Jacksonville’s General Fund Grew 58% in Six Years. How Much Happened Under Curry—and How Much Under Deegan?

John Hawley

Sep 23, 2026

The Development Divide- Part X

Jacksonville has just approved what Mayor Donna Deegan's administration described as a lean budget, with General Fund growth originally proposed at only 1.1%. City Council cut the proposal further, and the final $2 billion budget passed September 22 by an 18-1 vote.

Viewed only against last year, Jacksonville's operating budget is now essentially flat. Viewed across six years, however, the trajectory looks considerably different.

Jacksonville's General Fund/General Services District grew from approximately $1.268 billion in FY2019-20 to $2.004 billion in FY2025-26. Using Jacksonville's own Council Auditor figures, that's an increase of approximately $736 million, or 58%.

Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia argues that local-government spending should remain more closely tied to inflation and population growth. Rather than adopting his characterization of spending beyond that benchmark as "wasteful," The 101 Report separated Jacksonville's six-year increase between the Curry and Deegan administrations and compared the overall growth with the state's inflation-and-population benchmark.

The result gives taxpayers another way to measure how Jacksonville government has grown.

How Much Has Jacksonville’s General Fund Grown Since FY2019-20?

Jacksonville's Council Auditor lists $1,267,982,097 in General Fund/GSD expenditures for FY2019-20. By FY2025-26, that same budget category had reached $2,003,918,147.

That's an increase of $735,936,050, or approximately 58.0%, in six budget years. Using the same General Fund/GSD category at both endpoints avoids mixing Jacksonville's roughly $2 billion operating budget with much larger figures that include other funds, transfers or independent authorities.

The 58% calculation differs somewhat from the 61% increase recently cited by Ingoglia's office. The state says Jacksonville's General Fund increased by $840.1 million between FY2019-20 and FY2025-26, but Jacksonville's published Council Auditor figures produce the smaller $735.9 million increase when the same General Fund/GSD category is used at both endpoints.

For this analysis, The 101 Report uses Jacksonville's own numbers consistently.

How Much of Jacksonville’s Budget Growth Happened Under Lenny Curry?

The first half of this six-year window occurred during Republican Mayor Lenny Curry's administration.

Jacksonville's General Fund/GSD increased from $1.268 billion in FY2019-20 to $1.540 billion in FY2022-23, Curry's final full fiscal-year budget. That's approximately $272.4 million in additional annual spending, or 21.5% growth.

The budget was already moving upward before Deegan took office. In fact, Jacksonville's records show General Fund/GSD spending increasing from $1.26798 billion in FY2019-20 to $1.34142 billion in FY2020-21, $1.41684 billion in FY2021-22 and $1.54040 billion in FY2022-23.

That gives us a clearly defined handoff point between administrations.

How Much Has Jacksonville’s General Fund Grown Under Donna Deegan?

Deegan took office in July 2023, making FY2023-24 the first budget proposed by her administration.

Starting with Curry's final $1.540 billion FY2022-23 General Fund/GSD, Jacksonville reached $2.004 billion in FY2025-26. That's approximately $463.5 million in additional annual spending, or 30.1% growth from the Curry endpoint.

The percentages shouldn't simply be added because the Deegan-era percentage starts from the larger $1.540 billion base. In dollars, however, the six-year increase divides cleanly: approximately $272 million occurred during the Curry portion and $464 million during the Deegan portion.

That means roughly 37% of the $736 million increase occurred during the Curry period and 63% during the Deegan period.

Curry vs. Deegan: Where Did the $736 Million Increase Occur?

Period	Starting General Fund	Ending General Fund	Increase	Growth
Curry: FY20–FY23	$1.268B	$1.540B	+$272.4M	+21.5%
Deegan: FY23–FY26	$1.540B	$2.004B	+$463.5M	+30.1%
Full six years	$1.268B	$2.004B	+$735.9M	+58.0%

These aren't campaign figures supplied by either mayor. They are calculations using Jacksonville's published General Fund/GSD budgets at the beginning, midpoint and end of the six-year period.

They also demonstrate why assigning the entire increase to one administration would be misleading. Jacksonville's budget was growing under Curry and continued growing—at a faster rate over our measured period—under Deegan.

Florida’s CFO Says Jacksonville Government Has Outgrown Inflation and Population

Ingoglia has proposed a different test for evaluating local-government growth.

His Florida Agency of Fiscal Oversight methodology starts with an earlier budget and adjusts it for inflation and population growth. For Jacksonville, his office used 25.5% cumulative inflation and 10.49% population growth between FY2019-20 and FY2025-26.

