Carver County officials begin early review of 2026 budget, warn of state cost shifts that could raise levy

Carver County Board Chair Tom Workman and County Administrator Hemsey opened an early workshop on the county’s 2026 budget on the county’s service-delivery and levy (property-tax) choices, saying uncertainty from recent state budget proposals makes planning difficult.

The county framed the session as an educational first step focused on the general levy—property taxes that fund county services—and on separating mandated services from discretionary, levy-funded programs. Administrator Hemsey said the “keyword here will be uncertainty” and told commissioners the county will follow a multi-step calendar for public hearings and staff recommendations before any levy decision.

Why it matters: County staff told commissioners the board faces a possible combination of state actions that could increase costs borne by the county and therefore the levy. Heather, a county staff member who briefed the board on legislative developments, said proposals under consideration at the state level could shift costs for services for persons with disabilities and for placements at the Anoka Regional Treatment Center onto counties. Depending on how proposals and negotiations roll together, she said the county could face a cost shift from roughly $750,000 up to about $1.6 million for one set of waiver and fee changes, and an estimated $835,000 annually if the June 30 relief for Anoka placements is not extended.

Details and process: Finance Director Dave Frishman reminded commissioners that the county’s total 2025 budget was about $254 million and that roughly $75 million of that is covered by the county levy; operations, health-and-human-services and roads take the largest shares. Staff said they will separate mandated services (those required by law), operations/overhead, and non-mandated services (discretionary programs funded by levy) and present estimates of how different cuts or choices would affect services and overhead.

Hemsey and Frishman outlined a calendar: staff will return with additional financial detail in weeks, hold additional work sessions in June and August, and present the administrator’s recommended preliminary levy and budget in September. Hemsey emphasized the board would set a preliminary levy in September that can be lowered but not raised later in the process.

Policy and legislative risks: Heather told the board the governor’s budget includes proposed cost shifts—one example being a proposed 5% county cost share for certain residential supports for persons with disabilities (the Senate proposal is smaller, the House proposes a different approach tied to rate exceptions). Heather said, depending on the final mix of bills, the county’s exposure for that single area ranges from about $750,000 to $1.6 million. She also said earlier legislative relief for placements at Anoka Regional Treatment Center is scheduled to end June 30 unless the legislature acts; if not extended, the county’s estimated annual cost for two persons would be about $835,000 (about $2,320 per day per person).

Commissioner feedback and context: Commissioners thanked staff for early work and emphasized the need for a transparent public process. Commissioners raised trade-offs—public safety and prosecution, parks, libraries and road projects were repeatedly cited as high priorities that would be difficult to cut. Several commissioners urged the board to consider multi-year efficiency and revenue strategies in addition to one-time asset sales. Commissioners also noted the political sensitivity of cost shifts: many services that would be shifted to county property taxpayers may not generate visible constituent outcry because the services for residents would continue unchanged while property-tax bills rise.

Next steps: Staff will return with more detailed calculations of levy impact per percentage point (staff noted 1% of the 2025 levy equals roughly $1.5 million), estimated impacts on the average home, and proposed public engagement steps. The board directed staff to proceed with the planned calendar and to provide more detail on service definitions and overhead allocation before the board considers prioritization or cuts.

Ending: Chair Workman and administrators framed the exercise as a chance for organizational learning and public education as the board prepares more detailed fiscal choices later in 2025.