SB 309 conditions local increases to In‑Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider wages or individual health benefits on preapproval and narrows the state's exposure to the nonfederal share. When a county, public authority, nonprofit consortium, or a local ordinance raises IHSS wages or benefits locally, the county must use county‑only funds to cover both the county and state shares of the added cost unless the Budget Act or a statute says otherwise.
The bill also requires departmental review and approval (including federal‑consistency checks) before any locally adopted increase or administrative-rate change can take effect.
Beyond preapproval, the measure spells out exact numbers and temporal limits for state participation: a $12.10 per hour participation cap in certain circumstances, a $1.10-per-hour incremental cap tied to statutory minimum‑wage figures, and a cumulative 10% participation limit within defined three‑year windows for counties already at or above the $12.10 combined level. Those mechanics substantially shift fiscal risk to counties and make state support conditional and time‑limited — a practical change for county budget officers, IHSS program managers, and bargaining entities that negotiate local wage increases.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires counties to use county‑only funds to pay both the county and state shares for any locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or ordinance‑adopted IHSS wage or individual health benefit increase, unless the Budget Act or statute provides funding. It bars implementation of increases until the department and the State Department of Health Care Services review and approve them for consistency with federal law and federal financial participation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California counties, county public authorities and nonprofit consortia that set IHSS provider rates, the IHSS workforce, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), which must sign off on increases. It also matters to county fiscal officers, collective bargaining representatives, and state budget analysts.
Why It Matters
The bill narrows the state's fiscal commitment through explicit dollar caps and limited multi‑year participation windows tied to Labor Code minimum‑wage benchmarks, forcing counties to absorb more long‑term cost increases and altering bargaining leverage and budget planning for localities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 309 makes two programmatic moves at once: it imposes a precondition on locally adopted wage or benefit increases for IHSS providers, and it defines how — and how much — the state will chip in for those increases. Under the bill, counties may not put local wage or benefit increases into effect until the relevant state department has reviewed the proposal, confirmed it complies with state law, and obtained DHCS approval showing the increase is consistent with federal law and eligible for federal financial participation (Medicaid/Title XIX).
The county must also provide documentation that its board of supervisors approved the proposed public authority or consortium rate and must meet departmental guidelines and regulatory criteria to get state participation.
Timing and conditionality matter: once DHCS gives final approval, an approved wage or benefit increase goes into effect on the first day of the month after that approval. The department can issue conditional approvals if funding is not fully available at the time of sign‑off, which gives DHCS a lever to control cash flow and the sequencing of implementation.On the money side, the bill prescribes the split and sets several numerical ceilings.
When SB 309 authorizes state participation, the nonfederal share is split 65 percent state / 35 percent county, but state participation is subject to dollar caps and timing rules in subdivision (d). Those caps start with a reference point of $12.10 per hour of combined wages and individual health benefits and then shift to more limited incremental participation tied to year‑by‑year amounts in the Labor Code.
For counties already paying at or above the $12.10 combined level, the state’s further participation is capped to a cumulative 10 percent of combined increases within a three‑year window, and the number of eligible three‑year windows is limited; eventually counties may be required to pay the entire nonfederal share of future increases above the statutory thresholds. Finally, the bill preserves a narrow safe harbor for increases or contracts that predate July 1, 2017.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or ordinance‑adopted IHSS wage or individual health benefit increase cannot take effect until the department and DHCS approve it as consistent with federal law and eligible for federal financial participation.
Counties must submit documentation of board of supervisors approval for proposed public authority or nonprofit consortium rates before the department or DHCS may approve a rate increase.
Once final approval is issued, an approved increase takes effect on the first day of the month following that approval; the department may grant conditional approvals tied to funding availability.
When the state participates, it pays 65% and counties pay 35% of the nonfederal share of wage/benefit increases and associated employment taxes, subject to the statutory limits in subdivision (d).
State participation is numerically capped: an initial $12.10/hour reference; thereafter limited to $1.10/hour above specified Labor Code amounts for the year, and for counties at/above $12.10 the state’s aid is further limited to a cumulative 10% of combined changes within three‑year periods, with limits on how many such windows apply and a post‑window shift of full county responsibility.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
County funding requirement and preapproval condition
This subdivision requires counties to fund both the county and state shares with county‑only funds when wage or benefit increases result from local negotiation, mediation, imposition, or are adopted by local ordinance—unless the Budget Act or another statute provides otherwise. Practically, that places the initial cash burden on counties and limits any automatic state obligation. It also imposes a preapproval gate: the department and DHCS must review increases for compliance with state law and to secure federal financial participation before increases (or changes to public‑authority administrative rates) can be implemented.
