The Jacksonville City Council approved the city’s 2025-26 operating budget at the close of a nearly 13 1/2 hour meeting Sept. 24, ending weeks of debate surrounding the city’s spending priorities.
The exact amount of the budget wasn’t immediately available due to last-minute revisions by Council, several of which restored funding that had been cut earlier. But it is expected to be more than $2 billion, making it the largest in city history.
Council approved Ordinance 2025-0504 on a 15-2 vote with two abstentions.
Council President Kevin Carrico, Vice President Nick Howland, Ken Amaro, Raul Arias, Michael Boylan, Joe Carlucci, Matt Carlucci, Tyrona Clark Murray, Reggie Gaffney Jr., Rahman Johnson, Will Lahnen, Chris Miller, Ju’Coby Pittman, Ron Salem and Randy White voted yes.
Members Rory Diamond and Jimmy Peluso voted against the budget, and members Terrance Freeman and Mike Gay abstained due to potential business conflicts of interest with their employment. Diamond has never voted in favor of a budget during his time on Council.
The budget will take effect at the start of the 2025-26 fiscal year Oct. 1.
Earlier, Council voted 10-9 in favor of reducing the millage rate by one-eighth of a mill. That action required a reduction of about $13 million in spending from Mayor Donna Deegan’s proposed $2.2 billion budget.
The vote on the budget bill came about 4 a.m. during a meeting that started at 3 p.m. Sept. 23. It included hours of debate on the related millage rate bill and on amendments introduced by Diamond to bar spending related to undocumented immigrants, abortion and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Adjournment was at 4:26 a.m.
The Diamond amendments, which drew considerable comment from Council members and dozens of residents who turned out for the budget hearing, were stripped from the budget bill in a compromise 10-9 vote that broke an hourslong impasse.
Council members on both sides said they still weren’t satisfied with the budget upon its passage, but they compromised to move the city forward.
Lahnen, who cast the swing vote to break the logjam on Diamond’s amendments, said the millage rate cut was his highest priority and that he had tried to promote movement toward a compromise among members who were resolute against the amendments. The budget also contained record funding for public safety, which Lahnen listed as another top priority.
“I’ve seen no opportunity for compromise,” he said. “I see no line of sight on approving a budget, which is our (Council’s) No. 1 priority, with this amendment in there. I’m doing this so we can pass our budget tonight.”
Lahnen had voted several times in favor of Diamond’s amendments and noted that he had supported his Republican colleague on similar issues in the past.
With Council required by statute to pass a budget during the meeting or risk having the state intercede, Lahnen offered to change his vote if opponents of the amendments would agree not to revisit the millage rate reduction and vote on the budget with several other amendments.
After the vote, Howland praised Lahnen’s action as “one of the best leadership moves I’ve seen, and one of the most magnanimous.”
In a statement, Deegan said she was disappointed with the millage rate cut, but respected the work of Council.
“Thank you to the thousands of people who made their voices heard during the budget process. So many of you urged us to continue investing in Jacksonville’s momentum,” Deegan said. “I pray that we start to heal from this difficult budget season and move forward together with love for Jacksonville guiding us.”
In a separate statement, Carrico highlighted that Council passed a millage rate reduction that he said would reduce taxes by $70 million over five years, saving the average homeowner hundreds of dollars over that time.
“Tonight is a big win for taxpayers,” Carrico said. “My colleagues listened to the public and chose relief over rhetoric. This is real money back in the pockets of Jacksonville families, and it sets the stage for more relief in the years ahead. Taxpayers demand responsibility from City Hall and tonight we delivered.”
DEI amendments slow budget bill
Diamond’s amendments echoed legislation that Deegan vetoed in June after Council approved it on an 11-7 vote. After the veto, Council voted 8-7 to override the veto, which fell short of the two-thirds majority vote required to do so. Diamond introduced the legislation.
Before the Sept. 23 Council meeting, city General Counsel Michael Fackler issued an opinion saying Deegan could line-item veto Diamond’s amendments, but an override would only require a simple majority since it would come on a line item.
Council reached an impasse on the Diamond amendments about 2 a.m.
