City of Ashford council members and staff spent a large portion of a recent meeting examining why a contractor who completed flood-related repairs had not been paid after a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (CEA) identified the wrong payee.

Council members and staff said the work was finished and that the delay stemmed from a mismatch in the CEA payee name and from questions about required paperwork, including a W-9 and signatures required before payment. Attorney Jones told the council he had suggested a corrective approach and said the issue had been rectified the previous Friday, but several council members said the payment still had not been issued at the time of the meeting.

The discussion began after a resident and council members raised that a contractor had come to the city to collect payment but left without receiving a check. Council members identified three parties tied to the CEA: Potter's Floors (represented by Mr. Jones), Terry's Construction (identified in the CEA as a contractor), and homeowner Derek Watkins, who was named in the agreement as the property owner. The document as issued listed the payee at the signature block as "Terry Watkins," which council members and staff said did not match the intended payee.

Attorney Jones advised that the CEA could be corrected by interlineation (writing the correct name into the document) or by re-executing an edited version, and he said he had worked to correct the error. "Bottom line, there was no reason that he shouldn't got paid legally," Attorney Jones said. "Legally. Legally. Legally. There was no reason his check should've been held up legally."

City purchasing staff raised procedural safeguards that contributed to the delay. "If they're ordering something, we require purchase order, requisition, purchase order, invoice, and W‑9s," said Miss Austin, who spoke about procurement steps and recordkeeping. Staff and some council members said the clerk paused processing because of concerns about segregation of duties and because the clerk felt uncomfortable making a change to the CEA and then issuing payment without additional review.

Council members and staff also discussed whether a W‑9 was required in this instance. A staff speaker said a W‑9 is generally needed for recordkeeping for payments; the meeting transcript includes an exchange noting that payments under a $2,000 threshold sometimes do not require a W‑9 but that, for municipal audit purposes, the form is still advisable.

Several council members described the situation as a public-relations problem for the city and urged clearer internal steps so contractors who complete work are not left waiting for payment. One council member said the council needed to standardize how CAEs are handled going forward so the same problem does not recur.

No formal motion or vote to change policy was recorded during the discussion. Multiple speakers said the attorney had provided a fix the prior Friday and that, after further administrative review, the CEA could be corrected so the contractor could be paid. Council members called for improved transparency and a consistent checklist of required documents to reduce future delays.

At the end of the item, council members did not record a formal action on the floor; instead they directed staff and legal counsel to complete the paperwork corrections and to bring process clarifications back to the council for routine handling.