EIN: 416005772
UEI: GVHPL2BDV794
Audited by: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Showing data from August 28, 2026 — the Federal Audit Clearinghouse is under high demand right now, so this couldn't be refreshed. This is the most recent data on record, not necessarily today's.
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on September 30, 2025. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by March 30, 2026 (154 days ago).
What is a management decision? →For five of seven covered transactions selected for testing, the County did not perform the verification for suspended or debarred vendors prior to entering into the covered transactions. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Covered transactions totaled $4,211,707 consisting of 37 payments to vendors. The sample size of seven payments to vendors totaled $2,456,687. The sample size was based on the guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Failure to verify vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into a covered transaction may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services to the grant. Cause: The County informed us there was a lack of staff available to check the covered transactions for suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2024-001 Suspension and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: 2023-003 Year of Finding Origination: 2023 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award Number and Year: SLFRP2192; 2021 Pass-Through Agency: N/A - Direct Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal requirements prohibit non-federal entities from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 180.300 describes a required verification process. Prior to entering into the transaction, one of the following must be performed: (1) checking SAM.gov exclusions, (2) collecting a certification, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction. Condition: For five of seven covered transactions selected for testing, the County did not perform the verification for suspended or debarred vendors prior to entering into the covered transactions. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Covered transactions totaled $4,211,707 consisting of 37 payments to vendors. The sample size of seven payments to vendors totaled $2,456,687. The sample size was based on the guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Failure to verify vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into a covered transaction may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services to the grant. Cause: The County informed us there was a lack of staff available to check the covered transactions for suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2024-001 Finding Title: Suspension and Dearment Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kristin Waddell Corrective Action Planned: Verifying that a new vendor has not been suspended or debarred is analyzed on a case-by-case basis depending on the Federal award. Doing this for each vendor for ARPA would significantly disrupt our A/P process with the limited number of staff we have. Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately
2023-003
FAC accepted this audit on September 27, 2024 — management decision was due March 27, 2025.
The County did not obtain itemized documentation for five out of 22 disbursements tested. The amount of disbursements that did not have supporting documentation totaled $818,036. Questioned Costs: $818,036 Context: The County disbursed funds to cities and towns as non-entitlement units of government (NEU), however; the NEU designation only applies to states providing funds to local governments. The sample size was originally based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits, but was expanded to include four additional payments identified by the County as payments to NEUs. Effect: The County has insufficient documentation to demonstrate expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Cause: The County believed funds could be disbursed to cities and towns as NEUs. Because of this determination, the County did not obtain itemized support for expenditures incurred. Recommendation: We recommend Chisago County obtain itemized documentation related to grant expenditures to document expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-002 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2023 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award Number and Year: SLFRP2192; 2021 Pass-Through Agency: N/A – Direct Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations §2 CFR 200.403(a) and §2 CFR 200.403(g) require costs to be necessary and reasonable, and be adequately documented. Condition: The County did not obtain itemized documentation for five out of 22 disbursements tested. The amount of disbursements that did not have supporting documentation totaled $818,036. Questioned Costs: $818,036 Context: The County disbursed funds to cities and towns as non-entitlement units of government (NEU), however; the NEU designation only applies to states providing funds to local governments. The sample size was originally based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits, but was expanded to include four additional payments identified by the County as payments to NEUs. Effect: The County has insufficient documentation to demonstrate expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Cause: The County believed funds could be disbursed to cities and towns as NEUs. Because of this determination, the County did not obtain itemized support for expenditures incurred. Recommendation: We recommend Chisago County obtain itemized documentation related to grant expenditures to document expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2023-002 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kristin Waddell Corrective Action Planned: Extensive research was done on this topic and position of the County is that cities and townships are non-entitlement units (NEUs) who report to the Treasury directly. SLFRF Compliance and Reporting Guidance published by The Department of the Treasury states that NEUs are not subrecipients under the SLFRF program; they are SLFRF recipients that report directly to the Treasury. Recipients of the County’s ARPA Broadband grants: -provided the specific unserved or underserved areas located within the County where therequested ARPA funds would be used to deliver high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet(typically accompanied by the consultant report coordinating the construction) on their grantapplications to the County Board; and -have certified they are complying with “all federal, state, and local laws and all requirementsand published guidance set forth regarding the usage of any and all monies appropriated underthe ARPA” in their signed grant agreements with the County; However, beginning in 2024 the County will collect itemized support for the expenditures incurred related to the ARPA Broadband Grant Program. Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately
