The Property-Tax Half of Escrow: What Survives a Teardown, and What $2.5M Actually Costs

The question

Verbatim: "On a teardown-rebuild of the Sunset Park parcel, does any Save Our Homes assessment cap or portability survive to the new structure, and what does the reassessed property-tax line become at a ~$2.5M finished value — the one escrow component the AE-zone insurance briefs do not cover?"

Context: [[2026-08-14-construction-to-permanent-loans-florida]] found the binding constraint is DTI, not down payment. Escrow sits in the DTI numerator. The insurance half is priced in [[2026-07-22-florida-ae-zone-insurance-repricing-tampa]]; the tax half has never been derived from the parcel's own roll data.

What we already know (from the vault)

• The parcel, from the roll: folio 120668-0000, 1212 S Suffolk Dr, tax district TA (City of Tampa), 8,840 sf lot, 1,842 heated sf, built 1962 ([[zoning-flood-zone-findings]]). The vault labels the neighborhood "Sunset Park"; the plat and HCPA neighborhood code both say Culbreath Bayou Unit No 4 — adjacent, not identical, and it matters for comp selection.
• The tax assumption in force is 1.1% of value. [[2026-06-04-home-affordability-build-vs-buy]] states "county avg ~1.27% of assessed; Tampa city millage ~1.1%. Used 1.1% here." That conflates the City of Tampa municipal levy (6.2076 mills = 0.62%) with the total bill. The City of Tampa total is 19.8428 mills = 1.98%. The vault's rate is understated by roughly half.
• The escrow line carried into the DTI table is $4,200/mo. [[2026-08-19-jumbo-construction-perm-qualifying-envelope]] used that central estimate and flagged its own fragility: "±$1,000/mo of escrow swings every row by ~$150k of loan." That brief found the $1.5M build short by ~$180k at provable income.
• Insurance is $11-13k/yr, ~$1,000/mo, and is not the uncertain half ([[2026-07-22-florida-ae-zone-insurance-repricing-tampa]]).
• There is a documented 2024 flood claim on this parcel — a $77k payout (2024-25) ([[zoning-flood-zone-findings]]). Filed there as evidence of SFHA status. It turns out to be the single most valuable tax fact in the file, for reasons the next section makes clear.

What the web says

• A teardown does not preserve the cap on the structure. FS 193.155(4)(a): "changes, additions, or improvements to homestead property shall be assessed at just value as of the first January 1 after the changes, additions, or improvements are substantially completed." FS 193.155(5): "When property is destroyed or removed and not replaced, the assessed value of the parcel shall be reduced by the assessed value attributable to the destroyed or removed property."
• Losing homestead status during the build is the expensive failure mode. FS 193.155(6): "Only property that receives a homestead exemption is subject to this section." A vacant residential lot falls to FS 193.1554, whose (1) expressly covers "vacant property zoned and platted for residential use," and whose (2) resets it to just value for non-school levies in the year it becomes eligible. School levies are uncapped for non-homestead outright.
• Portability exists but is capped by the actual differential, not by $500,000. FS 193.155(8) allows transfer where the person "has received a homestead exemption as of January 1 of any of the 3 immediately preceding years"; (8)(a) reduces the new assessed value by "the lesser of $500,000 or the difference between the just value and the assessed value of the immediate prior homestead." (8)(g) permits abandonment "even though it remains his or her primary residence" on written notice. This parcel's 2026 differential is $174,558 (2026 TRIM), so $500,000 is irrelevant here.
• The Pinellas County Property Appraiser publishes the only clear administrative treatment of this exact scenario I could find, and it splits into two options (pcpao.gov FAQs). Option 1(a), no flood history: "the Homestead exemption and Save Our Homes cap (Cap) remain on the land value of the property for the year following the demolition… The value of the new construction will then be added above the Cap once completed." Requires maintained permanent residence and completion within three years of the January 1 of demolition. Option 1(b), portability: the owner must "abandon the Homestead exemption prior to the demolition," which "will remove the exemption from the land for one year" and gives only "two years, including the current tax year, of the demolition to complete rebuilding… If the property is not finished within this time limit, then the Cap is lost forever."
• Option 2 is the one that applies here. Same source: "Your property will be considered damaged by misfortune or calamity if you have a documented flood claim, have been deemed substantially damaged by your local building official, or are designated a repetitive flood loss property by your insurer." That routes to FS 193.155(4)(b), which bases the new assessment on "the homestead property's assessed value as of the January 1 immediately before the date on which the damage or destruction was sustained" so long as square footage stays within 130% of the original or 2,000 sf, whichever is greater, with only the excess added at just value under (4)(b)2. The 130%/2,000 figures are the June 26, 2025 revision (previously 110%/1,500); homestead owners have 5 tax years from the January 1 following the event to pull a permit, consistent with FS 193.155(4)(b)4.
• Hillsborough's own portability FAQ is stale. HCPA PortabilityFAQ.pdf is marked "Rev. 12-15" and still states the two-year window superseded by the 2020 constitutional amendment now codified at 193.155(8) as three years. Useful for its confirmation that "you only need to abandon (or give up) your existing homestead, meaning you may still own the property" — but do not quote its deadlines back to anyone.
• Amendment 3 (CS/HJR 1F) is on the November 3, 2026 ballot and would replace the current structure with "A $25,000 exemption applied to school millages. Up to $150,000 beginning January 1, 2027 to non-school millages. Up to $250,000 beginning January 1, 2028" (pcpao.gov/amendment3). It needs 60%, takes effect January 1, 2027, and first appears on November 2027 bills. It also cuts the non-homestead cap from 10% to 5%.

