Lake County Council presses auditor office after PTRC accounting error, votes to seek joint session with commissioners

The Lake County Council on March 10 pressed county financial staff and an outside contractor for answers after a multi‑year accounting error led to smaller property tax replacement credits this year.

The council called auditor contractor Mike Weiser to the podium to explain a discrepancy the State Board of Accounts flagged in 2023. According to Weiser, the county’s PTRC fund balance recorded in the financial system was inflated and an annual transfer step that should have moved funds from the PTRC account to the treasurer was missed for several years. "They used 49 million, I think, instead of a figure of about 24 million," Weiser said, describing how an overstated balance flowed into the tax‑bill calculations.

Weiser told the council the error emerged during reconciliation after the county migrated to the Oracle financial system and that responsibility for the missed transfer and for training rested with multiple offices. "There was nobody to see that and more than likely they didn't know they had to do it," he said, describing a gap in institutional knowledge and the failure of internal controls to flag the mismatch.

Council members pressed for clarity about which offices should have caught the problem. One member said the treasurer should have seen a cash shortfall; other members said the auditor’s office should have ensured staff were trained to perform the transfer and reconciliations. Council discussion repeatedly stressed the distinction between discussion and formal remedy: the council can investigate and request information, but action on an elected auditor’s employment is a separate process that begins with the county commissioners.

Ray Thurston, speaking during the auditor discussion, outlined investigatory powers the council holds. "The council has authority to investigate ... and, surprisingly, you have subpoena rights," Thurston said, urging the body to consider formal steps if needed.

After extended questioning and debate about accountability and training, the council voted to send formal correspondence to the county commissioners requesting a joint executive session to review the auditor’s office operations and to present an agreed plan back to the council before the June meeting. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 7‑0.

The council’s action followed a broader agenda in which members approved multiple appropriation changes, ordinances and interlocal agreements. Several council members emphasized that the PTRC change meant taxpayers would see smaller credits this year than in prior years because prior tax bills had reflected the inflated figures, a point Weiser corroborated.

What happens next: The council asked commissioners to meet jointly with the council in executive session to discuss personnel, process and controls related to the PTRC reconciliation and to identify corrective steps. The council did not take personnel action at the March 10 meeting; it limited its action to requesting the joint session.

Votes and formal actions connected to this issue are recorded in the council minutes. The council repeatedly emphasized its preference for factual reconciliation and strengthened training and controls rather than immediate public-facing accusations.