State Auditor asks committee to extend carryforward proviso; discusses outside audit contract

Cindy Hoogenboom, director of administration at the Office of the State Auditor, told the Constitutional Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on Jan. 29 that the office is not seeking new recurring money but wants a one-year extension of an existing carryforward proviso.

The request would change proviso 105.8 by updating the year reference from 24-25 to 25-26 to allow use of carryforward funds for “unknown legal fees” and additional audits the office expects this fiscal year. "Our budget ask is very simple. We do not, have any new budget request or amended budget request in our packet. However, we are asking for a change in a proviso, and that would be for a proviso 105.8... What we're asking is a technical change to extend it for 1 more year," Hoogenboom said.

Why it matters: the extension would preserve the auditor's ability to use previously authorized but unspent funds to cover variable costs tied to investigations or professional services without returning to the subcommittee for new general‑fund appropriations.

Hoogenboom and agency staff described the current contract with CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA). They said the state auditor's office and CLA operate as external auditors in a joint audit; the CLA arrangement is on its fifth year of a five‑year cycle and the office plans to issue a request for proposals after the fiscal year closing documents for FY24 are complete. "It is currently a 5 year contract, and we are on the fifth year. So it would be going out for bid this year," Hoogenboom said. Sue Moss, the agency's director of agency relations, added the RFP will be issued after the FY24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is completed so a new firm can be in place ahead of the FY25 audit work.

The office described CLA's long tenure: agency staff said CLA (including predecessor firm Clifton Gunderson) has been the external partner for about 20 years and that leadership on the engagement has rotated among three different partners during that time. Hoogenboom reported payments to CLA of $1,780,000 for FY20–FY24, about several hundred thousand per year, and earlier five‑year cycles in the mid‑2010s and 2009–2014 that totaled millions; subcommittee members rough‑estimated the firm’s 20‑year total at about $7 million.

Committee members asked about competition and oversight. Moss said recent RFP cycles drew three to four proposals in some years and as few as one response in others; staff noted the procurement exemption that treats auditing and accounting services differently under state procurement rules, with the state auditor's office handling evaluation of proposals for the external engagement.

The subcommittee indicated it would review the proviso language. "We'll take a look at those provisos and everything for you," the chair said at the close of the auditor's presentation.

The record of the conversation shows the auditor sought a technical extension only; no new recurring general‑fund appropriation was requested and no vote or formal action was recorded during the hearing.