EIN: 416005879
UEI: YUXUVCV87FQ5
Audited by: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 28, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 7, 2026. 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 February 7, 2027 (162 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on July 9, 2025 — management decision was due January 9, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on August 22, 2024 — management decision was due February 22, 2025.
For both covered transactions tested, the County did not verify for suspended or debarred vendors, in accordance with its policy, prior to entering into the covered transaction. Additionally, for one of the transactions tested, the County did not have a contract on file that included a suspension and debarment clause. Questioned Costs: None Context: The suspension and debarment threshold is $25,000. 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 may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services. Cause: The County did not realize that consideration for suspension and debarment should be made for all federal contracts, including purchases made through state contracts. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors are not suspended, debarred, 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 ▴Suspension and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2023 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. 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. The suspension and debarment requirements apply to covered transaction amounts over $25,000. The County’s procurement policy requires verification that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Condition: For both covered transactions tested, the County did not verify for suspended or debarred vendors, in accordance with its policy, prior to entering into the covered transaction. Additionally, for one of the transactions tested, the County did not have a contract on file that included a suspension and debarment clause. Questioned Costs: None Context: The suspension and debarment threshold is $25,000. 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 may result in the County entering into a transaction with a vendor that is not authorized to provide goods and services. Cause: The County did not realize that consideration for suspension and debarment should be made for all federal contracts, including purchases made through state contracts. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors are not suspended, debarred, 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: 2023-001 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: Vicki Kletscher, Redwood County Administrator Corrective Action Planned: Amend the Redwood County Procurement Policy to include language in section DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (E.O.s 12549 and 12689) for internal process for verification of demonstrating vendors are not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County. The verification and documentation will be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction with a vendor(s) and the results of the search will be attached to the filed paperwork for verification of search. Anticipated Completion Date: The Procurement Policy has been amended, and the Redwood County Board of Commissioners adopted the amended policy on May 7, 2024. The County Administrator sent the updated policy and details regarding the change in the policy to all department heads on May 13, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on July 27, 2023 — management decision was due January 27, 2024.
Two of the four quarterly performance reports tested did not have supporting documentation on file, therefore, auditor was unable to trace the reports to supporting data. In addition, two of the four reports tested were not submitted by the due date of 15 days following the end of the quarter. Finally, the County has not implemented control procedures over the reporting process, including review. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Quarterly performance reports are required for large projects. A project is considered large if the total cost is above a threshold that is annually reviewed and adjusted by FEMA. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County is not in compliance with performance reporting requirements. Cause: County staff noted the individual responsible for preparing and submitting the reports resigned before the County was able to implement controls over the reporting process. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County maintain supporting documentation for and prepare and submit quarterly performance reports as scheduled. We also recommend the County implement a procedure to review the reports for accuracy by someone other than the preparer prior to submission. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-001 Performance Reporting Prior Year Finding Number: 2021-002 Repeat Finding Since: 2021 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Program: 97.036 Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Award Number and Year: ID 127-UJNE1-00 FEMA-4390-DR-MN GM PROJECT 75390-PW 615, PA-05-MN-4442-PW-01317(0); 2021, 2022 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Public Safety 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. Quarterly performance reports (QPR) are due to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety-Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DPS-HSEM) no later than 15 days following the end of a quarter. Condition: Two of the four quarterly performance reports tested did not have supporting documentation on file, therefore, auditor was unable to trace the reports to supporting data. In addition, two of the four reports tested were not submitted by the due date of 15 days following the end of the quarter. Finally, the County has not implemented control procedures over the reporting process, including review. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Quarterly performance reports are required for large projects. A project is considered large if the total cost is above a threshold that is annually reviewed and adjusted by FEMA. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County is not in compliance with performance reporting requirements. Cause: County staff noted the individual responsible for preparing and submitting the reports resigned before the County was able to implement controls over the reporting process. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County maintain supporting documentation for and prepare and submit quarterly performance reports as scheduled. We also recommend the County implement a procedure to review the reports for accuracy by someone other than the preparer prior to submission. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2022-001 Finding Title: Performance Reporting Program: 97.036 Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Nick Brozek Corrective Action Planned: FEMA reports will be submitted quarterly. Reports will be prepared and signed by the Ditch Inspector, and verified by the Director. Director will initial reports. Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2023
2021-002
FAC accepted this audit on July 27, 2022 — management decision was due January 27, 2023.
