Kane County might assume more child support costs from state
Kane County is on the verge of accepting an IOU to perform child support collection services for the state of up to $1.3 million.
But counting on state officials to pay their debts has county board Chairman Chris Lauzen uneasy. Local taxpayers are on the hook if the state fails to reimburse the county for its efforts.
So State's Attorney Joe McMahon and Chief Judge Susan Clancy Boles asked the county board's executive committee this week to fund its administrative costs for child support collections - costs that normally are covered by state and federal funds - through June 30, 2017. The request skipped the normal monthlong committee process in favor of expedited final consideration next Tuesday.
The state already has failed to pay any of the money it owes Kane County for child support collection this state fiscal year. That's a $655,000 outstanding debt Kane County taxpayers fronted. Last month, McMahon and Lauzen signed off on renewing the child support collection contract with the state for the new state fiscal year, which begins July 1. The promise for state funding in the new contract is the same as the one that went unfilled for all of the previous contract.
If unpaid again, local tax dollars will have fronted about $1.3 million. That potential debt is incurred only if the full county board approves the funding request by McMahon and Boles next week.
There are 7,230 child support enforcement cases pending in Kane County. If the county board doesn't agree to fund the collection efforts, that duty falls back to the state.
Boles said even then the county would incur financial and ethical costs. The current wait for a child support enforcement hearing is seven to 10 days. When the state handled local child support enforcement the waiting time was 10 to 11 weeks.
Boles said many single parents will choose to represent themselves in court if the county chooses not to help them. That will increase the burden on the county's law library.
On the back end, more judges and courtroom personnel will be needed to sort through the accounting and financial information involved in child support cases. McMahon's staff does much of that legwork now via the state contract. Boles said everyone loses in the scenario.
"The effect on the families would be astronomical," Boles said. "The trickle-down effect (to the county) would be astronomical, not only in manpower, but in dollars."
Lauzen said the negative impact to local families who rely on child support is undeniable. So is the potential impact to local taxpayers if the state never makes good on the potential $1.3 million debt. The county already faces the likelihood of tapping into a $2 million special reserve fund to keep the commitment to freeze the county's property tax levy next year.
"How do we avoid placing the burden of this expense on county taxpayers?" Lauzen asked. "They already pay state income tax to provide for (child support enforcement). How do we secure the promise for that obligation?"
"I don't really have a good answer for you," responded McMahon.
McMahon assigned county board attorney Patrick Kinnally and Kinally's private firm to research filing a lawsuit against the state to force payment of the debt, a task expected to take about a month.
McMahon said recent legal maneuverings indicate the county may have a tough time finding a court to sympathize with the county on the child support issue. He said a U.S. District Court dismissed Cook County's attempt to find a backdoor way to force the state to pay child support money owed in a similar contract last week.
"One of the things we're talking about is what is the basis for a lawsuit," McMahon said. "Let's not just file a lawsuit; we want to file a lawsuit that is sustainable and has merit to it."