Request By:
Mr. Robert E. Spillman
Executive Director
Finance and Administration Cabinet
School Facility Construction Commission
322 Capitol Annex
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Kevin M. Noland, General Counsel
You have submitted a request for an opinion to our office on behalf of the Kentucky School Facilities Construction Commission (the "Commission"), which was established pursuant to the provision of Sections 26 through 36, inclusive, of House Bill 6 enacted by the 1985 Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly, codified as KRS 157.611 through KRS 157.640 (the "Act"). Your question is as follows:
"Are offers of assistance made under the [Act] required to be specific only as to amounts or also as to specific projects, and does the Commission have the authority to allow a school district to expend funds available to the district under the original offer of assistance for a project that was not on the approved facility plan 'on June 30 preceding the meeting of the General Assembly' but has since been added to a duly approved facility plan?"
To respond to your question, we must first consider certain provisions of the Act. The purpose of the Commission is to help local school districts meet the school construction needs of the state in a manner which will insure an equitable distribution of funds based on unmet need. KRS 157.611(1). The Commission carries out this mandate through issuance of school building revenue bonds, which are repaid from rental of the facilities to local boards of education and from funds otherwise contributed or appropriated to the Commission for that purpose. KRS 157.615(3). "Unmet" need is defined as the total cost of new construction and major renovation needs as shown by the approved school facilities plan less any available local revenue. KRS 157.615(10).
KRS 157.620 provides, in part, that:
"(4) Not later than October 15 of the year immediately preceding the regular session of the general assembly the state board of education shall submit a statement to the school facilities construction commission certifying the following in each district:
(a) The amount of school facility construction needs in each district;
(b) The amount of available local revenue in each district; and
(c) That the district has or has not met the eligibility criteria established by subsection (1) of this section.
"(5) Construction needs shall be those needs specified in the school facilities plan approved by the state board of education as of June 30 of the year preceding the biennium in which funding is approved. All school facilities plans not approved by the state board of education since January 1, 1981 shall be revised by December 31, 1985. The state board of education shall conduct public hearings on all amendments to approved plans."
You report that the Commission received the required information, including the certified need statement, the amount of available local revenue, and certification of eligibility from the Department of Education. On July 18, 1986, the Commission made an offer of assistance to 108 school districts based upon the statements received from the Department of Education. You further report that 84 school districts accepted the Commission's offer of assistance.
The issues you have presented result from the fact that since acceptance of Commission offers of assistance, three school districts have each received a revised facility plan approved by the State Board of Education and have requested approval of the Commission to apply their offers of assistance toward a project different from the one that was prioritized at the time of the offer of assistance.
In determining whether offers of assistance made by the Commission must be tied to specific projects, we must look to the language of the applicable statutes. In construing a statute, the will or intent of the legislature must guide the court.
Wesley v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 28 (1966). Legislative intent must be determined from the language of the statute.
City of Louisville v. Manning, 309 Ky. 789, 219 S.W.2d 13 (1949).
As quoted above, KRS 157.620(5) provides that construction needs are those needs specified in the school facilities plan approved by the state board of education as of June 30 of the year preceding the biennium in which funding is approved. Therefore, the Commission is authorized and directed to make an offer of assistance based upon the needs that are set forth in the school facilities plan as of June 30 of the prior year. As a practical matter, this cut-off date provides stability among the school construction and renovation projects so that the Commission is able to report to the General Assembly the need for funds to assist local school districts to meet their unmet construction needs. Through the establishment of a date for the submission of the approved facilities plans to the Commission which is responsible for seeking the General Assembly's approval for funding for the projects, stability and equity in the process are sought to be achieved.
By providing a cut-off date for identifying the construction needs eligible for financial assistance through the Commission, the statute does not infringe upon the authority of local boards of education to determine for themselves the priority for their projects; however, it does impose upon the local boards the responsibility for certainty about their need for the projects they select. Local school boards still have the liberty to subsequently change their minds about a project and the priorities they have established and obtain subsequent approval from the State Board of Education for a revised facility plan, which may be considered for financial assistance through appropriation in the following biennium (assuming the revised facilities plan has been approved by the State Board of Education as of June 30 of the year preceding that biennium in which funding is sought and approved).
It should be pointed out that if a school district obtains approval from the State Board of Education for a revised facility plan, and as a result chooses not to take advantage of Commission financial assistance which is tied to a specific priority project in the original facilities plan, the money allocated to fund the district's priority project may be escrowed to accumulate credit, assuming the criteria of KRS 157.622(4) are met. On the other hand, if in the particular circumstances the school district is not eligible to accumulate credit under KRS 157.622(4), the money allocated to the project in the original facilities plan may be subject to reallocation by the Commission to help other districts meet their unmet needs. See KRS 157.622(5).
Granted, for some school districts the statutory provisions may have seemingly harsh results. However, the plain meaning of a law cannot be ignored by the courts simply because another meaning might be considered to state a better policy.
Board of Education of Nelson County v. Lawrence, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 830 (1963). Any changes in the applicable statutes or relief from their application can only be obtained from the General Assembly via statutory amendment.
To conclude, it is our opinion that construction projects for which the School Facilities Construction Commission may provide assistance are those listed on the school facilities plans of eligible school districts approved as of June 30 of the year preceding the session of the General Assembly at which funding for the projects is provided through the appropriation of funds for the payment of debt service on the Commission's bonds. As a result, offers of assistance made by the Commission under the applicable statutes are by statutory necessity specific as to projects. Furthermore, the Commission does not have the authority to allow a school district to expend funds available to the district under the original offer of assistance for a project which was not on the approved facility plan as of June 30 of the year preceding the biennium in which funding is approved but which has since been added to a duly approved facility plan.