Laurens County School Districts 55 and 56 v. Cox
Decision Date | 03 December 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 23630,23630 |
Citation | 417 S.E.2d 560,308 S.C. 171 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | , 75 Ed. Law Rep. 575 LAURENS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 55 AND 56, Appellants, v. Betty S. COX, in her official capacity as Auditor of Laurens County, Respondent. . Heard |
Kenneth L. Childs and David T. Duff, of Childs & Duff, Columbia, for appellants.
Thomas A. Babb and Thomas F. Babb, both of Babb & Babb, Laurens, for respondent.
George C. Leventis, with the State Superintendent of Educ. and State Dept. of Educ., Columbia, amicus curiae.
Appellants (School Districts) commenced this declaratory judgment action to resolve a dispute with Respondent (County Auditor) regarding the formula for determining the minimum local financial effort required under § 12-35-1557. 1 We reverse.
Section 12-35-1557 provides:
[S]chool district boards of trustees or any other appropriate governing body of a school district shall maintain at least the level of per pupil financial effort established as provided in Fiscal Year 1983-84. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1985-86, local financial effort for noncapital programs must be adjusted for an inflation factor estimated by the Division of Research and Statistical Services.
Thereafter, school district boards of trustees or other governing bodies of school districts shall maintain at least the level of financial effort per pupil for noncapital programs as in the prior year adjusted for an inflation factor estimated by the Division of Research and Statistical Services. The county auditor shall establish a millage rate so that the level of financial effort per pupil for noncapital programs adjusted for an inflation factor ... is maintained as a minimum effort. No school district which has not complied with this section may receive funds from the [EIA] Fund. School district boards of trustees may apply for a waiver to the State Board of Education from the requirements of this section if: (1) the district has experienced a loss in revenue because of reduction in assessed valuation of property or has had a significant increase in one hundred thirty-five average daily membership, (2) the district has experienced insignificant growth in revenue collections from the previous year, (3) the district has demonstrated for one year that it has achieved operating efficiencies and all education requirements are being met, (4) a mid-year revenue shortfall results in a reduction of funds appropriated in accordance with [the Education Finance Act].... [Emphasis added.]
Under this statute, which is part of the Education Improvement Act of 1984 [EIA], 2 County Auditor is required annually to establish a millage rate to maintain a minimum local financial effort per pupil in order for the school district to quality to receive EIA funds. The statute further provides for waiver of this requirement depending upon certain conditions.
School Districts contend that the minimum local effort required by § 12-35-1557 must be calculated by taking the amount of local tax revenues for the prior year and adjusting this amount by the appropriate inflation factor. County Auditor's proposed calculation is essentially the same except she would use the amount of local funds actually expended for noncapital education programs in the prior year, rather than the revenues collected, and adjust this amount by the statutory inflation factor. In other words, the parties' only dispute has been which figure from the prior year, revenues collected or funds actually expended, should serve as the base amount to be adjusted for inflation.
The trial judge rejected both proposed constructions and held the statute requires that local effort be calculated by using the 1983-84 fiscal year as the base year and adjusting it each year beginning with 1985-86 by the appropriate inflation factor.
We disagree with the trial judge's statutory interpretation. We hold that, based upon the language and purpose of the statute, School Districts' interpretation of § 12-35-1557 is correct.
Section 12-35-1557 was enacted to ensure that local school districts would not decrease their own funding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CAFE v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING
...Health Serv., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994); Laurens County Sch. Dists. 55 and 56 v. Cox, 308 S.C. 171, 417 S.E.2d 560 (1992); Jasper County Tax Assessor v. Westvaco Corp., 305 S.C. 346, 409 S.E.2d 333 (1991); Stephen v. Avins Const. Co., 324 S.C. 33......
-
Stephen v. Avins Const. Co.
...Health Serv., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994); Laurens County Sch. Dists. 55 and 56 v. Cox, 308 S.C. 171, 417 S.E.2d 560 (1992); Jasper County Tax Assessor v. Westvaco Corp., 305 S.C. 346, 409 S.E.2d 333 (1991). The statute as a whole must receive prac......
-
Amisub of S.C., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control
...well-established that this Court will not construe a statute by concentrating on an isolated phrase. Laurens Cnty. Sch. Dists. 55 & 56 v. Cox, 308 S.C. 171, 174, 417 S.E.2d 560, 561 (1992) (“The true guide to statutory construction is not the phraseology of an isolated section or provision,......
-
Sc State Ports Authority v. Jasper County
...A statute should not be construed by concentrating on an isolated phrase. Laurens County School Districts 55 and 56 v. Cox, 308 S.C. 171, 417 S.E.2d 560 (1992). In construing S.C.Code Ann. §§ 54-3-110, -130 and -150 in their entirety, we discern no language prohibiting entities other than t......