STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6448

June 29, 1987

COUNTIES:

Obligation to provide support services for county probation officers and personnel

Counties remain responsible for rent, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment costs supporting probation officers and personnel in the county, including any increases in such costs arising from an increase in probation services staffing.

Mr. Robert Brown, Jr.

Director

Department of Corrections

Mason Building

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on two questions relating to the responsibility of counties to provide certain support services for probation officers. Your first question is:

The statutory obligation of counties to provide compensation for probation officers appears to have been first imposed by 1913 PA 105, Sec. 12. It was continued in 1927 PA 175, c xi, Sec. 12. The duty of counties to pay for the expenses of administering probation services was mandated by 1937 PA 255, c 2, Sec. 5. The latter statute also imposed a duty upon the corrections commission to make available grants-in-aid to counties unable to maintain their probation programs in accordance with the standards set by the state bureau of probation.

1953 PA 232, MCL 791.201 et seq; MSA 28.2271 et seq, is the most recent recodification of the laws relating to probationers and probation officers.

1953 PA 232, Sec. 25, continued the obligation of counties to provide for the compensation for probation officers and the expenses of administering probation services, but the obligation of the corrections commission to provide grants-in-aid to counties was made permissive.

It has been held that the county is primarily responsible for underwriting the cost of the local operation of probation departments. Wayne Co v Corrections Comm'n, 45 Mich App 720, 725-726; 207 NW2d 205 (1973).

Act 232, Sec. 23a, as added by 1979 PA 89, provides that all county probation personnel in the circuit courts of the state and the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit shall be considered state employees for supervision and direction. County probation personnel were given an option for the limited period of six years to remain employees of the county and the state would reimburse the counties for the salaries of such employees subject to the limitations prescribed in subsection (3). In subsection (5), the Legislature provided:

Enacting Sec. 3 of 1979 PA 89 provided that the amendatory act shall not take effect until funds for its implementation were appropriated and 1979 HB 4402 was enacted into law. Enacting Sec. 4 specified that the amendatory act shall take effect December 31, 1979. It is noted that 1979 HB 4402, which purported to amend MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144, relating to the duties of probation officers in the preparation of presentence investigation reports, was enacted into law as 1979 PA 81.

House Legislative Analysis, HB 4401, August 16, 1979, estimated the cost to the state for the phase-in of state probation services to be $7,852,400.00 and stated that the cost of "[r]ents, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment would continue to be paid by the county."

The Legislature enacted 1979 PA 95, Sec. 1, to make appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980 for the state assumption of county probation staff and for grants to counties for probation services but these appropriations were vetoed by Governor Milliken.

The Legislature amended Act 232, Sec. 23a, by 1979 PA 210, but made no change in Act 232, Sec. 23a(5). The manifest intent of amendatory 1979 PA 210 was to make Act 232, Sec. 23a, effective on April 1, 1980. 1979 PA 210, enacting Sec. 2. Amendatory 1979 PA 210 contains an enacting Sec. 4, which provides:

House Legislative Analysis, HB 5203, January 16, 1980, confirmed the legislative intent that "[i]mplementation of Public Acts 81 and 89 would not be effective in counties which refused to provide probation support costs."

In 1980 PA 40, Sec. 1, the Legislature appropriated $6,516,100.00 to the Department of Corrections for the assumption of county probation staff and grants to counties for probation services purposes as a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980.

By operation of Act 232, Sec. 23a(1), as amended by 1979 PA 210, a county probation employee electing to remain an employee of the county became a member of the classified state civil service on April 1, 1986.

A review of the legislative history of 1979 PA 89, 1979 PA 210, and 1980 PA 40 compels the conclusion that while the state has relieved the counties of the duty to pay for the compensation of probation officers and personnel, it has done so on condition that counties continue to discharge their responsibility to provide, at county expense, for all rents, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment for probation officers serving in the county after April 1, 1986.

It is my opinion, in answer to your first question, that counties remain responsible for rent, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment costs supporting probation officers and personnel in the county.

Your second question is:

The continued obligation of counties to pay for all rents, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment costs for probation officers and personnel as provided in Act 232, Sec. 23a, has not been limited by the Legislature in any manner. Had the Legislature intended to put a cap on the amount of expenditure of counties for such support services, it could have readily done so.

Since the legal obligation to provide support services for probation officers and personnel was required by existing law long before the ratification of Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, that constitutional provision has no application to the continued provision by counties of rent, contractual services, supplies, materials, and equipment costs for probation officers and personnel, including any increases in costs arising from increased staffing in probation services in the county.

It is my opinion, in answer to your second question, that counties remain responsible for all rent, contractual services, supplies, material, and equipment costs, including increases in the cost thereof, arising from increases in staffing in county probation services.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General