Board approval documentation and regulatory compliance
Before DHCS or the department can approve a proposed rate, each county must provide proof the county board of supervisors approved the proposed public authority or consortium rate and associated wage-related expenditures. The county must also meet department guidelines and regulatory requirements as a condition of receiving state participation. This creates an administrative checklist counties must complete, shifting the operational burden of documenting local approvals and compliance onto county staff and public authorities prior to any state match.
Effective date and conditional approvals
The statute ties implementation timing to departmental action: approved rates take effect the first day of the month after final approval. The department can issue conditional approvals if the funding picture is uncertain, which allows phased implementation or contingent sign‑offs but also introduces potential delays or partial rollouts if appropriations are not available when needed.
Nonfederal share split
When the state participates, the bill fixes the nonfederal share split at 65% state / 35% county for wage and benefit increases and associated employment taxes — but only 'in accordance with subdivision (d).' That cross‑reference means the nominal split exists but actual dollar support is constrained by subdivision (d)’s caps and windows, so counties should not treat the 65/35 ratio as an unfettered entitlement.
State participation caps, incremental limits, and temporal windows
Subdivision (d) is the operational limiter: it first sets a participation reference of up to $12.10 per hour in combined wages and individual health benefits, then provides a transitional rule that shifts state participation to only $1.10 per hour above certain year‑specific Labor Code minimum‑wage amounts. For counties already at or above the $12.10 combined level, the state will only participate up to a cumulative 10% of combined wage/benefit changes within a three‑year period, and that limited support can apply for no more than two such three‑year periods before or after a Labor Code threshold is met. After the allowed windows expire, counties must cover the full nonfederal share of future increases that exceed the referenced amounts. Paragraph (4) preserves an exemption for contracts or increases that predate July 1, 2017, creating a grandfathering effect for earlier agreements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- IHSS providers — stand to receive higher locally negotiated wages or individual health benefits when counties adopt increases; the bill preserves a route for local wage enhancements but couples them to county funding and approval processes.
- County boards and fiscal officers — receive explicit control over funding decisions (counties must use county‑only funds), giving local leaders discretion to prioritize IHSS pay within county budgets rather than relying on an open state entitlement.
- Public authorities and nonprofit consortia — gain clearer procedural rules about what documentation and approvals are required to implement rate increases, which can make negotiation outcomes administratively actionable once county and state conditions are met.
Who Bears the Cost
- California counties — bear the immediate funding obligation for both the county and state shares in many locally driven increases and may ultimately pay the full nonfederal share when statutory caps or windows expire; this raises fiscal pressure on county general funds.
- County taxpayers and local services — higher county expenditures for IHSS may force counties to reallocate budgets, increase local revenues, or cut other services, shifting economic burden to local taxpayers and beneficiaries of other county programs.
- Collective bargaining entities and provider organizations — face slower or uncertain implementation of negotiated raises because increases cannot start until state and departmental approval is secured, potentially weakening bargaining leverage or creating timing mismatches between contract terms and payment availability.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting county fiscal sustainability and enabling sustainable increases in pay for a low‑wage care workforce: the bill constrains the state's fiscal exposure to wage growth (protecting state budgets and limiting precedent), but by doing so it shifts real and long‑term cost risk to counties and may impede timely wage improvements that advocates argue are necessary to retain providers and ensure care availability.
The bill creates a complex mix of fiscal controls and administrative gates that produce several implementation frictions. First, requiring departmental and DHCS determinations of federal consistency before local increases take effect introduces a dependency on state-level review capacity; delays or rigorous evidence demands could stall bargained increases and frustrate providers and unions.
Second, the dollar caps are tied to references in the Labor Code that change annually; counties will need models to map year‑specific minimum‑wage figures into the bill’s $1.10 incremental rule, and those calculations could produce unexpected cliffs where a small change in the statewide minimum wage materially shifts which costs the state will share.
Operationally, tracking the cumulative 10% cap within three‑year windows is administratively awkward. Counties must measure the sum of combined changes to wages and individual health benefits across multiple years and coordinate with DHCS approvals to determine when a three‑year window has been used.
The grandfathering for pre‑July 1, 2017 contracts creates a two‑tier landscape: some providers and contracts remain under prior terms while others fall under the new, more restrictive regime. Finally, the county‑only funding mandate interacts uneasily with the Budget Act carve‑outs: the exception preserves state flexibility through appropriations but also invites year‑to‑year uncertainty about whether the state will step in, complicating long‑range county budgeting and bargaining strategies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.