Neunder cites ‘fully loaded’ salaries for Lewis and Moye surpassing $400,000
On Oct. 21, the chair of the Sarasota County Commission cast the solitary “No” vote on a motion to give County Administrator Jonathan Lewis and County Attorney Joshua Moye each a $3,500 lump sum payment, instead of raises for the new fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.
Following the board members’ discussion about their desire to change the annual evaluation process for Lewis and Moye — who are their only employees, in accord with county policy — Commissioner Tom Knight suggested that he and his colleagues could provide a salary uptick comparable to the one that went into effect on Oct. 1 for the commissioners themselves.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, a state formula based on county population counts determined that the annual salary for a Sarasota County commissioner for this fiscal year should rise to $112,580. For the 2025 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, the amount was $109,043. Thus, as Knight noted, the difference is $3,537.
“I would think that [Lewis’ and Moye’s increase in pay] would mirror ours,” he said, calling the board members’ raise “a starting point for discussion.”
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger rounded the difference in the board members’ salaries from the 2025 fiscal year to the 2026 fiscal year to $3,500 in a motion for the payments for Lewis and Moye. Cutsinger had said he liked Knight’s proposal, calling it “a statement [that] says, ‘Hey, look, we know you’re doing a great job.’ ”
In response to a News Leader inquiry, the Human Resources reported the following via email on Oct. 22: “The current base salary for Jonathan Lewis is $284,252.80. The current base salary for Joshua Moye is $262,953.60. These amounts remain unchanged as the compensation amounts approved by the BCC on 10/21/25 are lump sum (one-time) payments in the amount of $3,500 each for both Lewis and Moye.”
During the board discussion this week, Knight pointed out that discussing an employee’s compensation in public is “a little uncomfortable.”
“Technically,” he continued, “I’m very satisfied with the knowledge, job skills and abilities that our two gentlemen at the end of our table here have to provide to us at this point in time,” referring to Lewis and Moye.
Commissioner Teresa Mast said she did not believe either Lewis or Moye had “asked for a specific increase,” though she acknowledged she could be wrong about that. She agreed with Knight about “following the same guidelines” as the state law provides for the board members’ pay.
Chair Joe Neunder told his colleagues he was going to take a different approach. He had learned what he characterized as the “all-in numbers” for the compensation that Lewis and Moye receive.
For Lewis, Neunder said, the figure is $460,000, “fully loaded,” with the Florida State Retirement System funding and all other benefits included. For Moye, Neunder added, it is $422,000.
Neunder said he believes that both numbers are “very healthy” for the positions, noting that “most of my constituents [feel the same].”
On the other hand, he pointed out, county commissioners’ salaries are decided by the state, based on a formula related to county population.
“I will not be voting for an increase in any event, this year,” Neunder continued, referring to Lewis and Moye. He stressed concerns about the county’s budget in future years.
Board members talked again later that day about concerns related to the Florida Legislature’s potential approval of placing a referendum on the November 2026 General Election ballot that would let voters decide on eliminating or reducing property tax payments.
“I also have to take into consideration the optics in the public,” Neunder pointed out. “Government is being scrutinized.”
He added that during his conversations with Lewis and Moye, he had learned that both “were happy with their compensation …”
Yet, he acknowledged, any raise would be in accord with “the will of the board.”
No need to ‘keep going through drills to go through drills’
Much of the Oct. 21 discussion focused on the evaluation process itself. As a former county employee, Commissioner Mast explained that County Administrator Randall Reid, who joined the county staff in 2012, had proposed an annual evaluation for the county administrator. The commissioners seated at that time agreed to the process.
“It was a very interesting time in the county,” she added.
Reid succeeded County Administrator Jim Ley, who had resigned in the spring of 2011 in the wake of a county Procurement Department scandal.
Knight told his colleagues on Oct. 21 that he had found a number of questions on the evaluation form for the county administrator to be inappropriate for a commissioner to consider, including ones about the annual preparation of the budget. “The budget’s our responsibility,” he stressed.
