Skip to main content

Tag: invoices

City will pay former city attorney’s disputed invoices 

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – The city commission voted to pay former city attorney Ricinda Perry’s 2025 invoices for $167,674. 

The payment amount includes nearly $31,000 in disputed invoiced charges to be paid to avoid the possibility of protracted and expensive legal action. 

Perry retired as city attorney on Sept. 18, 2025, and later submitted her invoices for the billing period from January through September. 

Ricinda Perry announced her immediate retirement on Sept. 18, 2025. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

In February, City Attorney Erica Augello was authorized to send a letter to Perry regarding the invoices in question. The letter stated that the audit of Perry’s invoices conducted by City Treasurer Shayne Thompson revealed “false or incorrect billing entries.” 

In January, Augello sent Mayor John Chappie and the city commissioners a memo that said, “The audit revealed that entries were made for services that could not have possibly occurred on the dates as indicated; that time entries for several days exceeded the number of hours in a day; that entries were not billed at the appropriate rate as agreed upon; and that some entries were for unapproved non-legal services. 

“There are a multitude of entries for discussions with staff members on weekends or other days when the staff member was not working, entries that exceed the number of hours in a day, entries that were billed for unapproved non-legal work related to permit reviews, plans reviews, etc., entries for storm-related work that were billed at higher than the negotiated $150 per hour rate, entries for conversations with outside counsel that were not captured on outside counsel’s invoices, entries for completing assignments where no work product was received or otherwise not completed as billed, as well as other similar type entries,” Augello’s memo said. 

During the June 16 city commission meeting, Augello reported the receipt of correspondence from Perry’s attorney, Chuck Johnson, from the Blalock Walters Law Firm. 

“I received a formal letter from his office in response to our letter to her and his letter basically says under the Prompt Payment Act, they are demanding a speedy resolution in regard to her fees,” Augello told the commission. 

In his letter, Johnson gave the city 15 days to make the payment. The letter stated that if the payment wasn’t made in a timely manner, he would demand that the dispute resolution process be followed pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act. 

“The city is supposed to have a dispute resolution policy,” Augello said. “I don’t see one. If the city doesn’t have one, we’re going to need one. We’re potentially in violation of the statute and there’s no way to get Mr. Johnson what he needs.” 

Augello said Johnson did not address her letter’s statements about improper billing practices.

“I have no problems with Miss Perry getting paid for the work that she did,” Augello said. “I do think the dispute resolution process is the right way to go.” 

Commissioner Ralph Cole said, “If you take the chance to fight it and end up spending $100,000 of taxpayer money, why wouldn’t you just settle it and get it over with?”

Commissioner Robert Talham said, “Pay her and erase it. We’re not only paying her, but we’re paying our lawyer too.”

Commissioner Scott Bear said, “I have a problem with telling her we agree that she worked 25 hours in a 24-hour period, but the bigger issue is we’re setting a precedent that anyone else could come in and say you’ve done this before. We’re saying we’re always going to fold and make it go away, and that’s a bad position to be in.” 

Commissioner Debbie Scaccianoce suggested making an offer for the audited amount of $136,904.

“I think it’s a little unreasonable to demand that we go into this dispute resolution process in four days, considering the fact it was months and months before we got invoices,” Mayor Chappie said.

During the meeting, Thompson confirmed the city does not have a dispute resolution policy in place. During Perry’s 21-year tenure as city attorney, a statutorily required dispute resolution process was never put in place. 

“We need to get that done,” Chappie said.

After further discussion, commissioners voted unanimously to pay Perry the full $167,674 included in her invoices, to be paid out of the city’s general fund.

Commission disputes former city attorney’s billing invoices 

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Featured.

 BRADENTON BEACH – City officials acknowledge the city is responsible to pay former city attorney Ricinda Perry $23,782 for services she provided in September and invoiced the city for in October. 

However, the mayor and city commissioners do not intend to pay the remainder of the $167,674 in bulk invoices Perry sent the city in October for services she provided dating back to January 2025. 

Perry retired as city attorney on Sept. 18. 

During the Feb. 19 city commission meeting, City Attorney Erica Augello was authorized to send a letter to Perry regarding the invoices in question. The letter states the recent audit of Perry’s invoices conducted by City Treasurer Shayne Thompson revealed “false or incorrect billing entries.” 

According to the letter to be sent to Perry after Thursday’s meeting, her unaudited invoices totaled $167,674, the audited invoices totaled $139,685 and the resulting difference is $27,989. 

In a Jan. 9 memo Augello sent Mayor John Chappie and the city commissioners, Augello stated, “The audit revealed that entries were made for services that could not have possibly occurred on the dates as indicated, that time entries for several days exceeded the number of hours in a day, that entries were not billed at the appropriate rate as agreed upon or that time entries were for unapproved non-legal services,”

The commission-authorized letter states, “The billing, as presented, has been audited and has been found to include false or incorrect billing entries. By way of example, there are a multitude of entries for discussions with staff members on weekends or other days when the staff member was not working, entries that exceed the number of hours in a day, entries that were billed for unapproved non-legal work related to permit reviews, plans reviews, etc., entries for storm-related work that were billed at higher than the negotiated $150/hour rate, entries for conversations with outside counsel that were not captured on outside counsel’s invoices, entries for completing assignments where no work product was received or otherwise not completed as billed, as well as other similar type entries.” 

