Commissioners vote to send SNAP advocacy letter citing nearly $2 million in potential county cost shifts

The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted May 12 to send an advocacy letter to House leadership urging negotiators in the conference committee on Senate File 4612 to retain county protections against SNAP administrative cost shifts and a related federal error-rate fiscal penalty.

Quinn, a county staff member who presented the item, told the board the proposed changes at the state level risk shifting roughly $392,137 in SNAP administrative funding losses and $1,532,831 in error-rate penalty exposure to Clay County based on the county’s $15,000,000 in SNAP administration last year. "These two combined represent nearly $2,000,000 in potential direct cost shifts to local county property taxpayers," Quinn said, asking the board to authorize sending an attached advocacy letter encouraging support for retaining and strengthening county protections during conference negotiations.

Commissioners questioned how the penalty would be calculated and who would bear the cost if the state’s federal error rate triggers a fiscal penalty. Quinn explained the penalty is assessed based on the state’s overall error rate: "If it's 5% or lower, there wouldn't be any fiscal penalty at all… Minnesota's error rate is hovering right at that 10% range," Quinn said, adding that, because there is currently no mechanism to prorate the state payment to individual counties differently, counties could be assigned a share of any liability based on their share of SNAP administration.

Board members who spoke praised county eligibility staff for maintaining a low local error rate. The chair and several commissioners noted Clay County’s reported error rate of about 1.68%, which they said demonstrates strong local administration and would make a county-level cost allocation appear inequitable. Several commissioners warned that shifting the cost to the county levy would either increase taxes or require cuts to existing services.

Commissioner Bair moved to send the letter (with two additions the chair requested); Commissioner Ebinger seconded the motion. The board approved the motion by voice vote.

The action is procedural: the board authorized sending the county’s advocacy letter to House leadership and, per the motion, to members of the conference committee. The letter itself, as described to the board, asks legislators to preserve language in Senate File 4612 that would prevent the two identified cost shifts from falling solely on counties during final negotiations.

Next steps: staff will prepare the amended letter with the requested additions and transmit it to the named legislative contacts and members of the conference committee.