For six of the eight covered transactions selected for testing, the County did not perform the verification for suspended or debarred vendors prior to entering into the covered transactions. Questioned Costs: None. Context: There were 24 covered transactions during the year. The County provided funds to various cities, townships, and vendors which have operated for many years and were familiar to the County. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Failure to verify vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into a covered transaction may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services under the grant. Cause: The County informed us there is a lack of staff available to check the covered transactions for suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-003 Suspension and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-002 Year of Finding Origination: 2022 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award Number and Year: SLFRP2192; 2021 Pass-Through Agency: N/A – Direct Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal requirements prohibit non-federal entities from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 180.300 describes a required verification process. Prior to entering into the transaction, one of the following must be performed: (1) checking SAM.gov exclusions, (2) collecting a certification, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction. Condition: For six of the eight covered transactions selected for testing, the County did not perform the verification for suspended or debarred vendors prior to entering into the covered transactions. Questioned Costs: None. Context: There were 24 covered transactions during the year. The County provided funds to various cities, townships, and vendors which have operated for many years and were familiar to the County. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Failure to verify vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into a covered transaction may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services under the grant. Cause: The County informed us there is a lack of staff available to check the covered transactions for suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2023-003 Finding Title: Suspension and Debarment Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kristin Waddell Corrective Action Planned: Verifying that a new vendor has not been suspended or debarred is analyzed on a case-by-case basis depending on the Federal award. Doing this for each vendor for ARPA would significantly disrupt our A/P process with the limited number of staff we have. Analysis was done for each new ARPA Broadband grant awarded after the finding was issued in 2022, and for new vendors with significant project costs. Of the samples tested in 2023, some were paid prior to the completion of the 2022 audit, before the County was aware of the finding and corrective action could take place. Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately
2022-002
FAC accepted this audit on September 27, 2023 — management decision was due March 27, 2024.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Chisago County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was input correctly into MAXIS. The following was noted in our sample of 40 case files tested for Medical Assistance eligibility: ? One case file did not contain documentation of citizenship, and ? Four case files contained asset documentation that did not match MAXIS and, of the four, one that lacked documentation of the indicated vehicle verification. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: The State of Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) contracts with the county social services departments to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the state maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits. Effect: The improper input or updating of information into MAXIS increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: Program personnel entering case information into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input into MAXIS correctly. Due to staffing levels and the pandemic, supervisory reviews of case files were not being performed. Recommendation: We recommend Chisago County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation is properly input or updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing further training to program personnel and performing supervisory case reviews in MAXIS. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-001 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Award Number and Year: 2205MN5ADM, 2022 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Chisago County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was input correctly into MAXIS. The following was noted in our sample of 40 case files tested for Medical Assistance eligibility: ? One case file did not contain documentation of citizenship, and ? Four case files contained asset documentation that did not match MAXIS and, of the four, one that lacked documentation of the indicated vehicle verification. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: The State of Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) contracts with the county social services departments to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the state maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits. Effect: The improper input or updating of information into MAXIS increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: Program personnel entering case information into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input into MAXIS correctly. Due to staffing levels and the pandemic, supervisory reviews of case files were not being performed. Recommendation: We recommend Chisago County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation is properly input or updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing further training to program personnel and performing supervisory case reviews in MAXIS. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2022-001 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Robert Benson Todd McMurray Corrective Action Planned: Chisago County will implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation is properly inputted or updated in MAXIS. This will include internal staff training/updates at monthly unit meetings on the importance of accuracy in our case files. Our agency will also be implementing internal supervisory case reviews to ensure accuracy practices are being followed. Anticipated Completion Date: Our corrective action plan will be implemented immediately and ongoing.
