Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Well, good morning and thank you. Uh today we are in a work session. There will be no votes, uh but we are going to discuss one thing and one thing only at the legislative impacts and the levy surcharge update. And who's going to start off? >> I can kick it off, Mr. Chair. Uh so, Dave Freshwater, Mary Kay, others in the room, Kate, uh the stars of the show here, but thanks to them they put a lot of work into into this so far. One one word to remember patience. It's budgetary [clears throat] process. We added the calendar at the end and just to remind you of the process moving forward, but the budget hearings etc. We're in the process of gathering additional information and as I've said before every budget cycle is different. One of the interesting things I'll use a play words, interesting parts of this cycle for the [clears throat] lack of lack of information we're getting from the state and sort of the dysfunction that's going on at the state level. That's kind of a kind of word I'll use there. It is definitely dysfunctional. As we watch what's going on at the state and we're sort of waiting for these big numbers that really are drivers of our budget revenue in particular. Still waiting and usually we are waiting, but we know a little bit more at this point and so it's going to come come into crunch time here as we head into unfortunately the summer end of summer, which is always the case, but really crunch time. It will get compressed. So we'll do our best to keep up and to feed you that intel and of course these are budgetary projections. But yet again with less less or more uncertainty than ever than I I've ever experienced. So so stay tuned on that. We're doing the best we can, but but sometimes we just again are not able to get this information. And we're not the only ones. This is across the state of Minnesota. But what we have done we were wanted to revisit the the cost shifts that have occurred at the state level and to remind you of what we did last year and how we planned for it and how things have changed. And I think we've done a a pretty good job here of keeping things on target and and being remaining on track with what we thought might happen. Part of that is the good work of folks in the room and everybody else to make sure we're we're scaling back to the numbers that we had actually plugged in. So, with that, uh good Dave up in front, we're not looking at, of course, uh levy today. We're looking at this particular isolated issue and then we'll give you the schedule on the you know, when we we'll provide more information. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, and good morning to >> you start. Is uh I don't know if it's for you or for Heather, but is the word dysfunction, is that too strong? >> [laughter] >> Actually, uh from finances, yes. Uh yeah, >> [laughter] >> I'll uh Heather might be a better answer for that. >> say I probably have a few other choice words that I >> [laughter] >> We're on a recording, yes. Um but I but I think Administrator Hamzeh, excuse [clears throat] me, is accurate. I mean, and being kind, I think, like you say, with his words. He and I spoke yesterday. Um one of the things that I think is uh weighing over us is the fact that by this date, um as of even yesterday, typically, we have at least half of our allocations from the state in health and human services, which, as you know, starts putting together a revenue picture for us. Um if if we know we're down up, you know, the same, I mean, it that starts putting together a puzzle. And at this point, um I I've said I'm in I'm in this business a long time, too, and this is probably the first year where we haven't gotten a single allocation posted yet. I looked looked even last night, not a single allocation posted yet. And that's going to, you know, that as I'm trying to put together something for Mary Kay, um who wants my files next week, um I I'm doing my best estimates. And that concern that makes me a little worried in the sense that, I was saying with Dave yesterday, one of the pieces that I'm starting to see sort of the the domino effect from is that, as you know, last year um and the year before, the last couple years, the state has split apart into three entities. We always had Department of Human Services. Now we have Department of Children, Youth, and Families, and Department of correct and of Corrections and Treatment. Um, those things that as you as you peel apart the mental health piece, some of that corrections piece, you peel apart that child and they don't There are no dotted lines. They're very siloed. They everyone's hunkered down in their camps, and so there is not a lot of cross um, information go going back and forth to the state, and they're not and they and that's that's none of it up to the counties at this point. And so, dysfunction is a nice word. I think we'd say they're very disorganized as well. Um, so I think we wait. Um, I have I I had the luxury, actually, of speaking with the commissioner um, of the Department of Youth and Children, Youth, and Families uh, last week when I was out Washington D.C. Um, kind of gave her an earful on some of our challenges, and I think the critical uh, nature of getting uh, not only that data, um, but getting uh, a good report out of that as well. And I think she really did hear me, um, but I think mid-July is what I'm anticipating that we're going to get for [clears throat] data. And today's uh, that puts us in crunch time. Uh, I think that pushes us right into August, and maybe in September before we really have the full picture in my world, at least, of revenue, uh, which tells a story for the whole county in many ways, because if I don't if my my division is not able to bring in the revenue that it needs, um, then that that then we're looking at cuts. And so, it it really is pretty critical. So, my long story short, yes, I think dysfunction is probably a kind word at this point. >> Can you give us an idea how much allocation you would have had in previous years, and and what what [clears throat] the hold up is? >> I would say pre-pandemic we had almost 80% of ours by mid-June. Um, last year, the last couple years, but last year um, as the after the split, we had 50% at about this time and then the 50 other 50 cent trickled into our you know, into us at by mid-July or so. Third week of July I think was when we got our last allocations last year. But at least I had 50% and you start being able to like I said, put half the puzzle together. At this point, by the end of June, I I'm not going to be hopeful that I even have a one. And so, I literally mean putting together like you say, a budget for Mary Kay due next week with my best guess and my experience and my knowledge and trending and all the things you you know, you look at and you use to try to predict the numbers. But man, the state's really unpredictable right now. >> How much was full allocation last year? >> Pardon? >> How much was full allocation last year? >> Um we get about 40 some allocations. So it depended on the allocation. Some were Some were the same, some were down, some were up. You know, it was it was all over the place. >> What millions, right? Like how many >> Oh, millions. Millions. Yeah. >> 10, 20? >> 20 million. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And so >> [clears throat and cough] >> we're maybe jumping ahead here um cuz I'm on tenterhooks waiting to hear Dave. >> I'm sorry. [clears throat and laughter] >> I just jumped right in. >> I I wanted to use that word today. >> [clears throat] >> What was your word today? >> Impressive. Um uh So uh the allocations and I'll maybe text all of our legislators and let them know I'm going to see one or two of them this evening. Um So uh do we know I mean, maybe do we know who where we're not maybe going to get allocations and that in fact we are going to have to cut whatever it was or and or are these allocations that uh uh maybe they're not going to happen, but we're going to be required to provide the service anyway. Like like it seems that they've been trying to do to counties. >> Well, the allocations I'm talking about are ones we get it have gotten every year for decades. I mean these are these are allocations that we get every year. They are part of our business. They are part of you know, the the guarantee for or you know, statutorily required that they give us those allocations. They don't tell us how much is the challenge. So every year we do get the allocations and we eventually still get them. Like I say, I'm not anticipating anything at this point before the holiday. I think a lot of them will come and rushing in that week after the holiday in mid-July. The big question mark will be will they will they stay stable and the same? Will they take a big cut? Will they reduce our allocations? Or I guess I'm not super optimistic that we're going to get an increase. I mean, Mr. Freshman here always really likes it when we get an increase. We used to get those a lot more. I mean, we used to get those there used to be years where you got above the got bigger allocations and it's been a long time. We're I'm always happy if I just at least don't lose money. They stay the same. But we won't know until they come in. They don't give us any notice. We don't get any kind of pre-letters. We don't get nothing. Literally one day the allocations just show up in the system and then we take what we get. So >> Mr. Chair I think to better get at the chair's question, now Heather, I think most of these allocations are related to things that are statutorily required, right? And So yeah, it's that cost shift of well, you're making us do all these things, but you're not giving us enough money. Now in the mixture however is how are we doing them? To what level? And I'm I'm really curious to see the pushback that it's going to it's going to be there. Just how significant is it? Especially from rural counties that are trying to keep up. The pushback on just saying, we can't do it. There's there's no way we can do this. Uh, to the level that may be interpreted, right? Some of So, some of this is statutory interpretation, some of it is judges roll out. We just met with the judges, right? And talked about what does this mean? And I'll I'll talk a little bit about strategies to address that broader broader topic, but that's the frustration. Like, well, you're making us do this. We You don't even tell us how much you give us. And then you have these sort secret formulas that are sometimes counterintuitive. It's [clears throat] like, well, we're doing better and we get less, right? >> Very true. >> So, that that's That's a good definition of dysfunction. >> [laughter] >> That's what we're dealing with. But, we got to deal with it. Is it What I always go back to the division directors and go, "Got to deal with this." I mean, that we can sit and complain about it, but but I I would plant that seed in the board's mind. How much do you want to push back? Right? Because push back will have ramifications. And obviously, we don't want to we're not going to [clears throat] do this and then we get our revenues cut even more. >> Mhm. >> I think some of it is is about the level of service to clients. For example, uh, the timeliness of the health care enrollment I think is the front page one, right? And which other counties have have a long waiting list. Is there Where are we at with our waiting list? >> In which In which program? >> SNAP and Medicaid programs. Oh, but SNAP and Medicaid Sure. The SNAP and Medicaid which we kids program. Um, the director of Human Services So, we do not have waiting lists with SNAP and Medicaid. So, we process them everything within uh, 24 hours to 10 days based on the need and timeline. So, we within state timeline. So, that's >> So, bingo. We're doing pretty darn good job, right? And but the question is how long can we keep that up? And >> Mhm. >> And if you look at other counties, >> They have waiting lists. >> there. >> Right. >> They do. They have huge waiting lists based on the size of the county, but we have been processing We I see an increase in applications. so we see about 30% increase in our SNAP and health care applications. However, actual eligibility determinations are staying meaning we have more people who are not eligible, but we still have to process them in the >> Then what happens to some of these clients? This is sometimes life or death literally, all right? So some of these clients may call at you. >> Right. >> Oh, yeah. >> The reason you're probably not getting many calls is we're doing a heck of a good job. So all that's in the mixture and I'm not advising, well, we're just going to cut back and not do that. Do what we are mandated to do. But we might to me uh That's That's a little different. SNAP and the enrollment is a little easier to identify. The act is much different. It's interpreting uh a new statute that everybody's struggling with. So what is that level? And you always have the the keyword. Now I'm forgetting it. Man not required services for SNAP. >> No. Level, you know, is >> The statutory language that >> Like libraries, you have to put so much in. >> Well, that's maintenance of effort. >> Maintenance of effort, isn't it? >> It's all for SNAP. >> Act Active Active effort. >> reasonable versus active effort. >> Yeah. At what you know Yeah, what What are What are active efforts? All right? That's literally what the statute says. That was a big >> Yes. That was That That That was the big Yeah. That