[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6643912,"mediaKeyId","2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360","parentId",2531519,"title","Counties warn obsolete state IT—SSIS and MAXIS—threatens child protection, benefits administration and workforce retention","audioSeconds",1160,"startMs",3190000,"endMs",4350000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360&start=3190&end=4350","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360/thumbnail_3190000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6643912/Minnesota/Counties-warn-obsolete-state-ITSSIS-and-MAXISthreatens-child-protection-benefits-administration-and-workforce-retention","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643912-a64a1aa0cb933ce5808fa38d5a2e27ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1775463690&Signature=iszPyeiRXENnkELHmZxiE6bBt07Z52N0ctL6nROvV~-WiwxK4drDk5N5oRfeQzc1UeoinvKftN299d7BJ1CZtfze4vVZxSoG4FgHvRRjQdvwLI6A33N41CF8DznW6Gy3FZF5do8aiD~GQEjo-hDV~RpezwpQZzLebUCgZPabf90eMbJR~eskql0XnQY0Y9GVxr4vYoDBD2MeNxgKJED2sSiI9mp84n9hRC7ZSvfQ~tf2~0-fXPU8Lq73rNevrvmjVrBCpO1a9NzQEPFg-ymTjGbyDZLpInWn2GHIS2c3n9egNAh5yCZfqu-4-biTahygQJhyE0h-Vhu4zSS2w7H5CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Legislature","date","2025-03-10T18:39:52.223Z","article","Representatives of Minnesota’s counties told the House Ways and Means Committee that aging state information systems used to administer benefits and child‑welfare casework are creating operational risks, extra costs and staff retention problems across the state.

Speakers from the Association of Minnesota Counties and the Minnesota Inter‑County Association described a broad set of state legacy systems—MAXIS (longstanding benefits engine), SSIS (Social Services Information System), MMIS and others—and asked the legislature to prioritize funding for modernization.

County staff described daily operational burdens. Nadir Abdi, director of employment and economic assistance for Dakota County, said workers must navigate scores of legacy ‘‘panels’’ and that completing a single case can require entering data into about 40 separate screens. He said new staff require 12 to 18 months of training to become proficient, which exacerbates retention problems when employees leave after a short period.

Scott County child‑protection supervisor Samantha Goldman described frequent outages, slow responses and redundant data entry in SSIS. She said the system’s poor usability affects families because workers sometimes cannot pull full case histories at intake. Goldman described a case in which a worker initially lacked historical information because SSIS was down and later discovered prior serious child‑welfare history when the system came back online.

The counties quantified impacts and asked for prioritized funding. Presenters said SSIS modernization has been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars range—presenters cited roughly $80 million to $100 million for SSIS alone—and that MAXIS and other system modernization work increases total costs markedly. Representatives at the table urged using available “modernization” funds and federal matching dollars where possible.

County officials also connected system failures to broader fiscal pressures. Association representatives outlined how proposed state cost shifts in human‑services areas would likely fall to counties and be financed primarily through property taxes; they said moving more costs to counties without modern systems and additional resources would amplify local funding pressure.

Why it matters
Counties administer the state’s social safety net, property tax collection and many local services. Obsolete core systems that slow casework and increase training time create direct costs (workers’ time, outage impacts), risk compliance and reduce capacity to implement major statutory changes—such as recent child‑welfare provisions—on schedule.

