A broad set of community providers urged the Dane County Health and Human Needs Committee on Thursday to reject the county-executive's proposed 4% reduction to purchase-of-service (POS) contracts, saying cuts would force staff reductions and reduce service capacity for high-need residents.

Scott Strong, executive director of Rise of Wisconsin, told the committee the proposed 4% cut would deepen workforce and cash-flow stress at nonprofit providers and urged the county to continue the county's 1/12 payment methodology. Mary Jo Olsen, director of community services at Journey Mental Health Center, said for her agency a 1% reduction translates to roughly $200,000 and would equate to about two case-manager positions and a loss of capacity to serve roughly 32 clients; she cautioned that some of her comparative cost figures referenced third-party sources. Luciana Gonzales, director of the emergency services unit at Journey, said the crisis services answered roughly 41,000 crisis calls last year and that losing two staffers would substantially reduce mobile response capacity. Linda Vanthall, president and CEO of ARC Community Services, urged transparency in contracting and asked the county to share available budget parameters when soliciting proposals.

County staff described the executive proposal and how it differs from the department's request. Director John Schluter summarized differences between the department's proposed budget and the executive's proposal including a 1% wage reduction, a $4.2 million transfer from Badger Prairie revenue, the 4% POS reduction (with an exemption for AAA case management), position reductions, a $1 million crisis triage transfer, $200,000 for Compass Clinic from opioid settlement funds, a $1.14 million CDBG defederalization, restoration of $10,000 in double dollars funding, capital improvements proposed for the Beacon, and a $10 million allocation to the affordable housing development fund.

Staff also explained planned changes to advanced-payment contracting to align with state statute. County counsel and contracts staff said state law allows a single 1/12 advance payment at the beginning of the year; if that advance exceeds $10,000 the statute requires a surety bond to protect the county. Chad Lillitham (contracts) and Assistant Corporation Counsel Susan Rowdy gave a step-by-step outline: one January advance may be issued; subsequent monthly payments would be processed on a reimbursement/expense-report basis using prior-month expense reports; final settlement would reconcile prepayments against actual expenses. Staff said the county historically prepaid multiple months for some contracts and that in the prior year prepayment practice required appropriating about $1.5 million more than underlying annual costs because of returned/unspent funds at settlement.

Speakers urged the county to work with providers on timing, to consider surety-bond options rather than abrupt eliminations of prepayments, and to phase changes where possible. Committee members asked questions about cash-flow impacts and about whether surety bonds would allow continued advances; counsel and staff said surety bonds permit advances above the statutory $10,000 threshold but the statutory one-payment limit remains. Staff said more detailed contract guidance and changes are forthcoming as internal legal and state conversations continue.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the executive budget proposals at the meeting; members were reminded of two upcoming committee meetings to consider budget amendments and deadlines for submitting proposed amendments to county staff.

Direct quotes are from transcripted public comment and staff remarks.