Jacksonville council adopts 2025–26 budget after hours of debate over 'Diamond' policy amendment

The Jacksonville City Council adopted the fiscal year 2025–26 budget early Wednesday after a marathon meeting punctuated by repeated roll calls and heated debate over a floor amendment introduced by Councilman Diamond.

The council approved the main budget ordinance (file number 2025-0504) by voice and recorded ballot after the substitute as amended carried 15 in favor, 2 opposed and 2 abstentions. The two abstentions were recorded as members with conflicts earlier identified by the Office of General Counsel (OGC).

The central controversy of the night was the so-called Diamond amendment, a floor amendment that would have inserted three policy restrictions into the budget related to diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) practices, abortion and immigration. Councilman Diamond repeatedly defended the amendment, saying he “support[ed] all of them all day long,” and pushed to have it included in the substitute budget. Opponents said the amendment was improper policy language for an appropriations bill and that it risked derailing adoption of the budget.

OGC advised the council that, because of the way conflicts and the city’s TRIM (Truth in Millage) obligations are structured, the body could not create a late carve-out to restore voting rights for two members who had declared conflicts earlier in the process. That legal guidance shaped several procedural exchanges and votes during the night.

Council members debated whether to remove the Diamond amendment from the budget and take it up later as a standalone policy item. Several members who opposed the amendment made clear they would support the full budget if the policy language were removed. Councilman Laynan moved a compromise on the millage rate and other amendments intended to break the impasse; other council members said they were willing to change votes to reach a final budget.

The Diamond amendment was the subject of multiple reconsideration votes. On one roll call the amendment carried by a 10–9 margin and was temporarily readmitted to the substitute; on a later roll call the amendment failed and was not part of the final package presented for adoption. After votes to reconsider and renewed debate, the council ultimately moved the substitute as amended and approved the full budget.

Council members who spoke against inserting the Diamond amendment into the budget argued it “does not belong in a budget bill” and described it as a policy measure that should be handled outside appropriations. Supporters of the amendment said it reflected convictions held by their constituents and defended its inclusion while noting OGC had reviewed the language.

Several members expressed frustration with the length of the session and the process. Council President Carico and the council’s finance chair were thanked repeatedly by colleagues and staff for the hours spent shepherding the budget through committees and the dais. OGC and legislative staff repeatedly advised on timing, committee referral and consequences for related budget bills should the main budget not pass.

The council voted on multiple related budget bills after the substitute passed. The meeting record shows many individual appropriations and CIP (capital improvement program) votes carried by recorded ballots with typical counts (most unanimous or near-unanimous), and a string of smaller items and technical amendments were approved in sequence after the main budget was adopted. The council adjourned shortly after completing the remaining agenda items.

The budget adoption sends the city’s spending plan into implementation on Oct. 1. Council members who opposed policy language placed in the budget during debate said they expect to seek those policy changes through separate ordinance processes in the future rather than through appropriation bills.

Votes and next steps: Council staff and the Office of General Counsel said the council must approve the budget at this meeting absent an emergency; OGC also reiterated that carving out broad sections of the budget to remove conflicts for particular members was not legally feasible during the session. Several council members encouraged colleagues to pursue dialogue and compromise going forward.

The council president closed the meeting just after 4:30 a.m., thanking staff, auditors and attorneys for their work during a prolonged session.