The County had one procurement considered a small purchase. For this procurement, the contract file did not have documentation detailing the history of procurement, supporting full and open competition, or that a cost/price analysis was performed. In addition, for three of four covered transactions tested, the verification for suspended or debarred vendors was not performed before entering into the covered transaction. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The threshold used for the procurement testing was a small purchase ($10,000 to $250,000). Only one procurement met this requirement. The suspension and debarment covered transaction threshold is $25,000. The were nine covered transactions included in the population. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with federal grant requirements. Cause: The County thought that the procurement requirements did not apply to the contractor chosen for procurement testing because they were providing consulting services. Also, vendors selected for suspension and debarment testing were school districts. County staff thought that the school districts did not have to be checked for suspension and debarment since they are government agencies. Recommendation: We recommend that the County maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, provide full and open competition, and perform a cost or price analysis to support compliance with Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ?? 200.318, 200.319, and 200.323. In addition, we recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-002 Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Recovery Funds Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.318(i) states that the County must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The County must follow further guidance over full and open competition as provided in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.319; and performing a cost or price analysis provided in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.323. In addition, non-federal entities must follow federal guidance regarding verifying debarment, suspension, and exclusions, as provided in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ?? 180.300, 200.213, and 200.318(h), when entering into covered transactions. Condition: The County had one procurement considered a small purchase. For this procurement, the contract file did not have documentation detailing the history of procurement, supporting full and open competition, or that a cost/price analysis was performed. In addition, for three of four covered transactions tested, the verification for suspended or debarred vendors was not performed before entering into the covered transaction. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The threshold used for the procurement testing was a small purchase ($10,000 to $250,000). Only one procurement met this requirement. The suspension and debarment covered transaction threshold is $25,000. The were nine covered transactions included in the population. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with federal grant requirements. Cause: The County thought that the procurement requirements did not apply to the contractor chosen for procurement testing because they were providing consulting services. Also, vendors selected for suspension and debarment testing were school districts. County staff thought that the school districts did not have to be checked for suspension and debarment since they are government agencies. Recommendation: We recommend that the County maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, provide full and open competition, and perform a cost or price analysis to support compliance with Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ?? 200.318, 200.319, and 200.323. In addition, we recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge.
Finding Number: 2022-002 Finding Title: Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Program: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kristin Waddell Corrective Action Planned: In the future when the County attempts to obtain services through a contract using Federal grant money, the County will document the entire process of selecting a vendor. Prior to sending a transaction to a potential vendor, the County will document and verify that the vendor has not been suspended or debarred via the SAM.gov website. Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately
Of the four quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports, two reports were reported inaccurately. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The current period expenditures for the revenue replacement project in the third quarter report were underreported by $562,930. The current period expenditures for the broadband project in the fourth quarter report were overreported by $49,975. Effect: The U.S. Treasury Department did not receive accurate current period expenditures for the third and fourth quarter Project and Expenditure Reports for the revenue replacement and the broadband projects. Cause: When preparing the third and fourth quarter Project and Expenditure Reports, staff decided to reclassify expenditures from the revenue replacement project to the broadband project and simply inserted the wrong current period expenditures on the report. The cumulative expenditure amounts reported for each project were correctly reported. Only the current period expenditure amounts were incorrect. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports to ensure that the amounts reported are complete and accurate. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-003 Reporting Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 ? Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: Of the four quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports, two reports were reported inaccurately. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The current period expenditures for the revenue replacement project in the third quarter report were underreported by $562,930. The current period expenditures for the broadband project in the fourth quarter report were overreported by $49,975. Effect: The U.S. Treasury Department did not receive accurate current period expenditures for the third and fourth quarter Project and Expenditure Reports for the revenue replacement and the broadband projects. Cause: When preparing the third and fourth quarter Project and Expenditure Reports, staff decided to reclassify expenditures from the revenue replacement project to the broadband project and simply inserted the wrong current period expenditures on the report. The cumulative expenditure amounts reported for each project were correctly reported. Only the current period expenditure amounts were incorrect. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports to ensure that the amounts reported are complete and accurate. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2022-003 Finding Title: Reporting Program: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kristin Waddell Corrective Action Planned: The County will have a second review done of the report before filing. Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately
FAC accepted this audit on September 1, 2022 — management decision was due March 1, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on September 29, 2021 — management decision was due March 29, 2022.