really is big. [clears throat] >> that mean? Does that mean that we have to take this person to >> Duluth. >> So Duluth for counseling because we can't >> Right. >> Is that what that means? So stay tuned. I I do have some ideas on on how to address that, but but uh Uh let's get back into the numbers. Those are good for the I think for the board to understand the dynamics of the the high-level implications of some of these numbers. >> Well, and to jump even further ahead uh cuz we're seeing we've been seeing 2% surcharge because of what the state's doing. You're telling me that that in fact they're not sending us enough money >> [clears throat] >> now, even before all of this new stuff. >> Yeah, they never have though. I mean >> So, what does that calculate out? >> Yeah, I mean that's not necessarily new news. >> I mean, is that another two points or four or what How much I mean can we Is that cal- calculable? >> yet. We don't know yet. >> Well, we don't know yet cuz we haven't >> Normally we'd know. We'd have a better idea at this point. >> Okay. >> That's a to be determined. >> Well, and remember uh Mr. Board members, the 2% is uh new new items that we tried to put in the bucket. But there's a whole laundry list of things that that were already being done that that haven't been fully covered that uh that we didn't put into that bucket, right? >> I think the taxpayer would be and should be interested in that complete number, so. >> Well, we remember we do have the the mandated spreadsheet that we put together. So, that that to me is the best the best way to look at that particular topic and to try identify here's all the things that we're required to do and then here's how it adds up. And we did separate out revenues, etc. So, we did update that, remember? So, take another look at that. We can continue talking about that. >> Okay. Okay, Tanner. >> Perfect. Okay. Uh Dave Frischman, Property and Finance Director. Uh today's topic is legislative impacts, but um as we've been talking about and maybe just a little perspective, you know, there are the allocations that the county receives um that are similar to what HHS does. The probably the best one I can think of is our county program aid. That's an allocation we get from the state. Um the difference is, you know, we know what that number is. We knew what that number was, you know, in April. And but we are kind of uh it surprises us sometimes. You remember last year at this point, we had a significant increase in our county program aid, and it was related to how we were doing compared to other other 86 counties. A lot of that is happening with with HHS as well. So, we can kind of monitor where we're at, but depending on how every all these other counties are and how we're doing in relation to them, that all goes into this formula that's impossible to predict and no one really knows kind of a black box, but they come they come out with 40 allocations, just like CPA, county program aid, 40 allocations to HHS. They just always have done it later in the year. They've always done it in May, and then it slid to mid-June, and now it's slid sliding to end of June and maybe not till July. So, everything's sliding, but those 40 allocations, big impacts. They always to me they're always we we are do a little better on some and we don't do as well on others, but it's always kind of it's behind the scenes and it nets out to something that's manageable. So, you guys really haven't heard much about it or seen much about it because when it we the HHS been able to manage it internally. That may not happen this year. We may add to this legislative impacts for 2027. It may be allocations HHS that all these 40, you know, we got, you know, some million-dollar number less than what we anticipated or what we got last year, and now we're going to have to figure out a way to deal with it. So, it's it's to be determined. Usually we have that a pretty good estimate of where we're at and what we can we can fine-tune in the rest of them. Usually you get your big ones and then we work on the other ones, whatever. But that's all changed. It's all just been pushed back as as Heather mentioned. So, we're just we're kind of unknown. But what we do know is where we were last year at this point, and that's what this slide is doing. It's it's showing, you know, where we were in 2026 for the 2026 budget, what do those number what do the 3-year um projection look like? And you can see in 2026 um what we have is our budget was 1.5. The big change was then in 2027, you can see the 3.4 for the act. That was That was based on uh not active efforts, it was based on It was It was based on active efforts. Okay, so that was a higher number. Um and then you're going to you're going to see um for 2027 that projection but up there it's been lowered. Um but the but the the big point of this slide was even with the 2% levy surcharge, which is what the rec administrative recommended for the next 3 years, that would have uh that levy increase would have been about, you know, just under 5 million. The total levy need as we saw it last year at this uh point for the next 3 years was over 6 million. Um so we knew we had a gap even if we did the 2%. We were hoping something would get delayed. We were hoping something would get lowered. Um as it turned out uh something got uh something got lowered. That That 3.4 million got lowered and then it got slid some of it slid uh got pushed back a little bit. So >> [clears throat] >> now updating this slide for 2027 we added a a couple of the other uh reductions that we're that we're aware of. The county programming like I mentioned last year at this point, that was a big increase. This year it's actually a small uh decrease. Um the AIS is another um cut um aid that we used to get. Um so that that's going down. And then in the HHS world the You can see the the HR1 the snap cost shift. Um that slid a lot into 2028 the six almost 700,000. The act um that's the big one that um it now lowered the the latest projection is just 1.5 million. It's down from 3.4. That's that change in in the statute language that we're just talking about. Um and there is some one-time money uh but not a lot. Um but we're just we're highlighting that and those costs are both uh increased um contractual services as well as additional FTEs. Um, and Heather's going to provide more details on that. I'm just painting the big picture of all the numbers. Um, then you can see the other ones that are that are on there as well. So, the incremental uh levy need is now at 1.9 million. Um, which is a little above 2% and then for 2028 it would be back down to um 900,000 but you know, it's a little over 1%. >> Dave, >> [clears throat] >> excuse me, a quick question on the the 1.5 versus the >> [cough] >> 3.4, are we really comfortable now that it's going to be 1.5 for the act? >> That that is a Heather question and she's going [laughter] to she's going to provide more detail for that on her next slide. So, yeah, I'm going to pass on that one and let Heather jump in jump in the weeds on that. But yeah, it's a good question cuz that's um still a moving target, I think, a little bit. >> Before Mr. Chair, before I jump to >> next slide to clarify, it says 27 budget, 28 budget. But these [clears throat] are are I I view these as requests. Right? This this is not an established budget, it's not approved. >> Mhm. >> I haven't recommended it. >> Yeah, that's fair enough. Yeah. >> All right. >> It would it would impact us in the 2027 budget. >> So, and again, projections, just like we had uh projections uh on the previous slide that have that changed. Uh the these are high-level projections. We don't 100% know if this it's going to be 1.93. In particular, the FTEs. Uh >> Mhm. >> That I'll have Heather talk about that more. I think staff have worked with Heather, done a heck of a job. Uh she's reduced that number down significantly and done some realignments, made real smart moves. But in the end, will it will the need be identified as exactly five FTEs? I'm not sure. Uh maybe. Maybe it's more. May- Maybe it's I'm hoping it's less. But from a from a budgetary standpoint, it's a it's a crystal ball, right? Which concerns me because I I have been there before where we where we end up having an adopted budget with a big number. I'll I'll pick on a vacancy turnover. The running joke is I bet Dave a 12-pack of beer for 10 years now. So, he owes me a lot of beer because I've said now we're going to hit that number and and but yet I'm not comfortable enough driving it down. And then, you know, in the end we end up with a million two, three, one or two, three million. And what happens to that money? Goes into the year and savings account. Linden, now he's in the room. I'm going to pick on Linden. We build a half a a quarter mile of road or what you know, whatever the number is. It's kind of wow, we we sacrificed a lot of things to to you know, that put that money toward a good thing. But yet, you know, that's budgeting, right? So, so again, the the message here is not sure about these. One of the strategies that is in my mind is well, maybe we build the base up, but we hold that money cuz the the budgeting a good budgeting strategy is always to have that base healthy. Uh maybe you build it up, hold that money, fund and move forward with some of the FTEs and see how things go. I see how it see how the act rolls out, uh how the staff respond to that, uh the surprises along the way. What that would do if you if you hold the money for let's say two of these FTEs, that builds up the year and savings account, right? Or I'm sorry, the uh the turnover account, vacancy account. That that then is a good thing, right? So, now now you now you have some money that is available to balance the budget. So I could I could in other words take the the vacancy savings account and bump and look at David chuckling at me. Very Casey. I think this actually might have been your idea, Mary Casey. Uh maybe maybe we do it. Maybe we I'm not there yet because I don't have the picture. But that may be one of the strategies would be to say, "Well, okay. We think we need five. We're pretty sure, but let's not hire them all right away." And because you've budgeted for them, the money is there, right? And again, we have that that turnover account that funds things. That's partly funds cash flow it right? It's used to balance the budget. So, something to think about that as we move forward because with all this uncertainty and dysfunction, I I don't want to certainly over budget and throw throw five FTEs at it when in the end there was four or three. Uh now again, I'm not I'm not arguing that the number's wrong. I'm just looking for strategies to to address all of this uncertainty with these giant numbers that ultimately, quite frankly, turn into cuts elsewhere at potentially. Right? So, anyway, Mr. Chair, that's the the things to think about as you I know you like to have you know, not take over the budget, but let's work together on this, right? >> Um Commissioner Workman, if I may make a comment on that. So, kind of what I'm hearing and and um when I look at this budget and all these things are posted publicly, um we we we should have some wording on here somewhere that this is proposed, not final, dra- something on here that that says that, but what I'm hearing from you, um Dave, is you know, it's it's a balance and I hate the idea of taxing taxpayers for things that we don't use them for. On the other hand, we need stability um in in what we provide. I I think taxpayers don't appreciate ups and downs and those spikes. So, I think it's really balancing kind of those those two pieces on this. And I know that there um last week at the AMC Region 10 meeting or district whatever we call it. Um there was a lot of conversation with the other metro counties on how they're budgeting for this. And um it it's hard to tell the appetite for continuing to push legislatively on this. Um be because it would it it was such a divisive topic. Um but I did feel like there was some appetite in the room for a lot more um kind of working together as counties and and continuing We we saw a really um or AMC saw really great success when everyone came together and worked towards um technology modernization and some of that. So, so continuing continuing to to push for some of this. And we had just talked about, you know, there will be things that the state will take over with the act kind of going forward. Um it's just a matter of when and how much. >> Yeah, and I would Mr. Chair that with the adminis- metro administrator group, we've talked about the same thing. Let's Let's Let's combine our voices cuz we we all have a similar problem with this that I think the at the very it's a divisive when it comes to the act and should even be law or you know, should should be changed, but I don't think it's as divisive when you say if you're going to require state funded. That that to me is the where we can rally. And but I would say we always have. Right? Right. We've always That's part of our platform. So, I don't think that, you know, we can rally and get together and that'd be helpful, but I think we're going to have to address this and >> Well, and I think I think a big part of this is the unfunded mandates. Uh I mean, that this is a huge unfunded mandate. So, with the the metro counties kind of getting together and saying we're going to push back against unfunded mandates and um you know, the the active versus reasonable language in that bill was the difference