Transparent Oversight of Unfunded Mandates

Making Sherburne County Taxpayers Full Partners in Knowing What Their Dollars Fund

A Position Paper by Michael Tonsager, Candidate for Sherburne County Auditor.

As Sherburne County voters prepare to elect our next County Auditor, public confidence depends on more than accurate books and lawful elections. It depends on whether residents can see, in plain language, why their property taxes rise and what those dollars actually buy. County leaders have been clear in 2026 budget hearings: a large share of new levy pressure comes from state and federal mandates that the County must administer without full funding. Taxpayers deserve a regular, official accounting of those costs—not occasional remarks at a town hall.

The Problem Residents Already Hear About

At budget presentations and town halls this summer, Sherburne County officials explained that state and federal unfunded and underfunded mandates are driving personnel costs, program expenses, and levy increases for 2027. Programs identified in public reporting include the Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act (MAAFPCWDA), long-term services and supports, home- and community-based services waivers, and federal cost shifts tied to Medical Assistance eligibility work and SNAP administration.

A concrete example was offered at the County’s budget forum on Thursday, August 27, 2026. County Administrator Bruce Messelt stated that the County had tested the 2027 requirements of MAAFPCWDA for one family in Sherburne County, and that the costs associated with that single family case were $500,000. Whether that figure is a full-year projection, a staffing-loaded estimate, or a worst-case implementation cost, it is exactly the kind of information residents should not have to attend a meeting to hear once. It should appear, with context and methodology, in regular public reporting from the County’s chief financial and election officer.

When a mandate of this scale is described as “tested” on one family at a half-million dollars, two conclusions follow. First, the County must implement the law as written and cannot wish the cost away. Second, the public is entitled to know before levy decisions harden how many cases are expected, what the state is actually sending, and how large the local gap will be. It is a decision to leave taxpayers guessing.

Why This Belongs in the Auditor’s Office

The County Auditor is not the County Board and does not set policy or refuse lawful mandates. The Auditor’s duty is to keep the official financial record, administer the property-tax system, certify levies, and give the public a trustworthy picture of how money moves. Minnesota Statutes chapter 384 charges the county auditor with financial recordkeeping and related official duties. The property-tax system the Auditor administers is the mechanism through which unfunded mandate costs become a line on a homeowner’s statement.

That role gives the Auditor a unique platform—and a unique obligation. Residents do not need another political speech about St. Paul or Washington. They need a recurring, county-level disclosure that answers simple questions: Which mandates are driving new costs? What did the state or federal government require? What funding arrived? What is the local remainder? How does that remainder compare with the proposed levy increase?

The Remedy: A Public Mandate Cost Ledger

If elected County Auditor, I will make transparent oversight of unfunded and underfunded mandates a standing practice of the office. The goal is not to litigate every program. The goal is to put the same facts in front of every resident that department heads already put in front of the Board.

That practice will include:

• An annual Unfunded and Underfunded Mandate Summary published with the County’s budget and levy cycle, written for residents rather than only for internal workshops.

• A clear listing of each major mandate affecting Sherburne County, the legal source, the implementation date, the County’s estimated cost, the amount of state or federal aid received, and the remaining local share.

• Plain-language explanations of high-impact items such as MAAFPCWDA statewide implementation in 2027, including any pilot or test-case results the administration has already shared publicly such as the August 27 statement that 2027 requirements applied to one family carried a $500,000 cost.

• A short “What your levy is buying” note tied to property-tax administration, so that when residents open a truth-in-taxation notice they can see how much of the increase is attributed to mandates versus local service choices.

• Regular updates when estimates change, rather than a single figure offered once at a forum and then left off the public record.

• Cooperation with the County Board and Administrator to use consistent numbers, while preserving the Auditor’s independence to report the figures as they stand even when they are uncomfortable.

What Transparency Is—and Is Not

Transparency does not mean the Auditor can repeal a state statute or decline a federal eligibility rule. Counties remain mandated to administer human-services programs. Transparency also does not mean attacking the purpose of every program. County officials themselves have said programs such as MAAFPCWDA are intended to help families. The question for the Auditor is narrower and more practical: Are residents being told the price of the requirement, the size of the state contribution, and the local tax consequence?

Nor is this a substitute for the Board’s budget authority. Commissioners decide the levy. The Auditor’s contribution is an official, repeatable public record so that those decisions occur in daylight. When Administrator Messelt and commissioners describe double-digit human-services cost pressure and statewide levy averages near ten percent, that context should travel with the numbers onto a page every taxpayer can find.

Strengthening Trust in Sherburne County Finances

Sherburne County residents are being asked to fund 2027 requirements they did not vote on locally. Some of those requirements may be wise policy. All of them become property-tax policy the moment the state or federal government underfunds the work and leaves the County to close the gap. The only honest response from the Auditor’s office is to measure that gap and publish it.

A half-million-dollar test case for one family is not a footnote. It is a warning that implementation costs can be concentrated, poorly understood, and easy to understate until they appear in a levy. Regular communication of that kind of information will be a cornerstone of my work as County Auditor. Protecting the public’s right to know what their tax dollars are used for is not partisan. It is the job.

I am committed to implementing this reporting practice if elected County Auditor so that no Sherburne County resident has to wonder whether the next tax increase is a local choice or an invoice from somewhere else.