As the Jacksonville City Council prepares for budget hearings that begin Aug. 7, at least six Council members say they’ll support a reduction in the property tax rate.
Council President Kevin Carrico, Vice President Nick Howland and members Raul Arias, Rory Diamond, Terrance Freeman and Ron Salem have announced they would look to trim the rate, formally called the millage rate, from its current level of 11.3169 mills.
Mayor Donna Deegan proposed a $2 billion 2025-26 budget operating budget that would keep the millage rate flat for the upcoming budget year, which takes effect in October. She opposes a cut, and some Council members are urging their colleagues to be cautious in reducing the rate.
At stake are the property taxes paid by Duval County residents.
A mill is $1 of tax for every $1,000 of assessed property valuation. At 11.3169 mills, the tax bill would be $3,168.73 for a property with an assessed value of $330,000, the average sales price of a home in Jacksonville in June 2025, and a $50,000 homestead exemption.
Taxes paid to the city are one portion of a property owner’s tax bill. Other taxing agencies in Florida include school districts, water management districts, special districts and municipalities within a county.
In Deegan’s budget, she proposes a spending increase of about $110 million over the adopted 2024-25 version. Unlike her last proposed budget, which included $47 million in spending from the city’s reserve fund, her new budget doesn’t touch the reserves.
Much of the new operating budget funding goes toward providing $100.1 million in salary and pension increases to Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department employees, which Deegan and Council approved in 2024.
The increased spending in Deegan’s 2025-26 budget blueprint would mostly be funded from tax revenue that came in $20 million higher than projected, from a $40 million, one-time payment from city utility JEA in its annual contribution to the city, and from a $40 million reduction in city spending for an annual subsidy to pay residents’ fees for trash hauling.
Council voted in 2025 to increase the hauling fee and reduce the city’s annual waste hauling “loan,” which it had been drawing from the operating budget.
On July 22, Council launched the budget process by approving an ordinance setting the maximum millage rate for 2025-26 at the current 11.3169 mills. With that cap established, Council can lower the rate but not raise it in the coming weeks as it dissects Deegan’s budget.
With six budget hearings scheduled through Aug. 22, here is a look at the arguments for and against reducing the millage rate.
The case for a reduction
Howland says Deegan’s proposed budget would increase city spending by more than 7%, well above the 2.7% inflation rate since she submitted her 2024-25 budget. It would be the second straight year an increase of 7% or more, following a 7.1% uppage in last year’s Council-approved budget.
Saying the city can meet its inflation-adjusted needs and give taxpayers a break this year, Howland is targeting a millage rate reduction of one-eighth to one-quarter.
“We’re growing at more than twice the level of inflation,” he said.
“And this is at the time that the state just presented a budget that was lower than the previous year. It’s also at the time when the federal budget is returning a lot of money to taxpayers.”
While acknowledging that the city government needs more funding to provide services to Jacksonville’s growing population, Howland said the 7.1% spending increase was still excessive. He said the population rate increase plus the inflation increase adds up to about 4%.
“It’s clear that at 7.1%, we’re growing too fast,” he said.
Howland said auditors have told him that one mill generates about $110 million in revenue for the city.
Reducing the rate by an eighth would mean slicing about $14 million out of Deegan’s budget, while a one-quarter reduction would require about $28 million in cuts.
Howland believes Council members can find the budget cuts in areas where the city is duplicating its spending or simply overspending.
He points to such areas as affordable housing, child wellness and support for cultural institutions as examples.
“There’s 500,000 for the Museum of Contemporary Art in Jacksonville,” he said. “I understand that’s for a sculpture outside of their building – a sculpture and maintenance.”
A spokeswoman for MOCA, in response to emailed questions, confirmed the funding was for a sculpture but said maintenance costs were not included.
As an example of potential duplicated spending, Howland said Deegan would provide $300,000 to the In The World International church in the Eastside neighborhood.
He questions why that is necessary when she is proposing a $4 million outlay for the neighborhood to help the city satisfy its $150 million obligation in the community benefits agreement related to its deal with the Jacksonville Jaguars to transform EverBank Stadium into the team’s “Stadium of the Future.”