between um on 3.4 million in unfunded mandates. So, I give um Heather and Kate is in the room and Mary Kay All of you a lot of credit and whittling down this number and and look forward to hearing more about how we got there. So, thank you. >> You're welcome and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Heather to provide more details. >> Thank you, Mr. Freshman. Good morning again, everyone. And um I will start off just uh with Commissioner Fahey's question and Commissioner Anderson, your comments on how did we get to the from the 3.4 down to the roughly 1.5. And I won't go into great detail cuz I know we've got a lot to talk about this morning and we talk more about it in our budget hearing um that we have coming up in a couple month and a half or so. Uh but, I do want to just kind of kind of level set and create, you know, kind of a foundation for how we did get from the 3.4 down to the 1.5. And I do want to just extend a thanks um to Kate who's in the room and to her team who already are doing some really tough work um have already made some tough decisions um that they're putting into place and putting in you know, starting this year in preparation uh for the act to go into effect uh January 1st. So, again, just want to thank them for their work. And like I say, these are not easy decisions. Um there that we've had a lot of conversation and we didn't get to and as we get to the FTEs in my recommendations, we didn't get to them lightly. So, so I'll just start I'll kind of just talk a little bit about some of the work we've done internally that has allowed us to reduce that number down pretty significantly. So, like I say I'll breeze through them pretty quick. First, I would say there's been a real intentional decision made that we are focusing all of our assessment work on the moderate high and the high risk cases only. So, our energy is going to be placed on families that are more likely to come back into the system back into the agency with repeat maltreatment. This is and this is important. So, there will be less time spent on some of those low risk families. I say that because often times those are the ones that you're hearing about that in the community or people are calling you. We are intentionally going to be spending less time and less energy, less funding on those families because we're shifting that that those dollars and our time to those absolute highest risk. Other areas we things we have done and again this has been a big lift. So, appreciate Kate for all your work on this. We are creating a we are specializing our case management. Historically, as I've been here at Carver now 7 years, that's been we've had more of a generalist model. We are going to specialize and split out children's mental health versus child protection and this is a good time to do that because with MA coming in and the child protection specialization that will be needed to be able to do those active efforts and follow and meet compliance for that law, it's a great time to split that apart but that has taken some work. That's a that's a that's a culture shift that is that is I mean that's been, you know, we've had lots of meetings, lots of conversations with staff about that. We've Kate's been working with employee relations to we've had staff that we may that are moving to different supervisors and different units. All of that can be disruptive. Change management is is difficult. So, um is something we are doing, but we believe that by splitting that out, we follow kind of the true spirit of the Math Law, which is really creating those child protection specialists, uh which is really going to hopefully create some efficiencies where those staff become very skilled in that work and can focus on that work. Otherwise, you get kind of children's mental health has a completely different statute and completely different laws that you have to meet to do that work, and so you become kind of where you're split between having to understand and really know two different sets of laws. Um so hopefully this will will help staff to be able to manage um some of that um increased workload. Um other work we've been doing, um we did as as maybe I don't maybe I didn't actually get a comment from anybody, so maybe nobody realized, but um we did suspend the foster care appreciation banquet this year. We will continue to do that forward. Did you notice, Commissioner Anderson? You You were there last year, I think was maybe your first, and you enjoyed it. So, yes. But but you know, it takes a lot of staff time to put those together. Um it's a lift. Uh we have a number of staff involved in that. You've met Those who've been to the banquet know it's it's very well done. Something we we highly value our foster parents. We don't have enough of them. Um we really I mean, it is is something that I think they enjoy and have valued, um but from a cost perspective and from just a time and a lift to to pull that off, um we're going to repurpose that that time um for those social workers into doing this Math Law work, into doing core mandated um work that needs to be done, and and we see this is something discretionary. Um so we are cutting that out, have already done it, um and will continue to. Um again, um family group decision-making, I won't go into a lot of detail with that. It's It could be a whole presentation in itself, but it's a program um that we operate in collaboration with Le Sueur, McLeod, and Scott County. So, this is one of our Scott County partnerships that we do. Um Commissioner Udman, I know you appreciate that. Um and we get a grant from the state to do this. We are um in conversations with those counties on really being able to enhance and use that grant that we all get from the state collaboratively to sort of boost our our family group decision-making model, bringing in more cultural services, being able to leverage some of the cultural services Scott County has that they don't that we don't have in place yet, really being able to use that as a platform and use those grant funds to be able to to work and hopefully be able to reach families on a more preventive basis, a little more upstream. Um, couple of more things. We are really looking and and thanks to IT, I'll call out Pete, our CIO. We've been working closely with him on AI and hoping to be able to further embed that in our child protection area, using that for note-takings for folks who've been around and know our signs of safety practice methodology. We do a lot of safety net meetings with families and there's note-taking that needs to happen as part of all of that. We're hoping to use AI to be able to do that note-taking. We do roughly 73 to 75 cases in court every month. Takes a a good worker, a skilled worker about 3 hours to write a court report for those court cases and we're hoping to use AI to be able to streamline, be able to create some templates for us, be able to help us with the wording, those kinds of things. So, trying to leverage the technology that we have already in our system. Like you say, our co-pilot, I've been part of that, you know, that group that's helped launch co-pilot data as well. That has gone very well and much appreciation to IT for their you know, partnership in that and we continue to hope to use that tool to reduce time in some of the documentation requirements. And again, as if you all been following MA we will only have more documentation we have to do to be able to prove our MA compliance and so hoping to use AI for that. And lastly, then and this is this seems small. Well, a a more things. Seems small but it really isn't. We have always historically in Carver, predates me, um so been around for a long time. We have always sent all of our our uh letters out to families, relative search, all the requirements we have to do, we have always sent those certified mail. Um we dug and dug and dug, thanks to the county attorney's office, they're always helping us with that legal research. Uh dug and dug and dug, and we don't see and find where that is a law any longer. I know at one point that was the practice or the expectation from the state, but it is not statutorily required. So, we are going to shift, and we already have started shifting where we are no longer sending those letters certified, uh and we'll just send them regular via US mail um that we have to send out. That's about, you know, that's a cost savings. Certified's pretty expensive to send, it's about 10 bucks a letter uh to send certified, as well as as it takes our administrative clerical staff about 2 hours um with if she's got a stack of them every day that she has to send out um to get all of that certified mail um tagged and ready to go. So, looking at being able to repurpose our administrative assistant's time doing some other work um rather than that certified mail, as well as just some hard cost savings um from not having that expense. And then lastly, and like I say, I'll I'll I'll keep us moving, but um just one of the really, I think, important pieces to and this has been um has been some real intentional work uh in the child protection area. We have um three workers who we call our they are classified as like a senior social worker, we call them resolution workers. Dave, you maybe heard that term. Um so, they are really our three staff who have been around the longest, really experienced, have master's level degrees. I mean, they they are very skilled staff. So, we will be re uh distributing them within each of the departments and shifting a bit of their job tasks and work direction um to be doing more programmatic consultation, more case specific consultation, really embedding themselves in um to manage what we see coming with MAAFB uh with some of these tough cases, and really trying to help some of our newer workers who, and this is a department uh where we do have a lot of newer staff because we've had as folks come in sometimes this is their first job out of college. So really it and we love it because we have interns and they they end up taking the jobs which we we love that feeder system but but they do need more support and so really looking at these three staff at becoming really sort of a programmatic almost trainers really being able to do a lot of consultation and that's a very intentional shift. So that's how we got down really by just a combination of all of those things have been able to look at those in dollars and say okay if we do this can this hold off one more you know FTE request can this you know can this reduce our cost down can we basically repurpose and absorb as much of this as we possibly can within our own in our own division and own budget. And so then I will move on to what we feel like we can't absorb and so this is kind of what we've been able to absorb and get that number down. And then these are the these are the requests again these are only requests Dave has not signed off on any of them so they at this point are just my ask. But I'll start with our education neglect and truancy diversion contract. This is something we have a ballpark of about 170 meetings a year that we do for truancy diversion again these are referrals that come in from the school for kids who aren't going to class who aren't going to school are deemed truant. We have about 170 of those that come into our intake assessment that we do meetings on actual meetings with families every year. We are looking at contracting that out to a vendor a vendor who's very skilled does this in a lot of other counties so we they they have a lot of experience in this area. We're we're thinking this will reduce our internal social workers caseloads by about 40 cases 40 assessments coming in give or take kind of really hoping to create then the capacity through that of about at least a 0.5 if not a 0.6 FTE worth of again not having to then ask for another FTE, but using the FTEs we already have that are skilled and trained to do math by work rather than this truancy work and be able to contract the truancy work out. Again, we're hoping we're hoping to from some of this work that we will have folks not come into some of the deeper end. We That's been one of our worries is that that if you sort of let the truancy stuff just go completely, they will come in and and need deeper end services. These kids don't go away. I mean, they're they're almost always root causes as I see Commissioner Anderson shaking her head. There are deeper causes to this truancy. It is not a just oh shoot, I didn't get up and go to school today. There are there are family dynamics and complex and complex cases. And as you peel the onion with these situations, they often require a lot of work. So, I think contracting that work out being able to manage most of them and keep them from having to come in and do some of the deeper end services. It will not only, even though we will have a cost for a contract, I actually think it will end up being a cost savings because this vendor is good. I think they can keep folks out of the having an open child protection case, keep them out of the the court system, keeping them out of the I'll call it the county system. So, that will be good for for I think those families to not get embedded into our system. And really hoping that And actually one of the things that's kind of at least one benefit of math by I'll give a kudos to that that that this pre-diversion truancy sort of upstream work that we're looking at contracting out actually does qualify as one of our active efforts for math by. So, kudos to that. So, hoping that this will