So California and North Dakota tend to be higher than the state and county per capita. And then you take a look at the drop down to Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and the other states that deliver this service in this manner.

So we included in public welfare, that's the social services. That's going to be DHS, DCF. So So you can see in 23 you are going to see a trend with the state of Minnesota on upward bound.

I think like this is one thread that we started [laughter] to pull on and and this looks at it from the census data, but I think we've got some other MMB data, but maybe it starts to tug at some of that inefficiency piece that we're doing and that's where like there's a conversation that as we look at like all kind of government entities that do this work, is there an opportunity to kind of reinvision how it is that we do this work together?

Let's say you've doubled your population. You'd be what? 6 billion. But we're at 36. And then the federal growth. So there's clearly a growth in service, clearly a growth in what we're doing, what we're providing.

So, it just gets back to what Barb said, it's looking at the big picture and duplication and bureaucratic overhead and how do we take a look at how we're delivering these systems?

We were the third largest in the nation for the amount of levels of government we have within our state.

the pain point that will make this uh a discussion that's mandatory at the legislature regardless of who's in control is property taxes that is real all we know you guys are dealing with it statewide we're dealing with it it's probably going to be higher average levy increase than last year the city school districts are in the same boat

Governor Walls has been screaming through his MMB presentations this is on an unsustainable path so much so that you know chairs of the committees are not happy with them right because they don't want to cut service they don't go get elected after they're working in nonprofit that's giving providing people services and saying, 'Oh, it elect me so I can cut them.'

The actual cutting of services is really hard for legislators, but we we need them to see the the challenge with spending and where it's headed and what that looks like if they're going to be in office for 2 or 4 years between now and then so that we can tackle it sooner.

when we have the most generous arguably waiver system in the nation. I I saw a center for American experiment report which you know we read all sides of the aisle the the the reports but what was interesting is that MMD I think has used their data too or come up with the same data which shows the average waiver cost in Minnesota is the highest in the entire country by a lot I mean it dwarfs it by five times the lowest amount

This budget does not include the LTSS county cost share shift. It also does not include the SNAP benefits shift. It does include 1.6 6 million in cuts in identified for in 2026 that are applied for 2027.

And and I feel like these are really the places to draw the line in the sand because both, you know, one state, one federal, they're state federal programs. Like it's not even that our role as an arm to administer these are the costs of programs to wholly determined wholly determined eligibility benefits without.

Henipin County, who's basen county for the act, uh, was at at some point ordered to purchase a vehicle for a family. I think that eventually got walked back. But um I think for the phase in partner counties um there is concern in terms of what the parameters are around um the provision of concrete or economic supports for this.

It's about 9.7%. So when you see the 5-year model, we have increased Right. The 5-year model's always been kind of low. We have changed and updated some of those to increase the last 5year averages to put into that model.

right now we are proposing zero ongoing levy on this. Um as we've been reviewing our fund balance we have a couple of million dollars we had set aside from the car's act.

So, the reason I'm bringing that up was just so we can show that issue. This slide shows You got to tell Danny what slide cuz you're not sharing. He's doing it. I know that. I'm just trying to get to this. Oh, okay. Sorry. I [laughter] thought you were cuz I can't read it from there. My eyesight lose. I don't I can't even find. So there, this shows our experience. So this is child support. So when we talk about it, Julie, this shows child support. The gold is our program budget. The kind of brownish one there is the federal grant. The state grant is the very bottom, the gold. And then the blue is the county levy. uh the go and so the spikes up and down usually have to do with the payment that we receive coming maybe in January instead of December or something like that but it shows you how we can be fairly level and kind of plan and understand those increases when it's a uncapp program they actually pay our actual costs correct Barb Y so they're 66% of whatever our costs are so that's federal government Yep. by the federal by the federal. Yep. And so I think that's where if we could design a funding model where it was always like a dream world, right? Always negotiated 66% by the feds and let's just say 15% by the state and whatever is left for us, right? Then you would you would be able to have a predictable budget based off of that. But I think you're right or somebody had said it here. When we have increases and the funding stays flat, like it's it's even it's more of a shift than that comes our way. were paying more the program cost. So the the next one then goes to a different story. So this is child protection. So when you take a look at this, we pay the second highest share of child welfare costs in the nation, which I think our data shows. Nationally, according to Zan, the local share is 10%. In Minnesota, the county share is 44.5%. Because again, they capped like some 2015 number that they pay off of. It fluctuates based on case loads. Doesn't matter if you're getting positive results in the community, then they cut your [laughter] funding. But I mean, so this is this because this is um a legislative pot of money that has a set amount in it. None of this is not forecasted the way a lot of things in human services, right? There's a BCAA, but this is the thing we've identified with Nancy T. I know she's probably talked to several of you here as aside from our LTSS and SNAP request next year. I suspect child wellbeing and protection will be one of our top priorities once again because you're the main driver for your budget and once again that box is a great story. This is driving costs and you're making us pick up 40% of this cost that is mandated and we are the second highest per capita in the entire nation when it comes to us picking up the highest local share for these services. So I do think this is one when we're talking to senator ports and leaders there of like we actually want leadership for you to set that tone. We have current funding and what's it 353E or what's the child protection grant? That is impressive. [laughter] We have and our question that Angie is asking is is it better to just pump money into that because the formula works or is it better to redirect it to math but type activities. [laughter] So we are figuring that out but I do want to just note we we think this is a good opportunity for next year. So if you're talking to center port and others and just socialize that with her. Well, and I think that's why Matt became such a surprise to so many is that you were trying to build really some pretty significant infrastructure and a really crumbling foundation. We didn't have a good spot to start with. Um, and that just made it so much harder. We were already operating in a deficit essentially. And so like some might say you're exaggerating, but the system isn't sustainable. And then now you've layered another layer. Crazy [clears throat] how I mean when I saw that you were only raising at 280 per MAP bump my jaw almost dropped because I just did not expect that to be so low. I thought that [laughter] interview 1.5 said it but that's because of the work that you've done FRC and otherwise that has really but also staff taking on refocus which is a which is something that you're you'll have to figure out too because that pressure builds I mean when you have people doing child protection and case review and it's all part of their desk that's going to be a lot right I do think the funding formula sorry Leslie is is an important thing to examine like I was a big advocate initially then do we pump it into the child protection allocation? Um, and it incentivizes, right, you have to be in child protection. And so, is there a different way that you create a more flexible pot of money so that it can actually fund the things that actually, at least locally, we're getting the outcomes that we're this is now this is licensing. So, this the gold again or the yellow whatever it is on top is the program cost. The blue is the county levy for statemandated program and the brownish one on the bottom is the state grant childcare licensing. This is child care licensing and adult foster and adult foster care. Yep. So we wonder why the state should take this one on since they're out doing some of this already. Correct. All right. What's the next one? Children services. This is children's services. So this goes to show you again the program costs have gone up. We're not even showing what we believe the act is going to do. But our blue, that's the levy. It's the only one that has gone up. The fed and state share kind of go up and down. They've gone up a little bit since that 20 year history, but again, we have outspent our state and federal partners in our increase. And what's included in that number? That is child protection costs. This is children's welfare costs. Out of home placement. Okay. That's Oh, this is my favorite. The board knows that. This [laughter] is children's mental health. So, the blue is the program, the orange is the levy, the green is the federal grants going down, and the blue is the state grants going down. Now, again, there are some insuranceances in there, and I'm fine. That's great. They help fund it. But look what the levy is doing. Yep. mandated program. Go ahead, Daniel. I think we only have like maybe one left. Oh, and my only point on this is we like the children's mental health schooling, mental health funding, right? We have done it since like 2006. We have a mental health center. It is a great partnership we have with the schools. But you take a look at the orange. That is a non-mandated program that has gone from over $200,000 a year to just under $800,000 a year in a state grant. If that was going towards like children's mental health, right, that would take care of that gap in that mandated program. So, we do these other types of programs because we like them and don't fund our mandated programs. The other thing I'll say about this is that you could look at this as like another funding model, too. So school link mental health is really for us it's operated through either insurance that we build or we're able to tap into the contract of the school grant. So it's really uncompensated care. So it's another way to cover costs if you can't meet that through insurance. And so either you could do the child support FFPFP where you 66% of the cost or you figure out a way to fund the unfunded mandate too. So like bill insurance, uncompensated care needs to go a different direction. So there there could be some different funding models. Um we just don't have that for most of our areas. So And my only point is we're off doing things we like to do and not funding our mandated services which I think this county board has been trying to say. So what's the next one? Community corrections. And this is the last one, but this is corrections. So again, the program is in gold. The board continually did not increase our funding in this because the state wasn't keeping up. The levy is again the blue, I believe, and the state is the one at the bottom. Um that's at the bottom, states the but below us. And so the point is the levy's going up. Finally, in 22 23, you guys get down there with some of the bigger counties. They increase it. Now we don't have a formula yet. we have to start jacking ours back up again and then they're taking away the $500,000 in fees, right? Yeah. So, we don't charge a fee if somebody can't afford to do it. But there are plenty of people who can afford. Got a lot of rich criminals here. [laughter] And so, that's why we have been arguing, Matt. But again, no listening, no support. No, it just puts it back into But it's like juvenile delinquency. It's the same thing. I mean, we the amount of time that Emilio spent with reporters, with for any of the county attorneys in this room, with with uh advocates, with legislators, with leadership at the last hours to say, 'Listen, we're already one of the few states who are headed this direction, but every single state creates carveouts for murder, rape, physical, like violent crimes, and we're not like, what is this going to be?' And I don't know. I I I don't know why that's not resonating. Yeah. But this is our last one. So I mean this is just so you can say it's salary increases or health insurance but it's to do their mandated to raise that they don't keep up with the funding. That's what Matt and I just said. We need to like have five bullets in there about why county salaries going up is a state legislative problem.

So again, for a $497,000 investment, we see saw a $64,000 return on that investment for a net benefit of $107,000 based on their analysis and maybe some intangibles too.

We cannot afford to operate a JAF on our own. I mean, we can't. And when you take a look now at some of these kids coming in, if one takes one per one, now we can't use two other bedrooms. We can't bring kids in.

Is that conversation I know probably a different agenda item but is that there was that conversation about hey you know almost like a fire district of sorts um with metro and even outside is that still on

but we got a whole big problem also that we got to keep working on this ongoing this is an infrastructure issue the facilities and where they are and who's operating them it it is a problem

We're going to be looking at our E91 funds to uh in the short term fund some of our dispatch costs as we're moving to our shared system with Henipin County.

we also are exploring can we consolidate out of home placement um because not all things fluctuate are high at the same time right if we have a consolidated fund can we reduce the overall budget between the separate areas that have out of home placement and have it going to one source with again fund balances backs stop

Julie has brought it to our attention that they've had a couple mortgage issues come in, not rental, and it tends to be seniors who are struggling. Um, and so we're taking a look at how we can work with some of these folks to make sure they're not evicted.

if that trend line is alarming and it probably is. Um I don't think we're taking into consideration, correct me if I'm wrong, the OM uniform guidance chain and all the potential impacts of that. So there's real operational risk for every local government across the country and especially counties that uh there are political appointed uh reviewers for federal grants that lets agencies just sort of I think from our perspective arbitrarily terminate federal funding.

If we keep the 7.83% budget and we wait and those impacts do hit us, we're going to have to absorb that all in one year and that's a 10.85% levy.

because those salary increases, if they were funding and not capped, right? That's the difference in the slide we showed you on child support. Versus child protection, which they cap it and then versus child licensing, which they don't fund any of it's a statemandated service. So when it's not capped, Barb can submit it and it's picking up the health insurance and it's picking up the salary increases. Those other programs, they cap them and it's not picking that up. So that increase, you can say it's salary, but it's delivering the programs. They're mandating us to go very good because they're not paying for the cost of the service we're providing.

So, moving off the regular levy and talking about the regional rail authority. So, off the rails, back on the rails. Now, off the rails, now back on the rail. Uh, so our intent is to propose to bring the levy back up to 400,000. We brought it down to $200,000 last year.

obviously the Dan Patch line has a some kind of commuter rail or light rail or whatever is hated by most all, you know, whether it's you're talking Burnsville, Lakeville, Wilton, United, none of them like it. You know, they all they're very very resistant and I think that's just never going to happen. And what what everybody would like is to have that be a trail and they just would love it.

If something shifts with the transportation active sales tax at the legislature this year, which is one of them I feel they're going to target, we're stuck. This is the only way we can acquire those rail corridors.

Okay. So the operating budget for the Scott HHW MRZP uh that is uh we use a special assessment for that. Um, however, the special assessment needs to support more than just the HHW and the RZP and because our other revenue is not keeping up with our cost increases.

So it comes it's funded through the solid waste management tax. [laughter] So just keep in mind people are already paying a tax on the solid waste system and keeps right the state keeps that and we have plenty of people in the room who can correct me when I get any of [clears throat] this wrong. Um 70% of that solid waste management tax goes right into the environment the environmental fund which is not the same as the arts and cultural heritage.

Well, I would just say it's not the revenue we have from the state is not keeping up with our cost increases, right? This is same story as the levy. It's kind of we presented in the way as the special assessment is the levy for these specific programs and we're just not seeing that cost increase.

Our goal at ANC is really to extend the reach and power of each county, including Scott County, by harnessing all 87 counties in the same direction, which we've been talking about um as we talked about each of the issues ahead of us.

Counties were the only ones outside the bonding bill that saw funds. They saw funds in SNAP cost shift. Yes, they didn't pay for the whole thing. And yes, it was one time, but we saw some funds there. We saw funds in MAFA one time again, but still 14 million there. And we saw $90 million with all 201 legislators voting yes for it which is absolutely crazy for it modernization literally never happens.

LTSS waiverss and SNAP are our biggest two asks but there is something fundamentally broken in how we finance local government and that's what Julie has kind of asked and what our board will be talking about this coming week is we are the we we met with the other four local government associations who are great too but I I think we are the only ones that are putting together like a 25page briefing for gubernatorial [clears throat] candidates with some bold visions, some visions that we've already tapered down because they're too bold and hopefully don't get out in public.

And by the way, the spice, I'm never going to advocate to be a jerk, right? They might think you're a jerk because you're resolute and firm and that will change because I do think we're also truth tellers. Yeah. Like I think I don't think any of us AMC our people that are coming to these meetings are trying to make noise or political theater. It's just truth and truth and goosebumps is sexy on its own.