Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Curry County commissioners over legal fees, lost grants and forensic audit
Summary
Multiple public commenters at the Nov. 5 meeting asked why legal-services and consultant costs have increased, questioned a partial Moss Adams review of road reserves, and urged transparency about a REDW forensic audit and possible $1.1 million accounting discrepancy.
Several Curry County residents used the Nov. 5 public-comment period to press the Board of Commissioners for clearer accounting and to ask why the county is paying multiple legal and consulting bills.
Dee Ragsdale, introduced as a Curry County resident, asked for an explanation of rising legal-services charges and higher insurance costs and asked what the county is getting for contracts with lobbyists and planning consultants. "Why do we have so much legal services that are needed?" Ragsdale asked, noting line items for multiple law firms and a forensic study whose cost she said was not yet disclosed.
Other commenters echoed concerns about transparency and the scope of reviews. George Cockerham cited the REDW forensic-audit proposal and said auditors need access to assessor Wagner’s office and other departments to understand what he described as accounting errors "about $1,100,000." Cockerham urged the board to ensure auditors can interview staff and obtain records.
Commissioners responded on the record. One commissioner said the county had corrected several earlier accounting errors identified by the Department of Revenue and that some outstanding corrections involved modest amounts to 4‑H and a fire department rather than an undistributed $1.1 million. The board also confirmed the county lost a jail-based medications grant (JMOD) worth roughly $330,000 after the sheriff did not provide assurances requested by the board, and commissioners said their federal lobbyist work had been pursuing more than $1.3 million in appropriations for jail improvements prior to a federal shutdown.
Why this matters: The questions tie to budget priorities, potential forensic-audit costs and how the county manages outside contracts. Commenters asked for clearer public accounting and for the board to make reports available rather than rely on ad hoc requests.
What commissioners said they would do: Board members said they will make trial transcripts and court documents available online and will work to respond to public-record requests; one commissioner invited a resident to meet and review line items in detail. The board also defended decisions to reallocate some funds in response to systemic accounting errors discovered after staff transitions.
