Jacksonville’s Highest-Paid Public Executives: Do JEA, JTA and Other Top Salaries Deliver Results?

John Hawley

Sep 12, 2026

The Mayor's Office- Part IX

Jacksonville’s highest-paid public employees earn considerably more on average than top earners in several peer cities. But salary rankings alone cannot tell taxpayers whether they are getting good value. We looked at how executive compensation evolved at JEA, JTA, JAXPORT and the Jacksonville Aviation Authority—and whether higher pay has been accompanied by measurable results.

A recent Jacksonville Daily Record analysis puts a striking number on Jacksonville’s public-sector salary pyramid.

The newspaper compared the 20 highest-paid public employees in Jacksonville with those in San Antonio, Orlando, Charlotte and Tampa. Jacksonville ranked first, with an average salary of $379,955, compared with $297,519 in San Antonio, $264,559 in Orlando, $261,707 in Charlotte and $221,264 in Tampa.

That makes Jacksonville’s average approximately 28% higher than San Antonio, 44% higher than Orlando, 45% higher than Charlotte and 72% higher than Tampa.

Those differences are substantial. But they don’t establish that Jacksonville’s executives are overpaid.

Jacksonville’s consolidated government and large independent authorities make simple city-to-city comparisons imperfect. Running a major municipal utility, airport, seaport or transit system may involve responsibilities that do not appear on another city’s payroll.

So rather than simply asking who makes the most, The 101 Report looked at a different question:

How did Jacksonville arrive at these compensation levels, who decided what the jobs were worth—and what did the public receive in return?

Why This Story Belongs in The Mayor’s Office Series

An important distinction should be made at the outset.

Mayor Donna Deegan does not set the salaries of the CEOs of JEA, JTA, JAXPORT or the Jacksonville Aviation Authority. Those decisions are made by the independent authorities’ governing boards under differing appointment and oversight structures.

This article belongs in The Mayor’s Office series because the larger question extends beyond one administration.

Previous installments examined the growth and salaries of Deegan’s Executive Office and the administration’s emphasis on demonstrating value and taxpayer return. This installment applies the same management test to some of Jacksonville’s other highest-paid public executives:

When government pays more for leadership, expertise and executive capacity, what should taxpayers and ratepayers expect in return?

Jacksonville’s authorities provide a useful comparison because they have taken different approaches. Some rely more heavily on guaranteed salary. Others place substantial compensation at risk based on performance. Some have experienced leadership turnover, while others have maintained executives for years.

All ultimately serve the public.

Jacksonville Was Debating Executive Pay More Than a Decade Ago

The debate is not new.

In 2011, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority board narrowly approved a $35,000 raise for CEO Steve Grossman, increasing his salary from $245,000 to $280,000. The vote was 4-3.

The increase made Jacksonville’s base airport CEO compensation the highest among Florida airports cited at the time, even though Jacksonville was not the state’s largest airport. Grossman’s previous contract allowed incentive compensation of up to 15%; the new package shifted more compensation into guaranteed salary.

A year later, a JAA committee gave Grossman an “outstanding” performance review, citing accomplishments involving Cecil Field, airline negotiations, employee morale and other areas. Yet board members initially postponed additional compensation because of Jacksonville’s economic conditions. Grossman himself said he was already well compensated.

The discussion wasn't simply about what comparable executives earned. It involved what was appropriate for a public organization and whether community economic conditions should matter.

By September 2012, Jacksonville’s independent-authority CEOs were already among its highest-paid public officials:

JEA CEO Paul McElroy — $381,000

JAXPORT CEO Paul Anderson — $336,000

JTA CEO Michael Blaylock — $287,000

JAA CEO Steve Grossman — $280,000

Those figures cannot simply be compared dollar-for-dollar with 2026 salaries. Inflation matters, responsibilities change and the organizations themselves have grown.

But the record shows a compensation philosophy already taking shape.

When JEA approved McElroy’s $381,000 contract, board Chair Ashton Hudson pointed to extensive compensation research, industry competitiveness and JEA’s scale as a roughly $2 billion enterprise. McElroy was reportedly offered $400,000 but declined it because he believed that amount would be too high for the Jacksonville community and could become a distraction.

JEA used national public-power and compensation data to assess the position.

That represents an important shift in perspective:

Jacksonville wasn't comparing its top executives only with other Jacksonville public employees. Its boards were increasingly comparing them with executives operating in national industry markets.

JEA CEO Pay: From $381,000 to $700,000—and Continued Leadership Turnover

JEA provides perhaps the clearest illustration of where that philosophy could lead.

McElroy earned $381,000 in 2012. By the time Jay Stowe left JEA in April 2024, he was earning $669,500.

Vickie Cavey initially took over at $560,000. In February 2025, JEA’s board unanimously increased her salary 25% to $700,000, with 3% annual increases, a $2,000 monthly business allowance and an $850 monthly vehicle allowance.

Market benchmarking again played a major role.

