Washington County supervisors approve payment of $683,357.93 in contested IMS invoices after heated debate

The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to approve payment of $683,357.93 in invoices from IMS after a prolonged and contentious discussion about whether the county could verify work and whether to seek outside audit assistance.

Board President and county staff said they had received the IMS invoices in October but were still in the process of validating supporting documentation and confirming whether some work had been properly submitted to state aid for reimbursement. “We need additional assistance on these invoices,” the president said during the meeting, urging staff to verify records before a final decision; other supervisors pressed for immediate payment or for referral to the state auditor’s office.

The dispute escalated when IMS representative Tom Hill (identified in the meeting transcript as the company representative) maintained the company had performed work authorized by the board and warned that, under the contract, the county would be responsible for payment when IMS was terminated. “We provide the services. You authorize the services. You terminate it without full discussion … You owe us,” Hill said, adding that his firm might pursue legal action if unpaid. Board members disagreed about whether prior boards or staff had properly submitted project paperwork to the chancery clerk or state aid and whether the county had records supporting the invoices.

Earlier in the discussion a motion to refer the invoices to the state auditor failed on a voice vote (the president reported the motion did not carry). Later in the meeting a motion was made to pay $683,357.93; the clerk recorded the vote as three in favor and two opposed, and the motion passed. The minutes record both the board’s concern that some supporting files could not be located in county records and IMS’s assertion that plans and deliverables had been submitted when the work was authorized.

County staff said reimbursements to the county from state aid or federal grant programs could be possible for some items but were not guaranteed. The county president said staff would continue to seek verification and assistance even after the vote, noting the complexity of state-aid reimbursement processes and the need to reconcile county records. The board did not specify an immediate plan for which county fund would be used to make the payment if reimbursements were delayed.

The vote and the exchanges with IMS drew repeated calls from supervisors for clearer record-keeping and for returning certain procurement and invoice-review responsibilities to the chancery clerk’s office, which several speakers said historically maintained hard-copy project files.

What comes next: staff said they would attempt to locate missing documentation, seek assistance at the state level as appropriate, and confirm which invoices are eligible for state or federal reimbursement. IMS’s representative reiterated the company’s position that work had been completed under board authorization and that the county was contractually responsible for payment.