also help us to be able to show that we are keeping kids out of the system by working with them earlier in the process. And then I will move to our after-hours child protection on-call. This is actually um we're kind of excited about this one. I think I've shared it when we've had our joint uh Scott and Carver meeting. Uh this is a partnership that uh we've been working on with Scott County for a while uh that we uh have a vendor that we both use uh for crisis services and um have had positive experience with them. Both of us had, both of us feel like we want to expand um their our partnership with them and this would do that. This same vendor who does our crisis services would now do our after-hours child protection on-call service. Uh so one of the I think for me honestly one of the bigger benefits to this is is just the work-life balance for staff. Um >> [clears throat] >> we have a we have a pretty small staff really um who do this. I don't know what we got on call. Maybe got about 10 people who rotate right now. Might be a little more um folks who are in in our rotation for on-call. Well, we don't have enough depth in the bench for those people. If you're up half the night taking, you know, child protection up calls at 3:00 a.m., we don't really have enough depth in the bench. That person then just stays home all day and sleeps the next day. They've got court, they've got other things to be doing. They're here working after they've been up half the night. So uh so I really do and and we've had chronic I mean, I've been here like I say that in 7 years, I think that's the biggest complaint I hear from staff is we just don't have enough to be able to do both and and to be able to really maintain then um the kind of sleep, the kind of focus that that we need them to be doing during the day. Again, um excited about this. I think this will be a great partnership with Scott County. I I've met numerous times with the director over there. She's feeling very positive about this as well. We've met with the vendor, um some preliminary meetings with them and they're feeling very excited about this. Um so I I actually I'm I'm hopeful this one will will get uh you know, some serious consideration um and support because I do think um again, it speaks to to you know, partnership we're wanting to do with other counties and I think it speaks to um um in the long run really being able to provide a certain you know, a service that is manageable. It was It was really interesting as we sat down with Scott County and looked at our numbers. They're really honestly about 50/50. They're about the same. And what the vendors looking at doing is is providing one team that will support both counties. So, it really is I I think we'll be um we'll be a win if we can if we can make that work. So, um any questions before I move on? I saw maybe. >> I have a general one just to guard uh guard this. Um you're doing a great job making hard decisions and I think that sometimes we miss that from a management perspective. To do the right thing for 10 years out sometimes takes pain in the in the short term and you've made some of those tough decisions. It's not lost on us I think um our legislative priorities team reminds us regularly that there are shifts from the state and the federal. And regardless of that, like the way I do my budget is I don't go ask for money. I for my my own personal budget, I figure out what I'm going to do to pay for it. So, you're playing within the guards of that. What I'm having a hard time um connecting with is with all these shifts and changes, where is the demand within our county when it comes to HHS? Feels like sometimes we're adding services, sometimes we're scaling back, sometimes we're right-sizing, sometimes we're automating. It's a big question, but maybe when we're in for budget is how are we seeing the trends in in in my mind the trends are more mental illness, more claims, more um sensitivity and complexities for those even if it's the same bodies. Is there a way that we can talk about the demand? Cuz these are people and it doesn't need to be an answer today unless you have a quick anecdotal one. But is it we're seeing an increase in demand, we're trying to efficiency-ize it, but we're also growing. >> Well, I It's a great question, Commissioner. I appreciate the the comments and the question. I do think it's a great discussion at our budget hearing. And the reason I say that is because I look at HHS as as our whole division. I mean, I I'm as the as the director, I'm looking at and often times and I'll I'll be talking about this in in my presentation today, when one when one part of the business pushes, it pushes on another, you know, it's it's like when mental health is up, that pushes on other areas and >> [clears throat] >> and I don't want to jump too far ahead, but one of the pieces that that is also going to be pushing on this and it and was in in Dave Frischman's slides is the fact that we are we will be getting more cases because of a statutory change that occurred where those where 10, 11, 12-year-olds are no longer being charged as criminals when they commit a crime, they will be moved into our child protection system to be served. In in the thinking behind that is that again, there are finance family dynamics, there are lot bigger root causes to these children committing crimes. I I've had I've had actually multiple conversations with attorney Mark Metz and we're like, but what do you where are we going to put them? What are we going to do with them? I mean, and so as that system shifts and pushes you know, it it'll trim down areas in my probation area, but it's going to push on my child protection area. And and so that's that's my dance and and in the HHS often, as mental health rises, it pushes on other areas and so sometimes when something goes down in one area, it just goes up in another and so it really I do think from a budget hearing, it'd be great to just sort of look at that whole picture and talk about where we're seeing trends across our whole division. >> Yeah, there's there's other things too. Um I think one of them is we got to be smart that we're not costing saving pennies today that cost us dollars tomorrow and I like Commissioner Anderson talks a lot about upstream. You're talking about a lot a lot about upstream partnerships, all those other things. I also think that it's probably not fully understandable the true cost of turnover in your area because if you've got somebody that's got a high sensitivity, they get burnt out. Phase two, somebody else comes in, they don't just pick up the file and come up running, there's a relationship that's been built. And so you guys have to deal with the sensitivities of how do you do that? So the management of their mental health when they're up till 2:00 in the morning and then they got to appear in court at 9:00 a.m. Those are those those are beyond the spreadsheet. >> Yep. >> So, all right. Sorry. >> Well, no. I appreciate I appreciate the comments and and just I mean as I jump ahead I won't jump ahead either, but as I just one comment about that I have a couple social worker requests on here and some and I'm not you can't ignore and you can't pretend like we aren't being impacted by paid family medical leave and FMLA requests. I mean we that especially in that area I mean our child protection area as I mentioned we have some younger staff child bearing years those kinds of things. We've got a number of staff right now that are out for 5 months. >> Mhm. >> Um and so as I as I put this package together that that piece can't be sort of just washed away. Um it has to be part of the part of the configuration. All right. I'll keep us moving then. Um so again active efforts we've talked a little bit about that already. Um Kate and her team have done a really nice job at really looking at what we think we might need for sort of those concrete supports to Dave's comment. You know, we're going to have to be driving somebody to Duluth for culturally you know, appropriate therapies. I mean we we know we will have additional costs. We know we will have things we will have to pay for for families and I and one of the pieces that really resonated with me as we were putting together this this 250,000 for the concrete supports really is the fact that the to me one of the bigger shifts also in the law is that we've always supported parents. That's something that we've always you know, we've always been able to provide and and support families to be able to have their children return home. The real this this law will mean we also have to do that for all extended relatives. And that's a pretty big change that I think everybody kind of just didn't quite catch in the law as a change. So, we are we are going we are being required to more actively work with relatives who might be a possible placement for a child who might be a long-term placement for a child. The kinship piece, the relative piece is really huge in this law and is a real driver for this law wanting kids to be placed with extended family. Well, if we have extended family who possibly could take this child, but they need things bought for them to be able to have that child go live with them, we will be as part of this law responsible for buying those things. So, that So, as we looked at our cases, I I think we've got about, you know, at any given time we've got about 185 cases that we think would be applicable to this law. [clears throat] Um we factored in some concrete costs, not only for parents, but for if we have to be paying for things for relatives, which is a new cost for us, something we have not traditionally, you know, we haven't traditionally spent money on, you know, things for gram and grandpa and aunt and uncles and people who, you know, it's we do some assessments on them, determine can they take these children, you know, if there's some minor barriers, we can refer them sometimes to our nonprofit [clears throat] partners and things to be able to get set up to take these children, but we will have um if there are barriers, if there are transportation barriers, if there are other barriers, rental barriers, some of those things we will be on the hook for. So, that's where we landed on the 250 for for those kinds of expenses. And the next again, cultural supports the cultural supports um is a big part of this law. Um as you know, um you know, we have our family resource center, we're going to try to funnel a lot of those cultural supports through that Scott County that is their model as well, um where they are funneling most of their cultural supports through that through that program and that service. Um we're going to try to replicate that, do some of that same um type thing, but the but we know we will have some additional contracts. I mean, we truthfully don't have a lot of contracts with uh culture culturally sort of appropriate providers. We have a couple, but we don't have a lot. And so, we will need to possibly do an RFQ or we may need to do some you know some recruitment of new providers to be able to meet some of those cultural compliance mandates that we will have as part of this law. And so that's where we landed on another 250 for for those possible contracts. >> Heather, do you have an example from Adam? Sitting here scratching my head. Cultural supports. I'm thinking left some making uh >> [laughter] >> Only for you commissioner, but go ahead Katie. I'll [clears throat] give you a couple of examples. Go right ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. So cultural specific support is really defined in the law as a cultural an organization that is focusing on providing cultural specific parts such as for example a in our case would be Mi Casa right? Focusing on people with who is from Hispanic background and focusing on therapist who might be from the same background. A social worker navigator therapist working with a child who is of Hispanic background. Also allowing for like you said cultural immersion pieces so we may need to be going to close and St. Paul to get the child involved with a cultural specific group activities that could include you know how to you address your behavior through introduction to some cultural specific pieces. So other counties might be better positioned because they actually have those cultural specific organization that generally defined by the board members who represent the same culture and or leadership of the same culture that focusing on that. So in our case we have two contracts right now through Family Resource Center and we planning on working in partnership with other counties to expand that service and figure out what it is we can >> [clears throat] >> co-create and maybe purchase of other county contracts. So hopefully that helps. >> We were talking about partnership with 288 because they have like a hair hair program. So they could have the education be served. Is is that going anywhere? >> Um >> No. >> No. >> [laughter] >> No, we have had multiple meetings with 288 about that, but they haven't gone anywhere at this point. However, you identified yes, you know, there is a cultural piece where for some children of African descent, there's even specific pieces we need to invest that may involve them, how they look in the haircuts and other pieces. >> I think that's a great a great question. >> question. >> which is a question. It is things like paying for an African-American child to have her hair done by someone who is an who is skilled and trained in doing hair for an African-American child, which probably doesn't exist in Carver County. So, it would mean, you know, taking a child to Minneapolis potentially for for that kind of service. >> Or purchasing a specific um outfit of the head, you know, for the child in that basis. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, could I follow up on that? >> Surely. >> So, so who's the >> [cough] >> who's going to be watching that we are complying with the law? It will it be >> That's a good >> judges, the state department, or a combination, or >> So, so it'll be a combination. I mean, judges will judges will order, you know, things as like they normally do. They I mean, we did present to them um you know, they're getting schooled up on the law. So, judges certainly will order these things to be done as they need to be in compliance with the law. Um as I was talking with Commissioner Anderson prior to our uh board meeting today, um the state is intending to do uh case reviews, which I which I equate to an audit, uh where they will be regularly doing these case reviews and giving us real-time feedback um on whether we are in compliance or not. That won't be a once-a-year, one-and-done kind of deal. Um they will be taking a percentage of our cases every month and will be uh reviewing them for compliance. And so, I I Department of Children, Youth, and Families is who I really think we will have to answer to. Um and we have pushed on them already um and Association of Minnesota Counties has been pushing on them to provide counties uh broader more detailed definitions of active efforts. What What does need to be done? What tasks need to be done to be in compliance with this? Cuz as you know, the law you know, laws are written at a high level. They aren't written operationally. So, we have been asking for like a guidance document or a handbook um from the state that further define those things so that we so we don't get kind of hung up in in not knowing what what we have to do to be in compliance. And so, we have not received that yet. I'm not even where it's being written yet, but hopefully that will be worked on and and to counties by the time we implement on January 1 because I do think that is a critical piece is receiving further sort of definition from the state on what they expect us to be doing to be in compliance with these you know, multitude of kind of multitude of areas in that law um that kind of compile the active efforts uh statute. So. >> Yeah. >> And if I may add, >> [clears throat] >> the state of Minnesota the law actually requires um Department of Youth and Children and Families put together a specific board that will be overseeing that work in addition to an ongoing case file reviews. And that board is actually um going to be focusing specifically making sure we meet compliance to serve low-income families. And right now the cultural identification is so important. Meaning if somebody self- supports specific culture, they would be automatically accepted, right? There is no hard verification. So, there is one bulletin came out that provides some um what I would say sort of speak eligibility guidelines, but there will be very specific board that overlooking that efforts. >> And then just to go one step deeper then. So, is what's the history on There must be counties that haven't complied. I'm sure we usually do. Maybe we maybe we haven't in some cases. >> I will >> equate it to uh >> Well, let me let me get to you though. So, uh What What's the history there? So, the county's not doing what the state thinks they should be doing? >> Yes. >> Uh and then is there Do they hold back revenue from them? >> Yes. >> Penalize them? >> Um I will equate it to what we have in place right now is the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is the equal law. So, folks have heard that. My MAFA was built a little bit off of equal, uh which has been in place since, oh my gosh, I don't remember how long. Pre- be my whole my whole career. Equal has been in place. And we are audited every year by the state on our equal cases. And if we are not in compliance, then we They don't call them fines, but they then withhold funding. And so, we lose we they withhold a certain percentage of revenue based off of that non-compliance. And so, it is a revenue loss. We just get less revenue in that area, um but it's essentially a fine that we're that we're charged for not being in compliance. >> I'd imagine they're more efficient in that regard than they are some of the other stuff of getting your money and your allocations. >> Oh, they don't miss the We don't get a Yeah, they don't miss you in the audits. So, those happen regularly. Yes. >> I think government explained. >> This is unbelievable. >> I get it. >> How do [clears throat] we regulate cultural supports? Can I have a big St. Patty's party and have the county pay for it? Can Workman have a Oktoberfest and have uh the county pay for it? How do we regulate this? >> Mission of Workman can have a judge order orders if the judge orders you to get a party, we'll be we'll be pri- you know, providing the party. So, a a lot of it I think will get regulated through the court system. And if you have additional comments >> Uh so, it's regulated and it's probably all it's will relate to the safety plans. I mean, we still have to follow in the trade safety plans and trade country supports. So, again, I mean, if I looked on the one bulletin that come out, it is going to be regulated like what type of support child and the family needs. So, we you will be seeing more things around the therapy, around group affiliation, specific tutor and education for the children. Like I said, probably investments in a culturally specific appearances, which is, you know, again, like the hair or the head covering and things like that. So, I mean, I think there's a clear definition of that going to be safety and making sure child remains with the family in the household. And we expect a lot more to come out, but that's just the one bullet and that's came through. Um >> And we do safety plans now. I mean, that's not new. We've always done safety plans. We actually have, to Dave's point, a probably a more robust safety plan than a lot of counties do. We've We've followed the signs of safety practice methodology for many, many years. And it has embedded in it a a pretty And so, those kinds of any any task that will be paid for through MAP, but will have to be outlined in the safety plan that's agreed on, obviously, by families, probably attorneys, other kinds of parties that will be involved in that safety planning. So, um Yeah. Yeah, guardian ad litems. So, yeah, many, many people are involved in the safety planning. So, the guardian ad litem might not approve your party, Commissioner Lynch. >> I know. I know. >> Thank you for calling in here this morning. >> [laughter] >> I know you intend it for me. But, I mean, you're still going through as much as this is labeled the African-American Act, it's really a poverty-based or or a bad situation-based situation. Not Not anybody's ability. By the way, I had a neighbor walk by last night. She does volunteer at Bountiful Baskets, and she always brings up that person who comes in there with the with the Mercedes-Benz and needs food. And maybe they do. Um uh but um I have all the faith that you guys are making sure that fraud to this system doesn't occur here, but but you'd have to be in pretty bad shape to take advantage of this program. >> Right. So, we actually very committed to fraud prevention efforts. So, we have internally created an internal control documents. So, we internally doing a lot of compliance audits ourselves reviewing case looking on all of the data we put it you know we put in and what do you mean class? We cross watch some cases where we have concerns based on that will cross walk them over to the income support area where we actually do have a fraud investigator who would then will officially investigate any suspicion of fraud activity. So, we do in human services making sure we work closely with our fraud investigators if there's suspicious based on multiple factors, right? Could be income report could be a few other things that so we do it's embedded in our internal what kind of county not just external state monitoring. >> Thank you. >> And just one comment too, I mean the math I really I mean I I kind of it's child protection on steroids, but it doesn't divert us from our core child protection work. I mean we we've been doing child protection at its core for a really long time and we do it really well. And so we will continue to do that. This just layers on you know more work more documentation, you know, more of the cultural piece that I think is a little bit new for Carver and will certainly expand, but we've you know, we will keep in place our core work that we have done that has served families well for a number of years. So, that will change. And I'll keep us moving then on to the attachment B items on which are social workers. I may actually start at the bottom and work my way up cuz one of the pieces that I think is also kind of folds into some of the diversion work that we're looking at kind of re- restructuring, re- reorganizing is that 1.0 FTE paralegal piece that we're wanting to use for data requests. So, I'll give you a bit of data just because I know Commissioner Commissioner Anderson, you guys like data. So, I'll share some data. Um So, we we we keep a SharePoint site. We have we track all of our data requests that come in every single every single thing we do with those we track. We've been doing that for a number of years. Um so, every on average we spend So, these are social workers, supervisors that spend 77 hours a month doing data retrieval for data requests. So, ballpark that about 927 hours a year. And then we spend another 184 hours a month doing data redaction. So, you retrieve the data and then we have to redact the data. And so, that's about 1,000 hours a year for that. So, if you if you look at just the data piece alone, that's about 2,000 hours a year that we spend on just data requests alone. And And again, heavy lift of those are in our child protection area. We have a lot of data requests in that area. But they have started leaching, I would say in the last year or two more in public health, more in our income support area, child support area, financial assistance area. So, we we have really I mean I don't see that trend changing. I mean, the amount of data requests we get is almost unmanageable. It's It's pretty shocking, actually. Um >> That's a Yeah, that's a full-time equivalent. >> It's a full-time job. And I'm I'm the data authority for our division, so they the bulk of them come in to me. So, if Dave sometimes wants to know what I what I'm doing with my time Um >> Well, and and to your point, I mean, that's just HHS. We get a ton of data requests in elections and other areas as well. >> Yes. So, >> And that costs a lot of that costs taxpayers a lot of money. >> It is a It does cost taxpayers a lot of money. It is a lot of time. A a of it's not value add time, unfortunately. Um, >> and folks have a right to request data. Um, it we don't have a we don't have an ability per the statute and and Jennifer, I'll I'll I'll point to her because she's worked with me for years now on this data request stuff. We don't have [clears throat] an ability to res- request people narrow their their requests. A lot of times they're looking for one little thing, but they ask for, you know, thousands and thousands of pieces of paper um, to be able to find that one little thing. So, it is a huge lift. And so, and then we actually have court discovery. So, as part as part of our court process, um, attorneys have a right to do basically a data request um, to get discovery of those files um, in preparation for court. And so, we have about another 1,700 hours annually that we do for that in our child protection area. So, it is it is become a real big part of the job. So, part of our our strategy is looking at a paralegal position who can research the law, understand chapter 13, which is complicated at times, confusing at times. Um, we need to look at 260, which is what drives child protection and a lot of the data um, requests in that in child protection area. They have a second a second statute. We have to follow that. And we've got HIPAA, which is again kind of weaves in and out of everything um, that we have to make sure we're following that federal law as well. So, um, my hope is that to look at a paralegal who can peel that time off of the social workers and supervisors. Again, we're at about 2,000 hours uh, a year just on the data request alone. And that person can kind of specialize, really understand the law, research the law, it apply the law correctly. Um, and we're hope and my hope is then that by having a specialist in that area, one, it will really streamline it cuz people get pretty good at it if you do it all the time. As well as we've, you know, as I look at our 20-some staff who do this, I mean, this is going to probably this will peel, you know, 10% hopeful up to 10, 5 to 10% of their workload every week off of them that they can repurpose that skill time energy then into map work into what they should be doing and and this data request stuff is it's tedious I mean redacting is a monster to do there's not the greatest software we continue to continues to research we've been looking we constantly are looking at software the challenge with it is is the software works well for like if I if you need