Last year, Council cut all but about $10 million from Deegan’s proposed budget, with the bulk of it coming from affordable housing and homelessness services.
Howland said the city should look at its new revenue from taxes, the JEA contribution and the trash subsidy reduction not as an opportunity to spend more but rather to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money.
“To me, what you have here is, if you give the government an extra dollar, it’ll spend it. The trick is to not give the government $1 more than it needs,” he said.
“I think once you’ve funded the core role of government – public safety, infrastructure, vital city services – any extra money is better spent by the taxpayer themselves.”
Arias agrees. Noting the increase in trash hauling fees, he believes Council owes it to taxpayers to help offset those extra expenses.
That monthly fee will increase to $27 from $12.65 this year, then to $29.50 in 2026 and $32 in 2027.
Diamond proposes a $100 million reduction in Deegan’s proposed budget, which would result in about a 1-mill decrease.
He said he would seek to cut $20 million in direct contracts involving the city, $3.2 million in homelessness services, $6.25 million in priority projects identified by Deegan’s transition team when she became mayor in 2023 and $9.4 million from a Council contingency fund.
He said he would look for other reductions as Council dissects Deegan’s budget in coming weeks.
“I think we can get to $100 million. But if we get to $70 million, were $70 million better off,” he said.
The case to stand pat
Deegan and others who oppose a reduction say that cutting taxes would inhibit the city from strengthening its services while providing little relief to taxpayers.
Based on an analysis from city auditors, Deegan’s office provided a chart showing that a one-eighth millage rate reduction would save the average homeowner $18.75 per year while sapping $12.5 million from the budget. At one-quarter, the savings for taxpayers would be $37.50 annually.
With the city taking in 17,000 new residents each of the past two years, those seeking to maintain the millage rate say the city needs to invest new revenue into services and infrastructure for the growing community.
“Jacksonville already has the lowest property tax rate of any major city in Florida, and that revenue barely covers our police and fire expenses,” Deegan said in an emailed statement.
“Lowering the rate will put us a step behind today and in the years ahead as public safety costs continue increasing and essential services are needed to support our fast population growth. Our city has real momentum. Now is not the time to hurt our quality of life to save the average homeowner a little more than $1 per month.”
At the July 22 Council meeting, member Matt Carlucci cautioned his colleagues that reducing the tax rate this year could result in the city facing deficits in the 2026–27 budget and beyond.
With the one-time infusion from JEA no longer in play, and with the city facing increased costs for providing pensions and salary increases for police officers and firefighters, a weak year for property tax collections could force Council to dip into reserves or raise the millage rate.
“If you lower the millage rate this year, you’re digging yourself in a bigger hole next year,” he said.
“I suggest that before you start making your mind up to cut the millage, you think about the expenses we have in front of us.
“Anybody up here who really cares, who knows and has courage about the future of Jacksonville, will not get up and say, ‘Oh, I’m for cutting taxes,’ until you know you have an abundance of revenue to do so.”
Under three-year contracts approved by Deegan and Council for public safety officers in 2024, the city faces $25 million in extra spending in 2026.
The city also must absorb additional costs after Deegan and Council agreed to allow new hires in the police and fire departments to return to pensions after previously being covered by a 401(k)-type plan.
One estimate was $20 million in extra expenses for the city, but the amount depends on how many officers opt for the pensions.
Under projections by city auditors, the city faces deficits of $61.5 million in 2026-27 and $50.5 million in 2027-28, followed by two years of surpluses.
Opponents of a rate reduction also say it will have compounding effects. Assuming tax revenue rises annually, each year the city would lose out on more of the money.
In addition, opponents say cutting the millage rate would put the city at risk at a time when it needs a new jail that has yet to be funded and plans to reduce or eliminate property taxes are under discussion among state lawmakers.
Meanwhile, a lowered millage rate doesn’t necessarily equate to a lower tax bill for property owners.
If a property’s assessed value rises enough, the bill could increase.
“This is not about the money for taxpayers,” Deegan’s chief of staff, Mike Weinstein, said of the push to reduce the rate.
“It’s about them being about to put out a postcard at election time saying they cut taxes.”
Staff writer Joe Lister contributed to this story.