What the committee heard and next steps
County representatives asked lawmakers to prioritize SSIS and MAXIS modernization, to consider federal reimbursement possibilities and to coordinate investments with planned pilots and statutory deadlines (including implementation timelines for recently enacted child‑welfare changes). Presenters said some funding was set aside in the 2023 session and asked for additional commitments; they also recommended that committees coordinate so modernization supports statutory implementation timelines.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Ways and Means Committee 3/10/25","oneSentenceSummary","County officials told the House Ways and Means Committee that decades‑old state systems, including MAXIS and SSIS, are slowing casework, increasing training burdens and risking service interruptions; counties asked the legislature to prioritize modernization funding.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MN, Minnesota","taxId",77817,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6643917,"Committee advances constitutional amendment proposal to return large surpluses to taxpayers; roll call 14–11",3136,2041000,5177000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360&start=2041&end=5177","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360/thumbnail_2041000.jpg","/articles/6643917/Minnesota/Committee-advances-constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-return-large-surpluses-to-taxpayers-roll-call-1411","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643917-6b0d42ee988b80379355d72a6f8cf299/orig.mp4?Expires=1775463690&Signature=Oq0JwUTiwbRWneysf5P0L4zghP3xBaNMv7Wt6xXOvnEwnzp6fMmCh-d7EB~S2Nn0iJFzFALjEIm8muz2ZhuTLXYR9rMDJejlmzuhx54NRpa~cGGIpoxWvDEF8Emi06HQKr24kMTqJP4dV6ISq1EINA5pgAdeYXaAEcRgzbO43y9hxXGhsCGZLuhAgLBiskHvRyu8NVBcEJBGEmbNGlrp5YS9L7Ghy90j8zZXc6u4QNXnmooek5TZtYOpHNyOMeCgAWkVlt8BuVDXo1b6nY5IEG2XfOeQvwagiK3tWILjDfqsPBYPAnCQM-T6c9I02knnnu-oDj5s9NBse~KYmVmWRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Ways and Means Committee voted 14–11 to advance House File 4, a proposal to amend the state constitution to require that a portion of any large unrestricted general fund surplus be returned to specified taxpayers.

Representative Johnson, sponsor of the proposal, described the bill as “a simple fiscally conservative bill” that would return a portion of any large surplus to the taxpayers who “are responsible for funding that surplus.” The DE amendment debated in committee specifies the use of the November forecast to trigger the calculation and sets a 5% revenue surplus window intended to allow the legislature to retain a portion to guard against future shortfalls.

Opponents argued the proposal would exclude many Minnesotans who do not pay income tax or direct property taxes—particularly low-income seniors who rely on Social Security and renters—and would shift pressure onto the property tax base if state programs are subsequently underfunded. Representative Gomez and others noted that sales taxes are paid broadly by consumers and are not covered by the bill’s refund mechanism as drafted.

Detailed committee debate
Members asked whether refunds would be distributed by income tax liability, property tax payments or another mechanism. Representative Johnson said the draft is intended to send money back to people who paid income tax and property taxes and that tracking sales-tax contributors would be difficult. Opponents said the approach would omit renters, some seniors and low-income households who nonetheless contribute through sales taxes.

Several members asked whether the constitutional language and choice of the November forecast created legal or operational ambiguity. Nonpartisan staff said the proposed constitutional language appears to refer to “the current budget biennium” under existing statutes but also warned the constitutional text is not fully precise about which forecast or biennium would govern distribution mechanics.

Roll call and committee action
The committee adopted the DE amendment and then voted to place House File 4 on the general register. The committee legislative assistant read a roll call; the recorded vote in the transcript was 14 ayes and 11 nays and the chair announced the bill passed out of committee by that margin.

Why it matters
If enacted by voters, the amendment would change constitutional requirements for handling large, unrestricted general fund surpluses and could constrain future legislative flexibility over budgeting and reserve policies. Members on both sides said the measure raises distributional and fiscal-reserve questions that would need to be worked out if the constitutional question moves forward.

