Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxes Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
True Commission supports 1/8 mill reduction for FY25–26, votes 5–3 after debate
Summary
The True Commission voted to support a one‑eighth mill reduction in the city ad valorem rate for fiscal year 2025–26; the measure passed 5–3 after members debated whether to wait for fuller budget review.
The True Commission voted on Aug. 7 to adopt a resolution supporting a one‑eighth mill reduction in the city’s ad valorem tax rate for fiscal year 2025–26. Commissioner Raymond Day moved the resolution; the motion passed on a voice/hand vote, five in favor and three opposed.
The resolution language, as read aloud at the meeting, said the commission “supports the 1/8 mill reduction for fiscal year 2025–2026” and cited that the certified tax roll for Duval County had increased and that total ad valorem revenue had risen, producing additional marginal revenue. The resolution does not itself change tax rates; it expresses the commission’s position and—per the speaker—was to be conveyed to city council members.
Debate centered on timing and fiscal prudence. Commissioners who opposed or expressed hesitation said it was premature to endorse a millage reduction before completing a review of the proposed city budget and proposed cuts. They argued the commission should study the budget hearings and identify specific spending reductions before recommending a revenue decrease.
Supporters said rising property values and recurring increases in assessed value have produced large marginal revenue gains in recent years and that a modest one‑eighth mill reduction is a measured way to impose fiscal discipline and deliver modest relief to taxpayers. Supporters also said the reduction would lower projected new revenue rather than cut existing revenue streams.
An amendment proposed that any transmittal of the commission’s resolution to council include the commission’s suggested cuts to offset the revenue reduction; that amendment failed on a 5–3 vote. The main resolution then passed by the same margin.
Outcome and next steps: The commission voted to adopt the resolution and members agreed to provide a typed copy for transmittal. One commissioner said he would distribute the resolution to council members as a private citizen if needed; the chair said a formal resolution would follow.
Votes at a glance: yes 5, no 3. The commission did not record a roll‑call list of individual votes in the meeting transcript; the chair announced the tally and declared the motion carried.
Ending: The commission will provide the adopted resolution to city council members; staff and commissioners indicated they would provide a formal typed version for transmittal.
