O L A

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

STATE OF MINNESOTA

County Audits
Special Review

February 3, 2016
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
Centennial Building Suite 140
658 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55155
Telephone: 651-296-4708 Fax: 651-296-4712
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us
Through Minnesota Relay: 1-800-627-3529 or 7-1-1

Office of the Legislative Auditor

The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) is a professional, nonpartisan audit and evaluation
office within the legislative branch of Minnesota state government. The office is under the
direction of the Legislative Auditor, who is appointed by the Legislative Audit Commission.
OLAs jurisdiction, authority, and responsibilities are defined in Minnesota Statutes 3.971
through 3.979. OLAs principal goal is to provide the Legislature, agencies, and the public with
audit and evaluation reports that are accurate, objective, timely, and useful. Through its reports,
the office seeks to strengthen accountability and promote good management in government.
OLA has a Financial Audit Division that annually audits the financial statements of the State of
Minnesota and, on a rotating schedule, the division audits state agencies and various other
entities. Financial audits of local units of government are the responsibility of the State Auditor,
an elected office established in the Minnesota Constitution.
OLA has a Program Evaluation Division that evaluates programs created or funded by the State
of Minnesota, including programs operated by local governments. The Legislative Audit
Commission decides each year which programs OLA will evaluate.
OLA also conducts special reviews in response to allegations and other concerns brought to the
attention of the Legislative Auditor. The Legislative Auditor conducts a preliminary assessment
in response to each request for a special review and decides what additional action will be taken
by OLA.
Reports issued by OLA are solely the responsibility of OLA and may not reflect the views of the
Legislative Audit Commission, its individual members, or other members of the Minnesota
Legislature. For more information about OLA and to access its reports, go to:
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us
To obtain reports in electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, or audio, call 651-296-4708.
People with hearing or speech disabilities may call through Minnesota Relay by dialing 7-1-1 or
1-800-627-3529.
To offer comments about our work or suggest an audit, investigation, or evaluation, call
651-296-4708 or e-mail [email protected].

OL A

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

STATE OF MINNESOTA James Nobles, Legislative Auditor

February 3, 2016

Members of the Legislative Audit Commission

Members of the House State Government Finance Committee
Members of the Senate State Departments and Veterans Budget Division
The Honorable Rebecca Otto, State Auditor

County audits were a controversial issue during the 2015 Legislature. The controversy resulted
in two provisions in the State Government Appropriations Law. One provision gave counties the
option of having their annual audits conducted by either the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) or
a CPA firm. The other provision directed the Office of the Legislative Auditor to assess the
efficiency of county audits conducted by OSA.
This report is our response to the legislative directive. The Office of the State Auditor
cooperated with our review, as did the Association of Minnesota Counties and many individual
county administrators.
Cecile Ferkul, CPA, CISA, Deputy Legislative Auditor; Tyler Billig, CPA, Audit Coordinator;
and Jennyfer Hildre, Staff Auditor, assisted in preparing this report.
Sincerely,

James Nobles
Legislative Auditor

Room 140 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1603 Phone: 651-296-4708 Fax: 651-296-4712
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Minnesota Relay: 1-800-627-3529 or 7-1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
REPORT PREVIEW .......................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 1: AUDIT EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................5
Measuring Efficiency ..................................................................................................................5
Comparing the Price of County Audits .......................................................................................5
Reasons for Price Differences Other Than Efficiency ................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: COUNTY PERSPECTIVE....................................................................................11
CHAPTER 3: OLA PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................................15
State Auditors Authority ..........................................................................................................15
The State Auditors Audit Strategy and Schedule ....................................................................16
APPENDIX A: COUNTIES BY AUDITOR ...............................................................................19
APPENDIX B: THE 2015 COUNTY AUDIT LAW ...................................................................21
APPENDIX C: THE OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL
INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................23
RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR ................................................27

COUNTY AUDITS

Introduction
Minnesota counties are required to have an annual audit.1 Prior to a recent change in the law, the
Office of the State Auditor (OSA) decided whether it would conduct the audit or allow a county
to hire a CPA firm to conduct the audit. In recent years, OSA has conducted annual audits of 59
counties and allowed CPA firms to audit 28 counties.2
Counties have to pay for their annual audits, regardless if the OSA or a CPA firm conducts the
audit. In recent years, some counties have complained to legislators that OSAs annual audits
are too costly and not timely, and that the State Auditor would not allow them to use a CPA firm.
In response, the 2015 Legislature amended state law to give all counties the option of hiring a
CPA firm to conduct their annual audits.3
The State Auditor strongly opposed giving counties the option to choose their auditor and asked
the Governor to veto the legislation. However, the Governora former State Auditorsigned
the legislation into law. The State Auditor has indicated that she is considering legal action
against the legislation.4
In addition to giving counties the option to choose whether OSA or a CPA firm conducts their
annual audit, the 2015 Legislature directed the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) to report
on the efficiency of county audits conducted by OSA.5
This report is our response to the legislative directive. In Chapter 1, we address the issue of audit
efficiency. In Chapter 2, we provide the perspective of county administrators. In Chapter 3, we
present our own perspective on the county audit controversy and make a recommendation that
we hope will help resolve the conflicts that have developed over the 2015 legislation.

Prior to a 2015 change in the law, the annual audit requirement was not explicit in state law. The requirement
resulted from a federal law (called the Single Audit Act) and requirements imposed by credit rating agencies that
use a governments annual financial statements in determining the governments credit rating.
2

A list of the counties OSA audited and CPA firms audited is in Appendix A.

