City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Human Resources
Meeting Date: June 8, 2026
Report #:2605-6421
TITLE
Recommendation from the Council Appointed Officers Committee to City Council to approve the FY26 Council Appointed Officers annual evaluation process timeline, the modified CAO self- evaluation questions and Council interview questions for the annual evaluation process - CEQA:
Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
The Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee recommends approval of the FY 2026 CAO annual evaluation process timeline, the modified CAO self-evaluation questions and Council interview questions for the annual evaluation process.
BACKGROUND
The City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk are appointed directly by the City Council and, as such, are reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis in accordance with their individual employment agreements. The City Auditor is also appointed directly by the City Council however the City contracts for internal auditing services with Baker Tilly under the terms of the contract. Such review is necessary for Council members to ensure the efficiency of the appointed offices, to provide general feedback on their performance, to set goals for the coming year, and to identify areas of improvement. It is also necessary to review compensation to ensure that the positions are paid appropriately in comparison to the market and their performances. Given that a need exists for objectivity and facilitation as well as the time commitment in meeting with seven City Council members, the four CAO’s, and the CAO Committee, the use of an outside consultant increases efficiency.
Following the FY25 CAO evaluation process, the CAO Committee debriefed on December 10, 2025 with MRG consultant with Dan Rich and issues such as the following were raised:
Is there agreement that the timeline to complete the evaluation process should be compressed so appointees can integrate into their workplans?
Are any changes to the CAO self-evaluation prompts or Council interview questions appropriate?
Should the structure of the closed session evaluation with each appointee be altered? Should the timing and process be altered for the City Auditor? How can the Council calendar year priorities be better aligned with the appointee fiscal year goals?
The CAO Committee discussed these changes and asked the consultant to propose modification based on the discussion. No action was taken.
The CAO Committee launched the FY26 CAO evaluation process with a meeting on May 13, 2026. The CAO Committee reviewed the proposed process timeline, the updated CAO self- prompts and Council interview questions.
ANALYSIS
Attached is the proposed timeline for the FY26 CAO evaluation process which was discussed with the CAO Committee including confirmation that a key goal will be to compress the process so that appointees can integrate Council feedback into their workplans more timely than in past two years. It was also suggested to schedule closed session evaluations in September on non- Council meeting nights in order to expedite the evaluation reviews. No changes to the FY26 proposed timeline were recommended.
Next, the CAO Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the CAO self-evaluation prompts and Council interview questions and discussed the modifications presented by Dan Rich. It was pointed out that the City Auditor evaluation could be skipped for the FY26 evaluation process as the City Auditor’s workplan is in progress and already has been reviewed by Council and the feedback provided in last year’s evaluation would be incorporated into her FY 26-27 workplan. Key feedback was provided by the CAO Committee and some Council questions were fine-tuned, including changes to the City Attorney Council interview questions given his recent appointment as City Attorney in March 2026. Attached are the revisions to the Appointee Self-Prompts as well as each Appointee Council interview questions.
In addition, there was a brief discussion regarding KPI’s and the Committee decided it was best to have the Appointees in their Self-Evaluation Prompts, self-identify potential KPI’s that would be appropriate for their roles and suggested goals, in light of Council’s priorities for the calendar year. This approach will be discussed during the Appointee Evaluations for Council’s consideration.
The CAO Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed FY26 CAO evaluation process timeline, the amended Appointee Self-Evaluation Prompts and Appointee Council Interview Questions as modified by the CAO Committee.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the annual CAO performance evaluation facilitation services is budgeted in the Office of the City Clerk operating budget. Additional resources are not needed to support the process at this time.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Public comment was available during the Committee deliberations on May 14, 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not a Project
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: FY26 CAO evaluation timeline
Attachment B: CAO Self-eval prompts
Attachment C: Council interview questions
APPROVED BY:
Sandra Blanch, Human Resources Director