Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Invoices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on payment to Gator Company after staff finds limited documentation
Summary
Council debated a $92,416 payment request from Gator Company for work at the Southwest Florida Enterprise Center, citing missing approvals and mixed staff accounts; after an initial motion failed, council approved paying the unpaid difference following discussion of documentation and legal risk.
Get email alerts on the Procurement Invoices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilmembers on Feb. 18 debated whether to waive procurement rules and approve payment of $92,416 to a local firm, Gator Company Inc., for work at the Southwest Florida Enterprise Center after staff said the paperwork was incomplete and the contractor said he was owed more.
David Stewart, who identified himself as representing Gator Company, told the council he had open invoices totaling $112,192 and asked that the city pay the full outstanding amount. "I'm just asking that you would consider paying the full amount and this not drawing out any longer than it has to," Stewart said. City staff described a partial payment of $48,008.81 that had been processed and said other items lacked written authorization. Economic development director Steve Weathers said he found no paper trail for some items and that human resources and the enterprise center staff reported conflicting accounts of whether work was donated or invoiced.
Council members split on the remedy. An early motion to pay the entire $92,416 failed after roll call (motion failed). Later, after extended discussion of liability and litigation risk, the council approved a motion to pay the remaining balance (the difference between the $92,416 on the agenda and the $48,008.81 already paid). Councilmember Watson moved and councilmember Banc seconded the successful motion; roll‑call results were recorded in the minutes. Several councilmembers warned the payment could invite litigation and urged staff to shore up procurement controls and documentation going forward.
City staff said they would pursue additional administrative follow‑up and that the payment did not endorse that all claimed charges were properly authorized. The council's action closed the immediate dispute but members asked that audit and procurement processes be reviewed to prevent similar issues.
