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
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.
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
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
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.
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