Pepper Pike council ratifies $39,480 emergency repair for Fairmount Boulevard after December water main break; councilors fault split purchase order

Pepper Pike City Council on May 12 voted 4-3 to ratify $39,480.78 in labor and expenses to Roni (Neronian) Sons for emergency repairs to Fairmount Boulevard after a Dec. 30 water-main break undermined the roadway.

Council members said the repair itself was necessary and performed to acceptable standards, but several raised alarms that the city’s purchasing process was circumvented by splitting a single job into two purchase orders so part of the work would fall under the mayor’s $25,000 spending authority.

Councilmember Zaitrak, who led the complaints, said the invoice sequence and the exact $25,000 split “looked intentional” and called that practice “highly problematic” for internal controls. Finance staff Peter told the council the city had more than $10 million appropriated in the capital improvements fund and that, at the fund level, the repair could be covered without an interim appropriation. The mayor acknowledged the emergency and said the city was in a transition in finance staffing when the work occurred.

The legal adviser recommended the council approve the ratification so the payment stands as lawful because the work was completed and must be paid; the council followed that advice. The recorded roll call on the ratification was: Newell (yes), Zaitrak (no), Weltman (no), Godin (yes), LeVay (yes), Gentile (no), Pong (yes).

Timeline and clarifying details presented in council debate: the water-main break occurred on Dec. 30; an initial purchase order for $25,000 was issued Jan. 1; the contractor’s final invoice dated Jan. 31 was for $39,480.78 and was split into two purchase orders ($25,000 and $14,472) before full payment was issued. Staff said the contractor began emergency work on Dec. 30–31 and provided a “not to exceed” estimate during performance; Don, a city staff member overseeing the project, said that the final invoice reflected actual materials, labor and equipment used after crews uncovered additional damage beneath the roadway.

Council discussion centered on three issues: whether the capital-fund appropriation (as opposed to a line-item appropriation) legally covered the expenditure; whether splitting the purchase order violated the city’s ordinance or good practice; and whether the mayor and department staff followed the code for emergency spending and notification to council. Several council members asked staff to audit the procurement and reporting steps taken in this case and report back with recommended changes to prevent PO-splitting to avoid council review.

The council also asked staff to bring back the appropriation ordinance exhibit the members referenced so they could confirm whether appropriations had been made only at fund level or at specific line items. The law director advised that if an audit later finds a violation of ordinance, the council remedy can include a formal ratification so that payments already made are lawful, but the audit would likely generate findings about process.

Council members said they support timely emergency response but want clearer written procedures about when and how the mayor and staff may authorize emergency work and how council will be notified.

The motion to ratify passed 4-3.