Residents press council for clarity on bond/BAN accounting, Waterbury judgment

Several residents told the Watertown Town Council they need clearer, plain-language accounting on recent bond and bond anticipation note (BAN) transactions and how those proceeds were applied.

Richard Wisniewski called attention to the road improvement bond and questioned a memo that said BAN proceeds funded authorized capital and infrastructure projects. “This statement is factually incorrect,” he said, asserting the Water & Sewer Authority portion of the BAN did not fund a water or sewer capital project but was used to pay a $36.1 million judgment owed to the city of Waterbury.

An attendee later detailed the town’s October 29, 2025 BAN for $40 million (reported as $34 million for WSA and $6 million for public works), asked for an itemized explanation of how premium funds and a reported $3.4 million overage were applied, and requested the information be posted on the town website before a referendum in eight days.

The commenter also questioned why an RFP for town attorney services includes language about bidder residency and warned that the town charter requires the attorney to reside within 20 miles of Watertown; he urged the council to wait for new counsel before adopting litigation strategy tied to the Waterbury/Watertown fire-district dispute.

Council members acknowledged the public’s request for greater transparency and one council speaker said staff would provide more information and consider signage at project sites to show how bond proceeds are being spent. No formal vote was taken to change reporting practices at the meeting.