SNAP Costs Hit Counties       11/12 10:16

   Rural Counties Urge Republicans to Negotiate SNAP Costs in Farm Bill

   A Minnesota county commissioner and agriculturalist is urging Congress to 
resolve SNAP cost-sharing disputes in the farm bill, calling on Republicans to 
negotiate a delay before higher federal costs further strain rural county 
budgets.

Jake Zajkowski
DTN Ag Policy Editor

   WASHINGTON (DTN) -- Steve Schmitt knows the farm bill well. His father 
farmed, and he now transports grain, builds silos and sells seed in Meeker 
County, Minnesota.

   He has seen farm bills move quickly and others stall for years, as both Farm 
Bureau and the county corn growers association. 

   While passage of E15 and other provisions are priorities for him, at the top 
of his list, when it comes to his own tax dollars and those of the county he 
represents as a county commissioner, is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP).

   Minnesota is one of 10 states where counties administer SNAP. Those counties 
now face higher administrative costs under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

   "Any cost shift to the state of Minnesota, in essence, is a cost shift to 
county government," he said. "We only have 24,000 residents, so these are real 
dollars, and as these shifts flow down to us."

   Beginning Oct. 1, 2026, the federal share of SNAP administrative costs fell 
from 50% to 25%, leaving states responsible for the remaining 75%, regardless 
of their payment error rates. Schmitt recognizes that some of the additional 
costs are already unavoidable.

   But Schmitt and thousands of county commissioners across the country are 
backing Senate Democrats' push for a two-year delay in the SNAP benefit 
cost-sharing requirements set to take effect in 2027. They want Senate 
Republicans to join the effort.

   Beginning Oct. 1, 2027, states with payment error rates of 6% or higher will 
begin paying a share of SNAP benefit costs. Their share will increase with 
their error rates.

   Meeker County has already calculated next year's cost. 

   The county expects to pay an additional $135,000 in SNAP administrative 
costs in 2027. In 2028, when the county absorbs a full year of the additional 
costs, that figure will reach $350,000. That increase alone represents more 
than three points on the county's property tax levy.

   "If they (Congress) see a county commissioner right now from the state of 
Minnesota, they pretty much know that it's about SNAP," he said.

   The additional costs are forcing Minnesota counties to make difficult budget 
decisions. This fall, counties are setting property tax levies at levels not 
seen since the 2008 financial crisis. About 85% of Meeker County's budget goes 
toward state-mandated spending, leaving just 15% for parks, libraries and other 
public services.

   "When the county government has to cut something, it cuts to the bone pretty 
quick. I mean, there's not a lot of fat on the bone, and to trim off," Schmitt 
said.

   He remembers discussing the food stamp program around the kitchen table with 
his father as a kid, including how the community used it and its connection to 
the farm bill.

   Today, those conversations center on what SNAP will cost his community and 
how many are being kicked off of it.

   The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 5.5 million fewer 
people will receive benefits because of eligibility changes since 2025. A USDA 
proposed rule released Monday would further reduce enrollment by eliminating 
broad-based categorical eligibility by 2029, potentially affecting another 6.3 
million people.

   Schmitt did not expect the farm bill to create additional financial pressure 
for his county and harm his community.

   FARM BILL NEGOTIATIONS

   SNAP cost-sharing remains the farm bill's biggest sticking point. Nearly all 
other titles have been agreed upon, aside from several outstanding amendments.

   More Republicans are signaling openness to negotiations. Sens. Chuck 
Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim Justice, R-W.Va., have expressed interest in talks 
and a possible two-year delay in SNAP requirements.

   But Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., has not 
indicated a shift in the Republican position. He told DTN on Monday that 
"everything's on the table" and Republicans are negotiating in good faith.

   "I don't know if we can get it done or not, but it won't be for lack of 
trying, I think on both sides," he said.

   SHOULD THE STATE STEP IN?

   How much of the additional costs reach counties depends on each state's 
funding structure.

   Ten states administer SNAP at the county level: California, Colorado, 
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia 
and Wisconsin.

   Several have provided one-time general fund appropriations in fiscal 2027 to 
help counties manage the administrative cost increases. Colorado, Wisconsin and 
New Jersey have allocated state funding to offset some of those costs, while 
New York and North Carolina have passed the increases entirely to counties.

   The New York State Association of Counties estimates counties will face an 
additional $168 million in annual expenses. That leaves local governments with 
few options: raise property taxes or reduce services. Some counties already 
operate under property tax caps, further limiting their options.

   "Counties see one-time state appropriations as a bridge, not a long-term 
solution," said Emma Conover, associate legislative director for human services 
and education at the National Association of Counties.

   She said one-time appropriations can help counties fund system upgrades to 
reduce payment error rates but do not cover recurring administrative expenses. 
A congressional delay would give counties more time to make those investments 
before also having to budget for the downstream benefit cost shift.

   Minnesota offers a middle-ground example.

   In May, state lawmakers approved a one-time allocation of $10.728 million to 
help counties cover additional SNAP administrative costs. However, that falls 
well short of the estimated $35 million in annual administrative expenses 
counties must absorb.

   Whether Minnesota provides additional assistance will depend on state 
finances and politics.

   "Unfortunately, in the state of Minnesota, the way the state budget 
shortfalls are looking over the next couple years, the next biennium, the state 
is not in a position to do that, and or probably doesn't really have a 
willingness because we're a DFL state," he said.

   States will have to continue exploring how to absorb the additional costs 
being shifted from Washington.

   MINNESOTA'S ERROR RATE

   Minnesota lawmakers approved some system modernization measures this year, 
but the changes will take time to implement and lower the state's payment error 
rate.

   Minnesota's current rate is hovering around 9%.

   The rate measures how accurately states determine household eligibility and 
benefit amounts, including both overpayments and underpayments.

   State agencies randomly select households for audits, examining eligibility 
and benefit calculations. In Minnesota, reviewers examine an average of 100 
cases each month, while USDA reviews a subsample to validate the state's 
findings.

   County-level samples can be much smaller, sometimes involving just one file 
and other times five, Schmitt explained.

   That means a single overpayment in a one-file sample can produce a 100% 
county error rate. The statewide rate, however, is calculated using statistical 
analysis of the reviews rather than simply averaging county percentages.

   "If the state fails, we all fail. All 87 counties fail," he said.

   Larger counties, which serve more recipients and administer benefits on a 
much larger scale, face their own challenges in reducing error rates. Rural 
counties face different obstacles, including limited staffing and 
administrative capacity.

   "Counties believe that all states should benefit from a delay, and the same 
opportunity to improve systems, communicate eligibility changes, and ultimately 
lower payment error rates (PERs), especially in rural counties, where capacity 
and staffing can be limited, extra time to implement system changes can be 
critical in improving PERs and continuing to serve constituents," the National 
Association of Counties told DTN.

   "In two years, we should be able to be in a much better place than we are 
today," Schmitt said.

   National Association of Counties Brief on SNAP:

   
https://www.naco.org/resource/hr-1-and-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program
-snap-what-counties-should-know

   Jake Zajkowski can be reached at jake.zajkowski@dtn.com

   Follow him on social platform X @jzajkow




(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.