Opinion ID: 2615891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged surplus.

Text: Appellants contend that an $8 million surplus existed in the District for the 1975-76 school year. It is urged that since this surplus could have been used for any purpose, the District actually had sufficient funds. We disagree. The alleged surplus came from two sources: (1) underexpenditure on budgeted items ($6.5 million) and (2) underestimation of total revenues ($1.5 million). Given the instability of the special excess levy system, it is entirely understandable that a school district may be unable to accurately project exact revenues and exact expenditures for the future year. Our review of the findings of fact also reveals that the District's underexpenditure arose from several sources: an unused emergency reserve, warrant interest, lower cost of food services, lower cost of facility operation, and lower transportation costs. It is true these funds could have been used elsewhere. However, it must be remembered that both then and for several years prior thereto, the District was operating on a deferred maintenance basis resulting in reduced cleaning standards, use of emergency maintenance, and a delay in repair of instructional equipment, building maintenance, interior and exterior painting, floor replacement and many other items. In short, the so-called surplus cannot be considered money in the bank when considered in light of what had remained undone both in the area of maintenance and the foregoing of salary raises in the school year 1975-76. Further, had the District granted salary increases based upon the consumer price index increase, this factor alone would have cost an additional $11,157,749. Thus, we can only conclude that the so-called $8 million surplus would not have placed the District in a full funding position insofar as the State is concerned. Accordingly, we hold that in the absence of unconstitutional special excess levy funds, the State system of school funding during school year 1975-76 did not comply with Const. art. 9, § 1 in making ample provision for the education of the children residing within the District. Insofar as Northshore School Dist. 417 v. Kinnear, 84 Wn.2d 685, 530 P.2d 178 (1974) is inconsistent with Section XII of this opinion, it is overruled.