Republicans hold a 14-5 majority on the Council, but were not united on the budget, tax cut or the Diamond amendments.
Ten Republican Council members supported the Diamond amendments and voted for them when they were considered on a stand-alone basis. But with Gay and Freeman abstaining on the full budget ordinance, the majority Republicans found themselves with enough votes to put the amendments in the budget, but without enough to approve the budget with the amendments.
With Lahnen’s compromise, Democrat Clark-Murray and Republican Boylan agreed to support the budget without the contested amendments. Others followed suit, leading to the 15-2 vote.
Before the compromise, Johnson called Diamond’s amendments a “poison pill" that has killed this budget. Johnson is a Democrat, like the majority of Council members who opposed the amendments.
Referring to Diamond, Johnson asked his colleagues, “Do we have the courage to stand up to a bully who has called names and said things that are unconscionable on this very dais?”
Diamond, a Republican, refused to consider withdrawing his amendments, saying opponents were embittered for losing the vote on millage rate decrease, which he supported.
“Holding up this budget and driving our city into a ditch financially is on you,” Diamond said.
“The tyranny of the minority who refuse to accept that you lost the vote. You lost. Lose the vote with some grace. Don’t hold up the entire city budget.”
Council members debate millage reduction
Before the debate on the overall budget, Council voted 10-9 to lower the millage rate for Jacksonville, the Beaches and Baldwin.
Ten Republican members, Arias, Joe Carlucci, Carrico, Diamond, Freeman, Gay, Howland, Lahnen, Miller and Salem, voted for the cut. Voting no were Republicans Amaro, Boylan, Matt Carlucci and White along with Democrats Clark-Murray, Gaffney Jr., Johnson, Peluso and Pittman.
Council then voted 18-1 to lower the millage rate for Baldwin. Peluso was the lone no vote.
As contained in Ordinance 2025-0502, the millage rate reduction for Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach was to 7.9012 from 8.0262. The rate reduction for Baldwin, contained in Ordinance 2025-0503, was to 9.4208 from 9.5260.
The larger support for the cut to Baldwin’s millage rate came after the town’s mayor, Sean Lynch, said the town had raised its rate to account for the Council-approved reduction of funding to the Northeast Florida Regional Council. Lynch told Council he would like to see the millage rate for Baldwin reduced.
The regional council supports economic development, emergency preparedness, affordable housing and other programs in Baker, Clay, Duval, Flagler, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns counties.
Thirty-seven individuals spoke in the public hearing on the millage reduction for Jacksonville. Of those, who often echoed the points made by those on both sides of Council, 33 spoke against the proposed cut, and four spoke in favor.
Some comments by Council members during the tax cut debate:
Peluso: “Based on the number of people that have spoken, I think we can see people do not want this cut. My concern with doing this millage cut is that there are hidden deficits that we still have yet to pay… If we cut this millage, I’m afraid we’ll never get to them.”
Diamond: “This is not nearly a big enough tax cut for the people of Jacksonville. This used to be a place where you could come and have a house and build a family and build family wealth and make sure that their kids were going to a good school. That dream is becoming out of reach for so many people in Jacksonville.”
Johnson: “Some even say that we have a spending problem, but what I do believe that we have a listening problem, because the people told us what they want to hear and what we should be doing. This money that is carved out from our budget takes things away from people.”
Howland: “Tonight, we’re debating whether to take dollars out of their wallets. And we’re debating, frankly, just how much we think those dollars matter to them. The threat to public safety funding is not our modest proposed $13 million tax reduction. It’s not even close. It’s the administration’s growing excess spend on new and recurring programs that often fall far outside the scope of government.”
Those advocating for the cut pushed back on comments it could lead to future budget deficit. They said an increased trash fee, passed in May 2025, will increase city revenue by $340 million over five years.
Despite the additional revenue from the trash fee, Council auditors are still projecting a deficit of $80 million over those five years that will require budget cuts or additional revenue to eliminate it. The $80 million estimate includes the millage rate cut.