A compensation analysis indicated JEA ranked above the 80th percentile among large public-power utilities on measures including workforce, generating capacity and customer scale, while CEO compensation ranked around the 40th percentile. The analysis could have supported compensation of approximately $807,000.

That's a legitimate business argument. JEA is an enormous and technically complicated organization serving more than one million people and employing more than 2,200 workers.

But market benchmarking answers one question:

What do comparable executives get paid?

It doesn't necessarily answer another:

What results should Jacksonville receive for paying it?

Leadership stability provides one possible measurement.

Stowe resigned in April 2024 amid what the board chair described as a philosophical disagreement over JEA’s leadership. Cavey moved from interim to permanent CEO, received the $700,000 salary in 2025, went on leave in July 2026 and subsequently announced her resignation. Jody Brooks is now serving as interim CEO.

JEA says its strategy and day-to-day operations remain unchanged during the transition.

That doesn't mean the CEO is unnecessary. Quite the opposite: an organization capable of continuing through executive transitions may demonstrate the strength of its systems, managers and thousands of employees.

But it raises a legitimate return-on-investment question:

If premium executive compensation is justified partly by attracting and retaining exceptional leadership, should leadership stability itself be one of the outcomes boards measure?

And how much organizational success belongs to the executive at the top versus the institutional expertise underneath that person?

JTA CEO Compensation: What Counts as Performance?

JTA offers a different test because former CEO Nat Ford’s compensation included a performance component.

In theory, that provides an obvious solution: establish a salary, define expectations and reward an executive when those expectations are exceeded.

But performance-based compensation is only as meaningful as the measurements behind it.

In 2023, Action News Jax reported that JTA bus service was falling short in numerous measurable areas while the board nevertheless gave Ford a 4-out-of-4 “exceeds expectations” evaluation, allowing him to receive a $91,784.60 performance bonus.

That does not prove the evaluation was wrong. A transit CEO has responsibilities extending well beyond bus-service statistics, and a board can reasonably consider strategic, financial, organizational and long-term objectives.

It does raise the more important question:

What counted as performance?

That question has become more urgent.

A Jacksonville City Council Auditor report released in August projected JTA would finish FY2025-26 with a $31.8 million deficit, compared with a $2.25 million projected deficit only three months earlier.

Auditors identified $17.4 million in revenue shortfalls and $14.4 million in expenses above budget. Findings included a paratransit service-provider contract that had not been budgeted for the full year, contributing $8.4 million to the problem, and employee-benefit expenses running $7.4 million higher because they had not been budgeted accurately.

JTA responded with significant cost reductions, including 31 layoffs and 88 furloughs, fare increases, cuts to five bus routes and five ReadiRide zones, reduced frequency on four other routes and reduced NAVI Downtown service.

Those problems cannot automatically be attributed to one executive. Financial performance reflects decisions by executives, boards, financial personnel, government partners and changing revenue conditions.

But financial stewardship and budgeting are exactly the types of organizational outcomes that should matter when assessing executive performance.

Ford left JTA in 2026 for Dallas Area Rapid Transit after a tenure beginning in 2012. Cleveland Ferguson III is serving as interim CEO while JTA searches for permanent leadership.

That creates an opportunity.

Before determining what a nationally competitive JTA CEO salary should be, the board could first determine what Jacksonville needs its next CEO to accomplish.

Financial stability? More accurate budgeting? Ridership growth? Service reliability? Customer satisfaction? Project delivery? Operating efficiency?

The board should determine the appropriate measurements. But establishing them before compensation is negotiated could give Jacksonville something more useful than a salary benchmark.

It would create a results benchmark.

JAXPORT and JAA Show Different Ways to Connect Pay With Results

JAXPORT demonstrates that high executive compensation and measurable accountability are not mutually exclusive.

In 2025, its board unanimously approved a five-year extension for CEO Eric Green with a $550,000 base salary. Green can also earn bonuses worth as much as 50% of his base salary, with incentives tied to growth measurements involving financial performance and shipping volume.

JAXPORT has used documented performance goals covering financial results, strategic development, safety and customer satisfaction.

The relevant question therefore isn't simply whether $550,000 is high. It is whether taxpayers and port stakeholders can see the relationship between:

What the executive was paid → what the executive was expected to accomplish → what actually happened.

JAA provides another variation.

In its 2025 evaluation of CEO Mark VanLoh, the board evaluated specific performance categories. Financial performance and passenger satisfaction received excellent ratings, while community engagement was rated “very good.”

The resulting incentive payment was $90,528—93.75% of the maximum 25% bonus available.

Board members also discussed performance outside the balance sheet, including VanLoh’s relationship with the Mayor’s Office and City Council.

That is something a salary ranking cannot capture.

The board was identifying where the CEO performed well, where improvement was needed and how performance affected compensation.

