Could a South Carolina school district use food-service revenue to replace the state share of employee fringe benefits?

Plain-English summary

The state superintendent asked whether the education department reasonably read a budget proviso allowing school districts to use food-service revenue for a proportionate share of food-service employees' fringe benefits after state allocations were exhausted. The AG concluded that the department's interpretation was reasonable and that no compelling reason appeared to overturn it.

Under the department's example, state funds typically covered about 70 percent of fringe-benefit costs and districts covered about 30 percent. If food-service employees accounted for 10 percent of total fringe-benefit expenditures, food-service revenue could cover 10 percent of the 30-percent shortfall, not the state-funded 70-percent share for those employees. The letter rejected a district's proposed use of food-service money to replace that state share while putting the state funds toward other personnel.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could food-service revenue replace the state allocation for food-service workers' fringe benefits?
The AG said the proviso did not indicate that intent. He supported the department's reading that the money covered only a proportionate share of the remaining shortfall.

What did the 10-percent example mean?
The letter assumed food-service staff accounted for 10 percent of benefit expenditures and state funds covered about 70 percent. On those stated figures, food-service receipts could cover 10 percent of the remaining 30-percent shortfall.

Was the department's formula written out in the proviso?
No. The AG said the proviso did not specify how to calculate a “proportionate share,” but found the department's construction reasonable.

Did the opinion set a permanent 70-percent state contribution?
No. The 70-percent figure was described as what the state typically paid in the circumstances presented to the AG in 1994.

Background and statutory framework

The budget proviso in § 20.28 allowed districts to use food-service revenue for a proportionate share of food-service personnel benefits once state fringe-benefit allocations were spent. The AG applied the then-recognized respectful consideration given to an administering agency's statutory construction. He found the department's proportional-shortfall formula consistent with the proviso's language and purpose.

Citations and references

• § 20.28: the education appropriations proviso interpreted in the letter.

Archive topic (rephrased)

Whether the education department reasonably interpreted the appropriations proviso governing food-service revenue and fringe benefits.

Requester

The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education, Department of Education

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-19-1994/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1994sept19nielson.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK
ATIORNEY GENERAL

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

POST OFACE BOX 11549
COWMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549
TELEPHONE!: 803-734-3636

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

September 19, 1994

The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen, Ed.D. State Superintendent Qf Education Department of Education Rutledge Building, Room 1006 1429 Senate Street Columbia, SC 29201 Dear Superintendent Nielsen: You have requested the opinion of this Office as to Act 164, Part I, § 20.28, 1993 s.c. Acts 826, which states, in part, as follows: Once a district has expended all state allocated funds for fringe benefits, the district may utilize food services revenues to fund a proportionate share of fringe benefits costs for food service personnel. Your question concerning this provision, which is contained in the Department of Education's section of the Appropriations Act, is whether the Department has reasonably interpreted this proviso. The Department's interpretation, according to your letter, is that the food services revenues may be used only to fund any shortfall in State revenue for fringe benefits which is proportionate to the percentage of food services employees out of total district employment. According to your letter, the State typically pays approximately 70% of the total fringe benefits which leaves a 30% shortfall which must be covered by the school districts. Under the Department's interpretation of Proviso 20.28, if food services personnel covered by § 20.28 accounted for 10% of a district's total fringe benefit expenditures, the district could use food services revenues to fund 10% of the 30% shortfall for all covered employees. The following standard of review is controlling here:

The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen
September 19, 1994
Page 2

The construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent compelling reasons. Dunton v. South Carolina Board of Examiners in Optometry, 291 s.c. 221, 353 S.E.2d 132 (1987).

I

Applying this standard to the Department's interpretation indicates that it would be upheld by a court because no compelling reasons appear to exist to overrule it. The express language of S 20.28 does not state how the "proportionate share" must be determined, but the Department's interpretation is consistent with a reasonable reading of the language of Proviso 20. 28. The State funds allocated under that provision must be used for "personnel required by the defined minimum program, food services personnel and other personnel required by law." Therefore, the Department has certainly not acted unreasonably in assuming that a district would have allocated State funds to all of these personnel in the same proportions so that if State funds covered 70% of fringe benefit costs, 70% of the fringe benefits costs for food services personnel would have been covered by State Funds as would the defined minimum employees and others. Therefore, the shortfall for food services personnel would be 30%. Accordingly, if food services employees were 10% of the work force, food services funds could be used only to cover 10% of that total 30% shortfall. Section 20.28 limits the fringe benefit use of food services revenue to food service personnel. According to your letter, a school district has interpreted S 20.28 so as to have the effect of allowing a district to use the State funds allocated by§ 20.28 for non-food service personnel and use the food services money to fund the State's approximately 70% share fringe benefit costs for food services personnel. Section 20.28 indicates no such legislative intent. Spartanburg Cemetery Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 s.c. 67, 321 S.E.2d 258 ( 1984) . 1 If the Legislature had intended that food services revenues would be used to fund the 70% share for those employees, it could have stated that the State allocation in § 20.28 would be used entirely for non-food services. The law does not contain that language nor does it indicate such intent.

1

Legislative intent is
struction of statutes.
Id.

the dominant

factor

in the con-

The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen
September 19, 1994
Page 3

The opinion of this Off ice is that the Department of Education has reasonably interpreted § 20.28 and that no compelling reason appears to exist that would cause a court to overturn the Department's findings. If you have any questions, please let me know.

JESjr:ppw

ROBERT D. COOK
Executive Assistant for Opinions