Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Job Service Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel asks staff to draft language to close Job Service North Dakota funding gaps
Summary
Senators on the Appropriations — Education and Environment Division signaled support for drafting amendments that would add state dollars to Job Service North Dakota to cover salary, IT and inspection costs federal funding does not cover.
Senator Michael Connolly, appearing before the Appropriations — Education and Environment Division, outlined a request from Job Service North Dakota that would add state funding to cover costs not paid by federal grants, and the committee directed staff to draft amendments to implement those requests.
Connolly told the committee Job Service is about 93% federally funded and “has not had any adjustments for inflation, wage adjustments, or IT costs increase,” and that the agency warned it cannot sustain current service levels without additional state support. “Without these funds, they won't be able to provide core services at the same levels they're doing now,” Connolly said.
The request described by Connolly includes several parts: funding to cover salary and benefit increases not eligible for federal reimbursement (about $2.1 million), ongoing IT cost increases (roughly $950,000 in total, with $734,910 described for IT services and about $237,000 for mainframe charges), and one FTE to perform required housing inspections tied to the H‑2 agricultural worker placements (a housing‑inspection cost line of $233,672 was cited). Connolly also noted Job Service used H‑2 and other programs in 2024 and reported placing foreign agricultural workers; the agency said it carried out more than 32,000 job referrals last year.
Committee members pressed for detail on the salary request and the IT figures. Connolly said the salary request is intended to cover pay and benefit increases federal funds will not cover, and that the IT total combines several specific charges, including mainframe fees billed to the agency.
The committee chair said he would not take a formal vote without a full membership but asked whether the three members present objected to directing Legislative Council to draft amendment language matching Connolly's request; there were no objections on the floor. The chair asked staff (Alex) to draft the amendment language so the committee could take up the measure for a vote the following week.
Connolly also pointed out language the agency historically receives that allows it to spend federal funds in excess of the appropriation without returning to the budget section; staff confirmed that “that appropriation of excess federal funds has been in there.” He further asked that an existing continuing appropriation for unspent State Fiscal Recovery Fund (SFRF) dollars appropriated during the pandemic — funds originally set aside for Job Service’s unemployment insurance modernization project — be continued so the agency can finish the work; staff confirmed the request is to continue already‑appropriated federal funds and that it is a technical continuity request rather than new money.
Next steps: Legislative Council will draft amendment language reflecting the committee's consensus; the committee plans to consider that language at a subsequent meeting with a full membership present for any formal vote.
Ending: The committee did not take a final vote on the item and did not adopt concrete appropriation language at the session. Committee staff will circulate drafted amendments ahead of next week's meeting so members can vote when at full strength.
