Supervisor proposes independent auditor to review forensic audit progress; board divided over cost and tax shortfall claims

Town Supervisor opened the work session by urging the board to commission the same firm that prepared the town’s forensic audit to produce a progress report updating 2024–2026 corrective-action work and to “give us a clean bill of health,” proposing to include the $15,000 fee in the supervisor’s 2027 budget proposal. The Supervisor said the firm would review the corrective-action plans the controller has posted online and report back by year-end.

The request followed a brief staff note that Moody’s had reaffirmed the town’s bond rating, which the Supervisor said would lower borrowing costs. The Supervisor framed the independent review as a way to rebuild public trust: “If we basically, if we use the same auditor and they'd say, you know what? These are some of the problems that the town has going forward. This is what you have to work on,” the Supervisor said.

Several board members raised objections. One member argued that the corrective-action plan needs time to take effect and that spending $15,000 now is “a little ahead of the game.” That member said town staff can track corrective actions internally and questioned whether another consultant is necessary. The same critic pointed to the original intent of the forensic audit as documenting problems that predates the current controller and said the board should allow corrective steps to yield results before commissioning an update.

Another board member pressed financial concerns sharply, citing figures from the forensic report. That member said the forensic audit identified roughly $29,000,000 in uncollected property taxes and claimed the figure had since risen; the transcript includes an inconsistent large number later in discussion (the speaker referred to “34,000,000,000” in the record). The complainer argued that the town’s reliance on unassigned fund balance and prior transfers had artificially suppressed tax rates and warned the board against complacency.

The controller (referenced by name in the discussion) was praised by the Supervisor for work on corrective actions, but disagreement persisted about whether an external progress audit would be the best use of taxpayer funds. One board member asked whether the controller and chief financial officer could provide an in-house review of progress before authorizing outside spending.

Why it matters: the debate cuts to core budget-management and oversight questions — whether corrective steps shown in paperwork are being implemented, how aggressively the town pursues historically uncollected taxes, and how the board communicates progress to the public. The bond rating comment underscores that credit markets are watching fiscal discipline as the board considers next year’s budget.

What’s next: the Supervisor intends to include the $15,000 engagement in the 2027 proposed budget and asked whether any board member objected; several members requested time to review corrective-action evidence and said staff should document progress in writing before the board approves outside spending.