Jacksonville council narrowly adopts tentative budget, keeps millage rates after marathon debate

The Jacksonville City Council adopted a tentative fiscal 2025–26 budget and kept the mayor’s proposed millage rates on Sept. 9 after an extended meeting that included public hearings, repeated procedural votes and a late-night hand vote.

Council approved the mayor’s proposed tentative millage for the general-services district — 11.3169 mills — after repeated votes and a brief reconsideration (final recorded vote on the millage proposition: 10 yeas, 8 nays). Council also approved the separate tentative millage levies for urban-service districts: 8.0262 mills (vote recorded 12 yays, 5 nays) and 9.526 mills (vote recorded 13 yays, 5 nays). After floor amendments and a finance substitute, council approved the finance substitute for the budget and motioned to recommend approval of the tentative budget (final recorded vote on the budget substitute: 14 ayes, 2 nays, 2 abstentions).

Why it matters: The council’s actions set the tentative revenue and spending plan that will be refined before final adoption. The tentative millage rate determines how much property tax revenue the city will budget for the coming year; even a small rollback would have reduced revenue by millions and required offsetting cuts or use of reserves. Council members and hundreds of residents who spoke at public hearings framed the debate as a choice between modest tax relief for homeowners and preserving funding for services such as affordable housing, Meals on Wheels, homeless services and public safety.

Most important votes and actions - Ordinance 2025-0501 (tentative millage, general services district, 11.3169 mills): approved (vote recorded 10 yeas, 8 nays). The council secretary read the statutorily-required millage statement (Florida Statute §200.065) prior to the hearing. The vote followed extended public comment and a motion to reconsider earlier action on the matter. - Ordinance 2025-0502 (tentative millage, urban service districts 2–4, 8.0262 mills): approved (vote recorded 12 yays, 5 nays). - Ordinance 2025-0503 (tentative millage, urban service district 5, 9.526 mills): approved (vote recorded 13 yays, 5 nays). - Ordinance 2025-0504 (tentative consolidated budget substitute from Finance Committee, as amended): council approved the Finance substitute and related technical amendments; later the council voted to recommend approval of the tentative budget as substituted and twice amended (final recorded vote: 14 ayes, 2 nays, 2 abstentions). As part of a technical floor amendment, $13,992,794 of additional ad valorem revenue that would have been removed by a rollback was parked in a “budget stabilization” contingency pending further council action at the next meeting.

Public comment and council debate Residents and nonprofit leaders filled the chamber for the public hearings. Speakers opposed the proposed rollback, saying the modest homeowner savings (often cited by proponents as about $20 per year) would not offset the loss of services for renters, seniors and low-income people. Public commenters identified line items at risk if the rollback passed including: expansions of affordable housing and eviction diversion programs; homeless services; Meals on Wheels; telehealth and safety-net clinic funding; and dental and legal aid programs. Several nonprofit and civic leaders urged the council to retain revenue to fund those programs.

Council members debated two competing goals: short-term property tax relief for homeowners versus long-term preservation of services and investments. Supporters of holding the millage argued the city’s operating and capital needs — public safety staffing and equipment, road resurfacing, parks and long-term liabilities such as healthcare and pensions — require steady funding and that modest, symbolic rollbacks would force deeper cuts to core services. Supporters of a rollback said returning money to taxpayers was fiscally responsible and that the council should provide relief amid inflation.

Procedural choices and next steps Council used the procedural option to park the additional revenue the council kept in a budget-stabilization account so the funds are available for reconsideration at the council’s next meeting on Sept. 23. A floor amendment placed the dollars in contingency pending further action; staff advised that moving those funds later in the same budget process would require 10 votes, whereas pulling them out of a contingency in a later fiscal year would require a higher threshold (13 votes) under local rules. Council members discussed but did not adopt other proposed amendments in tonight’s session.

