5. Child Support SB 2301 - Laserfiche WebLink

Supplementary Information Provided To The SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Prepared January 31, 2005 by the North Dakota Association of Counties Terry Traynor, Assistant Director DRAFT CONCERNING SENATE BILL 2301 Chairman Lee and members of the Senate Human Services Committee on , behalf of the North Dakota Association of Counties I would like to submit the following comments and proposed amendments to S82301 for your consideration. On Friday, January 28, 2005, the amendments offered by the Department of Human Services to S82301 were discussed with a group of five social service directors, a regional child support administrator, and eleven county commissioners from across the State. The reaction to the Department proposals that State law be amended to establish a permanent dedication of county property tax to directly support the Department was unfavorable. The compromises among the counties to reach enough agreement for the introduction of S82301 were significant and such radical changes were found unacceptable. I was asked to respond with the following proposal contained in the attached amendment labeled Version 1, which; ~ Eliminates the DHS cost-share on countywide cost allocation plan development, as proposed in both DHS amendments, ~ Maintains the reservation county write-down of economic assistance costs to 100% of the statewide average, ~ Provides for a four-year, rather than a two-year "freeze" of county costs as proposed in the DHS amendment #1 , ~ Calculates the counties' "frozen" costs based on expenditures as in the original bill, not on budqets, as proposed by DHS, and ~ Continues the "phase-out" of county costs at 20% per biennium, completing it in 12 rather than the 10 years of the original bill. This is the furthest that our Association feels it can go in supporting this concept of State administration of child support enforcement. The county commissioners, in discussing this issue, were gravely concerned that the original fiscal note, the anticipation of 2.5 new FTEs, and the desire to maintain significant property tax support suggests that the Department will not be able to demonstrate a cost savings, and may in fact increase costs. Their