Laws of Minnesota 2015, chapter 77, art. 2, sec. 3; codified at Minnesota Statutes 2015, 6.481. The 2015 law goes
into effect on August 1, 2016, and it provides the following: A county that plans to change to or from the state
auditor and a CPA firm must notify the state auditor of this change by August 1 of an even-numbered year. Upon
this notice, the following calendar year will be the first years records that will be subject to an audit by the new
entity. A county that changes to or from the state auditor must have two annual audits done by the new entity.
A copy of the 2015 legislation is in Appendix B.
4

Catherine Richert, Otto likely to take auditor change to court, Minnesota Public Radio, June 10, 2015.

Laws of Minnesota 2015 Regular Session, chapter 77, art. 2, sec. 84.

COUNTY AUDITS

Report Preview
KEY POINTS
We were unable to reach a definitive conclusion about the efficiency of county audits conducted
by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA).
For counties we considered similar, we found that OSA charged more than CPA firms did for an
audit, but we could not conclude that the price differences were due to greater efficiency alone.
The price differences might also reflect the fact that OSA and CPA firms use different pricing
methods. In addition, auditors must make professional judgments in deciding how to comply
with audit standards, and those judgments can effect the hours needed to complete an audit and
the cost. Finally, a countys financial structure and operations can affect the time required to
complete an audit and the cost.
We believe the best test for whether CPA firms are more efficient than OSA will result from
implementing the 2015 legislation. The law allows for price competition, but it also allows the
State Auditor to ensure that CPA firms comply with audit standards. The State Auditor also
retains significant authority to ensure that countiesand other local governmentsare
accountable for how they spend public money.
The county financial officials we surveyed and interviewed had generally positive opinions of
the OSA audit teams that have audited their counties, but mixed opinions about the cost and
timeliness of OSA county audits.
The county financial officials we surveyed and interviewed had strong negative opinions about
how OSA has responded to the 2015 legislation.
If the 2015 legislation is not repealed by the Legislature or overturned by a court, we recommend
that the State Auditor use the legislation as an opportunity to reassess OSAs audit schedule and
prepare a strategic plan that ensures all local governments will receive adequate OSA oversight.
The State Auditor should present the plan to the Legislature and include proposals for alternative
funding of the State Auditors audit responsibilities.

COUNTY AUDITS

Chapter 1: Audit Efficiency

MEASURING EFFICIENCY
The classic measure of efficiency is a quantitative ratio of inputs to outputs. Being efficient
means using fewer resources to produce the same amount of goods and services, or using the
same amount of resources to produce more goods and services.
Efficiency is not an absolute measure, however; we need a point of comparison. We say a
person performed an activity efficiently or inefficiently by comparing how other people
performed the same activity under the same conditions, or by comparing the performance to an
established benchmark.
In auditing, the primary quantifiable input is the number of work hours auditors use to perform
an audit, and the quantifiable output is the result, the audit report. For our review, we compared
OSA county audits with CPA county audits.
We sought information from OSA and CPA firms on how many hours they required to conduct
county audits in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Because OSA bills counties based on staff hours and
hourly rates (specific to each level of auditor), we were able to obtain information on hours from
OSA. But because CPA firms often bill counties using an agreed-upon flat fee, we were not able
to obtain sufficient information on the number of hours CPA firms required to complete county
audits. We did obtain, however, how much counties paid CPA firms for their audits.

COMPARING THE PRICE OF COUNTY AUDITS

Using OSA and individual county data, we compared how much OSA charged to audit eight
counties with the amounts CPA firms charged to audit eight counties with similar populations
and budgets. We asked OSA to review our county comparisons and identify distinctions that
would explain the differences in the audit charges. Table 1 shows the eight pairs of counties and
comments we received from OSA. The table illustrates the challenges of finding comparisons
that can be used to make valid judgments about audit efficiency.

SPECIAL REVIEW
Table 1
Office of the State Auditor
Comparisons of Selected Counties Audit Costs for
Calendar Years 2012, 2013, and 2014 with
Additional Information Provided by OSA

County
Cass
Hubbard

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$84,342
$30,500

2013
$108,743
$ 30,500

2014
$106,990
$ 30,500

OSA did not agree that audit costs for these counties were comparable because Cass County had four
to five audited federal programs each year while Hubbard County had only one to two each year. In
addition, Cass Countys governmental revenues and expenditures were approximately double that of
Hubbard County.

OSA identified the following factors affecting the increase in OSA audit costs between 2012 and 2013:
increased billing rates primarily due to state negotiated bargaining agreements, including insurance
costs; new accounting principles; increased number of federal programs audited as major; new trial
balance package; new/changed audit forms and documentation; and the mix, levels, and duties of staff
assigned.

County
Cottonwood
Jackson

2014
$58,669
$58,550

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$70,521
$62,300

2013
$77,378
$86,300

2014
$81,632
$71,100

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$52,659
$58,244

2013
$49,193
$59,700

2014
$53,535
$59,700

2013
$71,497
$29,500

2014
$68,392
$29,500

OSA cost for each year was less than the CPA firms cost.

County
Norman
Red Lake

2013
$74,833
$60,340

OSA identified the following factors affecting the increase in OSA audit costs between 2013 and 2014:
increased billing rates primarily due to state negotiated bargaining agreements, including insurance costs;
additional time required for the Countys first year expanded comprehensive reporting related to the
Government Finance Officers Associations Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting Program; and additional review of issues with independence and with assessments.

