Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-134

Opinion No. 134. Schools-Transportation-Budget. -Trustees-Apportionment. HELD. 1. Under Chapter 175, Laws of 1935, the distribution of transportation funds must. be paid first. 2. It is not a condition precedent to apportionment that the county or district have on hand an amount equal to the state's contribution. 3. It is not a condition precedent to receiving the apportionment that the county or district trustees provide for the payment of such transporta- tion in the annual school budget. 4. School trustees may not refuse to expend moneys appropriated by the State for transportation, and may not expend such apportionment for any other purpose. July 5, 1935. Miss Elizabeth Ireland State Superintendent of PUbl.ic In- struction The Capitol This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 22, in which you ask for the opinion of this office on' five questions concerning Chapter 175, Laws of Montana, 1935. "I. If there be not sufficient funds in the State Public School Fund as created in Chapter 175 of the Laws of the 1935 session, to car- ry out the provisions of this act, can any of the funds be distributed ac- cording to classroom units before the amount needed for transporta- tion is satisfied?" Our answer to this question is "no." Section 9 of the Act expressly pro- vides that the distribution of funds for transportation shall be paid first and then there shall be distributed "secondly " " " the balance thereafter remaining in the state public school general fund pursuant to the appor- tionment thereof " .. " on the basis of classroom units and pupil atten- dance." "2. Must a county or district match the state aid mentioned in (c) of Section 1, Chapter 175, 1935 School Laws, before receiving such aid?" We can find no such requirement in the Act. Section 1, to which you refer, pro- vides: "* * * to carryon and support a minimum, foundational, educational program therein, the State of Mon- tana shall provide therefor, and con- tribute thereto, revenue upon the fol- lowing schedule: * * * "( c) For the transportation of pu- pils, one-half of the cost of such transportation for all pupils, resid- ing three or more miles distant from a public school; but the State Board of Education of the State of Mon- tana shall fix and promulgate a uni- form schedule of rates for the trans- portation of pupils to and from the public schools of the state, and upon the basis of such schedules, so fixed, the contribution of the state to the cost of transportation shall be com- puted, and the payment thereof made, and in no other way." Nothing is said in the Act which requires the county or district to have on hand an amount equal to the state's contribution as a condition precedent to receiving its apportionment from the fund created by the Act. "3. Must provision for such trans- portation be included in the regular budget?" Our answer to this question is like- wise in the negative. Section 6 of the Act requires the county superintendent to certify to the state superintendent of public in- struction the number of pupils ac- tually attending a public school in his county and residing three or more miles distant therefrom and the actual cost of transportation of such pupils, pursuant to the schedule of rates adopted by the State Board of Edu- cation. By Section 7 of the Act the 136 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL state superintendent of public instruc- tion is then required to compute the amount of the state's contribution to defray the cost of transporting such children to the public school and to certify said amount to the state treas- urer for payment. The duty of the county superin- tendent and the state superintendent of public instruction in the premises is mandatory and entirely ministe~ial. And whatever may be the reqUIre- ments of other statutory provisions nothing is said in the Act which re- quires the county or district trustees to provide for the payment of such transportation in the annual school budget as a condition precedent to re- ceiving its apportionment from the fund created by the Act. The language of Section 1 (c), quoted above, strengthens this conclusion. "4. If a school district or county high school has pupils eligible for transportation and refuse to pay same from funds which could be allotted to such a district or county high school, should the money be .al- lotted to the district or county hIgh school ?" "5. If under the conditions as set forth in Question 4, above, money is allocated to a district or county high school, can the funds be used for any other purpose than for transporta- tion." Answering both of the above ques- tions, the trustees will not be at lib- erty to refuse to expend money ap- propriated by the state for the pay- ment of transportation of pupils or to expend such apportionment for any other purpose. Under the Act, the duty rests upon the state to pay one- half the cost of transportation of pupils living three or more miles from any public school, regardless of the action or wishes of any local board of school trustees.