The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5175 March 11, 1977 CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN: Art 4, Sec. 25 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY: Audit of county accounts ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING: Audit of county accounts by Department of Treasury COUNTIES: Audit of county accounts by Department of Treasury The provision in an appropriations act authorizing the Department of Treasury to charge back to each county 40 percent of the cost of conducting a county audit is unconstitutional for violation of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25, inasmuch as 1919 PA 71 provides that the expenses of the audit shall be paid by the State Treasurer out of the fund appropriated for that purpose. Honorable John F. Toepp State Senator Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48902 On behalf of the Board of Commissioners of Wexford County you have requested my opinion on the validity of the practice of the Department of Treasury of charging back 40 percent of the cost of conducting the yearly required audits of county accounts. 1975 PA 255, an act appropriating money to various state agencies, provided in Sec. 54 the following: '(1) The department of treasury may charge back to each county 40% of the cost of conducting audits of county general funds and the federal revenue sharing funds, and contingent upon amendment of Act No. 71 of the Public Acts of 1919, as amended, being sections 21.41 to 21.53 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the revenue shall be used to pay necessary expenses. '(2) The department of treasury may charge back to each county all of the cost of an audit requested by the county of funds other than general funds or federal revenue sharing funds.' OAG, 1975-1976, No 5139, p ... (December 15, 1976) held that 1919 PA 71; MCLA 21.41 et seq; MSA 3.591 et seq, was deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 21 by requiring the State Treasurer, or his agents, to perform the yearly audit of county accounts. Specifically, 1919 PA 71, supra, Sec. 5 provides: '. . . The auditor general (1) is hereby authorized to employ such auditors, examiners and assistants as he deems necessary, the number and compensation of whom shall be subject to the approval of the state administrative board and shall be within the limits of the amount of money appropriated for such purpose. In addition to such compensation, they shall be paid their necessary travelling expenses, which compensation and expenses, when audited and approved by the auditor general, shall be paid by the state treasurer out of the fund appropriated for that purpose, upon warrant of the proper officer. . . .' It is clear from the emphasized portion of this section that the cost of performing yearly audits of county accounts by the Department of Treasury are to be paid from state funds. Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25 states: 'No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length.' The constitutional provision has been exhaustively interpreted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210; 200 NW2d 628 (1972) and OAG, 1975-1976, No 4896, p ... (September 9, 1975). Since 1919 PA 71 requires payment for this state service to be made by state funds, it is clear that 1975 PA 255, Sec. 54(1) is an attempt to amend 1919 PA 71 without satisfying the constitutional requirements of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25. The fact that 1975 PA 255, Sec. 54(1) refers to the contingency of the amendment of 1919 PA 71 emphasizes that the legislation recognized the need to amend the act and failed to do so. It is therefore my opinion that the Department of Treasury may not charge back 40 percent of the cost of conducting the yearly audits of county accounts. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)