Former Longboat Town Manager Bullock likely to be named new interim city manager next week
During a special meeting on May 12, the Sarasota city commissioners agreed that they want to hire a consultant who, in turn, would assist them in finding a firm to handle the search for a new city manager.
On May 5, as The Sarasota News Leader reported, they voted to begin that search anew.
Having a consultant on board, they agreed this week, would take much of the pressure off City Auditor Shayla Griggs and Clerk and City Attorney Joe Polzak, whom they voted to put in charge of the city manager search after their May 5 discussion.
Previously, city Human Resources Director Stacie Mason had been the lead city staff member in the process.
Further, interim City Manager Doug Jeffcoat expressed a desire this week to continue in his position only through September, though commissioners acknowledged the likelihood that the search will take until the end of the year. Therefore, they also agreed on May 12 to direct Griggs to add a New Businessitem to their May 19 agenda, so they can talk about the potential of hiring former Longboat Key Town Manager Dave Bullock on a month-to-month contract basis, with no city benefits, to succeed Jeffcoat as soon as possible.
Bullock was a deputy Sarasota County administrator for 14 years; he served as the Longboat town manager from November 2011 until January 2018.
Both Mayor Liz Alpert and Commissioner Kyle Battie noted that they had talked with Bullock about that potential. Alpert pointed out that Bullock would be unavailable to start until after June 15. Therefore, Griggs suggested the potential that they could have a short special meeting in the latter half of June to hire Bullock.
The commissioners already had planned to take the month of June as their annual break from business.
Jeffcoat told them that he was willing to stay through September to try to ensure that their annual budget process has no disruptions.
Whoever is serving as interim manager, he explained, should be the person in charge of building that budget and overseeing it through its passage in September, in time for the 2026 fiscal year to begin on Oct. 1. He added that he did not want someone “to have to defend the budget that they did not prepare.”
Thus, Jeffcoat said, if the board members wanted to consider hiring another interim manager, “I would suggest that you do it immediately … [The new interim manager] really needs to be a part of those conversations … and be ready for those [budget] public hearings …”
Following their May 13 public hearing on the Obsidian appeal (see the related article in this issue), Commissioner Battie said that Bullock had emailed a proposed contract that day to City Attorney Polzak, who said he had not seen it, because of the hearing.
Battie asked that the contract be included on the agenda for the commission’s regular meeting on May 19, so they could discuss it.
Griggs responded that she already had planned to send out a notice the following day, May 14, regarding the change to the agenda to include the potential discussion of the board’s hiring another interim city manager. She added that, in her opinion, including an item about the proposed contract with Bullock on the same agenda “isn’t necessarily the best look.”
Nonetheless, she said, she would abide by the direction that the commissioners gave her.
Battie repeated his desire to see the contract discussion take place on May 19.
“I’m trying to, like, get this kind of wrapped up before we go on break,” Battie told her, referring to the board’s June recess.
City Attorney Polzak responded that staff simply wanted to respond to the direction of the commission as a body.
Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich then told Griggs, “My preference would be to discuss [the proposed Bullock contract] at the meeting on the 19th,” and then “vote on it, up or down,” during a special meeting on May 20. Ohlrich had referenced an email from Griggs to the commissioners that suggested the possibility of that May 20 session.
The commissioners could review the contract on May 19 and then vote on it on May 20, Ohlrich added.
Polzak replied that if, after discussing the situation on May 19, the commissioners directed staff to work on a contract, “Then we can, from that point do that.”
Vice Mayor Debbie Trice asked whether “a hypothetical contract with nobody’s name attached” could be included in the backup material for the May 19 agenda item.
Griggs responded that the latest she would want to send out the notice about the Change to the Order of the Day for the May 19 meeting would be May 15.
Mayor Alpert told Griggs she felt that the contract discussion could be part of the May 19 session, since the board members on May 12 had talked about the potential of hiring Bullock. The commissioners at least would have “a starting point,” Alpert added, in regard to hiring another interim city manager.
“A template [for a contract],” Polzak reframed her remarks.
Alpert indicated that that was what she had meant.
The other commissioners concurred, by consensus.
When Ohlrich then asked about the May 20 meeting, Griggs responded that, technically, the commissioners could approve a contract for Bullock on May 19, which would eliminate the need for a May 20 session.
“Put it on the agenda,” Battie told her, referring to adding the proposed contract to the board’s business for May 19.
When Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch asked Griggs, “Do you feel comfortable with the suggestion?” Griggs told her, “I will do whatever you all want me to do.”
Alpert asked Polzak whether he believed it would be legal to agree to the contract on May 19.
Polzak reminded the commissioners that, on May 12, they decided that, on May 19, they would discuss the potential of hiring Bullock before the budget process begins. Then, he continued, if the consensus was to do so, he had expected they would direct him to come back to them with a contract to review.
Griggs then said she would proceed with having the draft contract in the backup materials for the May 19 meeting, with the prospect of the commissioners voting that day to hire Bullock.
Ohlrich also asked whether Bullock could be invited to that meeting, adding that she has not met him.
“Yeah,” Polzak responded.
“I think that would be important,” Alpert said.
Ohlrich told her colleagues that her preference still would be to have a separate special meeting to vote on hiring Bullock. “It doesn’t have to be a long meeting.”
“I’m fine with that,” Alpert said.
Polzak agreed, saying that that would be more akin to the process that staff had laid out.
At that point, Griggs told the commissioners that she would go ahead and plan on the May 20 meeting, which she suggested would take no more than 30 minutes, so the contract could be approved. “I think that’s just clean.”