County
Lac Qui Parle
Swift

2012
$63,277
$57,890

OSA identified the following factors affecting the increase in OSA audit costs between 2012 and 2013:
increased billing rates primarily due to state negotiated bargaining agreements, including insurance
costs; new accounting principles; increased number of federal programs audited as major; and
changes in County operations and investments requiring additional review.

County
Freeborn
Mower

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$63,752
$27,920

OSA did not agree that audit costs for these counties were comparable because each year Norman
County required audits of federal programs and Red Lake County did not. In addition, Norman Countys
governmental revenues and expenditures were approximately double that of Red Lake County.
Continued on Next Page

COUNTY AUDITS

Table 1 (Continued)
Office of the State Auditor
Comparisons of Selected Counties Audit Costs for
Calendar Years 2012, 2013, and 2014 with
Additional Information Provided by OSA
County
Itasca
Beltrami

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$86,933
$64,500

2013
$92,804
$61,500

2014
$94,626
$64,500

OSA did not agree that audit costs for these counties were comparable because Itasca County had
more federal programs requiring audit in 2012 than Beltrami County; Itasca Countys governmental
revenues and expenditures, long-term liabilities, capital assets, and cash and pooled investments are
notably higher than Beltrami County; Itasca County has three enterprise funds and Beltrami County
has none; an opinion in relation to Itasca Countys basic financial statements is provided for three
budgetary schedules, and Beltrami County has no such budgetary schedules; and Itasca County has
Other Post Employment Benefits and Beltrami County does not. These all have an impact on the
extent of audit work required.

County
Nicollet
Le Sueur

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$55,780
$56,993

2013
$59,603
$59,693

2014
$66,364
$61,578

OSA costs for 2012 and 2013 were less than the CPA firms costs.

OSA identified the following factors affecting the increase in OSA audit costs between 2013 and 2014:
increased billing rates primarily due to state negotiated bargaining agreements, including insurance
costs; additional federal program and cost allocation testing; and a change in county staff integral to
preparation of information needed to audit and for financial reporting.

County
Scott
Wright

Auditor
OSA
CPA firm

2012
$64,866
$61,000

2013
$63,776
$58,600

2014
$92,897
$60,500

OSA did not agree that audit costs for these counties were comparable because Scott Countys
governmental revenues and expenditures have gotten progressively larger than Wright County each
year; Scott County has expanded comprehensive reporting to the Government Finance Officers
Associations Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program and Wright
County does not; Scott County has internal service funds and Wright County does not; an opinion in
relation to Scott Countys basic financial statements is provided for five budgetary schedules and
Wright County has no such budgetary schedules; and Scott Countys long-term liabilities and capital
assets are significantly larger than that of Wright County. These all have an impact on the extent of
audit work required.

OSA identified the following factors affecting the increase in OSA audit costs between 2013 and 2014:
increased billing rates primarily due to state negotiated bargaining agreements, including insurance
costs; increased number of federal programs audited as major; the availability of county staff integral to
preparation of information needed to audit and for financial reporting; and the mix, levels, and duties of
staff assigned.

Sources: Office of the State Auditor billing data, CPA billing invoices from counties, and comments from the Office of the State
Auditor.

SPECIAL REVIEW

REASONS FOR PRICE DIFFERENCES OTHER THAN EFFICIENCY

Differences in Pricing Methods
The pricing methods used by OSA and CPA firms are significantly different, and they may be a
factor in how much counties pay for audits. Statute requires the OSA to bill to recover the cost
of each audit. The cost of an audit is primarily determined by multiplying the time it took to
conduct the audit by a rate that reflects the auditors experience in performing the work. That
rate typically includes the auditors compensation along with an allocation of other costs related
to the auditors work, such as equipment, supplies, and other office costs. We present OSAs
hourly rates and how they are established in Appendix C.
CPA firms have greater flexibility in pricing. While a CPA firm must ultimately be profitable to
stay in business, it may not have to make every audit a profitable engagement. As one firm
executive told us, We price to the market, and government work is a very different market than
our corporate market. Even within the government market there are submarkets, and you just
decide and price depending on whether you want particular clients in those submarkets. And
over time, if we cannot make money in a market or with a particular client, we dont bid again.
CPA firms also generally have a greater diversity of business than OSA, and that too can affect
their pricing. For example, a firm may want a particular government client and be willing to
recover a potential short-term loss through its other work, such as income tax preparations, or in
the expectation of increased future revenue from the government client. Finally, a firm may
consider having certain government clients as a way to develop visibility and good will in the
community.

Auditor Judgment
Auditors must make professional decisions throughout an audit, and those judgments can affect
the number of hours required to complete the audit and the price. While all audits must comply
with generally accepted auditing standards, the standards leave considerable room for auditors to
exercise judgment.6 For example, audit standards say an auditor must obtain sufficient and
appropriate audit evidence by performing audit procedures to afford a reasonable basis for an
opinion regarding the financial statements under audit.7 But the standard allows the auditor to

Audits of counties are subject to various sets of audits standards: (1) Generally Accepted Auditing Standards
established by the Auditing Standards Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA);
and (2) Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards established by the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO). In addition, the federal government has established audit requirements for Single
Audits in U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. All of these audit standards and requirements, as well as additional
guidance, are contained in the Audit Guide for Financial and Compliance Audits of Minnesota Counties established
by the Office of the State Auditor. Minnesota Statutes 2015. 6.481, subd. 3, states that county audits performed by a
CPA firm must meet the standards and be in the form required by the state auditor.
7

Statements on Auditing Standards, AU-C sec. 500.01, Audit Evidence, (AICPA, Codification of Statements on
Auditing Standards, as of January 2015).

