Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Federal Budget Impacts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County reviews potential state and federal budget changes; local public health and social services flagged for cuts

5071252 · June 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County officials warned of possible reductions in federal pass‑throughs and state support that could reduce local public‑health emergency preparedness funds by about $92,000–$100,000 and could affect Medicaid‑related reimbursements, ADRC funding and SNAP‑education programs; staff will prepare program‑level implications for committee review.

Committee members heard a preliminary briefing on evolving state and federal budget actions and potential impacts on Marathon County programs.

The county administrator and staff cautioned that federal reconciliation and state budget negotiations remain uncertain. Staff identified public‑health emergency preparedness (PHEP) funding as the clearest near‑term risk: a state pass‑through to local health departments was cited at $5,200,000 statewide in recent years, and staff used Marathon County’s population share (about 2.3%) to estimate a local reduction in the $92,000–$100,000 range if allocations are reduced.

Other potential impacts flagged include: - State and federal changes to Medicaid and mandatory health spending may affect reimbursements to social services and North Central Health Care (NCHC) programs that rely on Medicaid/Medicare funding. - SNAP‑Ed and other preventive public‑health programs are vulnerable to federal reductions; local delivery frequently depends on state pass‑throughs and University of Wisconsin Extension partnerships. - ADRC funding concerns: the ADRC joint agreement limits levy increases unless all participating counties agree, so local options to backfill cuts are constrained.

Several supervisors asked staff to prepare program‑level analyses that show which services and positions would be affected under plausible cut scenarios and to identify potential county funding choices. Sam and administration staff said they will provide a “mandatory/discretionary program” document to committees and, where possible, estimate program‑level impacts for affected departments (health, social services, emergency management). The county intends to monitor state and federal developments and to return to committees with concrete numbers as proposals crystallize.

No committee action was taken; staff were asked to track developments, produce the program breakdowns, and present recommendations if funding reductions materialize.