Put the four authorities together and the distinction becomes clearer:

JEA has relied heavily on guaranteed executive compensation supported by national utility-market benchmarking. JTA used performance compensation, but its experience raises questions about which outcomes determined whether its CEO exceeded expectations. JAXPORT places potentially substantial compensation behind measurable organizational performance. JAA also uses an evaluation system in which results affect incentive compensation.

None automatically proves an executive is appropriately—or inappropriately—paid.

But some make the relationship between pay and results easier for the public to evaluate.

Who Sets the Salaries—and How Does the Market Keep Moving?

These salaries generally are not directly determined by Jacksonville’s mayor or City Council.

Independent authority boards hire CEOs, negotiate contracts, establish performance expectations and approve compensation. Elected government nevertheless remains connected because mayors, governors and, depending upon the authority, City Council participate in appointing or confirming board members.

Political accountability is therefore often indirect, but not nonexistent.

The history also suggests Jacksonville’s current compensation structure isn't principally a Deegan, Curry or Brown phenomenon. It developed across multiple mayors, Councils, governors and authority boards.

Another participant deserves attention: executive-search and compensation consultants.

Jacksonville authorities use national searches, outside firms and compensation studies to identify candidates and determine what comparable executives earn. That makes sense. Running a utility, transit authority, airport or seaport requires specialized expertise, and boards that ignore national labor markets may struggle to recruit qualified candidates.

But benchmarking creates its own question:

Who counts as a peer?

Compare Jacksonville with smaller regional organizations and one salary range may emerge. Compare it with the largest utilities, ports, airports or transit agencies and another may result.

JEA illustrates the issue. In 2012, market data showed McElroy’s compensation below comparable executives. More than a decade later, another market analysis placed JEA above the 80th percentile in organizational size measures while CEO compensation ranked around the 40th percentile.

Both comparisons supported arguments for higher compensation.

That raises what we might call the ratchet question:

If public agencies continually compare themselves with other highly paid organizations and attempt to reach the market midpoint, can benchmarking itself help move that midpoint higher?

That does not establish that Jacksonville’s salaries were artificially inflated.

It makes the peer group itself worth examining.

Which organizations were Jacksonville compared against? How similar were their responsibilities? And were compensation benchmarks established before performance expectations?

Does Jacksonville Pay More Because the Jobs Are Bigger?

There is an important counterargument: perhaps Jacksonville pays more because some of these jobs really are bigger.

That's entirely possible.

JEA serves more than one million people and employs more than 2,200 workers. JAXPORT, JAA and JTA operate specialized infrastructure with substantial capital programs, regulatory requirements and regional economic responsibilities.

That is why comparing Jacksonville’s highest-paid employees with another city’s highest-paid employees cannot settle the question.

A more meaningful analysis should consider the number of employees supervised, organizational budget and assets, customers or passengers served, capital programs, regulatory complexity and—ultimately—results.

A $700,000 executive running a multibillion-dollar enterprise could theoretically represent better value than a $300,000 executive managing an organization a fraction of the size.

The reverse can also be true.

A highly paid executive who saves an organization $100 million, improves service, builds a strong workforce and delivers major projects successfully could be an extraordinary bargain. A less expensive executive presiding over deteriorating financial and operational results could be extremely costly.

Salary alone doesn't establish value. Results do.

What Should Jacksonville Measure Before Paying More?

Jacksonville already possesses much of the information needed to make that analysis possible.

Rather than publishing executive salary in isolation, authority boards could pair compensation with a standardized public scorecard measuring total compensation; employees, budget and assets under management; compensation at genuinely comparable organizations; annual financial and operational goals; actual results; customer satisfaction; major projects delivered against schedule and budget; leadership stability; and the percentage of compensation genuinely contingent on achieving results.

That would make it easier to distinguish between paying more and getting more.

It might also demonstrate that some of Jacksonville’s highest-paid executives are producing results that justify the premium.

Taxpayers deserve to know that too.

Jacksonville Pays More at the Top. What Does Jacksonville Get?

The Daily Record comparison provides an important starting point:

$379,955.

That's the average salary of Jacksonville’s 20 highest-paid public employees in its comparison—substantially above San Antonio, Orlando, Charlotte and Tampa.

But that number shouldn't be the conclusion.

Jacksonville's independent authorities operate complex organizations with enormous responsibilities. Competitive executive compensation may be appropriate, and paying more for exceptional leadership can potentially save the public far more than the additional salary costs.

Jacksonville's history nevertheless shows that its boards have spent years asking what they must pay to attract top executive talent.

Perhaps another question should come first:

What should Jacksonville require that talent to deliver?

That brings this installment back to the larger question running through The Mayor’s Office series.

Whether the discussion involves a $700,000 utility CEO, a performance bonus at JTA or the expanding executive structure inside City Hall, the amount spent tells only half the story.

The other half is measurable public value.

If exceptional leadership requires exceptional compensation, taxpayers and ratepayers should be able to identify the exceptional results that come with it.

That's not an argument for paying Jacksonville’s public executives less.

It's an argument for knowing what Jacksonville is buying.

We Welcome Your Thoughts.