The following items were noted during a review of program expenditures: ? A budget amount was included in expenditures reported instead of the actual amount; the budget amount was $11,853 higher than actual. This difference was partially offset by an employee?s benefits that were deducted from expenditures reported instead of added ($6,456). The net difference between these two items totaled $5,397 in excess expenditures reported. ? The first pay period charged to the grant for the Administration, Auditor, and Enterprise Services Departments included a week of time before the period of availability. Those payroll costs totaled $48,404. ? Four expenditures totaling $70,354 were reported twice. These expenditures were last minute add-ons after they had already been previously included. ? Two expenditures totaling $150,000 to organizations considered beneficiaries did not have documentation supporting how or when the funds were spent. Questioned Costs: There were $274,155 in unsupported expenditures or expenditures outside of the period of performance. Context: The County had a total of $7,054,074 in Coronavirus Relief Fund expenditures during 2020. Effect: The County reported expenditures relating to the Coronavirus Relief Fund program which were not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements. Cause: We were informed by County staff that the first two items identified in the condition were due to clerical errors. The third item was due to a miscommunication between departments. The fourth item was due to the County not believing they needed documentation from beneficiaries on how the funds were spent. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement procedures to ensure the compliance requirements are met for future relief funds received in relation to the public health emergency. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-001 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, and Period of Performance Program: U.S. Department of the Treasury?s Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019), Award No. SLT0016, 2020 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Management and Budget Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Section 5001(d) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provides the eligible purposes for which Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may be used. Payments must have been used to cover costs that were necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency, not accounted for in the County?s budget approved as of March 27, 2020, and incurred during the covered period. The State of Minnesota, as the pass-through entity, provided requirements that the covered period for Minnesota counties began on March 1, 2020, and ended on December 1, 2020 (period of performance). Condition: The following items were noted during a review of program expenditures: ? A budget amount was included in expenditures reported instead of the actual amount; the budget amount was $11,853 higher than actual. This difference was partially offset by an employee?s benefits that were deducted from expenditures reported instead of added ($6,456). The net difference between these two items totaled $5,397 in excess expenditures reported. ? The first pay period charged to the grant for the Administration, Auditor, and Enterprise Services Departments included a week of time before the period of availability. Those payroll costs totaled $48,404. ? Four expenditures totaling $70,354 were reported twice. These expenditures were last minute add-ons after they had already been previously included. ? Two expenditures totaling $150,000 to organizations considered beneficiaries did not have documentation supporting how or when the funds were spent. Questioned Costs: There were $274,155 in unsupported expenditures or expenditures outside of the period of performance. Context: The County had a total of $7,054,074 in Coronavirus Relief Fund expenditures during 2020. Effect: The County reported expenditures relating to the Coronavirus Relief Fund program which were not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements. Cause: We were informed by County staff that the first two items identified in the condition were due to clerical errors. The third item was due to a miscommunication between departments. The fourth item was due to the County not believing they needed documentation from beneficiaries on how the funds were spent. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement procedures to ensure the compliance requirements are met for future relief funds received in relation to the public health emergency. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2020-001 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, and Period of Performance Program: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Bridgitte Konrad, County Auditor-Treasurer Corrective Action Planned: The County will implement procedures to ensure the compliance requirements are met for future relief funds received. Anticipated Completion Date: Procedures will be implemented by the end of the fourth quarter 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on December 6, 2020 — management decision was due June 6, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on July 9, 2019 — management decision was due January 9, 2020.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-001
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on July 17, 2018 — management decision was due January 17, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴FAC accepted this audit on July 9, 2017 — management decision was due January 9, 2018.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in Minnesota →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
