During the public-comment period, a resident identified as Dawn told the Town Board that the town's lists of properties tied to contractor mowing and snow removal contain numerous inaccuracies and that taxpayers have paid for maintenance on parcels that are no longer town owned.

Dawn read a series of addresses and sale dates she said showed the town had spent money maintaining properties that had been sold or were otherwise mischaracterized in bidding lists. She said, "60% of that list is inaccurate," and cited examples including 86 Carroll Drive and 2371 Genesee Street. She also said the town paid roughly $50,000 to an outside vendor from April through September of 2024 for grass cutting and related services on town-owned and Benelich-owned properties.

She questioned why signs advertising privately listed lots were placed on town-owned property and referenced the town's sign rule read aloud in the meeting packet. Dawn urged the board to answer specific questions before approving related resolutions and offered to meet with board members to share her research.

Several later public commenters and council members picked up the theme. Resident Don Flipsky called for internal audits and said the town must enforce its own rules on property maintenance and signage. Council members responded by explaining how charges are placed on tax bills and handled by the county assessor when collected; one council member noted that reclamation or tax-sale procedures can ultimately make the town whole on some work-for-tax items.

Why it matters: The comments raise transparency and internal-control questions about how the town identifies and budgets for maintenance on town-owned or tax-delinquent parcels. Board members and residents repeatedly urged clearer, accessible listings of properties, billing histories, and attachments referenced in meeting packets.

Next steps: Board members said they would provide attachments and documentation in the resolution packets and suggested residents contact department heads for greater detail. The board did not delay votes across the consent agenda in response to this comment.