In a sample of 11 transactions, five instances were noted where 2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) drainage costs relating to Major Disaster Declaration (DR) 4390 were included in the 2019 FEMA drainage expenditures relating to DR 4442 to be reported on the 2021 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). Questioned Costs: $14,464. Context: Project worksheet 1317 for DR 4442 was approved by FEMA in 2021, therefore, the population of expenditures included those identified as eligible expenditures by Redwood County to be reported on the SEFA. County staff reviewed FEMA-related invoices and summarized costs by the FEMA project. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County identified expenditures as FEMA expenditures which were unallowable costs for 2021 SEFA reporting. Cause: There was no procedure implemented to review the invoices against the list of approved FEMA expenditures for accuracy. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County implement a procedure that includes a review of expenditures back to the supporting invoice in order to accurately report FEMA expenditures by disaster. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-001 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles 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 Homeland Security Program: 97.036 Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Award Number and Year: PA-05-MN-4442-PW-01317(0), 2019 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Public Safety 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: In a sample of 11 transactions, five instances were noted where 2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) drainage costs relating to Major Disaster Declaration (DR) 4390 were included in the 2019 FEMA drainage expenditures relating to DR 4442 to be reported on the 2021 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). Questioned Costs: $14,464. Context: Project worksheet 1317 for DR 4442 was approved by FEMA in 2021, therefore, the population of expenditures included those identified as eligible expenditures by Redwood County to be reported on the SEFA. County staff reviewed FEMA-related invoices and summarized costs by the FEMA project. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County identified expenditures as FEMA expenditures which were unallowable costs for 2021 SEFA reporting. Cause: There was no procedure implemented to review the invoices against the list of approved FEMA expenditures for accuracy. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County implement a procedure that includes a review of expenditures back to the supporting invoice in order to accurately report FEMA expenditures by disaster. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2021-001 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowable and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (AL # 97.036) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Scott Wold, Director of Planning and Environmental Services Corrective Action Planned: All FEMA expenditure claim forms will have FEMA site numbers attached to them. This will be cross-referenced to the damage descriptions to ensure account codes are matching up to the correct FEMA event. The Ditch Inspector shall place the site numbers on the invoices, the Administrative Assistant will cross-reference and check this while preparing the claim form, and the Director will confirm the correct FEMA event upon signing. Anticipated Completion Date: June 1, 2022
Three quarterly performance reports were due to DPS-HSEM on Redwood County?s large project in 2021, but only one report was prepared and submitted. Furthermore, the County has not implemented control procedures over the reporting process. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Quarterly performance reports are required for large projects. A project is considered large if the total cost is above a threshold that is annually reviewed and adjusted by FEMA. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County is not in compliance with performance reporting requirements. Cause: County staff indicated they were not aware of the reporting schedule. The report that was prepared and submitted in 2021 was at the state?s request. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County prepare and submit quarterly performance reports as scheduled, and implement a procedure to review the reports for accuracy by someone other than the preparer prior to submission. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-002 Performance Reporting 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 Homeland Security Program: 97.036 Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Award Number and Year: PA-05-MN-4442-PW-01317(0), 2019 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Public Safety 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. Quarterly performance reports (QPR) are due to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety-Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DPS-HSEM) no later than 15 days following the end of a quarter. Condition: Three quarterly performance reports were due to DPS-HSEM on Redwood County?s large project in 2021, but only one report was prepared and submitted. Furthermore, the County has not implemented control procedures over the reporting process. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Quarterly performance reports are required for large projects. A project is considered large if the total cost is above a threshold that is annually reviewed and adjusted by FEMA. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Redwood County is not in compliance with performance reporting requirements. Cause: County staff indicated they were not aware of the reporting schedule. The report that was prepared and submitted in 2021 was at the state?s request. Recommendation: We recommend Redwood County prepare and submit quarterly performance reports as scheduled, and implement a procedure to review the reports for accuracy by someone other than the preparer prior to submission. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2021-002 Finding Title: Performance Reporting Program: Disaster Grants ? Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (AL # 97.036) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Scott Wold, Director of Planning and Environmental Services Corrective Action Planned: FEMA reports will be submitted quarterly. Reports will be prepared and signed by the Ditch Inspector, and verified by the Director. Director will initial reports. Anticipated Completion Date: June 1, 2022
FAC accepted this audit on July 13, 2021 — management decision was due January 13, 2022.