Ricinda Perry announced her immediate retirement on Sept. 18. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Augello referred to Perry’s existing engagement agreement with the city, which was drafted by Perry and stated her invoices would be submitted monthly and paid monthly. 

“From a legal perspective, I think the city is on good footing with saying you’re not responsible for paying those invoices because she’s in breach of her own contract that she drafted,” Augello told the mayor and commissioners. 

Augello added that the city does have the ability to negotiate an agreement, but reiterated, that based on the engagement agreement, the city would be able to defend any challenges from Perry in a court of law. 

“I will say, I want you to keep in mind that this is a contract just like you would have with anyone else and I want you to treat it like you would any other contract,” Augello told the commission.

CITIZEN, COMMISSION COMMENTS

Two citizens spoke during public comment and they both supported strict adherence to the contract, as stated in the engagement agreement with Perry.

“My feeling is that the city attorney should stick to legal matters,” Evelyn Stob said. 

“If an invoice is supposed to happen monthly, then it should be monthly,” Elayne Armaniaco said. “There’s just too much leeway given and there was certainly too much leeway given with this former city attorney.”

Mayor John Chappie agreed that the city should stick with the contract as written. 

“I’m alarmed at the audit,” Commissioner Deborah Scaccianoce said. “It’s disappointing because you put your faith in your city attorney to represent the city and do the right thing and then this happens. This was a breach of trust. We trusted her. She breached that trust.” 

“It’s amazing that someone would send an invoice out having spent 26.1 hours in a day. That math never added up,” Commissioner Scott Bear said. “We need to be on record that we have concerns about her invoicing and provide the opportunity to negotiate. She deserves to be paid but pay what’s realistic.”

Bear questioned a contract provision that provided a 12% fee for late payments. 

Newly appointed Commissioner Robert Talham questioned the possible legal costs the city might incur if the matter is taken to court.

In response, Augello said, “If this does to go court, there is an attorney’s fee provision. If this has to be enforced in a court of law, and the city is successful, she will be responsible for paying the city’s reasonable attorney’s fees. If we lose, we will be responsible for paying her attorney’s fees.”

Augello then said, “My letter says based on the city’s contract with Ms. Perry, she is in breach because she didn’t get her invoices to the city within 30 days as required. Based on what was presented to the city, the city has the obligation to audit those invoices and make sure they are appropriate.”

Commission to discuss former city attorney’s invoices

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – On Thursday, Feb. 19, the Bradenton Beach City Commission will discuss billing invoices submitted by former city attorney Ricinda Perry.

An internal audit of Perry’s invoices alleges “false or incorrect billing entries” for the period from January 2025 through September 2025. 

Included in the Feb. 19 meeting packet is a Jan. 9 memo City Attorney Erica Augello sent to Mayor John Chappie, the city commissioners and City Clerk Terri Sanclemente.

“Upon receipt of the invoices, it was noted by staff that some of the entries could not possibly be correct, so an internal audit of the invoices was conducted,” Augello wrote. “The audit revealed that entries were made for services that could not have possibly occurred on the dates as indicated, that time entries for several days exceeded the number of hours in a day, that entries were not billed at the appropriate rate as agreed upon or that time entries were for unapproved non-legal services.”

Augello will request authorization from the commission on Feb. 19 to send correspondence to Perry regarding the invoices. 

In a proposed draft letter to Perry that’s included the meeting packet, Augello wrote, “I have been asked to handle the matter of your invoices for city attorney services that were submitted in bulk to the city on October 23, 2025, for services spanning from January 2025 through September 2025.

“The billing, as presented, has been audited and has been found to include false or incorrect billing entries. By way of example, there are a multitude of entries for discussions with staff members on weekends or other days when the staff member was not working, entries that exceed the number of hours in a day, entries that were billed for unapproved non-legal work related to permit reviews, plans reviews, etc., entries for storm-related work that were billed at higher than the negotiated $150/hour rate, entries for conversations with outside counsel that were not captured on outside counsel’s invoices, entries for completing assignments where no work product was received or otherwise not completed as billed, as well as other similar type entries,” Augello stated in the draft letter to be reviewed by the city commission.

According to Augello’s draft letter, Perry’s unaudited invoices total $167,674 and the audited invoices total $139,685, resulting in a difference of $27,989.

Questions have been raised regarding the accuracy of Ricinda Perry’s billing invoices. City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted

Augello also wrote that according to Perry’s Jan. 25, 2023, engagement agreement, she was required to bill the city monthly.

“As you are in default of the terms of the agreement, the city has no legal obligation to pay invoices that do not conform to the terms of the agreement,” Augello stated in the draft letter. “Pursuant to the engagement agreement, the city is responsible only for the monthly billing that conforms to its terms, or for September’s invoice in the unaudited amount of $24,204.”

Augello added that while the city has concerns regarding the veracity of that September invoice, the city is outside of its 15-day window to challenge those entries.

The Thursday, Feb. 19, meeting will begin at noon in the commission chambers at 107 Gulf Drive N.