Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Resident alleges notary backdating, commissioners debate BOT project accounting
Summary
A public commenter accused parties connected to the county's BOT project of notary backdating and collusion and cited documents she said show additional charges above the $4.8 million contract; commissioners said accounting questions remain and asked for paperwork and possible state investigation.
A resident who addressed the Washington County Commissioners during public comment alleged that notary stamps on documents related to the county's build-operate-transfer (BOT) project were backdated and that the project's costs have escalated well beyond the originally stated $4,800,000.
The commenter said she received documents anonymously and identified a notary stamp for "Michelle Milligan" from Orange County, Indiana, that she said showed a notarization date inconsistent with the date Milligan's notary commission was issued. She said the documents suggest backdating and told the board she had forwarded materials to the State Board of Accounts and the governor's office. "This notary signed for this and backdated it. That is a criminal act under Indiana code," the commenter said (public comment).
Commissioners and staff recommended the resident contact state offices for verification. One board member noted the Indiana Secretary of State has authority over notary commissions and suggested the resident contact that office; the resident said she already had reached out to the State Board of Accounts and the governor's office and asked the county to pursue an investigation if warranted.
Later in the meeting, Commissioner Tony Cardwell provided an update on project accounting, saying he had reconciled previously questioned amounts and located $268,975.92 in items he had been unable to account for, listing stone, utility extension, bond costs and loan fees among those entries. He also cited $409,000 in land value that had been charged to ARP funds and said he had paperwork to support his figures. "I got 100 percent proof of all this," he said.
Other commissioners said they wanted to review the documents and paperwork after the meeting; one commissioner said the board has previously expected project totals to reconcile and asked to see the documentation. The meeting record shows disagreement over whether the additional amounts represent unauthorized spending or legitimate line items; no formal finding or vote on the allegation occurred during the session.
What happened next: board members encouraged the commenter to pursue state verification; commissioners asked to review the paperwork and said they would follow up after the meeting. No formal investigation was opened by the board at this meeting, and the allegations remain unproven in the record presented to the commissioners.
Ending: The discussion concluded with commissioners asking to review the records and the resident saying she had already contacted state authorities.
