Clay County social-services director warns governor’s budget would shift millions in costs to counties; board directs staff to notify state leaders

Clay County Social Services staff provided a detailed briefing on April 22 about how the governor’s proposed budget changes would affect county finances and operations, and the county board voted to ask staff to send a formal letter to state leadership outlining local impacts.

Quinn, who leads the county’s social‑services work, explained the principal cost shifts in the governor’s plan: a 5% county share on certain disability‑waiver residential services (projected at about $1.23 million for Clay County under 2025 usage), an increase in the county share for the Minnesota Offender Treatment Program, and a proposed increase from 22.95% to 50% for counties’ share of targeted substance‑use treatment (the behavioral health fund). Quinn said certain current administrative allocations could be eliminated entirely under the proposal, increasing net county costs.

Quinn also reviewed the Minnesota African American Family Preservation Act (MAFPA) implementation requirements and estimated the county would need multiple new positions and reporting capacity to meet the law’s active‑efforts and case‑review requirements; the county estimated an initial staffing-and‑operations cost in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars if implemented abruptly, and recommended a phased, funded implementation instead.

Why it matters: Many of the proposed changes are service‑driven and therefore “unavoidable” costs — they scale with client needs rather than with county discretion. Commissioners said the proposed changes would increase Clay County’s levy unless the state provides funding. Commissioner Paul Mogile moved that county staff prepare and send a letter to the governor and legislative leaders outlining the county’s projected fiscal impacts; the board approved the motion.

What the county asked staff to include: Commissioners asked that the letter quantify the projected levy impacts, list the proposed programmatic shifts and include other related costs (for example, the potential local share of paid-family‑leave and other employer mandate changes). County staff indicated they would work with department heads to prepare a concise summary for state lawmakers and the governor’s office.

Context and next steps: Quinn emphasized uncertainty around the House and Senate budget proposals and federal timelines; the county will continue to refine its figures as lawmakers negotiate final budgets. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to press the county’s case with the Association of Minnesota Counties and with local legislators. No immediate program cuts were adopted at the meeting.