Jacksonville City Council is a step closer to passing its property tax cut and budget bill amendments after a Finance Committee vote Sept. 3.
The committee voted 6-2 on three measures to pass a one-eighth cut to the millage rate for Jacksonville and the Beaches, with a slightly smaller cut for Baldwin.
The cut, which is supported by at least 10 Council members and opposed by Mayor Donna Deegan, would reduce city property tax revenue by about $13 million for the upcoming fiscal year and require reductions in the mayor’s proposed $2.02 billion operating budget for 2025-26.
One mill is equal to a $1 tax for every $1,000 of assessed property value. For the owner of a Jacksonville property with an assessed property value of $200,000 and a $50,000 homestead exemption, the annual tax savings would be $18.75.
If adopted by the full Council, which is likely given that the 10 members who support it make up a majority of the 19-member body, the millage rate for Jacksonville citizens would drop to 11.1919 from 11.3169 through Ordinance 2025-0501.
The millage rate for Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach would drop to 7.9012 from 8.0262 through Ordinance 2025-0502. The rate for Baldwin would drop to 9.4208 from 9.5260 through Ordinance 2025-0503.
Headed to full council
The committee’s votes send the ordinances to a vote by the full Council, which has set its final budget vote Sept. 23.
Committee member Rory Diamond voted against the millage reduction measures, saying one-eighth of a mill did not provide enough relief for taxpayers. Diamond has proposed reducing Deegan’s budget by $100 million, which would result in about a one-mill reduction.
Diamond, elected to Council in 2019, has never voted in favor of a Jacksonville city budget.
Member Ju’Coby Pittman opposed the millage cut, saying she wanted the millage rate to remain at 11.3169. Pittman has supported Deegan’s argument that the one-eighth reduction would provide little savings to taxpayers while reducing funding needed to provide adequate public health, affordable housing, homelessness services and more to the growing community.
The Finance Committee also voted 8-0 to advance recommendations it made during its six budget hearings, which included several reductions in Deegan’s proposed budget to make up for lost revenue from the millage rate reduction.
Diamond voted for the budget cuts, contained in Ordinance 2025-0504, saying the committee’s reductions made it the closest he had seen to an acceptable budget during his time on Council. In addtion to the cuts related to the millage rate measures, Council reduced approxminately $14 million more in Deegan’s proposed spending.
Pittman said she voted in favor of Ordinance 2025-0504 because she felt her one vote wouldn’t have made a difference and instead would turn her focus to discussion by the full Council in coming weeks.
Advocates for a millage rate reduction cited a need to restrict growth of government and while offering taxpayers savings at a time of rising inflation and costs of consumer goods and services.
They argue that the Finance Committee’s proposed reductions in Deegan’s budget keep funding levels for social service programs in line with the approved amounts in the 2024-25 version.
Budget up $110 million
Deegan’s budget for the city’s upcoming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, is about $110 million over the approved budget for the current year. Much of the new funding came from a $40 million, one-time contribution from city utility JEA, which provides a portion of its revenue to the city annually, and property tax revenue that came in $40 million over projections.
Deegan said most of the new funding would be applied to satisfy compensation increases for police and firefighters, which were supported both by her office and Council.
“We are flowing with money,” Finance Committee Chair Raul Arias said.
“The problem is that we’re investing these dollars into programs sometimes that hinder us and put us in a corner where we have no choice but to fund them again.”
The committee’s recommended cuts came most notably to affordable housing, health care and nutrition assistance programs.
“You can’t cut your way to a greater city. I don’t see waste,” said Council member Matt Carlucci, who sat in on the Finance Committee meeting as a nonmember.
“In the big scheme of things, we’ve got to plan for the long haul, and we’re not doing it here. We’ve got to learn to invest in our city, and to become a great city,we have to invest.”
His comments drew a response from Arias.
“(With) the same compassion that we have to look out for our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens, we also have to look out for property owners, too, which are also seniors and vulnerable citizens,” he said.
Deegan has denounced the cuts as a political effort by Council members interested in seeking office outside of the City Council.
Council Vice President Nick Howland said those who stood against millage rate cuts were out of touch with working families, to whom every dollar counts.
Council member Rahman Johnson told Howland he was incorrect in thinking that the property tax rate reduction would help families more than the programs at risk of funding reductions.
‘A Chick-fil-A combo and milkshake’
Four Jacksonville residents spoke against the millage cut during the Finance Committee hearing. None spoke in favor of the rate cut.
“The one-eighth millage reduction amounts to a Chick-fil-A combo and milkshake once a year for me. I readily give that up for the social programs,” Vanessa Cullins Hopkins said.
“I’m a senior. I pay property taxes on several properties, and I readily give up that one-eighth millage decrease.”
Council members who have publicly said they will vote to reduce the millage rate are Carrico, Howland, Arias, Joe Carlucci, Terrance Freeman, Mike Gay, Will Lahnen, Chris Miller and Ron Salem. Diamond said he would support the cut if proponents need a 10th vote.
To block the millage rate cut, opponents would have to win back at least one of those votes.
The full Council’s budget meeting will start earlier this year, kicking off at 3 p.m. on Sept. 23 to account for the expected length of the meeting. A balanced budget must be passed by the start of the next fiscal year Oct. 1.