Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan has proposed a $2.026 billion General Fund budget for fiscal year 2026–27, along with a $586.1 million Capital Improvement Plan. The administration describes the plan as restrained, with modest growth, no use of reserves, and no new non-public-safety positions.

But beyond the headline numbers is a more focused question: how much of Jacksonville’s capital spending is concentrated downtown?

The city does not label spending in a simple “downtown” category. Instead, projects are spread across parks, venues, infrastructure, and economic development. But when you isolate the geography, a clear pattern emerges.

A $586 Million Capital Plan

The FY26–27 Capital Improvement Plan totals $586.1 million. It is divided into four main buckets: $330.8 million for general capital projects, $221.1 million for city venues, $25.3 million for stormwater and drainage, and $8.85 million for solid waste.

The single largest item is unmistakably downtown: $220 million for EverBank Stadium. This is part of Jacksonville’s long-term $775 million commitment to the Jaguars’ $1.55 billion renovation project. On its own, the stadium accounts for roughly 37.5% of the entire capital plan.

While this is not a new discretionary decision—it is a previously approved obligation—it is still a major FY27 downtown expenditure.

And it is not the only one.

$70.75 Million in Core Downtown Projects

Several other high-profile projects are also concentrated in the urban core. These include $27 million for the new Museum of Science and History on the Northbank, $25 million for Riverfront Plaza at the former Jacksonville Landing site, $8 million for the Emerald Trail segment connecting Hogan’s Creek to the riverfront, $5.75 million for James Weldon Johnson Park, and $5 million for Shipyards West Park.

Together, these five projects total $70.75 million.

When combined with the stadium allocation, identifiable downtown investment rises to about $290.75 million—nearly half of the entire capital plan. This is not a precise accounting of every downtown dollar, but a conservative snapshot based on clearly defined projects.

It also excludes broader categories like the $221.1 million City Venues program, which includes additional downtown-related spending not broken out by geography.

A Different View Without the Stadium

Because the stadium is a large, pre-approved commitment, it is useful to separate it from the rest of the analysis. Without it, the five remaining downtown projects still total $70.75 million.

That figure can be compared to other major citywide infrastructure investments. The budget includes about $35.95 million for road resurfacing, $25 million for septic tank phaseout, $25.34 million for stormwater improvements, $13.75 million for bridge repairs, and $11.93 million for sidewalks.

These are essential, citywide needs. But in comparison, just two downtown projects—MOSH and Riverfront Plaza—account for $52 million, more than the entire road resurfacing program.

This does not mean downtown is overfunded. It simply shows the scale of the city’s current priorities.

The Case for Downtown Investment

Mayor Deegan has been explicit about her strategy. She argues that downtown is now in a multi-billion-dollar development pipeline and that public investment is helping unlock private growth along the riverfront.

The logic is straightforward: a stronger downtown expands the tax base, attracts private investment, and supports tourism and job growth that benefits the entire city.

That argument is not without precedent. Downtown Jacksonville spent decades struggling with underutilized land, vacant buildings, and stalled redevelopment. Public investment is often what signals confidence to private developers.

And today, construction activity suggests that confidence is beginning to pay off.

But Jacksonville Is Much Larger Than Downtown

Jacksonville’s consolidated government covers a vast and diverse geography. Neighborhoods from the Westside to Arlington, Mandarin to Northside, and San Marco to Oceanway all face their own infrastructure challenges.

The city itself acknowledges this. In presenting the budget, Deegan described roads, sidewalks, drainage, and septic systems as the “bones of the city.”

Those systems receive meaningful funding: nearly $36 million for roads, $25 million for septic phaseout, $25.3 million for drainage, and nearly $12 million for sidewalks.

But those investments exist alongside a much larger downtown-focused capital footprint.

That raises a basic policy question: at what point does concentrated downtown investment begin to outweigh equally urgent needs elsewhere?

Not All Spending Is the Same

It is also important to distinguish between types of public spending. A park project is not the same as a road repair, and neither is the same as a stadium renovation or a development incentive.

For that reason, this series separates spending into three categories: direct public capital projects, private development incentives, and redevelopment financing through tax-increment districts.

Lumping these together can inflate totals and obscure what is actually being done with public dollars.

The Bigger Picture Beyond the Budget

The capital plan is only part of the story. Jacksonville also operates two downtown Community Redevelopment Areas, managed by the Downtown Investment Authority, which use tax-increment financing and incentive programs to support private development.

Over the past several years, the city has approved or considered incentives for residential towers, hotels, office projects, and mixed-use developments. Some are paid upfront, others over time, and many are tied to future tax revenue growth.

Several major deals are still in development or negotiation.

That means the capital budget alone does not capture the full scale of downtown investment.

A Question of Priorities

Every budget reflects tradeoffs. Jacksonville cannot fund every road, park, drainage project, and redevelopment opportunity at once. Choosing one priority often means delaying another.

The administration’s position is that downtown investment ultimately benefits the entire city by expanding economic activity and tax revenue.

That is a reasonable argument—and one supported by many urban redevelopment models.

But it also raises a fair question for residents outside the urban core: when will those broader benefits translate into visible reinvestment in their own neighborhoods?

Where This Series Begins

The goal here is not to argue against downtown investment. A strong urban core can benefit the entire region. Nor is it to suggest incentives are inherently wasteful; when structured well, they can generate long-term returns far exceeding their cost.

The goal is transparency.

Jacksonville is proposing $586.1 million in capital spending. Within that, roughly $290.75 million can be clearly tied to six major downtown projects, including the stadium. Even without the stadium, $70.75 million flows into just five downtown projects—compared to $35.95 million for citywide road resurfacing.

Those numbers do not answer the question. They define it.

Because the capital budget is only the first layer.

Coming in Part 2

Beyond the Budget: How Much Has Jacksonville Already Committed to Downtown Development?

Next, we move beyond the capital plan to examine Downtown Investment Authority incentives, REV grants, completion payments, and other commitments that do not appear as a single line in the budget.

That includes the proposed Culinary Institute of America deal, existing agreements, and projects still in negotiation—raising a larger question:

How much has Jacksonville already committed to rebuilding downtown, and how much more is still coming?