Ingoglia also added a 5% buffer for governments with budgets exceeding $2 billion before arriving at his own calculation of excessive spending. His office ultimately characterized $275.7 million of Jacksonville's FY2025-26 budget as excessive and said cumulative spending above its index totaled $623.4 million over six years.

Those are the CFO's characterizations. Our question is narrower: How far did Jacksonville's actual General Fund growth depart from inflation and population growth?

What Happens When Jacksonville’s Budget Is Adjusted for Inflation and Population?

Simply adding 25.5% inflation to 10.49% population growth produces 35.99%, but that isn't the most accurate way to calculate the combined effect. If Jacksonville were providing approximately the same inflation-adjusted level of government to a larger population, the two changes should be compounded.

Multiplying the two factors—1.255 × 1.1049—produces approximately 1.3866. That means the combined inflation-and-population benchmark is approximately 38.7% using the CFO's own reported inputs.

Apply 38.7% growth to Jacksonville's FY2019-20 General Fund/GSD of $1.268 billion, and the resulting FY2025-26 benchmark is approximately $1.758 billion.

Jacksonville actually budgeted $2.004 billion.

Jacksonville Grew About 19 Percentage Points Faster Than That Benchmark

The comparison produces the central finding of this analysis.

Jacksonville's General Fund/GSD grew approximately 58.0%, while the compounded inflation-and-population benchmark using the CFO's inputs is approximately 38.7%. That's a difference of about 19.4 percentage points.

Measured in dollars, Jacksonville's actual FY2025-26 General Fund was approximately $246 million above the roughly $1.758 billion level produced by applying that inflation-and-population benchmark to FY2019-20.

That doesn't establish that $246 million was unnecessary spending. It establishes something more limited and measurable: Jacksonville's General Fund grew materially faster than inflation and population over this six-year period.

Does Government Spending Have to Track Inflation and Population?

That is ultimately a policy question rather than a mathematical one.

Ingoglia argues that inflation and population provide an appropriate benchmark for how quickly local government should grow. His office goes further by applying additional allowances and then characterizing spending beyond its resulting index as excessive or wasteful.

Jacksonville has rejected that characterization. After Ingoglia's June criticism, the Mayor's Office argued that residents expect services including roads, parks, libraries and pools and said those expenditures shouldn't automatically be classified as waste.

The 101 Report doesn't need to resolve that policy argument to measure the departure. For readers who believe government should generally grow with population and inflation, Jacksonville grew about 19 percentage points faster than that benchmark.

Jacksonville Spent More, but It Also Expanded Services

The budget increase didn't occur without corresponding spending decisions.

Jacksonville's FY2025-26 General Fund/GSD includes approximately $731.7 million for salaries, $311.9 million for pension costs, $124.7 million for debt repayment and $112.7 million for grants, aids and contributions. The Council Auditor also documented public-safety collective-bargaining increases and additional positions for the Sheriff's Office and Fire and Rescue.

That matters because an inflation-and-population benchmark doesn't determine what level of service Jacksonville should provide. City government can choose to hire additional firefighters, police officers or other employees, expand programs or increase infrastructure investment beyond what would be required simply to maintain an existing level of service.

The benchmark instead gives taxpayers a reference point for measuring how much faster government grew than the two factors the CFO says should principally constrain it.

After Six Years of Growth, Deegan Is Now Emphasizing a Nearly Flat Budget

The FY2026-27 budget represents a notable change in trajectory.

Deegan proposed a $2.0265 billion General Fund, just 1.1% larger than FY2025-26, and her administration explicitly described the proposal as a "lean and balanced" budget. It also proposed no reserve draw and no increase in non-public-safety staffing for the second consecutive year.

The Republican-led Council Finance Committee then reduced Deegan's proposed spending by $22.91 million, with Council President Nick Howland and Finance Chair Will Lahnen emphasizing restraint amid uncertainty surrounding property-tax reform.

The final budget approved September 22 is therefore essentially flat compared with FY2025-26. Jacksonville has largely stopped the rapid General Fund expansion examined in the first six years of this analysis.

The Flat Budget Arrives During Deegan’s Reelection Campaign

The timing adds political context, although it doesn't establish why the administration proposed slower spending growth.

Deegan officially filed for reelection in April 2026 and is seeking a second term in Jacksonville's 2027 mayoral election. In launching her campaign, she highlighted infrastructure, health care, literacy, affordable housing, public-safety raises and Downtown development among her first-term investments.

That makes FY2026-27 Deegan's final annual budget before the 2027 mayoral election. Her administration can point to a General Fund growing only 1.1% in its original proposal, while critics can point to the substantially larger increase that occurred during the preceding three Deegan budget cycles.

Both figures are part of the same fiscal record.

A Republican-Led City Council Also Owns Part of Jacksonville’s Budget Record

Jacksonville's mayor proposes a budget, but City Council ultimately appropriates the money.