COUNTY AUDITS

use his or her professional skill, training, and experience to decide how much and what kind of
evidence is sufficient and appropriate.
More specifically, audit standards do not prescribe how auditors test financial transactions or
how many transactions they test. Instead, auditors determine the type and number of tests they
believe are necessary based on their professional judgement. In addition, some auditors may rely
less on testing specific financial transactions and more on analytical techniques to address a risk,
while other auditors may decide to conduct more time-consuming tests of detailed transactions.
Neither approach is wrong; they simply reflect professional judgments based on the auditors
experiences, their assessments of risk, and what they believe is required to meet the audits
objectives.

Financial Environment
Variations in the financial structure and operations of the organizations being audited can also
affect the number of hours required to complete an audit and the cost. Auditors commonly refer
to this as the financial environment. While some may see Minnesota counties as having
homogenous environments simply because they are all county governments, Minnesota counties
actually have significant differences specifically related to their financial environments. They
vary in terms of the size and nature of the expenditures, revenues, federal grant programs,
internal service funds,8 and enterprise funds.9 Some counties have sold bonds or completed a
construction project that requires additional disclosures or a unique accounting presentation.
In addition, in any audit, the skills and experience of the financial and management staff of the
organization being audited can affect the number of hours required to complete an audit and the
cost. Counties are not an exception. If a countys financial and management staff have designed
and implemented strong internal controls (policies or procedures used to minimize financial
risks), an audit will generally take less time. Audits will also generally take less time if the
countys financial staff have adequately prepared in advance the documents and data auditors
will need to conduct the audit.

Organizations use an internal service fund to report financial activity related to goods or services the government
provides to its other funds, departments, or agencies on a cost reimbursement basis. For example, a government
may operate a motor pool to provide vehicles to employees for work-related travel.
9

An enterprise fund is used to report financial activity related to goods or services the government provides to
external users for a fee. For example, the OSA uses an enterprise fund to account for the financial activity related to
its audit services division.

COUNTY AUDITS

11

Chapter 2: County Perspective

As we noted in the Introduction, the Legislatures recent action concerning county audits was in
reaction to complaints from some county officials. Therefore, we thought it important to obtain
input from as many county officials as possible to learn about their experiences with the State
Auditors Office as well as experiences with CPA firms.
To obtain that input, we had individual interviews and a group discussion with several county
administrators during the annual meeting of the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) on
December 7, 2015. The following week, we sent a questionnaire to an administrator in each of
Minnesotas 87 counties. Because Minnesotas counties are organized in different ways, we
asked AMC to assist us in determining which county official would be the most appropriate to
contact in each county.
Given the sensitivity of the issues and relationships involvedand the fact that we asked
officials to be candidwe agreed not to report their responses and comments in a way that
would identify the county or individual. In addition, we also classified as not public
information in our work papers that could identify an individual administrator or county.
We identified the following themes from individual interviews, our group discussion, and the
survey of county administrators:
County administrators were generally satisfied with the OSA audit teams who have
conducted audits of their county.
On the survey, we asked: How satisfied have you been with the OSA auditors who have
conducted annual audits of your county? Of the 44 administrators who offered an opinion,
16 were very satisfied, 24 were satisfied, and 4 were unsatisfied.
Among the comments administrators added were the following:

The auditors assigned to [our] county have been thorough, responsive, and professional.

Reasonably satisfied. They review our processes and procedures and do appropriate
random sampling of our financial transactions to ensure compliance with government
financial accounting standards.

12

SPECIAL REVIEW

County administrators had mixed opinions on the timeliness of OSA annual audits.
On the survey, we asked: How satisfied have you been with the timeliness of OSAs annual
audits of your county? Of the 44 administrators who offered an opinion, 8 were very satisfied,
22 were satisfied, 13 were unsatisfied, and 1 was very unsatisfied.
Among the comments administrators added were the following:

They have consistently worked to meet the timelines we have needed.

Audits are delivered in September/October too late to be useful financial management

tool for development of the next years budget and auditing cycle.

On average, it takes 2-3 months longer than our private CPA firm to have the final
audited financial statements.

County administrators also had mixed opinions about the cost of OSA audits.
On the survey, we asked: How would you characterize how much OSA has charged your county
for annual audits? Of the 37 administrators who offered an opinion in our survey, 3 said the
costs were very reasonable, 19 said they were reasonable, 13 said unreasonable, and 2 said very
unreasonable.
Among the comments administrators added were the following:

The charges appear to be reasonable for the amount of work and skill level necessary.
However, we have not done an RFP for comparison.

I have worked as a county administrator for two counties. One was served by a private
auditor, the other by OSA. The counties have similar finances and federal programs
(total dollars, funds, departments, transactions, services/programs), but the cost with
OSA is about 15k more.

OSA claims that our costs are directly related to our audit prep work, but our costs dont
decrease when we take on more work. Costs are inconsistent from year to year and
across similar counties.

COUNTY AUDITS

13

County administrators have generally negative opinions about the State Auditors response
to the 2015 legislation.
On the survey, we asked: How satisfied are you with how OSA is implementing the 2015 law
that allows counties to choose either a CPA firm or OSA to conduct an annual audit? Of the 47
administrators who offered an opinion, 8 administrators said they were very satisfied, 7 satisfied,
11 unsatisfied, and 21 very unsatisfied.
Among the comments administrators added were the following:

The OSA is attempting to place counties in the middle of their dispute with the
Legislature. Their response has been too heavy handed.