to redact a social security number you can type in that social security number it'll redact it out of that whole >> [clears throat and cough] >> the nuances though in in our in HHS in our world is there are certain things like you know there might be something a reporter says that that's reported you know maltreatment and then that has to get redacted out if it I if it could identify the reporter I mean there's all these nuances to redacting that you can't just cookie cutter and the and there's not there aren't software systems out there yet sophisticated enough to be able to catch all of those sort of I would say untraditional kinds of things that need to be redacted and to be able to comply with our law the law and the reality is we certainly wouldn't want something to accidentally be released I mean that that's a lawsuit you know I mean those are things that we take very seriously you have to make sure you're correctly releasing data and so so my hope is to be able to repurpose social worker time invest it in someone who can specialize in this I've talked with attorney Mets and I actually have talked I think with chief deputy Tish as well a bit but have talked we would have a dotted line to them they would they would sit in in HHS but we'd have a dotted line our county attorney's office helps us immensely on a regular basis around data requests so this this person would continue to consult with the county attorney's office and and we would do that kind of same work we do now get support you have Joy in your team that's amazing when she's like the data request guru be able to consult with her and make sure we're doing things correctly, especially as that person's learning and really kind of understanding our work, the law, all of those kinds of things. And so, but wanting the paralegal because I do want that legal sort of lens, that that ability. This isn't I don't This isn't necessarily just a case aid kind of work. Um this really does take some some legal skill to be able to do. So, >> Are there are those data requests cyclical, unpredictable, or are they pretty even? Cuz 2,000 hours all in January is different than 2,000 hours starts across 12 months. >> Yeah, it's it's all it's every day all all year. Pretty pretty consistent. Um I mean, I I I mean, I get a data request every single day. >> So, let me just >> So, it's it's There aren't necessarily clusters. I mean, you kind of some There There's sometimes a little bit more around when the legislative session. We get more from reporters, you know, some of those external entities when there are things that come up in the newspaper. A lot of times then we get some data requests. Uh but they're pretty consistent. >> I just going to throw this out there cuz I know how much time you put in and I know that the pace of the leader is the pace of the team and people see the effort and time that you personally put in. I'm actually in support [clears throat] of having a data request specialist cuz I think that raises the bar of expectation of turnaround. And that's just a philosophical thing for me. If we have somebody that's a data specialist, then I think the public's expectation is it turns faster. If we don't have somebody that's specific for that, then it may it may not be as urgent. And so, but I do support a resource that may work for you as an admin that's that also has additional training so they can cross cross train. I think that that could not only pull time off of our staff, but off of you and free you up. And so, I think that that's a worthwhile full-time equivalent that actually saves us money over the time, turnover, burnout, all that other stuff. So, I'm just making the point on the data stuff. >> No, I appreciate that and I'll just comment uh not to get us too off track, but the bulk of our data requests in our child protection area especially are private data requests. There's public data requests and private and private. The bulk of them are private and we have to provide that data within 10 business days regardless. >> Regardless, okay. Thank you. Good clarification. >> Um, I'll keep us moving then and just keep rolling. I'll start back at the top. Um, we've got three social workers we're asking for. Um, they in all in distinct areas within our child protection area. Um, relative search is is one of them. Um, this one of the things that's really clearly actually spelled out in the math the law is is raising that requirement from reasonable to active efforts and and really searching for relatives to if you have to place it again, the goal is to not place children, but if you have to place a child, then the expectation is that you find relatives to do that at sort of all costs. And and we do have one relative searcher position now. Um, we have one person in that role that does that. She was hired in 20 2021. So, we have one relative search FTE. Um, but we are anticipating with this law that that work will um, will it possibly double. I mean, our worry is given this law and the amount of work. I think one of the pieces too is when you do relative searches, I won't go into all the details, but it's pretty complex. You have to do an assessment. You have to help them get licensed. There's lots of things you do for these relatives to help them get stood up to be able to take these children. And so, go ahead if you want to jump in. I see you jumping up. >> And I also want to add in addition to just doing the relative search, your law also calls to build a kinship network around the family. So, meaning we have to identify relatives to keep children in the household that can wrap around and provide support services directly to families. So, this position would serve like dual purpose, finding relatives to support family and potentially finding relatives for placement of the child. So, it's it's in a very interesting distinction here. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Kate. Appreciate it. Appreciate you jumping in. And I think the one distinction too again with this law is that we've always done that. We've had we have a relative search worker. But again, it's been much more parent focused. It's maybe been focused on immediate relatives. This law will expand that to say, we you know, [clears throat] if there's an uncle out in out in California, you need to be connecting with that person, um seeing if he is interested in, you know, taking these children, um becoming part of this network, possibly even moving back here. I mean, it's those kinds of that it much it broadens the the the net of what we will need to do, um and to to comply with this law, it's really an exhaustive search. And so, and I think we are at this point we we do that, but you know, if we if we say and I think one of the pieces is is interesting as this is playing out, I've talked to Ramsey County some more than Hennepin, um what's even interesting is in the past I would say if we have a family member who says, "Oh, yeah, Aunt Lisa, she lives clear Colorado. I don't want her I don't want my kids going there. She doesn't know my kids." You know, we've kind of we've kind of taken into consideration those things go into court, but we've taken into consid- consideration this relative's never met these children, has no no relationship with them. Um so, you might send a letter, you might make a phone call, but you don't exhaustively pursue that person. This law would say doesn't matter if Aunt Lisa knows this person or not, you need to you need to make a they'll say rigorous efforts is what it says in the law, um to to ensure that person, whether kind of whether the family parents want it or not, whether this person can care for those children. And so, it's a different it's a it's a philosophical change. Um and I think that um the our one relative search worker in now is maxed, and so, I really don't know how we take on the this extra work without adding a second relative search worker to do that work, um and to be able to do it well. Um And then the intake and assessment, go ahead. >> Wait. Can I just uh have you pause? >> Please. >> So, 1127 law is effective. >> Yes. >> Uh what what's your thinking on these positions? It takes 3 to 6 months to hire sometimes. [snorts] >> What I >> to say that's I think it'll be I mean my hope I mean we will have to implement day one, January 1. That is the challenge already and I know you were talking about doing sort of a tiered approach with these positions. Been around 7 years and just going to be honest. I mean I I'm yet to see a position that we get approval from the county board as part of the budgeting process in December when you all approve the final budget, we that position's never hired before April. It it takes months to get those positions in. So even if we these positions were approved for the 27 budget, we're probably clipping into April before we actually see people in the seats. So [clears throat] it it's just that's how it works. And so that's the piece I think that I think I think initially the first few months are going to be [clears throat] rough cuz we're going to be running really lean. >> Which you know adds to that dynamic of the good news there is that it if we budget the full year, it adds to the vacancy savings, right? So you need to balance these things. Ultimately, that vacancy savings will go away, right? That's that balancing act of uh budgeting appropriately, being a little cautious with going all in given the variables that we don't know on how this is going to roll out, right? So stay tuned on all that, but certainly for the board to think about. We definitely got to keep an eye on the base [clears throat] budget. You You don't want to just say, "We'll We'll make this work." Right? >> Heather, what's the hiring pool for this? We need five and a half people and there's 87 counties and some counties are going to need a lot more. Um are there that many social workers available? >> I would I will say we are really conservative with our requested at three social workers. Other counties around us that we can get We can give you those numbers when we get into our budget hearing. Um other counties around us are hiring a significantly higher number of social workers. So we will be competing certainly with other counties around us, metro counties, those areas for those same jobs. Um I will say some counties have moved ahead and are already hiring those positions. Uh they are ahead of us on this. They've already made some decisions that they are going to support um and start hiring like in Q3, Q4 uh this year to get ahead of it. So, um maybe it will kind of some of it might be timing. Uh but I do I mean there >> [clears throat] >> I think the one thing that I really do um find that we have is a luxury really here in Carver is that we have a really internship program uh from a number of schools. A lot of those those interns really work hard to want to stay here. Um and and that's been a good thing cuz they've been good interns. They've been They've They've proven themselves and and have been a good asset um already. And so, um so my hope is that we may have some interns interested in staying. I don't know if you have further comments, Kate. >> Yeah, and one other thing to >> [clears throat] >> consider, usually around January and June when schools' graduation takes place, the pool is expanding of eligible individuals to pull from, you know, in those two kind of months uh when we see a lot of graduations. >> Well, and and might might I ask another another question is how long will it take him to get up to speed because if we're not hiring someone till April, I mean usually it takes um a a good 6 months to get to get people really rocking and rolling. So, that is something I mean uh I always love the vacancy savings idea, but um should we really move our timeline up a a little bit? >> So, I guess you could write permission. Thank you. So, it takes about So, there's a mentor component to onboarding a social worker regardless of their experience, which takes about 3 months, you know, to put them through the required mandatory training. And then I think the rest will come a a bit of with experience. If they were our interns, they on board a little bit faster. >> Yes. Yes, interns. >> If they bring you from college with master's degree and everything else, but that's probably 6 months to 9 months to get them up to speed. We generally those start giving them cases in the months four, usually because as a secondary worker to try to put them in and doing experiential learning. So, we don't just train them on the job. So, they >> So, there's a fair amount of shadowing. >> Fair amount of shadowing and a fair amount of and then we usually would put them on individual cases where it's not high risk. We would put them on a low risk and moderate risk cases. So, shadowing and then introducing them through low risk and moderate risk cases. >> So, if we waited until the budget was approved, which is basically around Christmas time, and then didn't get them hired until let's be you know, early April. Then but they're So, they're really not up and running until September, October. >> Yeah, that's that's what the correct timeline is. >> Okay. >> Up and running independently, yes. >> Independently, right. Because there's a lot of risk to social workers and so uh you never, you know, this is my profession, never skimp on training. >> [laughter] >> When I think that's the right when I started the conversation around some of our realignment of our our senior social workers, that's part of that rationale. Is