Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Thresholds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to raise audit thresholds for small local governments
Summary
House Bill 142 would raise expenditure thresholds that trigger annual audits for local governing entities, increasing several thresholds by $50,000. Proponents said the change reduces disproportionate audit costs for very small jurisdictions; the committee gave the bill a due-pass recommendation.
Representative Doug Pickett introduced House Bill 142 as an "inflationary measure" to raise the expenditure thresholds that determine audit frequency for local governing entities. Pickett told the committee that under current law an entity with expenditures exceeding $250,000 must have an annual audit and those with expenditures between $150,000 and $250,000 may elect a biennial audit; the bill would raise those thresholds by $50,000.
Pickett said the change responds to rising audit costs and gave the example of a tiny city that had expenditures just over the current threshold and faced an audit cost of about $18,000: "the annual cost of an audit for them is $18,000." He said the bill is intended to keep taxpayer money focused on services rather than high administrative audit costs.
Kelli Packer, executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified she supported the bill and said it had the same language as a measure considered last year that reached the Senate floor but did not get a House hearing: "We got it through this committee and off the senate floor, but we couldn't get a hearing for it in the house. And so, we were very grateful for representative Pickett for bringing it back." Packer asked committee members to support House Bill 142.
Committee discussion noted similar proposals from other states (Pickett cited Oregon raising its threshold to $500,000) and members said the change would ease the financial burden on very small jurisdictions. Senator Berndt moved to send House Bill 142 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; a senator seconded the motion. The committee voted by voice and the motion carried; the committee will send the bill to the floor with the committee's recommendation.
The bill attracted support from municipal and local-government groups; no opposition testimony was presented at this meeting.