The communication has not been good. At some point, they need to get past not
agreeing with the legislation and figure out how to implement it the best way possible.
Good communication would have helped that immensely. Now there seems to be a lack
of trust with the state office as a result.

We have tried to ask questions and received vague or non-responses. We have been told
we MUST sign a three-year engagement letter; when in the past they were always oneyear commitments.

Repeated attempts to intimidate us in to a 3 year contract has left us with doubts about
our previously good relationship with [OSA].

The comments administrators made in individual interviews and during our group discussion
were consistent with the comments on the survey. For example, administrators said:

The letter telling us we had to sign up with the State Auditor for three years was end
run around the new law. Frankly, my county considered the letter disrespectful,
unprofessional, and insulting.

I am concerned about the OSAs use of public dollars to hire outside legal counsel to
potentially litigate against counties who refuse to sign up for three years with the State
Auditors Office.

COUNTY AUDITS

15

Chapter 3: OLA Perspective

We conclude with our perspective on the county audit controversy and a recommendation that
we hope will help resolve the conflicts that have developed over the 2015 legislation.

STATE AUDITORS AUTHORITY

A key element in the county audit controversy involves the impact of the 2015 legislation on the
State Auditors authority. As legislators and others address that issue, we think the following
facts are relevant:

The Legislature has always defined the duties and authority of the State Auditor.10
The Minnesota Constitution created the office of Auditor in 1857, but the authors
of the constitution left it for the Legislature to assign duties and authority to the Auditor.11

During the State Legislatures first meeting, a state law was enacted on July 23, 1858, that
made the Auditor the states chief controller and official bookkeeper.12 Those remained the
Auditors primary duties for approximately 115 years.

The State Auditor did not become the auditor of local governments until 1973. That year, the
Legislature abolished the Office of the Public Examiner, which had been the auditor of state
and local government since the Legislature created that office in 1913. The Public Examiner
became the first Legislative Auditor and assigned to audit state government. The State
Auditor was assigned to audit local governments.13

Since that time, the Legislature has assigned a wide range of duties and authority to the State
Auditor.14

10

The exception are four constitutional amendments that assign certain non-audit duties to the State Auditor. See
Footnote 14 for more details.
11

Constitution of the State of Minnesota, art. V, sec. 1.

12

The law is codified as Minnesota Statutes1858, chapter 5, sections 19-47.

13

The Legislature took these actions in response to recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel of management
experts called the Loaned Executive Action Program (LEAP). LEAP recommended that the Legislature should
create an Office of the Legislative Auditor and transfer all of the Public Examiners audit duties and authority into
that office. LEAP recommended that the office of State Auditor (and the office of State Treasurer) should be
abolished by a constitutional amendment.
14

The duties and authority of the State Auditor are primarily in Minnesota Statutes 2015, chapter 6. In addition,
four constitutional amendments have been adopted in recent years that assign various non-audit duties to the State
Auditor. They are contained in the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, art. XI, section 6 (related to certificates of
indebtedness), section 7 (related to state bonds), section 8 (related to the State Board of Investment), and section 10
(related to the exchange of public lands).

16

SPECIAL REVIEW
While the 2015 legislation removed the State Auditors authority to decide whether counties
receive an annual audit from OSA or a CPA firm, the State Auditor retains significant control
over county audits and authority to ensure counties are accountable for their use of public
money and other public resources. In fact, the 2015 law says:
All the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the state auditor shall be
exercised and performed by the state auditor in respect to the offices, institutions,
public property, and improvements of several counties of the state. The state
auditor may visit, without previous notice, each county and examine all accounts
and records relating to the receipt and disbursement of the public funds and the
custody of the public funds and other property. The state auditor shall prescribe
and install systems of accounts and financial reports that shall be uniform, so far
as practicable, for the same class of offices.

The law also says that even if a CPA firm conducts a countys annual audit, The state
auditor may make additional examinations as the auditor determines to be in the public
interest. In short, we believe the 2015 law left the State Auditor clear authority to ensure
that counties are accountable for how they use public money.

THE STATE AUDITORS AUDIT STRATEGY AND SCHEDULE

We believe the 2015 law presents OSA with an opportunity to reassess its overall audit strategy
and schedule, as well as how the state funds audits of local governments.
The Office of the Legislative Auditor reassessed its audit schedule issue several years ago and
determined that annual financial statement audits are often not the most effective mechanisms for
ensuring that public funds have been used appropriately. Financial statement audits have value,
but they are high-level examinations of a countys year-end financial reports. The information is
dated, and it is presented in ways that are foreign to non-accountants. Financial statements and
financial statement audits receive little attention from the public and often little attention from
public officials.
In addition, CPA firms generally are well equipped to audit government financial statements
since these audits do not typically require special legal authority that is granted to both the State
Auditor and the Legislative Auditor. In recent years, OLA has asked the Legislature to reduce
the number of financial statements we conduct so that we can focus more audit resources on
internal controls and legal compliance audits. At the Minnesota Department of Management and
Budgets request, we have not asked the Legislature to repeal the mandate for OLA to audit the
states annual financial statements, but we have implemented various efficiencies to reduce the
number of hours we use to complete the audit.
The State Auditor clearly has the prerogative to assess what types of audits yield the greatest
benefit. However, we believe the 2015 legislation presents OSA with an opportunity to reassess
its overall audit strategy for achieving the most effective deployment of its audit resources and
how those resources should be funded.

