In a Tuesday night bombshell, the Marathon City Council voted to terminate City Manager George Garrett without cause via a 3-2 vote in its Feb. 24 session.
Councilman Kenny Matlock, a longtime outspoken critic of Garrett, added a review for the manager as an agenda item at the start of Tuesday’s session, later making the motion to fire him without cause. He declined to publicly provide a reason for his motion, stating he’d been advised that providing a cause for termination could expose the city to legal action.
“These are not knee-jerk reactions, and there are lots of plans in place,” said Matlock. “I’m going to rip the Band-Aid off.”
Matlock was joined by Vice Mayor Debbie Struyf, who seconded his motion, and Mayor Lynny Del Gaizo, who eventually provided the tiebreaking vote. All three remained tight-lipped throughout the session as to the specifics behind their vote to oust Garrett.
The decision brings an end to a six-year period as Marathon’s top official for Garrett, who was promoted in October 2020 from his prior post as planning director.
Speaking to the Weekly by phone the following morning, Del Gaizo said she had privately requested Garrett’s resignation twice within the past month – once roughly two weeks before the meeting, and again on Feb. 24.
“I felt that some things were complacent, stagnant and procrastinating,” Del Gaizo told the Weekly by phone on Feb. 25. “This wasn’t going away – people weren’t stopping reaching out to me and complaining about the city manager, and in my mind, I didn’t think there would be a change. … When it came down to thinking of one person or the community, I had to put the community first.”
Council members Lynn Landry and Robyn Still opposed the motion, also requesting that the discussion and decision be postponed to the next council meeting and added to the city’s published agenda.
“Personally, I think that this was straight from a ‘performance review,’ to ‘fire,’” Landry said. “I can’t be on board with a motion to fire a manager (without) a plan. … Let’s do a national search, and let’s leave George in place to make sure that this person gets brought up to speed, instead of just firing the city manager and chaos ensues.”
Matlock argued that City Attorney Steve Williams, City Clerk Diane Clavier and Deputy City Manager Brian Bradley could assume Garrett’s duties until a new manager was selected. Per the terms of Garrett’s contract, he may continue to serve in his current role for up to 30 days.
Public support divided
While Garrett’s review was not included in any public agenda, multiple residents and civic groups contacted the Weekly in the days before Tuesday’s session, stating that the council was “expected” to terminate Garrett’s contract.
The concern drew a sizable crowd in the council chambers, with several parties bringing prepared statements both in favor of and against Garrett’s continued employment.
Supporters extolled his network of state and local connections and ability to guide Marathon through complex lawsuits and environmental concerns, acknowledging that his longstanding policy of “getting to yes” and accommodating resident concerns at times overstepped boundaries.
“George Garrett is the kind of city manager that will take the shirt off his back to try and help somebody,” said attorney Patrick Stevens. “He may not always be right with what the code is at the time, but he’s doing it because he cares about the people. If that is your biggest downfall, caring for your constituents, I have a problem with George Garrett no longer being our city manager. … We have consistently watched our government make a fast decision and regret it.”
Detractors referenced years of what they said were unresolved concerns with communication and response times from staff to residents, particularly in areas of permitting, code enforcement and land use. They said hot-button developments like the upcoming Florida Keys Resort on Sombrero Boulevard had eroded public trust in city leadership.
“We’ve seen processes that didn’t feel transparent. We’ve seen situations where oversight should have been stronger and accountability clearer,” said local charter captain and former council candidate Dustin Huff. “When trust starts to erode between the city manager, the council and the people who live here, that’s a serious problem, and once the trust is gone, it’s very hard to get back.”
Review process debated
In January, Landry requested formal reviews for both Garrett and Williams. A performance review for Williams was published in advance as a consent agenda item in Tuesday’s session, but not for Garrett.
Of the five council members, Matlock was the only one to submit a written review for Garrett, awarding the manager a 0 on a scale of 1 to 5 in areas of policy execution, dedication and integrity along with a 2 in communication.
“I used a 0 on some … because the performance was so low I do not feel it deserves a point,” he wrote. “I would be happy to discuss further.”
Asked following the meeting why they had not submitted reviews, both Landry and Still told the Weekly that illnesses, travel and other logistical issues had delayed their submissions. Del Gaizo and Struyf said they withheld formal reviews to avoid triggering an automatic 3% to 5% salary raise for Garrett, per the terms of his contract, if he were to receive an “above-average” review.
Asked following the meeting why he felt an immediate termination was necessary rather than a written reprimand or performance improvement plan, Matlock said he felt reprimands were already given without a visible improvement.
“He’s been directed many times by council to do things, and he does not perform,” Matlock said, declining to elaborate further on the advice of legal counsel. He referenced a contentious review when Garrett’s contract was renewed for three years in 2024, questioning why the review had initially been skipped on Tuesday’s agenda after it was requested a month prior.
“It’s a sad day when you can fire a city manager without giving him an explanation of why someone felt that way,” Still told the Weekly by phone. “It went from a review to a motion to terminate, with really no review. If there was a plan, who made a plan and what is it?”
Next steps
While the council gave direction to Williams to negotiate the terms of Garrett’s severance at Tuesday’s meeting, they stopped short of appointing an interim manager.
Per the terms of Garrett’s contract, he may continue to serve as the city manager for up to 30 days at his current salary, budgeted at a base rate of $219,650 per year for 2025-26. If terminated without cause, he is entitled to a lump-sump severance payment of 20 weeks of his base salary, plus payment for all accrued and unused vacation time.
Numerous sources confirmed to the Weekly that Garrett reported to City Hall on Feb. 25. He could not be reached for comment before press time.