Convergences and contradictions

• Convergence, and it is bad news for the DTI table. Statute, the property-appraiser guidance, and HCPA's own Tax Estimator all land in the same place on the base case. The estimator, run at $2,500,000 with homestead and no portability, returned "$41,332.31 - $48,773.36." My independent arithmetic at the certified City of Tampa millage produced $48,773.36 — the exact top of that range, which is what a TA-district parcel should hit. Confirmed to the penny.
• Contradiction between the vault's rate and the certified rate. 1.1% versus 1.98% is not a rounding difference; it is the difference between a $27,500 and a $48,800 tax line. The 2026-06-04 affordability model, and everything downstream that inherited it, is wrong in the direction that makes the project look affordable.
• Contradiction between counties on the same statute. Pinellas publishes a detailed demolition/rebuild policy. Hillsborough publishes nothing comparable and its portability FAQ is a decade out of date. Pinellas guidance is persuasive as to how FS 193.155 operates but is not binding on HCPA, who assesses this parcel. This is the single largest calibration caveat in the brief.

Synthesis for RDCO

The answer to the literal question is: almost nothing survives by default, and the base case is $48,754/yr. At $2.5M just value in tax district TA, with homestead and the 2026-certified exemptions ($25,000 against all levies, $26,411 additional against non-school), the arithmetic is: school $2,475,000 × 6.3400 mills = $15,691; non-school $2,448,589 × 13.5028 mills = $33,063; total $48,754/yr, $4,063/mo, plus ~$105/yr of non-ad-valorem (2024 bill, primary source). Against $1,000/mo of wind and flood, the all-in escrow is **$5,065/mo, not the $4,200/mo the qualifying table assumes.** At the jumbo brief's own $150k-per-$1,000 sensitivity, that $865/mo error costs roughly $130k of qualifying loan — so the $1.5M build's shortfall widens from ~$180k to ~$310k. The property-tax follow-up was correctly flagged as the highest-value open item, and it resolved against the project.

Portability is real but small, and it is shrinking. The transferable differential is $174,558 (2026), down from $195,808 (2025) because just value fell while the capped assessed value kept ratcheting up 3% under the recapture rule. Ported in full it takes the bill from $48,754 to $45,291 — $289/mo, about $43k of loan. On present trend the differential will be smaller by 2028-29. Chasing it via the Pinellas Option 1(b) route is actively unattractive: it costs the exemption on the land for a year and imposes a two-year completion clock on a 12-18 month build with permitting ahead of it, and blowing the clock loses the cap permanently. Recommendation: do not architect the project around portability.