COUNTY AUDITS

17

Recommendation
If the 2015 legislation is not repealed by the Legislature or overturned by a court, we recommend
that the State Auditor use the legislation as an opportunity to reassess OSAs audit schedule and
prepare a strategic plan that ensures all local governments will receive adequate OSA oversight.
The State Auditor should present the plan to the Legislature and include proposals for alternative
funding of the State Auditors audit responsibilities.

COUNTY AUDITS

19

Appendix A: Counties by Auditor

The following table shows counties audited by the Office of the State Auditor (indicated by
a mark) and those audited by CPA firms for the years 2009 through 2014.
Table A-1
Counties Audited by the Office of the State Auditor or CPA Firms
2009 to 2011 and 2012 to 2014
County
Aitkin
Anoka
Becker
Beltrami
Benton
Big Stone
Blue Earth
Brown
Carlton
Carver
Cass
Chippewa
Chisago
Clay
Clearwater
Cook
Cottonwood
Crow Wing
Dakota
Dodge
Douglas
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Grant
Hennepin
Houston
Hubbard
Isanti
Itasca
Jackson
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
Kittson
Koochiching
Lac qui Parle
Lake
Lake of the Woods
Le Sueur
Lincoln
Lyon
Mahnomen
Marshall

2009 to 2011
2012 to 2014

Hoffman, Dale &

Swenson
CliftonLarsonAllen
CliftonLarsonAllen

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

CliftonLarsonAllen

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause

McGladrey (now RSM US, LLP)

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause

CliftonLarsonAllen

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause
CliftonLarsonAllen

Brady, Martz & Associates

Sources: Office of the State Auditor and county staff.

County
Martin
McLeod
Meeker
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Mower
Murray
Nicollet
Nobles
Norman
Olmsted
Otter Tail
Pennington
Pine
Pipestone
Polk
Pope
Ramsey
Red Lake
Redwood
Renville
Rice
Rock
Roseau
Scott
Sherburne
Sibley
St. Louis
Stearns
Steele
Stevens
Swift
Todd
Traverse
Wabasha
Wadena
Waseca
Washington
Watonwan
Wilkin
Winona
Wright
Yellow Medicine

2009 to 2011
2012 to 2014

CliftonLarsonAllen

CliftonLarsonAllen

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Brady, Martz & Associations (09-12)/

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause

CliftonLarsonAllen

Hoffman, Dale & Swenson

CliftonLarsonAllen

CliftonLarsonAllen
CliftonLarsonAllen

Baker Tilly Virchow Krause

CliftonLarsonAllen

CliftonLarsonAllen

COUNTY AUDITS

21

Appendix B: The 2015 County Audit Law

The following is the full text of Laws of Minnesota 2015 Regular Session, Chapter 77, Article 2,
Section 3 (codified as Minnesota Statutes 2015, 6.481):
Sec. 3. [6.481] COUNTY AUDITS. Subdivision 1. Powers and duties. All the powers and
duties conferred and imposed upon the state auditor shall be exercised and performed by the state
auditor in respect to the offices, institutions, public property, and improvements of several
counties of the state. The state auditor may visit, without previous notice, each county and
examine all accounts and records relating to the receipt and disbursement of the public funds and
the custody of the public funds and other property. The state auditor shall prescribe and install
systems of accounts and financial reports that shall be uniform, so far as practicable, for the same
class of offices.
Subd. 2. Annual audit required. A county must have an annual financial audit. A county may
choose to have the audit performed by the state auditor, or may choose to have the audit
performed by a CPA firm meeting the requirements of section 326A.05. The state auditor or a
CPA firm may accept the records and audit of the Department of Human Services instead of
examining county human service funds, if the audit of the Department of Human Services has
been made within any period covered by the auditor's audit of other county records.
Subd. 3. CPA firm audit. A county audit performed by a CPA firm must meet the standards
and be in the form required by the state auditor. The state auditor may require additional
information from the CPA firm if the state auditor determines that is in the public interest, but
the state auditor must accept the audit unless the state auditor determines it does not meet
recognized industry auditing standards or is not in the form required by the state auditor. The
state auditor may make additional examinations as the auditor determines to be in the public
interest.
Subd. 4. Audit availability; data. A copy of the annual audit by the state auditor or by a CPA
firm must be available for public inspection in the Office of the State Auditor and in the Office
of the County Auditor. If an audit is performed by a CPA firm, data relating to the audit are
subject to the same data classifications that apply under section 6.715. A CPA firm conducting a
county audit must provide access to data relating to the audit and is liable for unlawful disclosure
of the data as if it were a government entity under chapter 13.
Subd. 5. Reporting. If an audit conducted by the state auditor or a CPA firm discloses
malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, the auditor must report this to the county attorney,
who shall institute civil and criminal proceedings as the law and the protection of the public
interests requires.

22

SPECIAL REVIEW

Subd. 6. Payments to state auditor. A county audited by the state auditor must pay the state
auditor for the costs and expenses of the audit. If the state auditor makes additional
examinations of a county whose audit is performed by a CPA firm, the county must pay the
auditor for the cost of these examinations. Payments must be deposited in the state auditor
enterprise fund.
Subd. 7. Procedures for change of auditor. A county that plans to change to or from the state
auditor and a CPA firm must notify the state auditor of this change by August 1 of an evennumbered year. Upon this notice, the following calendar year will be the first year's records that
will be subject to an audit by the new entity. A county that changes to or from the state auditor
must have two annual audits done by the new entity.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective August 1, 2016.

