 through 2025 while property-tax revenue rose overall.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Property tax history. 2023 revenue was lower than 2022; say rose overall, not every year

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — City of Orlando 2025 Popular Annual Financial Report

      City of Orlando · Locator: Property tax history. 2023 revenue was lower than 2022; say rose overall, not every year · Accessed 2026-08-29

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.

Evidence boundaries

1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(a) · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Controlling retained text

2. Primary — Final bill analysis for CS/HJR 1-F

   Florida House of Representatives · Locator: Current Situation, homestead exemption explanation · Accessed 2026-08-26

   Staff explanation of current law

Revision history

1. Revision 2 · TrueChecked 2026-08-26Revision details

   Reason for revision: Evidence-led re-review distinguishes current and expanded exemption layers.

   Claim snapshot

   The first $25,000 exemption applies to all property-tax levies under current law.

   Attribution: Paraphrase

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Florida House of Representatives

   Occurrence date:

   2026-06-16

   Context:

   Final legislative staff analysis, paraphrased by The Orlando Report.

   Locator:

   Current Situation, homestead exemption explanation

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   Under current law, the first $25,000 homestead exemption applies to every property-tax levy, including school levies.

   Legal Fact · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   LAW

   Evidence strength

   Controlling

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   Current law applies the first $25,000 homestead exemption to all property-tax levies, including school levies.

   What this revision does not establish

   It does not make the separate expanded exemption applicable to schools.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: The legislative analysis explains current law; the enrolled constitutional text controls the proposed changes.

   Sources for this revision

   1. Controlling — Enrolled CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida Legislature · Locator: Article VII, section 6(a) · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Controlling retained text

   2. Primary — Final bill analysis for CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida House of Representatives · Locator: Current Situation, homestead exemption explanation · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Staff explanation of current law

2. Revision 1 · TrueChecked 2026-08-25Revision details

   Reason for revision: Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Claim snapshot

   The first $25,000 exemption applies to all property-tax levies under current law.

   Attribution: Not Applicable

   Speaker:

   Publisher:

   Occurrence date:

   2026-08-25

   Context:

   Backfilled from the legacy Focus Zone claim record.

   Locator:

   Open the occurrence snapshot source

   Proposition snapshot

   The first $25,000 exemption applies to all property-tax levies under current law.

   Opinion · Official

   Verdict

   True

   Evidence class

   OPINION

   Evidence strength

   Direct

   Assumption load

   0 — Direct

   What this revision establishes

   The first $25,000 exemption applies to all property-tax levies under current law.

   What this revision does not establish

   This legacy assessment does not establish more than its stored claim and notes; evidence-led re-review is pending.

   Assumptions

   No material assumptions recorded.

   Material omitted context: Current law summary. Use legislative analysis for explanation and HJR text for controlling language

   Sources for this revision

   1. Supporting — Final bill analysis for CS/HJR 1-F

      Florida House of Representatives · Locator: Current law summary. Use legislative analysis for explanation and HJR text for controlling language · Accessed 2026-08-26

      Backfilled from the legacy source list.