HomeMy WebLinkAbout930938.tiff ov'coto
�� _X9O
1876
Olle Tate of Cnulnrabn
Gale A. Norton STATE SERVICES BUILDING
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF LAW 1525 Sherman Street-5th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Raymond T. Slaughter OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Phone (303)866-4500 &866-3611
Chief Deputy Attorney General FAX (303)866-5691
Timothy M.Tymkovich
Solicitor General
March 1 , 1993
Constance L. Harbert, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners, County of Weld
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE: 90 Day Notice Under Amendment 1
Dear Chairman Harbert :
In your letter of January 4, 1993 to Governor Romer , you gave
notice that your county would end its "subsidy" to social ser-
vices programs effective April 1, 1993 . After careful review of
your letter, I have concluded and notified the State Department
of Social Services that social services programs do not fall
within the terms of the recently adopted Section 20 (9) of Article
X of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 1) and that there is no
legal authority for your county to provide anything less than its
full share of the costs of social services provided in your coun-
ty. Accordingly, you must continue full funding of the county' s
share of social services programs in your county, just as you
have done in the past.
Let me briefly explain why I have concluded that social services
programs do not fall within terms of Amendment 1 . In pertinent
part, the amendment provides that, " . . .a local district may
reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the
general assembly for administration" . (emphasis supplied. ) A
review of the history and law relating to social services in Col-
orado shows that:
( 1) Counties have always had responsibility for social services
programs, and thus the general assembly has not "delegated"
social services programs to the counties;
( 2) Although the counties have substantial responsibilities in
administering social services programs, the State also has sig-
nificant administrative authority, and thus the general assembly
has not "delegated" social services to the counties "for adminis-
tration" , and;
(? C ., I.- 1- 1. .. if;Q" , l ) 930938
Constance L. Harbert, Chairman
Page 2
( 3) Social services delivered in Weld county directly benefit the
residents of Weld county and serve county purposes with an 80%
subsidy from the state. Thus, the county' s 20% share of social
services costs is not a "subsidy" . Instead, it is the county' s
share of the costs of programs that directly benefit its citi-
zens. Let us examine each of these conclusions in turn.
The Colorado Supreme Court examined the structure and history of
the social services system in this state in the case of Colorado
Department of Social Services v. Board of County Commissioners,
697 P. 2d 1 (Colo. 1985) . In that case, the court observed:
Prior to statehood, the territory' s county
governments were charged by various legis-
lative provisions with the responsibility
of providing relief to poor persons who ei-
ther had no relatives in the territory or
whose relatives could not or would not sup-
port them. These provisions remained in
force upon the admission of Colorado into
the Union.
697 P. 2d at 5. (citations omitted. ) Thus, we see that counties
have always had responsibilities for social services programs.
This is not a situation where the state has taken a state program
or state responsibility and delegated it to the counties. On the
contrary, state involvement in social services programs has been
to assist the counties with a responsibility that has always been
theirs. Consequently, social services is not a program
"delegated" to the counties, and Amendment 1 does not apply.
Next, it is clear that both the state and the county have sub-
stantial responsibility in administering social services pro-
grams. On the county side, the board of county commissioners
selects the county director who, in turn, hires, disciplines,
promotes and fires all other county social services employees
(subject to review by the state Merit System) . The county de-
cides whether to have a Placement Alternatives plan and deter-
mines the content of such plan. (Although these plans are sub-
ject to approval by the State Board of Social Services, the great
diversity of these plans demonstrates the substantial impact each
county can have on the delivery of services in its own area. )
Additionally, counties have discretion to assign resources within
the allocation for county administration established by the
state. Further , counties have authority to make decisions con-
Constance L. Harbert, Chairman
Page 3
cerning Merit System pay plans, whether to pass along salary
increases, office location and hours, organizational structure,
child care contracts and grievance procedures. The Colorado
Supreme Court has recognized that the counties have some discre-
tion in budgetary and other administrative social services mat-
ters. Colorado Department of Social Services v. Board of County
Commissioners, supra. at 697 P. 2d 6, 11-13 .
On the state side, the State Board of Social Services has author-
ity to adopt rules and regulations governing the scope and con-
tent of social services programs, to prescribe the form of appli-
cations, reports and other forms, and to require the county de-
partments to report at such time and in such manner as it may di-
rect . The State Department is responsible to the various federal
agencies to see that all state plan requirements are met and that
federal funds are spent in accordance with federal mandates.
SS26-1-108 ( 1) (b) and (c) , 26-1-111 ( 2) (e) and 26-1-118 ( 2) , C.R.S.
(1988 and 1992 Supp. )
From these examples, it is clear that the state and the counties
have substantial shared responsibility in administering social
services programs within the state. Accordingly, it cannot be
said that social services have been "delegated" to the counties
"for administration" , and therefore Amendment 1 does not apply.
Finally, social services programs serve local purposes and di-
rectly benefit local residents with an 80% subsidy from the
state. The Colorado Supreme Court has specifically held that
social services serve both state and local purposes and has said,
localities benefit when the indigent or disabled residents
of their communities receive assistance for basic subsist-
ence. . . . " Colorado Department of Social Services v. Board of
County Commissioners, supra. 697 P. 2d at 12-13 . Thus, the coun-
ty' s 20% share of social services costs is not a "subsidy" of a
state program, but the county' s share of the cost of a program it
jointly administers with the state, and which directly benefits
the county and its residents.
Based on the above analysis, I have concluded that social ser-
vices programs do not fall within the terms of subsection 9 of
Amendment 1 . Accordingly, you must continue full funding of the
county' s share of social services programs in your county, be-
cause the state will not assume any portion of your financial or
administrative responsibility in this regard.
Constance L. Harbert, Chairman
Page 4
Sincerely,
FOR E ATTORN GENERAL
a2-
WADE IVIN ON
First As ant Attorney General
Human R urces Section
( 303 ) 86 -5660
WL:lw
cc: Karen Beye
AG Alpha No. SS AS GAGSD
AG File No. E9310580 . 41
Hello