SWFL.io - Local NewsChief WINK Investigates Reporter Chorus Nylander
•6/29/2026
BONITA SPRINGS, Fla. (WINK) — A local election, a months-long wait for public records, and conflicting tallies have sparked a fierce dispute over control of a little-known water control district in Bonita Springs.
At the center of the controversy is the San Carlos Estates Water Control District (SCEWCD), one of dozens of independent special districts across Florida. These boards possess the power to raise local taxes and maintain roads within their borders, yet they operate under unique state guidelines that differ substantially from traditional municipal elections.
The conflict began following the September 2024 annual landowners’ election. David Nadig, a local resident and farm owner who ran for a seat on the board after watching his district taxes rise from $300 to nearly $900, was initially told he lost to incumbent supervisor Jennifer Finazzo by a vote of 201 to 158.
Nadig brought his concerns to our WINK Listens event in Estero back in February.
While Nadig initially conceded, he requested the official ballots and proxies to verify the results. Due to what he describes as a ten-month delay, Nadig says he did not receive the records until August 2025. Upon reviewing the documents with his attorneys, Nadig claims the official count was inaccurate and actually in his favor.
"Carefully counted them, had other people count them, had my attorneys count them, and everybody concluded that I actually won the election," Nadig told WINK Investigates, asserting that Finazzo only received around 150 votes.
When Nadig presented his findings to the board during a November 2025 meeting, his claims were met with laughter from the dais.
He said, “What am I going to do? I don’t know,” before being told he was out of time to speak.
Nadig's efforts to seek an outside audit highlighted a regulatory gray area. Because water control districts are governed by Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes, traditional election oversight bodies lack jurisdiction. The Lee County Supervisor of Elections confirmed it had no authority over the matter, and the Florida Department of State informed Nadig that it does not investigate these cases because they are not “state or government elections.”
An email received from the Department of State.
Elections in these independent districts do not follow the standard "one person, one vote" model.
"Rather than the one person, one vote when we elect people to government, in most cases [in these districts] the landowners get a vote equal to 'one acre, one vote,'" explained Aubrey Jewett, a professor of politics at the University of Central Florida.
The complexity of aggregating that acreage on election night lies at the heart of the disagreement.
Allan Berube, who served as Nadig's poll watcher during the September 2024 vote, expressed doubts about how the ballots were handled and admits he felt rushed and is unsure if he handled his role appropriately. "I personally feel that’s what I was supposed to do, was to make sure both sides of those votes were counted," Berube said. "In my opinion, they were not."
Nadig also filed a Sunshine Law complaint regarding the alleged ten-month delay in obtaining the election records. The State Attorney’s Office ultimately closed the investigation without filing violations. Investigators cited an email mishap where Nadig admitted the documents might have sat undetected in his spam folder—a possibility Nadig notes he offered only to be reasonable, though he now maintains there is no evidence that occurred.
Nadig told Chief WINK Investigates Reporter Chorus Nylander, “Yes, it's true that the State Attorney decided not to prosecute Chapter 119 / Sunshine Law crimes. I received the records 10 months after my request. In my desire to be polite and accommodating, I did say that it's possible that I missed the District's response in January 2025. Honestly, I can't prove this, nor can they unless they provide the email they claim to have sent in January 2025. But even then, it took until August 2025 for the District to provide the records. So either way, the statute was violated because the statute says "prompt". October to January is not prompt, nor is January to August. Declining prosecution is not an endorsement of good faith compliance with the statute.”
WINK Investigates reached out to incumbent supervisor Jennifer Finazzo but did not receive a response. However, the district's general legal counsel, Richard Pringle, issued an extensive statement strongly denying any wrongdoing or mathematical errors on behalf of the district.
According to Pringle, the election was entirely open and transparent. He stated that representatives from both campaigns reviewed, validated, and counted the ballots multiple times together in the same room. Pringle asserted that during the meeting, Nadig and his campaign representatives agreed that no matter how the acreage was aggregated or counted, Finazzo emerged as the winner.
"Mr. Nadig’s objection to the election outcome now does not change the correct election outcome as determined on the day of the election," Pringle wrote. "On the day of the election, everyone involved used their best collective efforts to find the proper outcome of the election, and that is what happened despite what Mr. Nadig now alleges."
Pringle added, “As with any election, the purpose of counting the votes at the time of the election is to bring about a final conclusion of the election while all of the candidates and all of the poll watchers are together so that they can discuss all of the contents of the ballots and collectively agree in real time on the validity or invalidity of the ballots so that the counting of the valid ballots can be as accurate as possible and so that the outcome of the election can be collectively determined by everyone present using the best information that is available at the time of the election. The above process is the one that was used at the landowners meeting on September 28, 2024, to avoid problems and to best ensure a valid election outcome
Despite the time that has passed, Nadig states he still wants his seat on the board and hopes to see accountability regarding the vote count.”
Despite it already being halfway through the term, Nadig said he still wants the seat on the board, “I want my seat on the board to try and fix things just getting worse in the district and people need to be shown the door from that board and any one participating, there were other people involved in seeing those votes.”
Since the 2024 election, the District has slightly changed how it handles elections. Pringle said:
“After much deliberation over many months, at the last meeting where the draft voting policy was discussed, the Board of Supervisors changed from the position they had held up to that point and decided to use the option of determining votes based upon the aggregation of all acreage owned by a separate landowner in the District instead of aggregating acreage on a per parcel basis based upon the identification of parcels by the Lee County Property Appraiser. As I previously indicated in my response to your question number one above, the use of a different aggregation of acreage to determine a total number of votes that could be cast by a landowner would not have changed the outcome of the election results in the September 28, 2024, annual landowners meeting where Ms. Finazzo was elected as a Supervisor.
When you review the attached voting policy, you will be able to confirm that the District is taking multiple steps beyond what is required by law for a landowner's election governed by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, to provide an open and transparent and inclusive voting process so that all candidates and their selected poll watchers will be fully involved in all steps of the election process.”
Nadig disagreed and responded to the statement, saying, “As Mr. Pringle says, this got corrected but only after about 6 months of heated debate at board meetings.”
The District is in the middle of an interesting time, last year the state legislature approved having voters decide whether or not the San Carlos Estates Water Control District Board should continue to exist or be taken over by the City of Bonita Springs. Last year, landowners in the district voted overwhelmingly to keep the District together. During the August primary, residents of Bonita Springs will have a vote.
Pringle tells WINK Investigates that at this point, the matter is moot because the legislation requires both landowners and City residents to approve the measure to move forward. We will keep you updated.
If you have a story you’d like WINK Investigates to look into, email us at winkinvestigates@winknews.com or call our tip line at 239-344-5074.
