The CRA Project-Manager Engagement: 'Independent Contractor' in the Contract, 'Employee' at the Meeting
A $25,000-per-home engagement, signed by the Executive Director, raises questions about competitive selection, board and Council approval, and how it was funded.
In November 2025 the Eatonville Community Redevelopment Agency signed a written "Independent Contractor Agreement" with David Smith / Next Tier Builders to manage its single-family home program, at roughly $25,000 per home. The agency's Executive Director signed it; the records reviewed show no CRA board vote approving it and no Town Council approval.
The Town's purchasing policy — which the CRA Chair confirmed the agency follows — requires a formal competitive selection and Town Council approval once the annual total with a vendor exceeds $25,000, and bars splitting a vendor's work to stay under that line. At the June 18, 2026 meeting the Executive Director said procurement did not apply because Smith is an "employee," though the agency's own signed contract calls him an independent contractor. Cheatonville draws no legal conclusion; it sets the documents beside the rules. Town Council approval records are still pending.
What the record shows
The engagement began as an administrative decision, not a board action. At a special CRA meeting on October 22, 2025, the board adopted six resolutions — the appropriation of remaining tax-increment funds (CRA-R-2025-41), end-of-year budget adjustments (CRA-R-2025-42), the September financials (CRA-R-2025-40), a Florida Community Loan Fund loan (CRA-R-2025-43), and a charitable-contributions policy (CRA-R-2025-44). None concerned hiring a project manager or general contractor. That subject appears only in the Executive Director's staff report.2 In it, he described the decision:
"Attorney Jackson and I decided that going through the RFP process to find a general contractor—their numbers were ridiculous. We have decided to try to hire a construction project manager and it is being advertised currently. This works better because we have better control of finances."
Earlier in the same meeting, in a discussion of approval thresholds, he stated the standard he understood to apply:
"anything over $25,000 has to go through a procurement process"
Less than four weeks later, on November 17, 2025, the Town of Eatonville Community Redevelopment Agency entered into a written "Independent Contractor Agreement" with David Smith / Next Tier Builders for "project management services on an as-needed basis for CRA single-family redevelopment projects." The agreement was signed for the agency by Executive Director Michael Johnson, and by David Smith for the contractor. The agreement is titled, in its own heading, "Independent Contractor Agreement." Its Section 4, "Independent Contractor Status," states:
"The Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the CRA or the Town of Eatonville."
Compensation is set at "$20,000 - $35,000 per project."1
Invoices and purchase orders document a $25,000 "New Build Management Fee" per home across three homes — Lot A West Street, Lot C People Street, and Lot D People Street — each invoiced on March 23, 2026, with a 20% mobilization "first draw" of $5,000 and a $20,000 remaining balance. That is $75,000 in management fees across the three documented homes; the housing program has been described publicly as six single-family homes.3
For each of the three lots, the $5,000 first draw appears under two purchase orders in two different funds: a March 24, 2026 purchase order in fund 303-0515-515-6301, and an April 23, 2026 purchase order in fund 001-0000-131-3030. A single payment of $15,000 — covering the three first draws — was issued on April 23, 2026 by check 4308, drawn on the Town of Eatonville General Fund.45
At the CRA board meeting of June 18, 2026, Vice Chair Thomas asked how Smith was hired, noting that under the Town's procurement policy anything over $25,000 must go out for an RFP. Chair Critton confirmed that the agency follows the Town's procurement policy ("it does it does"). Asked directly, Executive Director Johnson characterized Smith's status:
"a contract employee. 1099 employee of the agency"
He described the arrangement as "an employer employee relationship," "not a procurement relationship." Attorney Jackson said, "because hes a contract employee." When board member Mack asked whether a different contractor would require an RFP, the board acknowledged that another RFP would have to go out.6
What the governing documents require
The CRA Bylaws cap the Executive Director's purchasing authority:
The Executive Director "shall be authorized to sign work orders and purchase orders … for purchases under $7,500.00. For any work orders and/or purchase order over $7,500.00, the Executive Director shall obtain TOECRA Board Approval."
The Bylaws adopt the Town's purchasing policy "with all limits and authorities," substituting the Executive Director for the Chief Administrative Officer. (Bylaws §5.2.) That policy provides:
"All purchases of goods and services, where the total ANNUAL cost of the purchases or contract will exceed $25,000, must be approved by the Town Council," using a formal competitive method such as an Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, or Letter of Interest.
Its approval-authority table assigns purchases of "$25,000.01 and above" to the Town Council.8
The same policy prohibits dividing a vendor's work to stay under the threshold:
"Under no circumstances may known or anticipated annual requirements for goods and services from a vendor be broken into smaller quantities to circumvent the requirement to use a formal vendor selection process," and a purchase order "shall not be broken into smaller amounts to keep from crossing a dollar threshold."
