Key West Approves Barroso Evaluation Without Debate as Scores Reveal Deep Divide

Five-point scale shows contrast between “excellent,” “above average,” and failing assessments

Key West City Manager Brian Barroso. / CONTRIBUTED

The Key West City Commission on Tuesday approved the annual performance evaluation of City Manager Brian Barroso as part of its consent agenda, taking no public discussion on an item that written evaluations show drew sharply different conclusions from individual commissioners.

The evaluation passed unanimously with the consent agenda, meaning no commissioner requested that it be pulled for separate debate and no comments were made on the record.

What the scores mean

Under the city’s standardized evaluation form, a score of 5 is defined as “Excellent (almost always exceeds the performance standard)”; a 4 as “Above average (generally exceeds the performance standard)”; and a 3 as “Average (generally meets the performance standard).” Scores of 2 and 1 indicate below-average or poor performance. Any category left blank defaults to a 3.

The numerical ratings, combined with narrative comments, show a clear divide on the dais over Barroso’s first year as city manager.

Commissioners rating performance as “excellent”

Mayor Danise Henriquez and Commissioner Lissette Carey submitted evaluations dominated by 5s, indicating that in their view Barroso almost always exceeded performance standards across leadership, fiscal management, professionalism and policy execution.

Henriquez wrote that Barroso

“demonstrated strong executive leadership throughout the rating period,”

crediting him with providing steady direction to department heads and maintaining accountability and continuity during a challenging year.

Carey emphasized fiscal stewardship and accessibility, writing that Barroso

“consistently takes steps to ensure the city’s financial soundness in a responsible manner,”

and balances commission direction with staff capacity.

“Above average,” not across-the-board excellence

Vice Mayor Donie Lee and Commissioner Monica Haskell submitted evaluations containing a mix of 5s and 4s, reflecting assessments of above-average rather than uniformly excellent performance.

Lee praised Barroso’s handling of a turbulent first year, writing that

“you inherited a city government in a crisis,”

and credited him with advancing stalled initiatives and implementing long-delayed reforms, while also urging improved communication with the public and local media.

Haskell’s scoring showed support tempered by reservations, with multiple categories rated 4, signaling that she believes Barroso generally exceeds standards but does not consistently do so in all areas.

Support without scoring

Commissioner Greg Veliz declined to submit numerical scores, stating it would be unfair given his limited time working directly with Barroso. In a written statement, Veliz nonetheless expressed support for Barroso’s continued employment, describing his performance as professional and noting an improvement in morale at City Hall.

Critical evaluation

Commissioner Sam Kaufman submitted the most critical evaluation, assigning numerous 1s and 2s, which under the city’s scale indicate performance that fails to meet standards. In a lengthy narrative, Kaufman cited concerns about communication, transparency, employee relations and follow-through, concluding that

“significant improvement in these areas is essential for continued service in this role.”

And, there was one

Commissioner Aaron Castillo did not submit a performance evaluation, according to the meeting packet. The omission was not addressed publicly by the commission.

Approved without discussion

Despite the wide range of scores — from “excellent” to “poor” — no commissioner requested public discussion, and the evaluation was approved without comment as part of the consent agenda.

The approval leaves Barroso’s contract intact as the city moves into 2026.

What Barroso’s evaluation means — and doesn’t — under his contract

The annual performance evaluation approved Tuesday is required by contract, but it does not automatically affect City Manager Brian Barroso’s salary, job security or contract length.

Here’s how his employment agreement works, in plain terms:

Does the evaluation trigger a raise?

No.

Barroso’s contract does not link evaluation scores to automatic raises, bonuses or step increases. Any salary adjustment must be approved separately by a majority vote of the City Commission.

Does approval extend his contract?

No.

The evaluation satisfies a contractual requirement but does not renew, amend or extend the agreement. Contract extensions require separate commission action.

Can the commission terminate him despite the evaluation?

Yes.

Under the contract, Barroso serves at will and can be terminated by a majority vote of the commission at any time, with severance provisions depending on timing and circumstances.

Why the evaluation still matters

While the consent-agenda approval carries no immediate legal or financial effect, the written evaluations become part of the official record and may influence future decisions on:

• Compensation

• Contract renewal or amendment

• Termination or severance negotiations

In short, the vote keeps Barroso in place, but the documents — not the consent agenda — define where commissioners stand.