Treasurer urges state engagement after $777,000 DSS reconciliation reduces county revenue

5411693 · July 2, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

The treasurer said Washington County faces a significant reconciliation (described in the meeting as a clawback) linked to Title 20/other social‑services funding rules; he urged supervisors to press state agencies for explanations and to seek a meeting with state fiscal officials to clarify eligibility, ceilings and reconciliation timing.

Treasurer Al told the Board that Washington County’s Department of Social Services (DSS) was affected by a sizable state reconciliation on federal/state social‑services funding that reduced county revenue and contributed to the 2024 budget pressure.

The treasurer said the reconciliation — described in discussion as a retroactive reduction sent through the state — came after the county had already prepared and presented its budget. He said the reconciliation covered a period that ended in September and that a similar reconciliation could appear again if state reporting and ceilings are applied to more recent months.

Why it matters: The reconciliation reduces expected receipts that the county budgeted against; in this case the treasurer said the related one‑time reduction was large (amounts discussed in the meeting included roughly $777,000) and that the county needs clarity from state agencies about the ceiling, eligibility rules and the timing of reconciliations so future budgets can be set with greater certainty.

The treasurer proposed the board seek direct answers from state fiscal officials (he mentioned OTDA and the state office handling Title 20‑type funding) and suggested supervisors consider arranging meetings with legislators or state agencies to get an authoritative explanation of the formulas and why the county’s claims were reduced.

The board did not act on a formal request during the session; several supervisors suggested the county contact state representatives and the commissioner’s office to request a detailed reconciliation and explanation.