Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-105

Opinion No. 105. Schools-Architects Fees-High Schools-Building Fund. HELD: 1. Architects fees, for build- ing supervision of a high school, are a proper charge against the general fund of the district if provision has been made in the budget. 2. A school board may levy and col- lect a building fund to erect new build- ings or to improve existing buildings providing they do not exceed the legal millage levy or the constitutional lim- itation of indebtedness. Mr. C. W. Demel County Attorney Billings, Montana May 17, 1935. You have asked us to answer the following questions for you: "1. Can the board expend money from the general fund for architect fees in connection with the extension and remodeling of the high school building, which consists of additional class rooms for the high school and an auditorium and gymnasium for both high school and adjacent grade buildings where the sum available from proceeds of sale of bonds is insufficient to complete the project; and provided that any such sum would be included in the budget for the ensuing fiscal year? "2. Does Section 1205 of the School Laws apply to expending any portion of balance remaining in a general fund on June 30 of the fiscal year, which expenditure has not been in- cluded in the current fiscal year OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 107 budget for the purpose of making up any deficiency between cost of build- ing and proceeds of bonds. "3. Is there any provision whereby a school board may levy and collect a building fund for the erection of new buildings or for extensions and remodeling of existing buildings? "4. Is it permissible to use ele- mentary school funds for the purpose of making up the deficiency as noted in question one for the construction of an auditorium to be used jointly by high school and elementary school students?" 1. We are not aware of any stat- ute of this state which provides that the payment of an architect's fees for building supervision must be made a charge against the building account. We believe that such fees are a proper charge against the general fund of the district and may be paid out of the district funds, if provision has been made for their payment in the annual budget. (Wyckoff v. Force, 214 Pac. 489; see also Volume 10, Repol't and Official Opinions of Attorney General, p. 135.) 2. Your second question has been answered in the negative by opinion No. 534, Vol. 15, page 369. 3. The answer to your third ques- tion is "yes", provided the amount levied is within the millage levy per- mitted by Section 1203 R. C. M. 1921, as amended, and does not exceed the constitutional limitation of indebted- ness imposed by Section 6 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Montana. Among the provisions which may be appli~able, are Section 1208, R. C. M. 1921; Section 1219, R. C. M. 1921, as amended by Chapter 120, Laws of Montana, 1925; Chapter 146, Laws of Montana, 1931; Chapter 178, Laws of Montana, 1933, as amended by Chapters 151 and 193, Laws of Montana, 1935. 4. The transfer contemplated in the fourth question submitted by you, is prohibited by Section 15, Chapter 178, Laws of 1933 (Sec. 1263.15, R. C. M. 1935) .