County of Sacramento v. State of California

Decision Date29 July 1982
Citation184 Cal.Rptr. 648,134 Cal.App.3d 428
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. The STATE of California et al., Defendants, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, County of Los Angeles, Intervenor and Respondent. Civ. 19994.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Warriner, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Floyd Shimomura and William F. Soo Hoo, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendants, appellants and cross-respondents.

Lee B. Elam, Sacramento County Counsel, and Duane C. Miller, Sp. Counsel, Sacramento, for plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant.

John H. Larson, Los Angeles County Counsel, and Daniel D. Mikesell, Jr., Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for intervenor and respondent.

OPINION ON REHEARING

BLEASE, Associate Justice.

In this appeal from a judgment holding the state and various state officials (state) liable to the County of Sacramento (county) for the county's unreimbursed expenditures in administering a state-mandated program of "in-home supportive services" for aged, blind and disabled persons, we are called upon to decide the state's responsibility for funding the program. We hold that the state met its total funding obligation by exceeding the "matching" contribution required to secure federal dollars and that it was not further obligated to reimburse the county for administrative expenses.

FACTS

On January 1, 1974, the federal government consolidated its adult income maintenance programs for aged, blind and disabled persons and reorganized their funding. (Pub.L.No.92-603.) To qualify for federal funds, California enacted legislation for supplemental payments and services for aged, blind and disabled Californians. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 12000 et seq., added by Stats.1973, ch. 1216, § 37, p. 2904.) A program was created providing for in-home "supportive services," which include "domestic services, heavy cleaning, nonmedical personal services, accompaniment ... during necessary travel[,] ... other necessary transportation[,] ... yard hazard abatement, protective supervision, ... paramedical services, and other services ... which make it possible for the recipient to live in comfort and safety under an independent living arrangement." (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 12300-12308.) It is one of ten social services programs mandated in every county by California's "Statewide Social Services Plan," which was adopted to conform with federal law. (See Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 12250-12252.)

Seventy-five percent of the funding of the program is provided by the federal government up to the amount federally appropriated and allocated to the state. 1 The amount of federal dollars appropriated and allocated to California must be matched by one dollar of state money for each three dollars of federal money. (42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(1).) 2 The state may provide supplemental funds for program costs which exceed these amounts. Federal law does not prohibit a state from requiring The State Department of Social Services has developed a system for sharing these costs by the counties. The state pays for the "direct costs" of the in-home services program (such as cash payments to recipients), as well as employee time rendering homemaking and similar services or supervising such services, but denies reimbursement for "assessment time" (time spent by a social worker assessing a potential recipient's needs) and other costs of administration, for which county funds must be used to match and supplement federal contributions. This division of "direct" and "administrative" costs was carried over from a predecessor "attendant-care" program, which involved cash grants for in-home services.

counties to pay for a part or all of the state's matching or supplemental share of program costs.

On March 23, 1977, the county filed a claim with the State Board of Control asserting a right to reimbursement of all of its expenditures, including administrative expenditures. On May 11, 1977, it filed a complaint in Sacramento Superior Court alleging that the state had not met its funding obligations and seeking relief. Within a short time two more counties filed suit and these cases were consolidated with Sacramento County's. Twenty-three other counties intervened. After a trial limited to the issue of liability and an "Interlocutory Judgment" finding the state liable, the county's action was severed from the others and a trial was had on the issue of damages. Judgment was subsequently rendered for the county, declaring the state liable for all costs of providing in-home supportive services, including assessment and administrative costs, ordering the state to revise its reimbursement scheme, and awarding Sacramento County $1,367,899 plus interest. The state appeals and the county cross-appeals on the issue of the amount of interest to which it claims it is entitled.

DISCUSSION

At issue is whether California counties must pay for the administrative expenses of the in-home services program which are in excess of the amounts necessary to match the federal dollars appropriated and allocated to California by the federal government. We hold that, under the law applicable to the case, 3 they do except for "severely impaired persons."

Welfare and Institutions Code section 10800 4 imposes upon counties the basic "responsibility" for the "administration of public social services," "[s]ubject to the provisions of Section 11050 and Chapter 3 ... of Part 3" of the Welfare and Institutions Code. That "responsibility" includes funding responsibility for the administrative costs of public social services, except as provided by the enumerated provisions.