What the committee did not resolve
Committee members debated forecasts, the choice of the November forecast and whether the constitutional text would bind future legislatures if forecasting law or timing changed. The transcript does not show implementing statutes that would define how refunds would be calculated and distributed to taxpayers, nor does it show language limiting the types of taxpayers who could receive refunds beyond the sponsor’s floor statements.","House File 4, a proposed constitutional amendment to require returning a portion of large state surpluses to certain taxpayers, cleared the Ways and Means Committee after adoption of a DE amendment and a 14–11 roll-call vote to place the bill on the general register.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6643923,"Ways and Means advances bill to restore $4 million a year for pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes",1037,68000,1105000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360&start=68&end=1105","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531519-eb2b99548e91f361f41b98366adcd360/thumbnail_68000.jpg","/articles/6643923/Minnesota/Ways-and-Means-advances-bill-to-restore-4-million-a-year-for-pregnancy-resource-centers-and-maternity-homes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6643923-450dd7fb321ca1b28c27783a94895e87/orig.mp4?Expires=1775463690&Signature=mFbSEqT5J6nT~3P10fM21PlQ9CMFdGIynZPJM41LQ6yE4RcKKQuPPNcmSO8SFoiMS9A3dtPsq68bWTXwso2yPRXgms0ATYSxA8vWQFD2c8FfaMDNFUakSOllrmo9j4xmLVtQ0Zen-JvSKjTe4yPRWjGsE5KwdD8TIMS4hV7~P2FaQXm1bjVr~jNNkhK1u5k59p7v-pjhDQKXZDaYy7-61FMME3FFUgjIOMt03uJ~OgPHXP0TIgosGKMWgjnbsMGX0tOuFJyIaTRfNLPXCyAA9s5ptOnXfN298DH4~837l5cyFD0MgQbBjEi8gEqsllkMLU5qcoRxAZR15hs9B7qE2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Ways and Means Committee advanced House File 25 on a voice vote after a morning presentation by the bill’s author.

Representative Zalesnikar, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the measure “restores the $4,000,000 per year as positive alternative grants with $3,000,000 for pregnancy resource centers and $1,000,000 for maternity homes.” She described the proposal as restoring funding that she said had existed for 17 years before being ended in 2023.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how grant recipients are staffed, how medical issues would be handled and how the grants would be audited and monitored.

Representative Bierman asked what a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) would do if a woman presented with symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy. Representative Zalesnikar answered that a provider “would give the information that they know, and refer them if they wanted to go to the hospital or for further evaluation.”

Representative Gomez pressed the author on whether the grants would pay for physicians working at CPCs. Representative Zalesnikar said the grants “are established and given out like they have been for 17 years” and that recipients include pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes; she said some physicians who work with centers are volunteers and that “they are credentialed.”

Several members raised concerns about oversight, privacy and fraud prevention. Representative Kotyza-Witthuhn said she was “curious” why the bill had not been routed through the Office of Grants Management or a fraud oversight committee and said the proposal appeared to leave enforcement and penalties unspecified. Representative Zalesnikar replied that third-party audits and program evaluations had been used in prior grant cycles and cited past evaluations performed by organizations such as the Wilder Foundation.

Representative Barrack directed the committee to the bill’s privacy provisions and cited the Minnesota Health Records Act. He said the bill contains privacy and chapter 13 protections and urged members to read the language that requires referrals to medical care when a woman’s life is in danger.

Supporters emphasized the services provided by the centers beyond counseling, including parenting education, car seats, and short-term housing services at maternity homes. Representative Lozakar said the grants could fund programs for fathers, nutrition education, parenting classes and material assistance.

Committee action and clarification
The committee’s chair moved House File 25 to the general register and the motion was approved by voice vote; the bill was advanced from the committee. The committee did not record a roll-call tally in committee for that motion in the transcript.

Why it matters
The bill addresses state funding for pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes and focuses committee attention on how state grant dollars are spent, what oversight is required for providers that are not licensed medical clinics, and what protections exist for privacy and medical emergencies. Members on both sides raised questions about the scope of services the grants would support and whether the state’s existing grant-management practices are sufficient.

What the transcript shows and what it does not
Committee discussion focused on programmatic oversight, medical referral protocols and third-party auditing. Committee members repeatedly pressed for detail about whether grants would support paid medical staff, whether centers would be required to have licensed clinicians present, and how the Department of Health or an outside auditor would monitor grant recipients. The transcript does not record an implementation plan or specific language changes beyond the sponsorship statements; it does not show a final, enacted statute or department guidance.","The House Ways and Means Committee advanced House File 25, a bill to restore $4 million annually to \"positive alternative\" grants for pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes, and heard detailed questions about medical oversight, privacy and grant auditing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Counties warn obsolete state IT—SSIS and MAXIS—threatens child protection, benefits administration and workforce retention

Committee advances constitutional amendment proposal to return large surpluses to taxpayers; roll call 14–11

Ways and Means advances bill to restore $4 million a year for pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes