Auditors tell House committee New Hampshire lacks capacity for six‑month audit deadline

At a public hearing on Senate Bill 586, representatives of New Hampshire audit firms and municipal finance officers told lawmakers current statewide capacity and the practical audit process make a six‑month audited deadline impractical for many districts.

Michael Campo, managing partner at Plaza & Sanderson, described the audit workflow—request lists, fieldwork, drafting financial statements, management review, legal confirmations and rep letters—and argued the compressed six‑month timetable fails to account for common delays. "One of the biggest challenges we have today is there is a general lack of succession planning or execution in the finance offices we go to," Campo said, citing staff turnover and growing audit complexity. He recommended a 9‑month target for the audits the committee would require.

Auditors told the committee that audit scope has grown (more compliance testing tied to federal grants, GASB changes) and that prices have risen accordingly; one firm said some municipalities now face much higher bids when out‑of‑state firms are used to fill gaps. Witnesses also described ways districts can reduce delay—better internal controls, robust monthly budget reporting and earlier auditor engagement—but said those reforms take time.

Committee members asked whether a specified extension mechanism could protect districts from losing funds when audit firms—not districts—are the bottleneck. Auditors agreed that extensions and clear start‑dates for audit work (rather than fixed finish dates) are helpful. DOE and auditors both recommended separating the DOE25 statutory reporting deadline used for tax‑rate setting from any new statutory requirement to submit CPA audit opinions to DOE.

The committee did not set a final audit timeline; members asked staff to return with comparative options (6 vs. 9 vs. 12 months), fiscal impacts and rulemaking pathways.