Clermont council workshop sets timetable to craft city manager review criteria

The City of Clermont held a council workshop on March 17, 2026 to discuss creating standardized performance-review criteria for the city manager, with council members asking staff and the city attorney to compile a draft for review before upcoming budget deliberations.

Councilmembers opened the discussion by reiterating that workshop meetings are for information gathering only and that no formal vote would be taken. The mayor said the goal of the session was to arrive at a process that balances transparency with fairness and clarity of expectations.

“It's incumbent upon us five to agree…this is the path forward,” the mayor said, urging the council to ground a review in the city charter and to produce three to five measurable criteria. The city attorney summarized charter duties that could form the backbone of an evaluation, including preparing and administering the annual budget and keeping the council advised of the city’s financial condition.

City Manager Mr. Van Wagner told the council he welcomes clear expectations and singled out communication and finance as priority areas for assessment. “Communication would need to be one of the high areas of critique,” he said, adding that staff already receives frequent feedback and that the review framework should be about community benefit rather than personal critique.

Council members debated process mechanics. One member urged private, individual input to avoid public chastising; others proposed compiling private evaluation forms that the city clerk would aggregate and present in the agenda packet to avoid sunshine-law issues. A suggested method was for councilmembers to select preferred criteria from a consolidated menu and have staff tally and present the results as a draft for public consideration.

Members recommended using objective metrics where possible — for example, whether the city submits its audit on time, adopts a balanced budget and maintains monthly reconciliations — and distinguishing those from aspirational goals, such as a state-of-the-city presentation or improvements in customer service.

Public commenters at the workshop supported a structured approach. Brian Kess said the council “did pretty good today” and urged the council to align on priorities; other residents praised the manager’s leadership and asked for measurable, fair standards.

Action and next steps: council members asked the city attorney and staff to compile charter-based duties and the sample forms circulated earlier, consolidate proposals into a draft evaluation instrument, and return recommendations for council review ahead of budget workshops. Because this was an informational workshop, no formal vote was held.

The council set an objective timeline for staff-produced drafts to be distributed for review in advance of the pre-budget workshops and indicated an intention to adopt an annual or periodic review cycle tied to strategic goals and, where feasible, midyear check-ins.