The finding worth acting on is the calamity path, and it turns on the $77k flood payout already in the file. FS 193.155(4)(b) does not care that the demolition is voluntary; it asks whether the improvements "replace all or a portion of homestead property… damaged or destroyed by misfortune or calamity." A documented 2024 flood claim is exactly the trigger Pinellas names. If HCPA accepts it, the new assessment is built off the pre-damage assessed value — Jan 1, 2024's $559,489, rolled forward under the 3% cap to ~$591k today and ~$646k by a 2029 completion — plus the just value of only the square footage above 2,394 sf (130% × 1,842). At a 3,600 sf new house on a $2.08M improvement basis that is roughly $1.29M assessed and $24,699/yr, $2,058/mo — call the plausible band $21,300-$28,500/yr across 3,200-4,000 sf and both base-year readings. Versus the base case that is **$2,000/mo of escrow relief, worth roughly $300k of qualifying loan**, which is more than the entire bonus-and-escalator income question [[2026-08-19-jumbo-construction-perm-qualifying-envelope]] spent a brief on, and more than enough to close the $180k gap on the $1.5M build. Two hard prerequisites: homestead must be maintained continuously through the build (dropping it routes the parcel to 193.1554, resets to just value, and forfeits every path above), and a permit must be pulled within 5 tax years of January 1, 2025 — through 2029, comfortable for a 2027 start but not indefinitely.

Calibration, because this number sets a qualifying ceiling. Cited, high confidence: the millage (HCPA Final 2025 millage table, TA = 19.8428, school 6.3400), the exemptions ($25,000 + $26,411, 2026 certified), the roll values (2026 market $765,816, assessed $591,258, SOH differential $174,558; 2024 assessed $559,489), the statutory text, the $48,773 base case cross-checked against HCPA's estimator. Estimated, flag it: the new house's square footage (3,200-4,000 sf, taken off the $3.58M/4,648 sf comp in [[2026-06-11-comp-3-streets-over]]), the land/improvement split at $2.5M, and the 2029 rolled-forward calamity base. Unverified and genuinely open: whether HCPA applies Pinellas's policy, whether the 2024 claim meets HCPA's documentation bar, and whether FS 193.155(2) compresses the calamity base to land value during the vacant years. Plan the DTI at the base case — $4,063/mo of tax, ~$5,065/mo of escrow. Treat the calamity path as a large, cheap-to-pursue option, not a forecast. The action it implies is a written determination request to HCPA before demolition and before permit, since both Option 1(a) and the 193.155(4)(b) path require decisions made in the right order.

Two smaller items with real money in them. During the vacant/under-construction years the parcel is land-only and unhomesteaded: at the $401,778 land value that is ~$7,972/yr, ~$664/mo — a carrying cost that belongs in the construction budget alongside temp housing, and one that FS 192.042 keeps low because improvements not substantially complete on January 1 carry no value. And Amendment 3, if it clears 60% on November 3, is worth $1,331/yr in 2027 and $2,682/yr from 2028 against the base case — real, but a rounding error next to the calamity question, and it stays out of the base case until it passes.

Why this is in the vault

It replaces the 1.1%-of-value property-tax placeholder in [[2026-06-04-home-affordability-build-vs-buy]] with the certified City of Tampa millage and this parcel's own roll data, which moves the escrow line in the [[2026-08-19-jumbo-construction-perm-qualifying-envelope]] DTI table from $4,200/mo to ~$5,065/mo and widens the $1.5M build's financing gap from ~$180k to ~$310k. It also identifies the one lever — a FS 193.155(4)(b) calamity determination resting on the already-documented $77k flood claim — that could close that gap, and pins the deadline (permit by tax year 2029) and the ordering constraint (request the determination before demolition) that would forfeit it.