Weeks of mill rate debate precede final discussion
Deegan said her proposed operating budget, an increase from the $1.88 billion in the 2024-25 approved version, allowed Jacksonville to continue investing in providing essential services for the city’s growing population.
Much of the increased spending in Deegan’s budget 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’s budget drew criticism from a 10-member Republican majority of Council, who said government spending was outpacing population and inflation rates, and the city should provide relief to taxpayers through the millage rate reduction.
The Republican-dominated Council Finance Committee voted to recommend spending reductions, including on such Deegan priorities as affordable housing, health care and elder care.
Deegan, a Democrat, responded by accusing her Republican opponents of being motivated by politics, not a genuine concern for taxpayers, in advance of Jacksonville’s 2027 municipal elections.
She said the spending cuts would inhibit the city from serving residents’ needs while providing no meaningful tax savings to property owners.
Her office noted that Jacksonville’s millage rate is lower than the level in such large Jacksonville cities as Miami, Orlando and Tampa.
The majority Republicans said that even with the Finance Committee’s proposed spending reductions, the version of the budget that came out of the committee would provide a near-record amount of funding for nonprofit organizations that provide social and cultural services.
Howland said the Finance Committee’s budget included $59 million for after-school programs, $56 million for indigent medical care, $23 million for Medicaid, $7 million for juvenile justice, $7 million in public service grants, and more.
“We’re not killing babies with cuts. We’re not taking money out of the mouths of seniors with cuts,” he said.
According to the Council auditors, the 2025-26 budget contains more money than any previous budget for Kids Hope Alliance, indigent health care, public service grants and Cultural Council funding.
Auditors said that determining nonprofit spending outside of those four budget items would be “extremely difficult to quantify.”
Proponents of the millage rate cut also said that with the Finance Committee’s cuts, the budget still provided a record amount of funding for capital improvements and public safety.
About $100 million in Deegan’s proposed operating budget helps provide $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.
Political battle lines
In addition to spurring disagreement between Deegan and several Council Republicans, the budget debate also divided Council Democrats and Republicans, and among Republicans themselves.
Republican members Amaro, Boylan, Matt Carlucci and White opposed the millage rate increase and the Diamond amendments.
Those against the cuts have said that in addition to reducing funding for social services, the millage rate cut would hurt the city’s ability to fund public safety long-term. That position was endorsed publicly by leaders of the unions for Jacksonville’s police officers and firefighters.
Former Republican Mayor John Peyton joined other members of the Jacksonville Civic Council in opposing the millage rate cut.
In text messages, Peyton told Arias that the rate cut was “a self-serving maneuver to secure leadership or re-election.”
“The donor class, corporate and not-for-profit leadership are absolutely paying attention and have long memories,” he texted.
“I suggest you take a long walk on the beach and consider seriously your position.”
Arias responded by saying the only political pressure he had received on the issue was from the Civic Council, not taxpayers.
“I don’t care. I’ll win my next reelection without the Civic Council,” he said. “Nobody will pressure me to make a vote based off of what they want.”
First responders raise concerns
The union leaders for Jacksonville’s first responders said the millage rate reduction would inhibit the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department from maintaining adequate protection for the city.
“Reducing revenue without a sustainable plan will jeopardize our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest for the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office,” Kelly Dobson, the president of the Jacksonville Association of Firefighters, and Randy Reaves, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police, wrote in a release.
“History has a way of repeating itself. We’ve seen what happens when short-term savings lead to long-term setbacks.”
Deegan said the rate reduction would cost the city $76 million over five years in lost tax revenue.
The Civic Council members said the city had too many major financial commitments in future years to lower revenue.
In current and upcoming budget cycles, Jacksonville faces significant outlays for a first responder pension fund, the city’s portion of the Jacksonville Jaguars’ $1.4 billion stadium renovations and a new jail.
“Reducing revenue at this time is inconsistent with maintaining public safety, ensuring quality of life, and managing growth,” the group wrote.
“Jacksonville’s long-term fiscal health is at stake.”
In separate responses, Carrico said the tax cut was aimed at helping working families and providing ample support for public safety.
This story has been updated with the budget vote complete.