Fort Walton Beach City Council puts charter reforms back to voters, rekindling debate over ‘will of the people’

Section 33 — Compensation for Elected Officials

In November 2024, voters approved a charter amendment that bans all compensation for elected officials, permitting only reimbursement for official expenses.

The new Charter Review Commission, a seven-member body composed of individuals handpicked by city council members to review the city’s charter, recommended reversing the ban and authorizing a $1,000 monthly stipend for the mayor and each council member, while maintaining the existing reimbursement provisions.

City Attorney Jeffery Burns told the council the payments would be processed through payroll with taxes withheld, describing them as “a supplement,” not a traditional salary.

Charter Review Commission Chairman Mike Minich said members went “back and forth quite a ways” before settling on the $1,000 figure.

Some favored a smaller $500 stipend, while others wanted to restore health insurance coverage.

RELATED: FWB Council rejects removal of Charter Committee leader over alleged confrontation

“Ultimately, the majority felt it should be equal for everyone,” Minich said, adding that the council should decide compensation levels if voters approve.

Commission Member Robert Smith strongly opposed the idea, reminding the council that 5,168 people, or 53.58%, had just voted to ban compensation. “It’s wrong. It’s not democratic to go against the will of the people in the most recent election,” Smith said.

Councilmember Payne Walker moved to deny the recommendation outright.

“It’s a slap in the face to those who worked so hard,” he said, arguing that only a new citizen petition, not an appointed committee, should reopen the issue.

Mayor Pro Tem David Schmidt, who presided over the meeting due to Mayor Nic Allegretto‘s absence, and Councilmember Gloria DeBerry agreed, saying reversing a voter decision less than a year later would erode trust.

DeBerry said she views council service as community work: “I won’t be voting to compensate elected officials. I volunteer. I’ve volunteered more hours than many people spend working.”

Councilmembers Bryce Jeter, Ben Merrell, Logan Browning, and Debi Riley countered that the change would let voters reconsider with more context.

“This is about changing things for people that are going to raise their hand to run next time,” Jeter said. “You may not get the best candidates if you do it for free.”

Merrell said stipends would actually cut overall costs by replacing salary-plus-benefits with a flat payment. Finance Director Nicole Nabors confirmed that, under the old system, the combined pay and benefits of the mayor and council totaled roughly $250,000 annually.

With this proposal, taxpayers will be on the hook for $84,000 per year to compensate elected officials.

Schmidt cautioned that candidates had sought office knowing the pay ban existed. “As much as I want these benefits,” he said, “I just have to lean on what was spoken to in the referendum.”

Walker’s motion to deny failed 3-4 (Walker, Schmidt, DeBerry yes). Jeter’s motion to accept the recommendation passed 4-3 (Jeter, Merrell, Browning, Riley yes).

If approved to become a ballot measure on the March 2026 ballot and then passed, the $1,000-per-month stipends would begin with the next elected council, not the current one.

We didn’t start the fire (assessment)

Section 34 was added by voters in 2024 to prevent the imposition of new special assessments, such as the controversial “fire-assessment fee,” without direct voter approval. The Charter Review Commission proposed removing the section, saying state law already governs such assessments.

Commission Member Robert Smith urged the council to keep it, noting 67 percent of voters had supported the amendment.

“It keeps the city from doing that type of assessment again,” he said. Walker agreed, calling the fire-fee controversy “the spark that started the fire.”

Walker moved to deny the deletion and keep Section 34; Jeter seconded. The motion passed 5-2, with Browning, Jeter, Merrell, Schmidt, and Walker voting in favor and DeBerry and Riley voting against.

Section 35 — Limitation on Annual Budget Expenditures

Another 2024 amendment capped annual increases in city operating and personnel budgets at 3 percent, or the cost of living expenses, whichever was greater.

Proponents called it fiscal discipline; staff said it was hamstringing operations.

Chair Minich said the cap “takes your job away from you.” Commission Member Mike Holmes warned that the city balanced this year’s budget by pulling $5.1 million from reserves, leaving about $500,000 unrestricted. “If we have a hurricane, we’re in trouble,” he said.

City Manager Jason Davis said compliance was already costing taxpayers more. To meet the cap, he said, the city left a $70,000 public works job vacant and outsourced it for $200,000, a workaround staff dubbed “watch-group math.”

Davis added that the rule had led to the turnover of ten employees and resulted in hours of extra budget labor.

“The cap is actually costing more,” Davis said.

Commissioner Smith maintained that the rule is working.

“It looks like the city is in compliance,” he said. “Sixty-one percent of voters approved this. There’s no reason to go against the will of the people.”

Jeter moved to accept the commission’s recommendation to remove the cap, seconded by Merrell. The motion passed 4-3 (Browning, Jeter, Merrell, Riley yes; DeBerry, Schmidt, Walker no).

If approved to be on the ballot in March, the change would restore the council’s complete discretion over future budgets.

Proposed New Provision — Conflict-of-Interest Property Purchases

The Charter Review Commission also proposed a new ethics rule to bar the mayor, council members, their families, or businesses from buying property encumbered by city liens, unless the council publicly approves the sale.

The idea emerged weeks after a Mid Bay News investigation revealed allegations that Councilmember Bryce Jeter had coerced an incarcerated homeowner into selling his property at 15 Elm Avenue to Jeter’s company, JBJ Builders LLC, for $65,000 — far below its $166,000 county-appraised value — on the same day Jeter posted the owner’s $3,500 bond.

At an Aug. 20 code-enforcement hearing, prospective buyer Frank Esposito accused Jeter of pressuring homeowner Walter F. Robinson Jr. to sign over the deed while jailed. Robinson told the magistrate he felt coerced and feared being trespassed from his own home.

Jeter denied any wrongdoing, calling the transaction “100 percent legal, ethical, and moral.” He said the house was blighted and that, as a local builder, he had tried to buy it for years, not as a council member.

“I’ve been trying to buy [that] property for five years,” he said on the Sept. 30 meeting, describing another nearby homeowner who recently called to say they might sell. “All this has been taken out of context.”

Records indicate that the home had multiple code violations, but no formal condemnation was issued. The title underwriter, Chicago Title, has since launched an internal review of the sale, according to Esposito.

During the Sept. 30 meeting, City Attorney Burns outlined the proposed ethics clause. Paula Smyth, a Fort Walton Beach resident, argued the rule did not go far enough and should extend to any property under code enforcement, not just liens. She also questioned whether Jeter should have recused himself from the discussion.

“We’re talking about restoring confidence,” Smyth told the council. “This could have gone a long way.”

Before deliberations began, the question of whether or not Jeter should recuse himself from the conversation ensued. That question was answered relatively quickly when Burns clarified that Jeter had no legal conflict because the purchase occurred before any new rule would take effect.

Schmidt moved to deny the recommendation, saying state law already addresses conflicts of interest; Browning seconded. The motion passed 6-1, with Walker the lone dissenter.