Stevensville council approves weekly claims after brief recess to inspect work; members question mayoral contract signing

The Stevensville Town Council approved weekly claims numbered 19691 through 19737 on Jan. 12 by a 4-0 vote after pulling claim 19714 for separate consideration and taking a short recess to inspect the work connected with that claim.

Council member Parker moved to approve the batch of claims; Council member Smith moved that claim 19714 be considered separately. During discussion, Council member Brown objected to claim 19714 because the mayor had signed a contract on May 20 without bringing it before the council and the payment shown on the claim — $4,265.43 — exceeded a referenced contract amount of $4,070. Council member Brown characterized the discrepancy and the process as an oversight and apologized to the public: "...the council is the check and balance for the town government, so it was also our fault. I apologize for my mistake, and I'm working hard to better myself as a council member," Brown said.

Council members asked for a recess so they could tour the work done under the contract and inspect the office remodel cited in the discussion. Council member Smith made a motion to recess for about 10 minutes; the council agreed and conducted the inspection while the livestream remained active. After the recess the council took the vote on the claims; the motion to approve the claims passed 4-0.

Town staff explained that the funds were available in the budget and that the expenditures had been charged across multiple departments to reflect when services occurred. Gina (town staff) stated, "So we did have the money in the budget. Right. So... it was in the budget," and said the amount had been accounted for across months because contractor Glenn’s bill covered several months of work and could not be posted in a single month.

Key figures and clarifications from the meeting: - Claim examined: 19714 (pulled for separate consideration). - Contract/claim amounts discussed: $4,265.43 on the claim vs. an original contract reference of $4,070; staff described this as approximately a 4.8% difference. - Staff said budget funds existed and that some invoices reflect split months because work spanned November–April; Glenn was rehired as a contractor after retirement to provide water/wastewater certified operator services while the town finalized staffing.

Why it matters: councilors stressed the council’s role as a public check on spending and transparency; an unvetted contract signature and a subsequent overage prompted questions about following the town’s purchasing policy.

Next steps: councilors used the inspection and discussion as a prompt to review internal processes. Staff said they would continue to account for multi‑month contractor invoices in the budget and to document contract approvals in the public record.