Open follow-ups

• Will HCPA apply the Pinellas Option 2 treatment to a documented 2024 flood claim on this folio? The entire ~$2,000/mo swing rests on a policy published by a different county's appraiser; HCPA has published nothing comparable and this needs a written determination request naming folio 120668-0000.
• Does the $77k 2024 payout meet the documentation bar, and is there a substantial-damage determination from Tampa's building official? FS 193.155(4)(b) is triggered by damage, and a payout of that size on a 1,842 sf house is suggestive, but no one has confirmed which of the three Pinellas triggers this parcel actually satisfies.
• Can homestead be maintained continuously through a voluntary teardown in Hillsborough? FS 196.031(7)'s five-year shelter is explicitly calamity-only, and Pinellas Option 1(a) requires the owner to "maintain the property as their permanent residence" during a period when there is no dwelling — an unresolved tension that decides whether the cap survives at all.
• Does FS 193.155(2)'s "assessed value shall be lowered to just value" compress the calamity base year to land value during the vacant years? If it does, the (4)(b) base drops from ~$646k toward ~$400k, which is worth another ~$4,900/yr and changes the answer in the founder's favor.
• What is the actual heated square footage of the design at a $2.5M finished value? Every calamity-path figure scales off the excess over 2,394 sf, so the 3,200-4,000 sf band is the widest remaining input uncertainty and it is resolvable from the architect's program.
• Does the construction lender escrow taxes on the land-only basis during the build and re-escrow at completion, or underwrite the completed-value escrow from day one? This determines whether the ~$664/mo interim carrying cost or the ~$4,063/mo completed figure is what actually enters the DTI test at closing.
• Should the "Sunset Park" label be corrected to Culbreath Bayou across the project folder? The plat and HCPA neighborhood code both say Culbreath Bayou Unit No 4, and comp selection and the realtor shortlist were both built on the other name.

Related

• [[2026-08-14-construction-to-permanent-loans-florida]] — the parent brief that queued this question as its #1 follow-up
• [[2026-08-19-jumbo-construction-perm-qualifying-envelope]] — the DTI table whose $4,200/mo escrow line this brief corrects
• [[2026-07-22-florida-ae-zone-insurance-repricing-tampa]] — the insurance half of escrow, ~$11-13k/yr
• [[2026-08-04-flood-zone-ae-construction-loan-requirements]] — the flood-zone financing layer
• [[2026-06-04-home-affordability-build-vs-buy]] — source of the 1.1% property-tax assumption this brief replaces
• [[zoning-flood-zone-findings]] — folio, lot geometry, and the $77k 2024 flood payout the calamity path turns on
• [[2026-06-11-comp-3-streets-over]] — the $3.58M / 4,648 sf new-build comp used to bound new square footage
• [[README]] — home-rebuild-2027 project plan and its escrow caveat

Sources

Vault

• ~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-08-14-construction-to-permanent-loans-florida.md
• ~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-08-19-jumbo-construction-perm-qualifying-envelope.md
• ~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-07-22-florida-ae-zone-insurance-repricing-tampa.md
• ~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-08-04-flood-zone-ae-construction-loan-requirements.md
• ~/rdco-vault/04-finance/2026-06-04-home-affordability-build-vs-buy.md
• ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/home-rebuild-2027/zoning-flood-zone-findings.md
• ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/home-rebuild-2027/2026-06-11-comp-3-streets-over.md
• ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/home-rebuild-2027/README.md

Statutes (2025 Florida Statutes, flsenate.gov, retrieved 2026-08-20)

• FS 193.155 Homestead assessments — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/193.155
• FS 193.1554 Assessment of nonhomestead residential property — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/193.1554
• FS 193.1555 Assessment of certain residential and nonresidential real property — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/193.1555
• FS 196.031 Exemption of homesteads — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/196.031

Primary county records

• HCPA Final 2025 Millage table (City of Tampa "TA" = 19.8428 total; school 6.3400) — https://www.hcpafl.org/Portals/HCPAFL/pdfs/2025FinalMillage.pdf
• HCPA parcel record, folio 120668-0000 — https://gis.hcpafl.org/propertysearch/#/parcel/basic/1829293SB000009000340A
• HCPA 2026 TRIM notice, folio 1206680000 — http://dmz.hcpafl.org/trim_re.cfm?folio=1206680000
• HCPA Portability FAQ (Rev. 12-15, deadlines stale) — https://www.hcpafl.org/Portals/HCPAFL/PortabilityFAQ.pdf

Property-appraiser guidance

• Pinellas County Property Appraiser FAQs, "How is the Save Our Homes cap treated when demolishing and reconstructing a home with homestead?" — https://www.pcpao.gov/learn-about/FAQs
• Pinellas County Property Appraiser, Proposed 2026 Florida Property Tax Amendment 3 (CS/HJR 1F) FAQs — https://www.pcpao.gov/amendment3