COUNTY AUDITS

23

Appendix C: The Office of the State Auditor

Financial Information
In this appendix, we present information about the OSAs receipts and expenditures, its hourly
rates, and how OSA established the rates.

REVENUES AND EXPENSES

In 2013 the Legislature reduced the offices dependence on a legislative appropriation from the
General Fund and created the State Auditor Enterprise Fund.1
Starting in fiscal year 2014, money collected from local governments for OSA audits is
deposited into the State Auditor Enterprise Fund (rather than the General Fund) and is available
to the office to pay its expenses related to OSA audits. While the change made the office less
dependent on a legislative appropriation, it made the office more dependent on collecting money
from local governments.
Table C-1 shows the Office of the State Auditors revenue sources and expenses for fiscal years
2012 through 2015.
Table C-1
Office of the State Auditor
Appropriations, Receipts, and Expenditures
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2015
Appropriations
General Fund
Special Revenue Fund
Enterprise Fund
Total Appropriations

2012
$8,645,000
816,031
0
$9,461,031

Fiscal Years
2013
2014
$8,645,000
$2,070,000
725,865
673,923
0
0
$9,370,865
$2,743,923

Receipts
General Fund
Special Revenue Fund
Enterprise Fund
Total Receipts

$6,028,776
53,222
0
$6,081,998

$5,608,007
65,705
0
$5,673,712

990
363,972
7,452,949
$7,817,911

Expenditures
General Fund
Special Revenue Fund
Enterprise Fund
Total Expenditures

$8,238,054
660,277
0
$8,898,331

$8,059,887
693,791
0
$8,753,677

$2,139,229
851,968
6,402,529
$9,393,726

$1,867,280
770,294
6,203,364
$8,840,938

Source: State of Minnesotas accounting system.

Laws of Minnesota 2013, chapter 142, art. 3, sec. 13; codified at Minnesota Statutes 2015, 6.581.

2015
$2,121,000
987,713
0
$3,108,713
0
67,471
4,997,105
$5,064,576

24

SPECIAL REVIEW

Table C-2 shows the Office of the State Auditors revenue sources and expenses for fiscal years
2012 through 2015 for the State Auditors Audit Practice Division.
Table C-2
Office of the State Auditor
Audit Practice Division Revenue Sources and Expenditures1

Beginning Balance
Enterprise Fund

Fiscal Years
2013

2012

2014

2015

$0

$0

$0

$1,034,379

Receipts
Audit Fees General Fund
Audit Fees Enterprise Fund
Total Receipts

$6,028,776
0
$6,028,776

$5,608,007
0
$5,608,007

$ 408.00
7,452,949
$7,453,357

0
$
4,997,105
$4,997,105

Expenditures
Payroll
Rent
Travel
Professional Technical Services
Supplies, Equipment, Repairs
2
Other Expenditures
Total Expenditures

$5,454,056
181,322
102,861
65,126
31,562
95,073
$5,930,000

$5,282,643
184,157
105,123
92,227
124,959
89,624
$5,878,733

$5,834,581
232,789
109,627
161,831
85,282
103,863
$6,527,973

$5,698,486
238,012
90,920
111,562
38,709
86,141
$6,263,830

$0

$0

$1,034,379

$80,398

Carry Over
Enterprise Fund
1

The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) recorded audit fees to the General Fund for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. A law change
required OSA to record audit fees to its own Enterprise Fund for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. For expenditures, OSA used General
Fund appropriations to pay administrative costs for the Audit Practice Division for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013. As a result of the
law change, the office was required to use the audit fees in its Enterprise Fund to pay administrative costs for Fiscal Years 2014 and
2015.
2

Other Expenditures included Printing and Advertising, Communications, Employee Development, and Other Operating Costs.

Source: State of Minnesotas accounting system.

COUNTY AUDITS

25

HOURLY RATES
Table C-3 shows the rates OSA established for calendar years 2009 through 2015.
Table C-3
Office of the State Auditor
Staff Hourly Billing Rates
By Position and Calendar Year
Auditor Positions
Interns
Staff
Intermediate
Senior
Specialist
Specialist Senior
Director
Manager
Reviewer

2009-2011
$36
50
59
65
71
74
78
92
92

Calendar Years
2012
2013
$36
$37
51
53
60
61
66
68
72
84
75
77
80
82
94
96
94
96

2014
$ 40
57
65
73
79
82
88
100
100

2015
$ 40
60
68
76
83
86
92
105
105

Source: Office of the State Auditors 2009 through 2015 Audit Hourly Rate documents submitted to the Department of Management
and Budget for approval.

The office developed these rates using a consistent methodology from year to year. That
methodology involved identifying and estimating the costs related to providing audit services.
The largest of these costs is audit salaries, followed by rent and instate travel.
Table C-4 recaps the projected costs used to determine the billing rates for calendar year 2015
audits.
Table C-4
Office of the State Auditor
Projected Audit Services Costs
For Calendar Year 2015
Cost Type
Salaries
Rent
1
Instate Travel
Staff Training
Computer and Systems Services
Professional and Technical Services
Supplies, Materials, and Equipment
Miscellaneous Operating Costs
Total
1

Projected Cost of Audit

Services for 2015
$6,007,893
241,507
110,000
60,000
75,000
85,000
120,000
61,000
$6,760,400

The office does not include audit related travel costs in its billing rates; it separately bills travel costs to the specific audits.

Source: Office of the State Auditors 2015 Audit Hourly Rate documents submitted to the Department of Management and Budget
for approval.

