Payson council rejects interim appointment for Charlie Sarafin, votes to run in-house search for town manager

The Payson Common Council on Jan. 15 rejected a motion to appoint Charlie Sarafin as interim town manager but unanimously approved beginning an in‑house search to fill the town manager vacancy.

The council rejected the interim appointment motion 3–4 after public and council debate about perception, vetting and the scope of an interim manager's duties. Later in the same meeting the council voted 7–0 to direct Human Resources to begin an in‑house recruitment for a permanent town manager, with staff estimating a 5–7 month process and presenting a competitive pay range to guide advertising and hiring.

The interim appointment motion—moved from the dais to name Sarafin and to have town counsel negotiate an employment agreement—was put to a vote after extended discussion about whether the council should proceed immediately or first define consulting/services scope and timing. Staff attorney Sheila (staff member) reminded the council that “any discussion about Mr. Sarafin specifically would need to be done in this setting” because Sarafin had requested public discussion, and the council proceeded in open session.

Council members split over Sarafin’s candidacy. Speakers for and against raised concerns about perception, prior partisan activity, whether Sarafin’s private-sector experience fit municipal management and whether an interim appointee could complete a short-term turnaround without overshadowing department work. One council member said the town needs an “agent of change” and argued Sarafin’s private-sector turnaround experience could help; others said the town manager role requires deep experience in municipal government and that the appointment process appeared rushed. The motion failed 3–4; the mayor announced the result as “The motion fails, 3 to 4.”

After the failed interim appointment, the council considered options for filling the town manager vacancy. Lynn, the town’s Human Resources director, summarized recruitment steps and a more focused timeline than the council’s prior search: a 5–7 month recruitment that would include drafting minimum qualifications, determining a pay range and hiring range, advertising, screening and council interviews. Lynn said her estimate for a competitive 2025 pay range is roughly $158,000 to $237,000 with a midpoint near $197,700.

Lynn also described alternatives: an interim placement firm that could provide a vetted interim manager in as little as 2–6 weeks but typically at a higher cost (firms often charge roughly 20–30% of the position’s salary plus any relocation/housing costs), versus an in‑house recruitment handled by Town HR. Staff noted tradeoffs: in‑house recruiting can save money and keep control of screening, while a professional recruiter can reach passive candidates and provide an impartial shortlist.

Council members then moved to start an in‑house recruitment, with direction that councilors submit input for the recruitment brochure (minimum qualifications, target recruitment areas, and any priority goals). The council asked staff to compile council comments, return a revised brochure for approval and schedule candidate screening and interviews. Council members also asked that the process ensure transparency around how candidates are screened and short‑listed.

The council discussed but took no immediate action on engaging an external consultant or forming a citizen review committee to audit contracts and procedures. Several councilors said they wanted a short, focused work group to review policies, contracts and permitting processes and recommended scheduling a Council work session after the Feb. 22 regular meeting to develop a scope of services and decide whether to hire a consultant or form a citizen committee.

What happens next: the council directed councilors to send comments to Lynn to inform the recruitment brochure; staff said it could post a brochure within 2–4 weeks after receiving council direction and begin advertising. The council scheduled follow‑up work to refine any consultant/committee scope at a work session immediately after the Feb. 22 meeting.

Votes at a glance: Motion to appoint Charlie Sarafin as interim town manager, with town attorney to negotiate the contract — moved from the dais; second recorded via council controls — Outcome: failed, 3–4. Motion to begin an in‑house search for town manager — Outcome: passed, 7–0.

The council’s actions leave the acting leadership arrangement in place while the HR‑led recruitment proceeds and set a near‑term path for the town to solicit candidate qualifications, determine compensation guidance and return to the council for interviews and final selection.