The county claims that former Welfare and Institutions Code section 12306 (added by Stats.1973, ch. 1216, § 37, p. 2912, eff. Dec. 5, 1973; amended by Stats.1981, ch. 69, § 21 [see ante, fn. 3] ), as applicable here, to which section 4800 is made "subject," placed a supervening responsibility upon the state for all costs of the in-home supportive services program. We disagree.

Section 12306 provided: "As regards in-home supportive services, the state shall pay the matching funds required for federal social services funds from the state's General Fund," including administrative costs. (Emphasis added.) (See ante, fn. 1.) The state is therefore directed to provide the funds necessary to match federal funding of the costs of administering social services. The matching requirement is one dollar for each three dollars of federal money actually appropriated and allocated to California for the in-home supportive services program. (See ante, fn. 2.) Section 12306 would have worked a complete state assumption of the nonfederal share of program expenditures if federal funds had met 75 percent of the actual program costs. They did not due to federal budget strictures. Section 12306 does not "require" state assumption of the federally unfunded portion of actual costs. Accordingly, the county must look elsewhere for financial surcease or is thrust back upon its basic and residual responsibility under section 4800. 5

Two other statutes confirm this interpretation of section 12306. Section 12304, as applicable here (Stats.1973, ch. 1216, § 37, p. 2911), made special provision for "severely impaired persons," a subclass of those eligible for in-home supportive services. It provided, in subdivision (g): "Funding for the in-home supportive services under this section shall qualify, where possible, for the maximum federal reimbursement. In the event ... that federal funds prove inadequate, the state shall provide funding for services under this section." (Emphasis added.) Such funding is inclusive of administrative costs. These provisions are superfluous given the county's interpretation of section 12306. Plainly, it would not be necessary to specify state assumption of the federally unfunded costs of part of the program if section 12306 provided for state reimbursement for all costs.

More illuminating is section 12302.2 (added by Stats.1978, ch. 463, § 4, eff. Jul. 18, 1978), which funds for unemployment benefits for providers of in-home services: "(b) Funding for the costs of administering this section and for contributions, premiums and taxes paid or transmitted on the recipient's behalf as an employer pursuant to this section shall qualify, where possible, for the maximum federal reimbursement. To the extent that federal funds are inadequate, notwithstanding Section 12306, the state shall provide funding for the purposes of this section." (Emphasis added.) The inference is inescapable that section 12306 does not provide for state assumption of all administrative costs of in-home services. 6

Given our reading of section 12304, the county claims that it was not paid for all of its costs of administration of the "severely impaired persons" program as required thereby. We agree that the state must assume all costs of "services" for such period, including administrative costs. However, on the record before us, any unreimbursed administrative costs were offset by the payment to the county of funds in excess of the state's responsibility for other program costs, for which the county bears the residual responsibility. The state substantially exceeded its total funding obligations in every year after fiscal 1973-1974. 7

The judgment is reversed. 8

PUGLIA, P. J., and REGAN, J., concur.

1 The federal government includes administrative expenditures among program costs. (42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(1).)

2 The federal funding formula provides for funding of "75 percent of the total expenditures" of the in-home supportive services program (42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(1)), but since federal funds are limited by budget restrictions, the formula is read as requiring one dollar of state funds for each three dollars of federal funds appropriated and allocated to the state.

3 Commencing July 1, 1981, a new formula for the state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Reilly v. Marin Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 Agosto 2020
    ...( Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 12000 et seq., added by Stats. 1973, ch. 1216, § 37, p. 2904; see County of Sacramento v. State of California (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 428, 430–431, 184 Cal.Rptr. 648.) The purpose of the legislation is to give the aged, blind and disabled the "assistance and services ......
  • Miller v. Woods
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 1983
    ...to obtain 75 percent federal matching funds under Title XX of the Social Security Act. (See County of Sacramento v. State of California, 134 Cal.App.3d 428, 430-431, 184 Cal.Rptr. 648.) Title XX was amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law No. 97-35, § 2352, 95 S......
  • Marshall v. McMahon
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Agosto 1993
    ...for 75 percent federal matching funds under title XX of the Social Security Act. (See County of Sacramento v. State of California (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 428, 430-431, 184 Cal.Rptr. 648.)3 Counsel informs us Donna Marshall died during the pendency of the appeal. In light of the class certific......
  • Capitol Records, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 24 Julio 1984
    ...California (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 887, 893, fn. 8, 185 Cal.Rptr. 582, emphasis in original; see County of Sacramento v. State of California (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 428, 433, fn. 5, 184 Cal.Rptr. 648 and authorities cited therein.) We recognize that "declaratory or defining statutes are to be u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT