Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Fiscal Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and volunteers say $395,000 match for sports complex can’t be located; commissioners ask for ARPA reconciliation
Summary
Developers of the NAV Sports Complex told the Baker County Commission they cannot find about $395,000 that had been earmarked as match funding for Phase 2, delaying planned bathrooms and concessions; county staff said the clerk’s office is reconciling the ARPA account and commissioners requested a full reconciliation and possible use of reserves.
Larry Porterfield and NAV Sports Complex volunteers urged the Baker County Board of County Commissioners to finish Phase 2 of the complex, saying the work is ready but stalled because $395,000 previously held as the county match cannot be identified. Ryan Richardson, who described himself as a project volunteer, told the board the group had conserved county funds, lining up labor and donated materials, but was told recently that the match balance “isn't where we thought it was,” and that without the funds the planned concession stand and bathrooms cannot be completed in time for next summer.
The project team said phase 1 work was completed using careful procurement and donated labor; they described the missing amount as final match money and said the ambiguity left them unable to schedule vertical construction. “We had $395,000 in that bucket, and then we're ready to go for Phase 2, and we get told that we don't know where that $395,000 is at,” Richardson said during public comment.
County administration responded that the clerk’s office is reconciling ARPA expenditures and that staff spreadsheets show roughly $644,000 remaining in ARPA funds overall, with about $300,000 allocated across the two phases. A county administrator said some match dollars may have been charged to whole projects rather than only match portions, which would require a detailed reconciliation to resolve.
Several commissioners expressed frustration with the clerk’s office accounting, with one commissioner saying the county has missed audit deadlines and relied on costly consultants to catch up. The board discussed options including (a) completing a formal reconciliation of the ARPA fund before authorizing expenditures for Phase 2, (b) using county reserves to finish the complex if reconciled balances are insufficient, and (c) referring the accounting discrepancies to state auditors if the county’s internal reconciliation cannot resolve the issue.
The commission did not approve a specific appropriation at the meeting but instructed staff to continue reconciliation work and to report back with a written account of ARPA balances and any recommended next steps. Commissioners also noted the developers had arranged additional outside funding and in‑kind help and asked staff to coordinate timing so that, if funds are verified, work can begin without further delay.