Moreover, he pointed out, “Typically, performance reviews are done in private.” He did acknowledge, though, “Certainly, we are a public board, and people want to hear us talk.”
Still, Knight continued, if any commissioner had a concern about the performance of either Lewis or Moye, the commissioner could talk with the individual at that time.
“I always learned in performance reviews … that you have your disagreements in private,” Knight noted. Yet, in the world as it is today, he continued, “People like to write things that get headlines and clicks.”
Addressing Lewis, with a chuckle, Knight said, “Jonathan, you and I have had some spirited conversations in my first year here. It’s fine. That’s what we’re here to do for the betterment of the county.”
Referring again to the evaluations, he added, “I don’t want to keep going through drills to go through drills if it’s not necessary …”
“I would definitely support having the conversation [about whether to continue the annual evaluations],” Commissioner Mast said.
In fact, she added, “I didn’t make [my evaluations] public.” (Only Knight’s evaluations of Lewis and Neunder were included in the Oct. 21 agenda packet when it was published on Oct. 14.)
“If I have an issue with [Lewis or Moye],” Mast continued, “I can get right into their office immediately. … I think any of the five of us have as much accessibility as we want with them at any given time.”
Knight expressed curiosity about how other local government bodies handle performance reviews of their managers and attorneys. Then he pointed out, “At the end of the day, the biggest performance review is 460,000 people decide if we’re doing our job right or not.” He was referring to the county’s residents.
Chair Neunder told his colleagues, “I institutionally, wholeheartedly believe in evaluations. You always have to know where your weaknesses are; you always have to know how to improve. A sedentary lifestyle does not lead to topnotch performance.
“And in a world where we are judged as commissioners by our performance, by the voters,” Neunder continued, “our employees should be also judged by the people that are in control of their day-to-day operations.
“Commissioner Mast said it well,” Neunder noted: “You can pick up a phone” or communicate by email. Moreover, he said, “I have no problem speaking my piece from this dais, if there’s a situation that arises, or in private.”
Yet, Neunder added, he also believes in transparent communications with the public. “That’s what we’re elected to do. … I plan on participating in all forms of communications and evaluations … I don’t believe anybody is perfect. We should always strive to get better, every day,” he said.
Neunder did concur with Knight about finding some of the evaluation form questions inappropriate, in regard to issues about which the commissioners have insufficient knowledge. As Neunder put it, he did not have “any insider baseball [expertise on them].”
Knight also acknowledged comments that Commissioner Cutsinger had made, regarding the public’s wishing to see the board members document their views of the county administrator and county attorney in writing.
While he may not always agree with Lewis and Moye, Knight continued, “We all work together to push the county forward for the best interests of the community.”
Commissioner Cutsinger told his colleagues, “I would agree that we should probably take a look at the process,” but at a later time. (During the board’s regular meeting on Oct. 8, Lewis had noted that staff originally had planned on an Oct. 22 commission meeting but had been able to adjust the Oct. 21 agenda to encompass all of the business planned on Oct. 22. Nonetheless, Lewis had cautioned the board members that the Oct. 21 agenda would be a long one.)
Cutsinger added, “I found it very uncomfortable, doing a public review” — even writing comments on the forms. “I think that’s better done in person.”
Referencing Commissioner Mast’s remarks, he said, “I wish I’d thought of [keeping his evaluations private, for his discussions with Lewis and Moye, he indicated].
Commissioner Mark Smith added, “We all have the opportunities to have one-on-one discussions [with Lewis and Moye], at least a couple of times a month …”
Smith concurred with the idea of the “fine-tuning of the form and the process,” saying that “would be a good thing.”
After Cutsinger made the motion for the lump sum payment of $3,500 for both Lewis and Moye, Knight seconded it. The resulting vote was 4-1, with Neunder voting “No.”