Opinion ID: 1723670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sponsored or Financed by the State

Text: In construing the terms of a statute, this Court has often stated that we must give effect to the Legislature's intent. When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must honor the legislative intent as clearly indicated in that language. No further construction is required or permitted. Tryc v. Michigan Veterans' Facility, 451 Mich. 129, 135, 545 N.W.2d 642 (1996). Further, where a statute does not define a term, we will ascribe its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 135-136, 545 N.W.2d 642; Shelby Twp. v. Dep't of Social Services, 143 Mich.App. 294, 300, 372 N.W.2d 533 (1985). We find no ambiguity in the prevailing wage act's threshold requirement that a project must be sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state. No construction of these terms is required. If the state, including any part of state government, helps to finance a project, or undertakes some responsibility for a project, this criterion is met. Because we agree with the analysis of the Attorney General regarding whether the state has sponsored or financed a project in whole or in part, specifically regarding the university's project at issue in this case, we will set forth that analysis here: Direct legislative appropriation of funds is not ... the only means by which a project can be sponsored or financed by the state. In West Ottawa Public Schools v. Director, Dep't of Labor, 107 Mich.App. 237, 309 N.W.2d 220 (1981), lv den 413 Mich. 917 (1982), for example, the state did not directly appropriate any funds for the project in question but did act as a surety for the payment of bonds issued to finance the project. The Court held that this was sufficient to constitute sponsorship within the meaning of the prevailing wage act. In reaching this conclusion, the Court defined sponsor as one who assumes responsibility for some other person or thing. 107 Mich.App at 247-248, 309 N.W.2d 220. The board of control of a state university assumes responsibility for any construction project undertaken by the university and the university, thus, is the sponsor of the project. State universities are clearly a part of state government in Michigan. Regents of the University of Michigan v. Employment Relations Comm., 389 Mich. 96, 108, 204 N.W.2d 218 (1973); Branum v. Bd. of Regents of University of Michigan, 5 Mich.App. 134, 138-139, 145 N.W.2d 860 (1966).2 2 It is noted that several cases have reached a contrary result with respect to local school districts. See, e.g., Bowie v. Coloma School Bd., 58 Mich.App. 233, 227 N.W.2d 298 (1975), and Muskegon Bldg. & Constr. Trades v. Muskegon Area Intermediate School Dist., 130 Mich.App. 420, 343 N.W.2d 579 (1983), lv den 419 Mich. 916 (1984). These cases are clearly distinguishable, however, since school districts have been characterized as municipal corporations and are not part of state government. See, e.g., Bowie, supra, 58 Mich.App at 239, 227 N.W.2d 298; State universities, in contrast, are institutions of state government. Regents of the University of Michigan, supra ; Branum, supra . [OAG, supra at 158.] We fully agree with this analysis. Western Michigan University is the state within the meaning of the prevailing wage act. This Court has fully and consistently articulated the nature of state institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Michigan and Western Michigan University. In Auditor General v. Regents of the Univ., 83 Mich. 467, 47 N.W. 440 (1890), this Court found that the state universities are organically part of the state government and found that all university property is state property held in trust for the public purpose of the university. While we recognize that state universities must exercise a fair amount of independence and control over their day-to-day operations and the use of state university funds in furtherance of their educational purposes, this does not diminish their essential character as a part of the state. As explained by the Court of Appeals, in a case involving the application of governmental immunity to the University of Michigan: In spite of its independence, the board of regents remains a part of the government of the State of Michigan.