Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Lake County on missing tax certification, forensic audit requests and lease ratification
Summary
Public commenters urged follow up on auditor red flags: a missing abstract and certification document tied to large tax increases, a request for a forensic audit of CBS Accounting, and questions about a lease/office sharing agreement that was signed then ratified in February.
At the June 16 meeting several residents raised concerns during public comment about county financial transparency and contract processes.
Mike Martin said he could not find the Colorado abstract and certification document—used to compile taxable property values and certify values to taxing entities—on the county website or at the front counter. "It was noted in the audit, the independent audit, and it was highlighted in red as being missing," Martin said, adding that some taxpayers had seen tax increases over 150 percent and that the missing certification prevents taxpayers from easily tracking how their tax dollars are allocated.
Commissioners replied they would follow up; one commissioner noted the abstract/certification process typically falls within the assessor and treasurer's duties and that the board does not directly control those elected offices, but that staff would contact the other elected officials to confirm compliance with statute.
Tina Tanzik asked the board to pursue a forensic audit even though the independent audit did not identify theft or misappropriation under the auditing standards cited. She said CBS Accounting has had contracts since 2020 for reconciliation and audit support and is paid up to $160,000, and she questioned why the audit continued to show reportable findings. She also raised questions about a lease/office sharing agreement between "Rocky Mountain General Council" and Lake County that she said became effective Jan. 1 but bears signatures dated Jan. 23 and Jan. 27 and was later ratified Feb. 3; Tanzik urged clarity on who authorized the agreement before board approval and noted attorney‑specific provisions in the contract that raise potential conflict and confidentiality questions.
The chair thanked both commenters and said staff would follow up by email where appropriate and coordinate with the assessor and treasurer on the abstract and certification. The meeting transcript reflects the concerns and the board's commitment to follow up; it does not show the board taking immediate formal action on those requests during the June 16 session.
