Residents urge clarity after county approves new authorized signatories; commissioners say statute allows manager authority

Two members of the public told the Lake County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday they have felt targeted by legal threats and urged the board to clarify a recent letter from the county attorney and county actions. Later in the meeting the board adopted a resolution designating authorized signatories on county bank accounts and discussed the statute cited by a resident.

During public comment, Tina Tecanci said she had submitted a notice of claim and asked the commissioners to meet with her to review documents she said raised accounting and collusion concerns. "I'm not trying to sit here and cause problems, but I know and it's like, you know, let's come together and figure this out," Tecanci said. She warned that allowing the county manager to be a signer on accounts could violate a statute she cited: "30-25-11013," and she asked for a meeting to present her evidence.

Another speaker, Max Cohen, criticized the county attorney's letter to residents as wrongly treating public advocacy as "malicious" and described the legal response as costly to citizens. "When Tina talks about feeling targeted and bullied, that's targeting and bullying," Cohen said, adding that he had paid legal fees responding to what he called a frivolous claim.

The board considered resolution 2025-20, a resolution designating authorized signatories on the county's bank accounts. County manager Candace Bryant explained the measure would add her as a signer on the regular checking and payroll accounts, and she noted other accounts would remain unchanged. She moved to approve the resolution; a commissioner seconded the motion.

County Attorney Chris (surname not specified in the public transcript) reviewed the relevant Colorado Revised Statutes and told commissioners that the statute cited by Tecanci concerns claims presented against the county and does not prohibit delegating signatory authority for routine administrative accounts. Chris said the statute relates to settling claims against the county and signing warrants in that context, not the county's general administrative operations.

Board members agreed to follow up with staff to clarify the difference between the public commenter's interpretation and the county's intent. One commissioner said staff would prepare a brief written clarification explaining how the resolution relates to the statute and typical practice, and staff later said they would confer and draft a short statement for the public record.

The board voted unanimously to adopt resolution 2025-20. The motion to approve passed by voice vote with all present voting aye. Commissioners said the county manager's signing authority would be used as a last resort and that the county would retain internal controls and Treasurer signatories for primary transactions.

No change was made to the county's practice regarding claims or settlement authority; commissioners and the county attorney said those matters remain governed by state law and the board's delegated authorities and that they would provide a written clarification for the resident who raised the statute.

The board's action created the authorized-signatories list the county will use for operational bank accounts; staff committed to a follow-up communication to explain the statute and the scope of the resolution to concerned residents.