Hiring a consultant to facilitate the search process
During the May 12 special meeting, when Griggs inquired as to whether the commissioners wanted to choose the consultant for the city manager search, or whether they wanted her and Polzak to handle that, Alpert responded that that should be a commission responsibility.
Griggs earlier offered to pull together a list of names for consideration. Alpert responded that she knew of an individual who should be included on that list.
Commissioner Ahearn-Koch proposed that any member of the board who had a name in mind should provide it to the Clerk’s Office within the next day or two.
The selection of the consultant should occur during either a regular or special City Commission meeting, Griggs added. None of the commissioners objected to that.
Next, after Griggs asked about the timeline that the board members anticipated, to achieve the hiring of a new city manager, Commissioner Ohlrich responded that she had undertaken “a little research” on that point. “Twenty to 25 weeks is what the answer was,” she added.
Addressing Griggs, Ohlrich continued, “I didn’t make that up. Don’t look at me like that,” prompting laughter from Griggs and other members of the board.
“I think that’s reasonable,” Polzak responded.
“Yep,” Ahearn-Koch added.
Deputy City Manager Patrick Robinson pointed out that he believes the search firm that the commission selects — and the direction the board members give it — “will really dictate the timeline …” For example, he said, commissioners already had talked about their desire for public engagement in the process. “Setting up public meetings will extend that timeline …”
Alpert and Ohlrich agreed with him.
“Personally,” Ohlrich said, “I’d like to go pretty fast in identifying the consultant.” The commissioners could conduct a “really short” special meeting before May 22, when Alpert will be leaving the country for an overseas tour, to hire the consultant, Ohlrich added.
However, Alpert expressed concern that that timeline was too tight.
Ultimately, Griggs proposed that staff schedule the hiring of the consultant for the board’s first regular meeting in July, following its June break.
When Griggs next sought to ascertain the commissioners’ views on whether they want to select the search firm, the consensus was “Yes,” with Ohlrich and Ahearn-Koch the first to respond affirmatively.
Noting commissioners’ desire to make the process as transparent as possible, Polzak said, “Every decision will be made by you at the dais.”
Vice Mayor Trice then reprised an earlier comment that Ohlrich had made — that the commissioners would conduct Zoom interviews with representatives of the three finalists chosen for consideration to serve as the search firm. Could that take place during the board’s second regular meeting in July, Trice asked.
Griggs indicated that that would be a very tight timeline.
Ahearn-Koch proposed that a placeholder could be included on every City Commission agenda from the first July meeting forward, to allow the firm interviews to take place as soon as possible.
“The consultant will help to drive the timeline [for that],” Ohlrich told her colleagues. “If [the consultant is ready] after two weeks, yahoo!”
“Otherwise,” Trice said, “the placeholder would be the first meeting in August.”
Her colleagues agreed to that.
Next up, Griggs asked for their comments in regard to a budget for the process, noting that she has no funding in her office budget for such an initiative.
Ohlrich suggested they start with the budget for the previous search firm, Colin Baenziger & Associates, and find out where the funds came for hiring that firm.
Interim City Manager Jeffcoat told the commissioners that the Baenziger fee was about $35,000. The total for the new firm, he continued, “is going to be dependent on the search firm that you select,” as well as the guidance the commission gives the firm, including the number of public meetings that should be conducted, for example.
The make-up of the new manager
Turning to the question of criteria for the new city manager, Mayor Alpert suggested waiting until the consultant has been hired to discuss that.
However, Griggs pointed out that a couple of commissioners already have offered comments about the qualifications and personality traits that they would prefer.
Vice Mayor Trice added that she suspected each board member already had worked up a list.
Again, Alpert proposed waiting, but Ahearn-Koch pointed out that they had settled on a number of issues much sooner than their proposed timeline for the special meeting that day had envisioned.
Trice added that each of them could read her or his list and then they all could discuss whether a specific requirement was mandatory or “just nice to have,” for example, and organize the criteria by priority.
Alpert agreed with allowing each board member to run through his or her list. However, Alpert added, if they worked on setting priorities, “We’ll be here all day.”
Alpert did propose that each commissioner give her or his list to the consultant who will be hired, as “the consultant should be aware of those [criteria].” Then the board members together could work with the consultant to set their priorities.
Trice also suggested that every commissioner be given a copy of her or his colleagues’ lists.
Ahearn-Koch talked of her excitement about hearing the other lists, as those might induce her to adjust her criteria. Ultimately, she said, the information would be “the foundation of the whole process” necessary to hiring a new manager.
Ohlrich said she had undertaken other research that indicated the importance of having everyone’s criteria as they consider potential consultants and the candidates for a new search firm.
Commissioner Battie agreed with Alpert on working through the criteria with the consultant. “I would think, like, the consultant would kind of like serve as our guide … if you will … in terms of what it is that we should be looking for in a city manager …”
“And I do want to talk about what each of us are looking for,” Alpert told her colleagues. She just did not want to take time that day, she stressed again, to settle on the priorities.
Following Alpert’s statements, Griggs said that she and Polzak had thought that the commissioners that day would talk about the characteristics and experience they wished for with the next city manager. “You’ve been wanting to talk about it,” Griggs pointed out. The consultant could review the video of the discussion, Griggs continued, and take notes on those remarks. Then, when the consultant meets with the commissioners, Griggs added, the consultant will help them pull together the description.
Trice responded, “What Ms. Griggs said, I think, was really astute.”
The consultant’s being able to watch the video, Trice added, “would speed up the process,” especially since the commission was going to proceed with taking its June break.
Ahearn-Koch agreed.
Polzak pointed out, “for transparency’s sake,” that each board member make her or his list available for distribution to the others.