An annual purchase order "must reflect the anticipated total amount of business to be done with a vendor for the year." Even where an exception to competitive selection applies, "Purchases not subject to the competitive procurement requirement must still have the same levels of approval as purchases subject to the regular competitive vendor selection process."8
Separately, the Bylaws require board approval before the Executive Director brings on personnel of any kind. As to employees, the Executive Director "may, with the approval of the TOECRA, hire and set compensation for necessary employees of the TOECRA." (Bylaws §3.4.1.) A second provision reaches beyond employees, to contractors, consultants, and agents:
"In accordance with the Town of Eatonville policies, the Executive Director of the TOECRA, with the approval of the TOECRA, may hire, retain, and engage such employees, agents, consultants, experts, attorneys and specialists, as deemed necessary."
Under §3.8, the requirement of board approval applies whether the person engaged is an employee or an independent contractor, agent, or consultant.7
The two, side by side
Documented fact placed against the governing text. Cheatonville draws no legal conclusion; the documents are set out so readers can compare them.
The documented engagement with one vendor is $75,000 in management fees across three homes, and has been described as a six-home program. The purchasing policy the Chair confirmed applies requires a formal competitive selection and Town Council approval once the annual total with a vendor exceeds $25,000.
The work was invoiced per home at $25,000, and each first draw was recorded as a separate $5,000 purchase order. The policy states that a vendor's annual requirements may not be "broken into smaller quantities to circumvent" competitive selection, and that a purchase order "must reflect the anticipated total amount of business to be done with a vendor for the year."
The contract bears the Executive Director's signature for the agency. The Bylaws authorize the Executive Director to sign purchase orders only under $7,500; above that figure, "the Executive Director shall obtain TOECRA Board Approval."
The Bylaws send an engagement above $7,500 to the CRA Board, and the purchasing policy sends one above $25,000 to the Town Council. The October 22, 2025 CRA minutes record no board vote approving it. The hire was reported, not voted: the Executive Director told the board that he and the attorney had "decided to try to hire a construction project manager," and had "decided" against "going through the RFP process." Whether the Town Council approved it is addressed below.
At the June 18, 2026 meeting, the Executive Director's stated reason that procurement did not apply was that Smith is an "employee," not a vendor — a "1099 employee," in his words. The agency's own signed contract states the opposite — that Smith "is an independent contractor and not an employee." The two descriptions of Smith's tax status are themselves mutually exclusive: a Form 1099 reports compensation paid to a non-employee — an independent contractor — while an employee's wages are reported on a Form W-2. The signed contract and the "1099" description both place Smith outside employee status; the "employee" characterization offered at the meeting is the one that departs from the agency's own paperwork.
The characterization does not change where the decision belonged. Even taken as an "employee," the Bylaws permit the Executive Director to hire employees only "with the approval of the TOECRA" (§3.4.1); and §3.8 requires that same board approval to "hire, retain, and engage" not only employees but "agents, consultants, experts … and specialists." Under either description — contractor or employee — the Bylaws direct the decision to the board. The same Executive Director had told the board in October that "anything over $25,000 has to go through a procurement process"; in June he described this $25,000-per-home engagement as "not a procurement relationship." Asked whether engaging "another contractor" would require "another RFP," the attorney acknowledged that it would.
What is still open
- Whether the Town Council approved the engagement. The purchasing policy requires Town Council approval for purchases exceeding $25,000 annually with a vendor; no record of such approval is in the documents available. (The CRA Board's own October 22, 2025 minutes record no approval, as set out above.)
- Whether a written, signed amendment to the agreement exists. The contract states that "any modifications shall be in writing and signed by both parties" (Section 10); none has been produced.
- The contractor's workers' compensation status. The contract requires the contractor to "maintain general liability and workers' compensation coverage" (Section 6); whether that coverage was carried is not shown in the documents available.
- The fund coding. Each first draw appears under two purchase orders in two different funds (303-0515-515-6301 and 001-0000-131-3030), about a month apart, and the payment was made from the Town General Fund. Whether the earlier encumbrance was released, and why a CRA engagement was paid from the General Fund, are not explained by the documents available. The October 22, 2025 minutes reflect a related question: the attorney stated there that CRA grant funds had been "moved over to the town side" and "should not have been transferred."
What this is and is not
This finding concerns the agency's process, not the qualifications or conduct of the contractor. David Smith holds Florida contractor licenses (CGC 1532779, CCC 1335666), disclosed his licensure in the contract, and by the Executive Director's account applied for the role. The questions here are about how the agency selected, approved, and funded the engagement — decisions that rest with the Executive Director and the board, not the contractor. Vice Chair Thomas raised the procurement question directly at the June 18 meeting, and this finding follows from the record she opened. Cheatonville does not allege that any law has been violated; it sets the documents beside the rules and leaves the conclusions to readers and to the authorities with jurisdiction.
How this was sourced. The contract, invoices, purchase orders, check, and the October 22, 2025 special-meeting minutes were provided to Cheatonville by a resident and are quoted from the documents themselves. Bylaw and purchasing-policy text is quoted from the versions reproduced in the Cheatonville Library. Quotations from the June 18, 2026 meeting were transcribed from the Town's published recording.