to really embed them you know, really focus their work cuz they do lots of things for us now. And so, really narrowing down what they do to focus on onboarding and really helping with training, helping with shadowing, helping with case consultation to and not that that'll necessarily speed up the timeline, but hoping to give give these workers every opportunity to equip them to be able to do the job well. And and like I say, we this is not a lot of this we do that pretty well now, but a lot of it's falling on the supervisors and that we're going to need supervisors with this law cuz one of the pieces as Dave pointed out when we started, we did have a supervisor on this list as we and as well as some other positions, but a supervisor was on this list knowing that we're going to if we add as you add staff, you sometimes need more leadership and and oversight. But but the supervisor didn't make the cut. So so we are trying to do this without adding even more FTEs knowing there's probably a need but thinking that this is what was realistic. This is what was sort of the bare bones of what we felt like we needed. >> I would also like to add, I mean this has been a challenge for all all the metro counties. I do feel like um no offense to what you've done, but because of our population um other counties are probably a little bit more better equipped to already kind of they're already taking on this work. Much more so and have been moving towards active efforts much more so than than we have just because of our population. We just haven't been there. So um yeah. >> It is I think it you know that when I talk about the cultural supports even some of the concrete supports, I mean this is a little bit bigger lift for Carver than some of our counterpart other metro counties who have a more diverse population and have had for a number of years. So they have built some of those resources already into their system that we don't have. >> Right. >> And so it is I think this is this is moving us toward that, but and I think you know, we certainly I would say you know, strive for active efforts, but our we are our our infrastructure is really built around reasonable efforts cuz that's what the law has said. And so this is a shift for us moving us toward a higher threshold that we aren't staffed for. >> Right. >> Which is again and I won't get into too lengthy, but there are my request for social worker and intake and assessment and case management. Intake and assessment is our front end work. They're the ones getting those initial calls, those initial kids that's those are the crisis calls that come in. Those are the ones that you get the intake, you know, I've got to go out and there's nine kids that need to be removed from a home kind of situation. And so there they I expect those frontline workers will be busy. One of the things we're working really hard to try to do is to keep caseload sizes down. So we're doing a little bit of restructuring with some of that as well, trying to really look at how do we keep cuz the case is in a case. You can have a case with one child could be more complex than a case with five kids and vice versa. So really trying to look at how do we assign cases and and really looking at managing and keeping keeping those workers fresh and being able to take those intakes, do those assessments timely, not get behind with those. Again, we have statutory mandates on a lot of the assessments, but a good assessment and and that done well can sometimes even prevent a case from going over to case management. >> 100% >> What is our average current average caseload per social worker at this moment in time? >> Do you know the latest numbers? >> So average caseload for ongoing orders about 12 to about around 12 to 15 families. So it depends. So and I think the recommended there's no stationary requirements in case load are recommended by the task force is eight ratio eight. So we are higher and we just absorbing another about 17 to 20 coming from the law change and other spurs that had a little bit of from juveniles. You know, we serving 10, 11, 12 year olds now. >> With the delinquency law change >> With the delinquency law and other spurs, we're taking on additional 17 to 20. Um >> So that's another case worker. >> That's well, we're not asking for that case worker, so we absorbing them. It is it's a full case load, you're absolutely correct, which we're absorbing in our existing case load. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> I would add, Mr. Chair, you should explain those those those need to be assessed in terms of the types of cases that these workers are dealing with. Certain cases are harder than others, right? >> absolutely. >> I would say more likely like compared to Hennepin. We have probably fewer extreme cases, right? Extremely difficult. >> I don't know about that. >> [laughter] >> That's that's a relative That's all a relative term. So, that's actually I just told Commissioner Elkins that she was a social worker when the Commissioner Elkins was talking about trends. We would just met yesterday to talk about some of our trends. So, we have in the last 8 months or so, probably a year, we have been seeing an increase in our more difficult cases with high number of children, five to nine children, with very complex needs, which we have not typically and traditionally seen. We don't know if it's a pattern going to hold or not, but it's been holding for at least a year. We're also seeing that shift because we having people move across the border from Hennepin County, so we seeing that occurring in some of our larger cities in Carver County, which we anticipating if we're going to take trends, it's will continue on. So, so we are still seeing similar difficulty levels in some of our cases, especially in child protection, child welfare. Not so much in children's mental health as of right now. >> Do you Do you collect that data and you Can you provide that category categories of the type of cases? Maybe. Extremely difficult or however you do that in your world, that'd be I think helpful for all of us because I I'm not saying Uh, those case loads are right, they seem high. >> They are high. >> They are high. >> We always The governor's task force a number of years ago when that report came out suggested strongly suggested from the task force and the governor at the time that case loads be 1 to 8. We We are always supportive. >> They seem high, but we seem to be doing one heck of a job. So, kudos to staff. Great hard workers. >> There's really good people. >> Smart smart way of doing business, but this is a whole new wrinkle now, right? >> Yep. Yep. >> Now, we're forced to do some things maybe we wouldn't have done it before. And by the way, I was going to mention that with the judges. That was part of the conversation was let's make sure we have effective outcomes in the end. You know, all this goofiness in this law like what are we doing? What are we sending this kid to Fargo or Duluth? Doesn't make sense, right? So, I think you know, one of the things we have going is we have some pretty darn good judges that are rational. >> We did have a good meeting with the judges, I thought. >> Great partnerships. I'm hoping that buffers some of the strange impacts of this and putting that whole thing bottom line. >> Well, and I don't want to I don't want to weigh li- us on the conversation, but you brought it up, so I got to bring it up. >> This is going to cost me. >> If If I don't If you've all been following the news, but the state has closed down several psychiatric residential treatment facilities, PRTFs as they're called. They have had In the last month, we've had two closed. Those were designed and built by the state much like in Anoka kind of situation. Built by the state to take the absolute toughest, highest need, highest acuity, most challenging kids. And they were built out of an outcry that we were sending all these kids out of state that were that because the state of Minnesota had no facilities to be able to to meet those and provide those services and meet those needs. So, they built these PRTFs and they and got up to six. Well, they're slowly starting to close them now again. And so, two have just closed and they was in it was all over in the newspaper. So, that's why I bring it up. But, as those beds now dry up keep our fingers crossed. But, pre- before those facilities existed, we had kids in Missouri and Arkansas and I mean I first started at Carver we had kids placed all over the country. And so, I do worry that we may go back to that out of out of pure necessity cuz there will not be the beds in Minnesota. So, those kinds of changes that are kind of quietly happening that nobody's catching, um, have an impact on our budget, have an impact on the people we serve. So, again, not to weigh in less, but you brought up size >> Why are they closing them? >> another one. What's that? >> Why are they closing them? >> Um, various reasons. Uh, the state hasn't been overly communicative, but when I've read the newspapers, um, some of them have said have there's abuse alleged abuse that has occurred in them. Um, so they're closing them for those reasons and then some of the staffing. They can't find people to work there. So, it's kind of a variety of of challenges, I think, but um, there have been some allegations made of uh of situations occurring that have resulted in closure. >> When did they start opening them? 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s? >> No, got PRTFs? Oh my gosh, no. 2022 I think was the first one. Yeah. Yeah, they're new. They came as they came a out as a legislative sort of, you know, kind of outcry uh from so many county kids being you know, placed out of state and it's a new development. It was It was a pandemic development. Yeah, it's it's not They're new. But, they unfor- And they have And they have And really I would say since we've had the PRTFs in existence, we haven't, knock on wood, needed to place kids out out of state. Um, but I expect that will be coming back. Because everybody's going to be clamoring for the few beds that are left. And they're very And the PRTFs are already they are high cost as well, but they aren't as bad as having to put two workers on a plane um, to go see a kid in Arkansas. So, it is it is concerning the direction that the state's starting to go again with providing I'll call those safety net those really high I mean in Anoka's Anoka's the adult equivalent you know the example of being a not having enough beds for those really really high need individuals. So, not in the right direction but we'll get back on track. So, I will keep us rolling again case aid is the next one we're asking for one of the things the law is requiring again and I I won't go into great detail but will reiterate the fact that the law says that we have to have increased visitation again not only with parents which is what we've always done but with relatives. And so, again as Kate had mentioned we have to have this sort of kinship network now for these families which and that does increase so there'll be additional we're expecting now we do now we do typically two visits per week for like smaller children you know younger kids 10 and under. We're expecting now with this law we'll need to do three and a lot of that is done by our case aids not only the transportation to get kids to and from you know foster homes and and places for these visits but someone has to legally supervise these visits and and that's again something I don't want to have a social worker doing. I we have case aids we have two now who do it they're very they're well trained they do very well do a great job with making sure kids are safe you know making sure the parents are doing what they need to again expecting with this law that that will expand to all relatives that will need to be part of a visit and more visits and so feeling again our two case aids are pretty maxed so we really again don't feel like they can absorb this increased requirement for more supervised visitation. And lastly and I don't want to speak for the county attorney's office and attorney Metz is not here so I don't know Jennifer I'll let you chime on it chime in if you have any further comments, but when I've talked with County Attorney Mark Metz, he and I chatted about how this law really does kind of fold into map but we are expecting [clears throat] more court hearings. One of the things I didn't give much detail I'll just go back a slide that that 40k for the court admin that is expecting what we will have increased court appointed attorney costs again we we pay for the court appointed attorneys through from County dollars and we are expecting because there will be more hearings we will have to then pay for more representation for not only again parents, but relatives. And so that will be an additional cost and so as I've talked with Mark about the County Attorney not only because there's going to be more court hearings, but I think really just consultation that we are going to need on some of these complex cases. I expect Jennifer Christensen's area will be one that we will will be busy and needing to consult on making sure again getting legal guidance on to Dave's point you know, what what is the bare minimum we need to do to comply with this law legally looking for some of that legal guidance from them as we get into the details of the cases. So, I'm expecting and and as well as again, we've already mentioned the shift of the 10 11 12 year olds to to child protection