St. Louis County officials are coming to terms with the financial fallout from President Donald Trump’s recently passed federal budget legislation, which reduces federal support for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and could force significant property tax increases on residents here.
The legislation, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” cuts federal reimbursement for SNAP administration from 50 percent to 25 percent, creating an estimated $1.5 million annual shortfall for St. Louis County starting Oct. 1, 2026. The county currently serves about 16,000 SNAP recipients monthly.
The legislation particularly impacts Minnesota and nine other states that follow a “state-supervised, county-administered” model for SNAP, meaning cost shifts go directly to local governments rather than state agencies. St. Louis County serves as the gatekeeper for these programs, determining eligibility and managing enrollment for roughly 20 percent of county residents who receive government assistance.
Expanded work requirements add immediate pressure
Beyond the funding cuts, the legislation immediately expands work requirements for SNAP recipients, though county officials are still analyzing the full impact on their workload. The bill’s phased rollout provides some relief, giving counties more time to plan for the changes.
“We are relieved that this bill will follow a phased roll out, which provides more time for planning,” Dana Kazel, St. Louis County communications manager, said in response to questions about the county’s preparation efforts.
A third component of the SNAP changes, set to take effect in October 2027, could prove even more costly. The legislation will require counties to share benefit costs based on their error rates. With Minnesota’s current error rate of 8.98 percent, St. Louis County faces an additional $3 million burden for benefit payments – money that would previously have been covered entirely by federal funds.
County officials emphasize that errors can include both overpayments and underpayments to recipients, but the county would be financially responsible regardless of the direction of the mistake.
Limited options for response
County leadership acknowledges they have few alternatives to address the unfunded mandate. With 87 counties across Minnesota facing similar challenges, officials expect conversations with state leaders about potential intervention or support.
“We expect there will be conversation between counties and the state of Minnesota regarding roles, responsibilities and funding of these mandated services,” Kazel noted. “This certainly isn’t a situation that’s unique to St. Louis County.”
The county has been in dialogue with federal congressional leaders about the legislation’s impacts and plans to reach out to local delegation members to ensure they understand the financial pressures facing counties as a result of the newly enacted law.

Technology improvements needed
Independent of the new federal requirements, Minnesota counties have been pushing for better state technology systems to reduce administrative workload. Officials hope these improvements could help offset some of the additional burden created by the federal legislation.
County officials say they are “still reviewing and analyzing the new legislation” and will consider all options as they work through the budget process for 2026. However, the stark reality remains that counties have limited revenue sources beyond property taxes to fund the new federal mandates.
For St. Louis County residents, the legislation represents a potential double burden: reduced federal support for nutrition assistance programs that serve one-in-eight county residents, coupled with the prospect of higher property taxes to maintain service levels.
“Unfortunately, counties don’t have a lot of options for raising revenue outside of the property tax levy. Raising the levy is obviously something we don’t want to do because we’re always mindful of how that affects our residents and businesses,” Kazel said. “But we also don’t want to cut services, because that has negative impacts, too. So, the county board and leadership team have a lot to consider as we work to follow these new federal requirements.”
The county’s total estimated impact from the federal bill exceeds $10 million annually – equivalent to a 9.5 percent property tax levy increase if no other solutions are found.