That distinction is especially important when examining the Deegan period. A Democratic mayor has proposed the budgets, while Republicans have held significant Council leadership and participated in reviewing, amending and approving them.

This year's process was led by Republican Council President Nick Howland and Republican Finance Chair Will Lahnen. After weeks of reductions and amendments, the final budget still passed 18-1.

So Jacksonville's recent budget history doesn't fit neatly into a story of one political party increasing spending while another opposed it.

Rory Diamond Cast the Only Vote Against the Budget

Republican Council member Rory Diamond was the lone member to reject the final FY2026-27 budget. The other 18 Council members voted for it, while the separate millage-rate vote passed 16-3.

Diamond subsequently criticized the budget in sharply partisan terms on social media, writing: "Only Amendment 3 will save Jacksonville from Mayor Deegan, these liberals, and RINOs." He followed with, "God save us" and said city leaders didn't care about taxpayers.

That criticism presents a substantially different view from the Council majority. It also underscores the emerging argument over Amendment 3: whether Jacksonville should voluntarily constrain spending or whether a change in property-tax law is necessary to force deeper reductions.

The budget vote itself shows where Council members landed this year: 18 approved the budget and Diamond did not.

Amendment 3 Is Now Part of Jacksonville’s Spending Debate

The possibility of Amendment 3 passing in November influenced Council's budget discussions.

Republican Council member Ron Salem sought a much larger contingency—$100 million—to prepare for a potential revenue reduction, warning that the city could face significant financial pressure if the amendment passes. Republican Matt Carlucci argued that making those reductions before voters decide the amendment would put "the cart before the horse."

Lahnen said he also would have preferred additional reductions and contingency funding but had to balance those objectives against assembling a budget capable of winning Council approval.

Those disagreements show that Republican Council members themselves don't have a single position on how aggressively Jacksonville should reduce current spending in anticipation of Amendment 3.

The Six-Year Record Is Different From This Year’s Budget

This distinction may be the most important one in the article.

Jacksonville's FY2026-27 budget is essentially flat. Deegan initially proposed just 1.1% General Fund growth, the Republican-led Finance Committee cut that proposal further, and 18 of 19 Council members ultimately approved the resulting budget.

But Jacksonville arrived at that plateau after a period of substantial expansion.

The General Fund/GSD grew 21.5% during the Curry portion of our six-year measurement period and another 30.1% from Curry's final budget through FY2025-26 under Deegan.

The result was a 58% cumulative increase.

So Who Is Responsible for Jacksonville’s Budget Growth?

The numbers don't support assigning the entire increase to either administration.

Curry presided over approximately $272 million of the $736 million increase measured here. From Curry's final budget through FY2025-26, another approximately $464 million was added under Deegan.

City Council approved budgets throughout both periods. That means Jacksonville's spending trajectory reflects decisions made by two mayors and successive City Councils, not a single officeholder.

The proportions are nevertheless measurable: roughly 37% of the six-year dollar increase occurred during the Curry portion of the period and 63% during the Deegan portion.

Jacksonville’s Budget Grew Faster Than Inflation and Population. What Does That Tell Us?

It tells us something specific—not everything.

Using Jacksonville's own General Fund/GSD figures, annual spending increased approximately 58% between FY2019-20 and FY2025-26. Using the inflation and population figures cited by Florida's CFO, a compounded benchmark would have produced approximately 38.7% growth over the same period.

Jacksonville therefore grew approximately 19 percentage points faster than that benchmark, leaving FY2025-26 General Fund spending roughly $246 million above the inflation-and-population-adjusted level calculated from the FY2019-20 baseline.

For taxpayers who believe government spending should remain closely tied to inflation and population, that's the relevant measurement.

Jacksonville Has Now Reached a Different Fiscal Moment

After six years of substantial General Fund growth, Jacksonville's latest budget barely moves the topline.

Deegan is seeking reelection. Republican Council leaders pushed for restraint. Diamond says the restraint doesn't go far enough, while other Republicans joined Democrats in approving the final budget. Amendment 3 now hangs over what Jacksonville can spend in future years.

Those are political arguments about what Jacksonville should do next.

The historical numbers tell us what already happened.

Jacksonville's General Fund/GSD grew from $1.268 billion to $2.004 billion in six years—about 58%. Approximately $272 million of that increase occurred during the Curry portion of the period, and approximately $464 million occurred from Curry's final budget through FY2025-26 under Deegan.

Against the inflation-and-population benchmark used in this analysis, Jacksonville's budget growth was approximately 19 percentage points higher.

Whether Jacksonville residents believe that additional government growth produced sufficient value is a question for them.

But the growth itself—and its departure from the benchmark—can be measured.