which Kate already mentioned will have another 17-20 cases for again, those will those are court cases. Those are those are those are kids who have committed crimes that won't be being charged and go through the criminal system. They'll be going through our child protection system and so fully anticipating that Jennifer Christensen's area as well will need to be involved in those cases and helping us kind of and this will be new cuz these kids haven't been chips kids before. They have been managed through our probation area and so really trying to and I think it all that's an area where we all are going okay, what do we now how do we you know, if this 12 year old has you know, committed his, you know, stolen a car, robbed a store, you know, all of those kinds of things. You know, how do we keep the public safe? How do we keep that child safe? How do we now work with this family to try to engage them to work with this child to stop committing those crimes. It's going to be a very new world and and it's a very different philosophical approach on how you manage these children who are, you know, committing often safety issues in our community. And so, because of that, I've talked with Mark and really feel like again, they do a county attorney's office does an amazing job consulting with us, but they are pretty spread pretty thin, too. I really don't see how they can provide additional MAPPA support as well as this new delinquency law support without some additional county attorney presence and and bandwidth. So, that's why I'm supporting and and interested in having and supporting that area of our business with health and human services. Um, you know, ask is part of my ask, really. Um, knowing that that we need them. So, So, that's my ask for that. So, and then one last thing and I just want to say this just to to cuz I can hear Mary Kay in the back of the room and she's being so quiet. Um, one of the things that is in play here, couple of things, is as part of the 25 in December of 2025, you all approved our 2% surcharge. Thank you, Dave, for that recommendation. It was his his brainchild. Well, it's your brainchild. You started it. But but you had approved for the 26 budget that 2% surcharge. And again, a bunch of that went for our does not meet criteria situation. You know that you know those costs. >> Which actually did meet criteria, but I'm not going to >> That's another story for another day. Yes. But but Mary Kay and and Mr. Frischmann have confirmed for me that that there is 125,000 available this year from that approval for MAPA. So I do I am looking at if there is support. I'm kind of thinking the paralegal, but that's something we can talk [clears throat and cough] further about, but looking at potentially hiring or wanting to hire one of these FTEs this year with that 125,000. Again, looking for some feedback from you all as a board on what you might support with that. So that I could move forward with one of them this year and then that would come off of the 100 that'll come off the 2027 ask then if we can move forward this year with that. Also, we are statutorily going to receive 100,000 from the state for MAPA. Hoping to get a little more. >> Oh, okay. >> Not keeping my fingers crossed. I don't know, we'll see. Again, I talked with the commissioner about it when I saw her out in DC last week. She's thinking we will have at least estimates for that what we will see what we will receive by mid-July this year. So and then that would be a potentially a payment to us January of '27. So again, looking at those dollars as being able to help support possibly some of our contract work, some of those concrete support work, maybe the the on-call contract, some of those pieces. So >> Just want to keep that as just one-time money. >> That is just one-time money. We can't take FTEs Correct. Yeah, that is just one-time money for '27. So >> Right. >> Just want to keep that in your head and as soon as I learn and know what that allocation I certainly will let Dave know, let you all know what that ends up being. Again, we are guaranteed 100,000, but I'm hoping and I'm expecting we'll probably get a little more than that, but maybe not a whole lot more. So I can keep you all updated and know that those dollars then can be applied toward this as well. Again, just for '27, wouldn't continue into '28 unless the '27 legislation does something with some ongoing money. Which is my which is another discussion for our legislative committee. Um and hoping that we can um collectively push on uh the 27 legislators to to give us some recurring funds. But just wanted to throw those couple of pieces out there as um moving parts with some of this funding as well. So. >> Dave, is that 2% surcharge from last year? Is that additive? So this year it's 4% essentially and 6%? >> Yeah, it's built on the the base because these are ongoing things. >> So in 28 it's close to 6% of our levy is uh assigned to surcharge. >> Yeah. The nature of the problem. >> Yeah. >> These are uh yeah. Costs are continuing. >> mandates. >> Yeah. Costs are continuing and then you have the additional costs that continue. >> Yeah. >> But again, these are projections. Keep that all in mind. >> Yeah. >> Is it Yeah, with that 100,000 pretty frustrating. Uh they included Hennepin and Ramsey in the mix. >> Yes, and initially they were not. >> Yeah. >> Initially there was an argument that because Hennepin and Ramsey had essentially already implemented, this is implementation money. >> And got money for that anyway. >> And they got 2.5 million each for that already. Um that they should not get more money. Um but unfortunately it at the end of the day when it all shook out at the end of the session, um they were added back in. >> Oh. >> And so they will get part of the uh the 26 legislation legislators um allocated 15 million statewide for MAFA as one-time money for 27. Um but Hennepin and Ramsey will take up a big chunk of that again uh because of their size and and and number. If there's a formula they're using, of course back to Dave's comment of the lovely formulas, um they're using a formula to calculate the funds. And so um because of just the sheer volume of cases, um Hennepin and Ramsey will get a big chunk of it. The statute did read that every county in the state of Minnesota, all 87 counties, should get, regardless of size, regardless of cases, will get the 100,000. So, if you look at 15 million, you know, 87 counties each get 100,000, that's 8.7 million. And so, then the rest of that, other basically the other half, gets not quite half, 40%, gets divvied up based off of a formula that the state has put together. >> Another thing I I was going to mention is 2% legislative strategy that you'd let me know, but I think it's been helpful for many of us, including you, to to talk about this issue. Including talking to our legislators. And you know, I've had direct conversations with how much this costs, and we throw the throw this understandable document, right? [clears throat] With And here's the impact. You know, it's million and a half. So, I I'm I'm thinking to continue that. Uh but but there's long ways to go here. There's some downsides to continuing that. >> I would agree. >> you. Heather knows this. I'm like, "Well, it's not guaranteed money for you, right?" Don't do that, and then you don't worry about this issue. >> Right. >> And potentially, ironically, I might come back to Heather and go, "Okay, you my recommendation is you get this 2%, but I need another cut somewhere else, another million somewhere else, right? Potentially, the way things look. >> Right. >> So, so keep that all in mind, but man, this is this is the poster child for cost shifts, and how frustrating it is to >> Unfunded mandate. >> be at the bottom of the ladder in county government. I mean, we we know where we're at, but it uh there's been no other time in my career that it's been this blatantly obvious, right? It just keeps piling on. Maybe maybe with uh the new legislature, who knows. But I think that's their top priority is try and change this this if nothing else, this cost shift. >> Mhm. Yes. Yeah, I think our theme for next year needs to be fund, what you mandate. >> Mhm. >> Simple. Be a simple message. >> And And I think the concern, at least with AMC, is there's going to be significant turnover. So, we did a lot uh turnover in the legislature. And, you know, we did a lot of education. And so, it's pretty much starting over. And um so, you know, we need we need to think about that as as um people are running for offices, you know, some of these lawmakers' offices to to let them know this is the time to start educating um those candidates as well. >> Mhm. Absolutely. >> Um because if we wait until uh you know, everyone's in office, that I mean, this is truly an election issue. This is a campaign This is an election issue. >> They all always are. >> All right, I'll wrap up. We do have a calendar up on the screen. Um as you can see today, we are at the June 23rd work session. Um just talking about our legislative impacts and updates. And uh we will start budget hearings then in July and August. Ours is August 4th, I believe. Um I think HHS is. So, um you know, to be continued, and we will continue some of this conversation in more detail then. Um and talk a little bit more about it. And then, of course, we have um a work session in August that we'll be back in front of you um with some similar Hopefully, some updated numbers. Um >> Yeah, hopefully we'll get those numbers by then. >> [laughter] >> It should be good. Let's hope. Uh I I feel pretty confident. Hopefully, by August, we will have some of that. And then, of course, as you can see how we roll into September and in November and December. So, we're early this year. I think December 1st is as early as almost we can be. Uh very early to adopt the budget. So, I think we're going to have a lot to do between now and then. >> Well, and thank you, Heather. I I uh the legislature is always very activist, and I I think uh a child or anybody in Carver County was in any jeopardy prior to the act or other and I know we we are just merely adding a lot more costs to get it done. And so uh thank you to your staff and our finance team and everybody uh uh Carver County is a good place and we do take care of our prisoners and we do take care of our poor and needy and we didn't need the legislature's help to mandate more. Uh but here we are and so we're going to have to deal with it. So. Anybody else? Any final questions? I know that this board will not be meeting until after the 4th of July, so happy Independence Day, happy birthday. Um I don't think there's anything else going on. >> Thank you. I really appreciate this update. I um recognize how much work it has been for the people that sit in the [clears throat] room. Um so thank you for that. This this really provides a lot of clarity on uh the unfunded mandates and and the shifts and how much it's going to cost taxpayers. And as Commissioner Urdahlman said, you've already made some really difficult decisions even before coming to us. And uh appreciate that level of rigor. Um We uh that's something that in my short tenure on the board, I've come to really appreciate is the level of rigor that you put into these numbers before it even gets to us. So I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to thank you. I think you're doing just an absolute wonderful job. I think all the staff is doing a great job. I think Carver County is very well run. I would think that's mostly Mr. Hemsey. Um, but How about Jennifer? >> I was going to say I'm giving Jennifer >> He surrounds himself with He surrounds himself with good people. I've said this before. >> He doesn't have to work. >> And uh But as well as I think Carver County is run, I think that I think the state is just the absolute opposite. Um >> [clears throat] >> I think it's You you said dysfunction. I think it's absolutely disgusting what they don't even know what they're doing to us. And because they won't tell us. And uh everyone's playing their cards so close to their chest because they don't know if whether the AG's going to get indicted or the governor's going to get indicted. And all of the fraud that they knew that was going on, then there was pushback against the whistleblowers. And all And all then they passed this on us. And then the chickens are coming home to roost. I This is absolutely disgusting what the state's doing. Elections have consequences. And we need to tell uh every taxpayer in Carver County exactly what the state did to us and are doing to us. And this is addition to all the other mandates that they already have. It's uh uh one I That's I end my rant, but uh >> [laughter] >> Well, and remember one of our legislators said >> [clears throat] >> "What difference does it make which pot of money it comes out of? The taxpayer's going to pay it anyway." End quote. Which is a very uh low understanding of our neighbors' property tax bills by a legislator. >> Yeah, thank you, Heather and Kate and Dave and Dave and we just have a lot more hard work to do and with the budget hearings coming up with where we're going to be able to give you some more feedback and you're going to give us some more information and the knowledge and [snorts] uh to keep working through it because we have to work through it and as we battle these mandates and struggle with all this stuff that they're ramming down our throats here we are. So, >> Here we are. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oop.