Heated exchange over $32 million courthouse reserve and forensic audit stalls progress

A lengthy, contentious discussion at the Town Board meeting centered on the status of funds originally set aside for a courthouse project and on a recent forensic audit.

One board member asked the town’s chief financial officer how the town would restore a shortfall of $32,000,000 from the courthouse reserve, noting the budget had previously shown $39,400,000 set aside. The CFO responded that capital projects generally require bonding and potentially a referendum and said officials were exploring locations and options, including repurposing an existing building to save costs.

The exchange escalated when another member said the board had voted to reserve money for the courthouse and pressed the CFO for documentation proving that the board had later authorized moving or unrestricted use of that money. That member cited the forensic audit language alleging "plugs" used to fill budget gaps and called for clarity on who authorized the transfers.

The CFO defended past decisions, saying funds were used to keep the tax rate lower and denied unilateral authority to reassign funds; other members said they had not been informed of the reclassifications and asked for documentary evidence. The transcript records repeated demands for written proof of authorization and disagreement over whether prior conversations with staff satisfied board approval requirements.

Separately, a consultant (Ronette Riley) was cited as having recommended keeping the courthouse and police facilities together at the existing location rather than separating them; that recommendation was described as the consultant’s view rather than a board decision. No formal vote or resolution on the courthouse funding was taken during the session.