State Legislators have made
many successful efforts to reduce property taxes in North Dakota over the last
few sessions. Now, going forward, an interim committee is tasked with looking
at an area that could lead to one of the most logical tax relief efforts. The
Interim Political Subdivision Taxation Committee along with a working group are
studying county social service funding in order to develop a funding formula
for the transferring of the entire cost of county social services to the state.
If the plan ultimately meets Legislative approval, property taxpayers would no
longer be responsible for covering the county social service budgets- resulting
in true property tax relief.
NDACo’s Assistant Director of
Policy and Programs, Terry Traynor, testified before the committee. His
presentation emphasized how property tax reform, as well as relief, can be
accomplished through this initiative. The message that seems to resonate with
legislators is that property tax is a “poor fit” for funding social services.
“Many other local services
can more easily be related to the value of a person’s property; like fire
protection, police, road and street maintenance, parks and recreation,” Traynor
said. “Social services are more of a stretch. Yet, social services consumes a
large portion of the total budget for many counties. In addition, counties have
little authority over the spending on social services as a majority of the
services are mandated by state and federal rules.”
The biggest argument for
reform however is how the current system levies a very unequal burden among
property owners. Traynor provided lawmakers with three examples of homes for
sale of roughly equal value in Mercer, Cass and Ramsey counties to compare what
the owners have paid in the past for social services. The owner of a $300,000
home in Ramsey County paid 4.5 times as much in property taxes to support
Social Service taxes than someone with a similarly valued home in Mercer
County.
“That’s why we think this is
true reform,” said Traynor.
The Legislature took an
initial step in providing tax relief and reform through social services by
taking over the cost of grant and program costs for foster care, adoption and
other programs. That move totaled $8.5 million in county costs, or about 12% of
the county social service spending. What remains is largely staff costs. With
the exception of $3 million in local option services, most costs are driven
directly by federal and state required services.
For at least 30 years, counties
have been urging the Legislature to reduce the property tax burden of social
services. Traynor provided insight to how this could be accomplished. Approximately
$110-$120 million would be used to reimburse county costs of state programs
including salaries, benefits and space on a caseload/workload basis. The
reimbursements should also recognize the cost differences due to county size
and rural nature. He highlighted the most important factors of: counties
retaining their current administrative role, no counties should see a decrease
in funding and maintaining provisions are included for “local-option” services.
“We need to recognize the
funding counties are providing for local services like food banks and in-home
health care, and ensure that these necessary local services do not erode. We
can’t deprive people of services at the local level,” Traynor added.
Legislators shared many
questions and concerns. Most of the questions focused on the efficient delivery
of services. Traynor addressed their concerns by highlighting how counties have
found and continue to look for efficiencies in delivering social services.
Nearly every county shares some kind of social service resource. Traynor
pointed out that as a funding formula is developed it should provide incentives
for counties who do find efficiencies or share resources where appropriate.
Overall, the state and
counties together spend $3.1 Billion in a biennium on human services. The state
spends $3 Billion and counties spend $120 million. Traynor pointed out that the
state has a tremendous investment in this area; the county share is a small,
but critical, portion.