The County did not document risk assessment procedures or monitoring activities (i.e., on-site visits or phone conversations) performed over its subrecipients. Award information, including CFDA number, was not provided to the subrecipient and there were no signed subrecipient agreements in place. Additionally, the County does not have documented policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Redwood County passed funds to local governments, which the County is familiar with, who have been operating for many years. Funding was provided to one subrecipeint after detailed listings of expenditures were submitted for review. Effect: The County is not meeting federal regulations pertaining to subrecipient monitoring. Also, the County cannot be assured that their subrecipients are administering federal awards in compliance with all applicable federal requirements. Cause: Redwood County does not generally provide federal awards to subrecipients and therefore did not have policies and procedures in place for subrecipient monitoring activities. Additionally, the County was not aware of the full extent of requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Recommendation: We recommend the County Administrator's Office work with departments that pass funds through to subrecipients to identify responsibilities such as completing risk assessments and monitoring procedures over federal programs, as well as creating and maintaining proper documentation to meet the requirements of federal programs. This would include documenting the monitoring procedures performed (such as on-site visits and review of the subrecipients? audit findings) and any related follow-up or findings, and performing and documenting a risk assessment of subrecipients. Additionally, we recommend the County include applicable CFDA numbers in communications regarding the program to its subrecipients. We also recommend the County develop and document policies and procedures for monitoring all federal awards. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-001 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Subrecipient Monitoring 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 federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Also, the County must comply with the requirements for pass-through entities as identified in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.332, such as clearly identifying the award to the subrecipient; evaluating the subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award; monitoring the activities of the subrecipient; and verifying the subrecipient is audited, if required. Condition: The County did not document risk assessment procedures or monitoring activities (i.e., on-site visits or phone conversations) performed over its subrecipients. Award information, including CFDA number, was not provided to the subrecipient and there were no signed subrecipient agreements in place. Additionally, the County does not have documented policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Redwood County passed funds to local governments, which the County is familiar with, who have been operating for many years. Funding was provided to one subrecipeint after detailed listings of expenditures were submitted for review. Effect: The County is not meeting federal regulations pertaining to subrecipient monitoring. Also, the County cannot be assured that their subrecipients are administering federal awards in compliance with all applicable federal requirements. Cause: Redwood County does not generally provide federal awards to subrecipients and therefore did not have policies and procedures in place for subrecipient monitoring activities. Additionally, the County was not aware of the full extent of requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Recommendation: We recommend the County Administrator's Office work with departments that pass funds through to subrecipients to identify responsibilities such as completing risk assessments and monitoring procedures over federal programs, as well as creating and maintaining proper documentation to meet the requirements of federal programs. This would include documenting the monitoring procedures performed (such as on-site visits and review of the subrecipients? audit findings) and any related follow-up or findings, and performing and documenting a risk assessment of subrecipients. Additionally, we recommend the County include applicable CFDA numbers in communications regarding the program to its subrecipients. We also recommend the County develop and document policies and procedures for monitoring all federal awards. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Finding Number: 2020-001 Finding Title: Subrecipient Monitoring Program: COVID 19 - Coronovirus Relief Fund (CFDA #21.019) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: County Administrator Vicki Knobloch-Kletscher Corrective Action Planned: The County will implement a sub-recipient policy to ensure compliance with federal regulations for monitoring all federal awards. Anticipated CompletionDate: October 2021
FAC accepted this audit on August 4, 2020 — management decision was due February 4, 2021.
Redwood County hired a consultant who received the certified payrolls from the contractors and subcontractors for a project that involved federal payroll-related expenditures in 2019. There was no evidence the certified payrolls were reviewed for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act by the consultant or Redwood County. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Redwood County entered into three contracts with vendors for road construction projects funded by the Highway Planning and Construction program. One of these contracts used a consultant who received 27 payrolls from the prime contractor and 38 payrolls from 16 subcontractors. These payrolls had no indication of review by the County or the consultant. Effect: The County has not maintained evidence that supports its review that contractors are complying with the prevailing wage rate requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Cause: Redwood County staff believed the consultant was responsible for prevailing wage rate requirements based on language in the County?s agreement with the consultant. Recommendation: We recommend County staff properly review the certified payrolls received from contractors and subcontractors for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act and ensure that documentation exists to support monitoring of and compliance with this requirement. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2019-001 Prior Year Finding Number: 2018-003 Repeated Finding Since: 2018 Special Tests and Provisions ? Davis-Bacon Act Program: U.S. Department of Transportation?s Highway Planning and Construction (CFDA No. 20.205), Award No. 6418241, 2018 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Transportation Criteria: The Davis-Bacon Act (23 U.S.C. ? 113) and 29 CFR section 5 require that contractors and subcontractors performing work on federal contracts in excess of $2,000 pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits listed in the contract?s wage determination class. Each covered contractor and subcontractor must, on a weekly basis, provide a copy of the payrolls providing the information listed under payrolls and basic records of 29 CFR section 5 for the preceding weekly payroll period. A good system of internal control would require the County to review the payroll information submitted by its contractors for compliance with Davis-Bacon Act wage rates. Condition: Redwood County hired a consultant who received the certified payrolls from the contractors and subcontractors for a project that involved federal payroll-related expenditures in 2019. There was no evidence the certified payrolls were reviewed for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act by the consultant or Redwood County. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Redwood County entered into three contracts with vendors for road construction projects funded by the Highway Planning and Construction program. One of these contracts used a consultant who received 27 payrolls from the prime contractor and 38 payrolls from 16 subcontractors. These payrolls had no indication of review by the County or the consultant. Effect: The County has not maintained evidence that supports its review that contractors are complying with the prevailing wage rate requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Cause: Redwood County staff believed the consultant was responsible for prevailing wage rate requirements based on language in the County?s agreement with the consultant. Recommendation: We recommend County staff properly review the certified payrolls received from contractors and subcontractors for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act and ensure that documentation exists to support monitoring of and compliance with this requirement. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Finding Number: 2019-001 Finding Title: Special Tests and Provisions ? Davis-Bacon Act Program: Highway Planning and Construction (CFDA No. 20.205) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Jeff Bommersbach, Assistant County Engineer Corrective Action Planned: After review, all payrolls and supporting data will be signed or initialed and dated by the project inspector. For Adobe PDF files, a note will be added to the file with the date and initials. Anticipated Completion Date: This was implemented for the 2020 construction season.
2018-003
FAC accepted this audit on July 30, 2019 — management decision was due January 30, 2020.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
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.
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.
