Residents and council press for clearer accounting and oversight of interim staffing contracts

May 3, 2025 — Payson residents and several council members on Monday pressed town staff for detailed information about the town's use of Interim Public Management (IPM), a vendor that supplies interim municipal personnel and project managers.

The town's acting town manager, Sheila, and Finance Director Dana described the contracts as a way to maintain continuity when key positions are vacant and to staff short-term capital projects. Residents and council members said they had concerns about total costs, contract structure, transparency and whether contracts had been used instead of hiring permanent staff.

Residents raised a string of specific questions about the company's billing and oversight during the call to the public. Charlie Sarafin (resident) asked why contract documents lacked the vendor's legal name, why several key positions had been staffed by temporary workers for long periods, and why weekly contract rates appeared high given the town's reported cumulative payments to the company. "As you'll see in the PowerPoint the town has already paid Interim Public Management over $1,400,000," Sarafin said during public comment.

Acting town manager Sheila said the town has employed IPM personnel since fiscal year 2022 to fill director-level and project roles while permanent recruitments proceed. She said contractors are assigned to specific projects and their time is billed to the project when appropriate. Sheila described the contractors' roles as functionally equivalent to in-house directors while they are on assignment and said their compensation figures in the town's personnel budgeting because the town plans for those positions whether filled by a regular employee or a contractor.

Sheila and council members also discussed a previously planned program management office (PMO). The FY25 budget included $1.5 million for a PMO to manage anticipated bond-funded projects; Sheila said much of that funding has not been spent because the bond measure did not pass and several projects did not move into construction. She told the council that charges for contract staff include contractor overhead and, in some cases, reimbursements for lodging or travel when contractors come from out of town.

Finance Director Dana presented mid-year budget figures at the meeting and confirmed that IPM charges have been posted to the appropriate funds and projects. Council members asked staff for a clearer, itemized report that would compare (a) the budgeted cost for an equivalent permanent position and (b) the amount the town actually paid a contractor for the same role in the same period. Council members also requested detail on any insurance reimbursements that reduced the town's net spending related to IT emergency work handled by a contractor.

Several council members and residents urged the town to solicit additional vendors or otherwise document competitive options for interim staffing. Sheila said other firms exist but that IPM has become a common provider for municipalities and that the town has used IPM because the firm supplied candidates who met Payson's needs. Council members asked staff to return with information on: total payments to IPM by fiscal year; the makeup of those payments (salary vs. overhead vs. travel/lodging); any reimbursements received; and a comparison between IPM costs and the fully loaded cost of equivalent full-time employees.

The council and staff also discussed the practical effects of contracting: contractors are paid as independent consultants (W-9/1099) and the town does not pay benefits for those consults, though the contractor's weekly rates can include overhead that covers the contractor company's costs. Acting town manager Sheila said contract assignments are flexible and may be ended when the town fills vacancies or projects are complete.

The council asked staff to put together a detailed packet for a future meeting that will include: line-item totals by fiscal year, copies of the contracts, candidate selection procedures, and the accounting entries that show where contractor hours and overhead are charged (general fund vs. capital projects). Residents requested the same information be made available publicly.

Going forward, council members said they wanted enough detail to evaluate whether interim staffing is cost-effective for Payson and whether policy changes or competitive solicitations were needed. Sheila and Dana agreed to prepare the requested breakdown and to present it at an upcoming meeting.

Ending: Council members and residents described the IPM discussion as among the meeting's most substantive items. Staff committed to return with an itemized accounting of contractor costs and a comparison to in-house staffing costs; a public packet and staff report will follow at a later meeting.