Source: https://www.azag.gov/sgo-opinions/I03-011
Timestamp: 2015-07-01 07:08:11
Document Index: 258727672

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 36', '§ 5', '§ 33', '§ 15', '§ 45', '§ 15']

Use of Building Renewal Fund Balances for Preventative Maintenance | Arizona Attorney General Skip to main content
HomeUse of Building Renewal Fund Balances for Preventative Maintenance Use of Building Renewal Fund Balances for Preventative Maintenance
Opinion No:I03- 011 (R03- 041)
To: Bill Bell, Executive DirectorArizona School Facilities Board
The BRF is intended to provide funds to maintain existing school facilities at minimum adequacy levels consistent with the State’s standards. A.R.S. § 15-2031. School districts that receive BRF monies establish their own building renewal fund accounts. A.R.S. § 15-2031(F). The BRF monies that districts do not use remain in those accounts and do not revert to the State. See A.R.S. § 15-2031(F). School districts may use BRF monies only for specified purposes. A.R.S. § 15-2031(B). The Legislature has also specified the purposes for which BRF monies may not be used. A.R.S. § 15-2031(C). Before 2002, A.R.S. § 15-2031(C) expressly prohibited school districts from using BRF monies for routine maintenance. 1999 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 299, § 36, and ch. 5, § 5. In the 2002 legislative session, however, the Legislature added a requirement that school districts perform routine preventative maintenance on school facilities. 2002 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 330, §§ 33, 38 ("the 2002 Act"). Specifically, the Legislature (1) defined routine preventative maintenance as "services that are performed on a regular schedule [at certain intervals and] that are intended to extend the useful life of a building system and reduce the need for major repairs;" (2) required school districts to develop guidelines for routine preventative maintenance and the SFB to inspect the schools to ensure compliance; (3) required districts to use BRF monies to bring into compliance any school found to be inadequately maintained; (4) permitted districts to use eight per cent of the BRF formula amount for routine preventative maintenance; and (5) provided that building renewal monies are to supplement, not supplant, expenditures for the maintenance of school buildings. Id. Although the Legislature has not funded the BRF according to the statutory formula in A.R.S. § 15-2031 since fiscal year 2002, school districts have accumulated balances in their BRF accounts. The 2002 Act did not specifically address the use of amounts in school district BRF accounts for preventative maintenance. The 2002 Act did, however, suspend the BRF formula for fiscal years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and appropriated only $38 million to the BRF for FY 2002-2003. 2002 Act §§ 45, 61(A), (B). In subsequent legislation, the Legislature did not appropriate any BRF monies for fiscal year 2004.
These 2002 amendments demonstrate that the Legislature intended districts to spend BRF monies for preventative maintenance. Because subsection J of A.R.S. § 15-2031 begins with the language “[n]otwithstanding subsections B and C,” subsection J governs the analysis of the use of building renewal monies for preventative maintenance. The Legislature reduced the BRF allocation in the same legislative session and failed to fund the BRF for fiscal year 2003-04. It is logical to conclude that the Legislature intended districts to access the only BRF monies available, which are the unspent balances in the school districts' building renewal accounts. The purposes of the Students FIRST legislation support this interpretation. The Students FIRST statutes were intended to cure the state constitutional infirmities that the court outlined in Roosevelt v. Bishop and to ensure that school facilities met State standards. If no new money is appropriated, the only building renewal fund monies that school districts will have available are unused BRF monies that the districts received in previous fiscal years.