Who spoke (selected) - Council member James White (introduced the millage rollback proposal earlier in the process). - Council president and presiding officer (led procedural votes). - Council member Matt Carlucci (spoke for maintaining funding for infrastructure and long-term costs). - Council member Lehi (vice president Howland) (spoke in favor of the mayor’s budget and reminded colleagues of the size of nonprofit and public-safety spending in the proposed plan). - Council member Dr. Salem (changed his vote in the room to enable adoption tonight and said he would support a millage cut at a later meeting). - Public speakers included Didi Wicker (detailed program cuts), Mason Burnham (urged rejecting the rollback), Tom McGuire, Jamie Travis Leonard, Blake Harper and others representing neighborhood and nonprofit interests.

Discussion versus decision Council distinguished between tonight’s procedural decision (adoption of tentative millage rates and a tentative budget) and final adoption of a budget at a subsequent meeting. The tentative actions preserve the mayor’s proposed millage and program funding levels for now and place the uncut revenue into a contingency account for reconsideration. Council directed staff and auditors to produce required materials for the Sept. 23 session so members may offer floor amendments then.

Clarifying details (from meeting record) - Mayor’s proposed general-services district tentative millage: 11.3169 mills (reads and statutory notice per Fla. Stat. §200.065). - Finance substitute parked additional ad valorem revenue (approx. $13,992,794) into a budget stabilization account; specific splits included a small allocation to tax-increment district subsidies and an unallocated allocation to authorize expenditures for TID projects (city auditors’ figures read on the record). - Public commenters and staff listed program-level reductions that would result from a $13–$15 million rollback, including $5.2M for affordable housing (down-payment assistance, eviction diversion), $2.3M for homeless services, $1.9M for Meals on Wheels and other items (excerpts read from public commenters).

Community relevance The decision affects all Jacksonville taxpayers and city-funded services. Homeowners would see modest per-household savings from a rollback; renters (more than 50% of residents) would see no direct tax cut but could face program reductions. Public-safety unions, nonprofit providers and civic groups said cuts would reduce services; proponents of the rollback argued for taxpayer relief and smaller government.

Searchable tags: [budget, millage, property tax, Jacksonville, public safety, affordable housing, Meals on Wheels]

Proper names (selected) - Jacksonville Civic Council (organization referenced in public comment) - Abna Bazaar (business referenced in public comment) - Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO)

Actions - motion: "Recommend approval of tentative millage (general services district; 11.3169 mills)"; mover: not specified; second: not specified; vote_record: [{"member":"","vote":"yes"}]; tally: {"yes":10,"no":8}; outcome: "approved"; notes: "Reconsideration occurred earlier before final vote."; referenced_by:["2025-0501"] - motion: "Recommend approval of tentative millage (urban service districts 2–4; 8.0262 mills)"; tally: {"yes":12,"no":5}; outcome: "approved"; referenced_by:["2025-0502"] - motion: "Recommend approval of tentative millage (urban service district 5; 9.526 mills)"; tally: {"yes":13,"no":5}; outcome: "approved"; referenced_by:["2025-0503"] - motion: "Adopt Finance Committee substitute for tentative consolidated budget (2025-26) as amended; park additional ad valorem revenue in budget stabilization account pending further action"; tally: {"yes":14,"no":2,"abstain":2}; outcome: "approved"; notes: "Technical amendment parked $13,992,794 in contingency; allows reconsideration on Sept. 23."; referenced_by:["2025-0504"]

Discussion_decision: {"discussion_points":["Impact of a $13–$15M rollback on affordable housing, Meals on Wheels, homeless services and telehealth","Whether short-term taxpayer relief outweighs service cuts","Public-safety funding levels and long-term liabilities (pension, FRS, staffing)"],"directions":["Park additional ad-valorem revenue (~$13.99M) in a budget stabilization contingency for reconsideration on Sept. 23","Staff/auditors to provide itemized finance committee actions for public distribution"],"decisions":["Tentative millage rates adopted as proposed by the mayor (general and urban districts)","Finance substitute for the tentative budget adopted as amended and the additional revenue parked in contingency"]}

provenance:{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"transcript_0001","local_start":1196,"local_end":1239,"evidence_excerpt":"Ordinance 2025-501...the consolidated city of Jacksonville proposes to levy...a total millage of 11.3169 mills for operations.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"transcript_0002","local_start":6422,"local_end":6440,"evidence_excerpt":"10 yeas, 8 nays. By your action, you passed 2025-0501.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}] }