Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debate over $39.4 million courthouse fund centers on whether monies were formally reserved
Summary
Supervisor Paul said the town passed only a 4/12/2023 resolution reserving $7.4 million for a courthouse and asked for any other resolutions committing the larger $39.4 million; other members said budget messages across years signaled intent and the board has asked the New York State Comptroller for an opinion after the forensic report.
Supervisor Paul (S1) asked the board to produce any resolutions that would show the town board formally reserved $39.4 million for a new courthouse, saying he had found only a 04/12/2023 resolution that explicitly committed $7.4 million. "Unless you could show me any other resolution, that means...the town board never committed the $39,400,000 for the courthouse," Paul said.
Other board members pushed back, saying budget messages in multiple years had portrayed the fund balance as being built up for the courthouse and that the forensic report and a letter to the New York State Comptroller were the right next steps to get an independent opinion. A committee member said the inclusion of courthouse language in budget messages across 2019'21 and 2023 indicated the board's intent to set aside money.
The exchange became heated as members traded accusations about whether the public was misled by budget messages and whether prior boards had intentionally reallocated money to lower tax rates during the pandemic. Paul defended the board's collective responsibility for budget decisions and said the use of fund balance to reduce taxes during the pandemic was deliberate.
Board members noted they had voted to commission a forensic audit and that the audit is a fact-gathering document; the board has asked the New York State Comptroller for an opinion about the forensic findings. No vote occurred during the work session to change fund-balance classifications; the supervisor said staff should locate any additional resolutions if they exist and present them to the board.
The dispute centers on whether budget messages alone constitute a formal dedication of fund balance or whether a separate board resolution is required under state law to designate funds for a specific capital purpose. Paul said state law requires a resolution to designate general-fund balances as assigned for a particular purpose and that the only such resolution he found was the $7.4 million entry. Other members argued that messaging in successive budgets had the same practical effect in signaling intent to residents.
The board agreed to continue the conversation, to provide the requested resolutions or documentation if they exist, and to await any guidance from the New York State Comptroller requested by the board.
