Court Opinion

ID: 9722999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:59:49.908881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:43.707846
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, J.
(dissenting) I dissent.
As the Attorney General argues, there is nothing in Const 1963, art 9, § 30 which prevents the Legislature from making offers to local units of government to assume control of previously state-run programs and providing funds to them to carry out such program.
When such offers are accepted and local units of government assume control of the offered program along with the funds, however, the result must be that the funds are considered local government spending within the contemplation of Const 1963, art 9, § 30.
*61As the Attorney General points out, while not interpreting Const 1963, art 9, § 30, the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Monticello House, Inc v Calhoun Co, 20 Mich App 169; 173 NW2d 759 (1969), supported the conclusion that the funds in question are, in fact, expenditures for local units of government once the county community mental health boards agree to accept responsibility. In determining when state funds lose their identities and become county funds, the Court stated:
In a project of this nature, admittedly there is some state reimbursement. However, it appears that these funds are actually county moneys. Although there is no Michigan authority on this point, the Ohio case of State v Lucas (1949), 39 Ohio Op 519 (85 NE2d 155), holds that state funds appropriated and paid to a county lose their identity as state funds upon being paid to that county. The reason expressed in Lucas applies to the situation before us:
I would therefore reverse.