Opinion ID: 1700379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Works Finding

Text: The only testimony offered by either party was the deposition of Kenneth Lambert, Treasurer of the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. He testified that the funds used to build Hall-Rain Middle School came wholly from county taxes and from proceeds received from the sale of warrants by the Mobile Board of School Commissioners. The school board argues this testimony establishes that the construction of the school was not a public work within the meaning of Title 26, §§ 375(8)-(24), because it was not paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of the state of Alabama. We cannot agree with the contention of the school board. Although it is true that through accounting procedures monies can be categorized and earmarked for specific projects, the fact remains that county boards of education are supported by state funds and that state funds granted by the legislature pursuant to Art. 14, § 270, and Amendment 111 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901, form an enormous portion of the total of county education expenditure. In Williams v. State, 230 Ala. 395, 161 So. 507 (1935), this court decided that public school funds held in bankrupt banks were state funds whether they came from the state treasurer or local taxation. As Williams observed: . . .A loss of such [local] funds would cripple the state school enterprise, just as the loss of any other school funds. . . . It is of no moment that the taxes are paid by local subdivisions, earmarked for the schools in which the taxpayers are directly interested, and designated as county and district funds; nor that local custodians and administrative agencies with corporate powers are made a part of the state educational set-up. (230 Ala. at 397, 161 So. at 508) In the case of State v. Tuscaloosa County, 233 Ala. 611, 172 So. 892 (1937), this court reiterated the holding of Williams and stated that . . . public School funds, as between the county and the State, are State funds. (233 Ala. at 613, 172 So. at 894). We find that the Williams and the Tuscaloosa cases, although they arose in quite different factual contexts from the instant case, answer the question involved in this case. We cannot allow the legislative will to be circumvented by accounting procedures.