26

SPECIAL REVIEW

Table C-5 shows the projected cost of audit services the office used to determine billing rates for
2012 through 2015.
Table C-5
Office of the State Auditor
Projected Costs of Audit Services
By Year
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015

Projected Cost of
Audit Services
$6,462,995
6,643,866
6,573,531
6,760,400

Source: Office of the State Auditors 2012 through 2015 Audit Hourly Rate documents submitted to the Department of Management
and Budget for approval.

Based on staffing and audit positions, the office estimates the number of hours it anticipates it
will bill to counties for audit services, and determines whether rates are sufficient to cover the
projected costs. For example, Table C-6 shows for calendar year 2015 the hourly rates, the
anticipated billable hours, and the projected billings.

Table C-6
Office of the State Auditor
Projected Audit Services Billings
Calendar Year 2015
Auditor Positions
Interns
Staff
Intermediate
Senior
Specialist
Specialist Senior
Director
Manager
Reviewer
Billed Travel Expenses
Total Projected Billings

Hourly Rate
$ 40
60
68
76
83
86
92
105
105
-

Billable
Hours
3,300
4,611
36,563
21,224
10,021
0
10,614
49
3,174
-

Projected Billings
for Audit Services
$ 132,000
276,675
2,486,307
1,613,004
831,743
0
976,465
5,145
333,218
110,000
$6,764,556

Source: Office of the State Auditors Audit 2015 Hourly Rate documents submitted to the Department of Management and Budget
for approval.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR

REBECCA OTTO
STATE AUDITOR

SUITE 500
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139

(65 1) 296-255 1 (Voice)

(65 1) 296-4755 (Fax)
[email protected] (E-Mail)
1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service)

February 1, 2016

Mr. James Nobles

Legislative Auditor
Room 140 Centennial Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1603
Dear Legislative Auditor Nobles:
We appreciate the opportunity to include a letter of response to the Office of the Legislative
Auditor's ("OLA ' s") special review.
I want to thank you and your staff for the work the OLA did on this special review on "the
efficiency of examinations conducted by the state auditor under Minnesota Statutes,
section 6.48," as required by 2015 Minnesota Laws, chapter 77, article 2, section 84. We share
the goal of the OLA to maximize efficiency while also ensuring appropriate safeguards and
transparency for taxpayers.
Based on our review of your report, we understand that the OLA was not able to measure the
efficiency of the cow1ty examinations performed by the Office of the State Auditor (" OSA"). It
appears that a significant impediment was the OLA's inability to obtain information from private
CPA firms. We share your concern that you, as an auditor, were not able to obtain the number of
hours private CPA firms required to complete Minnesota county audits or the experience level of
their auditing teams. We also observed that you were unable to obtain information on the private
CPA firms' fee structures for Minnesota county audits. Due to this lack of information and the
absence of comparable benchmarks, no evaluation of the efficiency of audits conducted by the
OSA or conclusions regarding audit efficiency were possible, as concluded in your report.
That being said, the report made some valuable points. As you noted, the audit rates charged by
the OSA and the requirement that the Office must bill to recover the cost of each audit are not in
our control. Both items are controlled by the State - State bargaining agreements and State
statute.
The report includes results of a survey of county personnel. While surveys may be useful to
gather opinions, a list of comments may not be helpful if the bases for the comments are not
substantiated. Many of the comments listed in the report are not substantiated or relevant to
efficiency--the focus of this special review.

~ Recycled paper with a minimum of

'CJQ 15% post-consumer waste

An Equal Opportunity Employer

We appreciate the affirmation that the county personnel surveyed have positive opinions of the
OSA audit teams that audit their counties (91 % of respondents satisfied), the timeliness of their
audits (68% of respondents satisfied), and the costs (59% of respondents satisfied). We have
highly trained, independent professional audit staff members conducting the work on behalf of
all Minnesotans.
We appreciate yom suggestion and support of the OSA's continued focus on adequate oversight
of all local governments on behalf of the people of Minnesota. The OSA takes great pride in the
independent, thorough, professional, timely, and efficient audits we conduct on behalf of the
taxpayers of Minnesota.
Finally, we appreciate that the OLA may have a perspective on recent legislative matters,
including the 2015 county audit privatization law. As the Legislative Auditor, you are appointed
by and serve the Legislative Branch regarding its policy initiatives. The OLA's inclusion of
commentary on the 2015 county audit privatization law is outside of the scope of the
Legislature's mandate that the 0 LA "report on the efficiency of the examinations conducted by
the state auditor under Minnesota Statutes, section 6.48." Needless to say, we respectfully
disagree with the OLA's statements regard~ng the OSA's history and authority, which are
inaccurate and incomplete. The Minnesota Constitution plainly contemplated auditing of State
tax dollars, including those expended by counties, by the constitutional Office of the State
Auditor, a function the OSA and its predecessors have been performing since the nineteenth
century. As noted in the OLA's report, the OSA retains a broad authority to perform necessary
auditing. As also noted in the special review, the vast majority of the OSA's receipts are now
derived from the State Auditor Enterprise Fund, most of which consists of the fees paid by
counties for OSA audits, a core function of this Office.
As an independent elected Constitutional Officer in the Executive Branch, I am committed to
serving the best interests of the People of Minnesota, who have three times elected me to this
Office. I have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers and the Minnesota Constitution and the
role of the State Auditor, and I take that responsibility very seriously.
Again, thank you for the efforts of your Office.
Sincerely,