Plantation council approves $240,000 payment after city identifies contract oversight on sidewalks

The City of Plantation City Council on Sept. 17 approved a $240,000 payment to cover sidewalk work performed in excess of an approved contract ceiling after city staff said an internal oversight allowed task orders to accumulate past the vendor’s do-not-exceed limit.

City Chief Administrative Officer Jason Untermaker told the council the overrun resulted from a mix of an aggressive push to clear a backlog and confusion between a piggyback contract and a term contract. “We have embarked since a change in leadership in public works on a very aggressive campaign to address our infrastructure,” Untermaker said. He acknowledged the mistake and apologized on the record.

The council’s action cleared invoices for completed work; council members were told that refusing payment could put the city in legal jeopardy because the contractor had performed the work. Public Works Director Matt Thompson said crews issued a large number of task orders late in the vendor contract’s life and that internal staff “were focused more on a monetary value versus a do not exceed amount,” which let the total exceed the council-authorized limit.

Why it mattered

The item drew sustained questioning from council members who described the amount — $240,000 — as large enough to merit stronger internal controls and possible audits. Council member Fadgen said the error could easily have been “half a million dollars over the approved budget” and pressed staff on how the oversight happened and what would prevent a recurrence. Thompson said task orders were issued to address many discrete sidewalk repairs; when aggregated they grew much larger than anticipated.

City finance staff and the administration told the council the $240,000 would be covered by a mix of budget lines: roughly $100,000 shifted into fiscal year 2026 funding for sidewalks and the remaining $140,000 from the fiscal year 2025 general fund risk-management line, according to Thompson and Untermaker.

Council debate and vote

Council members described the failure as a breakdown in contract monitoring and asked who would be held accountable. Untermaker said he would take responsibility for the lapse. Several members called for an internal audit and better project‑by‑project tracking of task orders; staff said they are moving to a term contract model and will trigger additional review when a project estimate reaches a pre-set threshold (staff mentioned considering a 50–70% trigger).

After discussion, the council voted to approve processing the $240,000 payment for the work. The roll-call vote recorded five yes votes and one no vote. Council member Fadgen cast the lone no vote, citing the procedural and fiscal oversight concerns.

What comes next

Staff told the council they plan additional internal controls: moving to project-based task orders with clearer estimates, triggering additional review when an estimate reaches a predetermined percentage, more frequent procurement reviews, and follow-up internal audits. Council members also requested a citywide memo describing lessons learned and steps taken so all departments can apply the same controls.

Ending

The council approved the payment so the city would not be exposed to legal claims for completed work, but members signaled they expect new procedural safeguards — and possibly an internal audit — before the administration proceeds with similar contract work in the future.