Request By:
Theresa Jones
620 East 23rd Street
Owensboro, Kentucky 42301
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; Nancy S. Marksberry, Assistant Attorney General
On behalf of yourself and other Police Women School Crossing Guards you question the legality of Ordinance No. 231-78 enacted by the City of Owensboro on December 29, 1978. You indicate that the guards are sworn peace officers and have the authority to issue citations and place and remove traffic control devices. As a direct result of the ordinance in question, the school guards are now employed by the Owensboro City School Board, as opposed to the City of Owensboro.
It is our opinion that the ordinance is violative of the Kentucky Constitution inasmuch as it requires the Owensboro City School Board to employ the school crossing guards. Section 184 of the Kentucky Constitution provides, in part, that ". . . any sum which may be produced by taxation or otherwise for purposes of common school education, shall be appropriated to the common schools, and to no other purpose." In Board of Education of Spencer County v. Spencer County, 313 Ky. 8, 230 S.W.2d 81, 83 (1950), the test for permissible expenditures of school funds was clearly enunciated:
The test is, what constitutes an educational purpose within the meaning of Section 184 of the Constitution, rather than whether an activity might be beneficial to education.
The employment of school crossing guards is not an "educational purpose" for which school funds may be expended. See attached copies of OAG 76-239 and 69-488.
Furthermore, the City School Board lacks the authority to enforce traffic regulations. See attached copy of OAG 75-614. KRS 94.360 gives a city of other than the first class the exclusive control of its streets. Regarding traffic control devices near schools, KRS 189.336 provides:
(1) Fiscal courts, with respect to school zones situated in unincorporated areas, may authorize by resolution installation at county expense of school flasher lights and other traffic control devices on highways in school zones as they deem reasonable and necessary.
(2) Cities, with respect to school zones within their incorporated areas, may authorize by ordinance installation at city expense of school flasher lights and other traffic control devices on highways in school zones as they deem reasonable and necessary.
(3) The speed limit on all highways where school flasher lights are in operation shall be determined by the governmental unit having control of the highway where a school flasher light is in operation. Flasher lights shall be placed one-eighth (1/8) of a mile on each side of the principal school building where practical. The governmental unit having control of the highway where the lights are in operation shall erect signs notifying motorists of the speed limit.
(4) "Highways" as used in this section shall mean any public road or street maintained by a city, county or the state.
(5) Any traffic control devices erected by any governmental unit shall conform to standards and specifications authorized by KRS 189.337.
See also OAG 72-251, copy attached, which discusses KRS 189.390.
Accordingly, the city clearly has the authority to employ school crossing guards for purposes of regulation of traffic and traffic control devices. By virtue of the city's exclusive control over its streets, it follows that no other entity may regulate traffic and/or traffic control devices.
In summary, Ordinance No. 231-78 of the City of Owensboro is invalid for the following reasons:
(1) School funds may only be expended for "educational purposes."
(2) The city school board does not have the authority to regulate traffic.
(3) The city has exclusive control over traffic and traffic control devices on its streets.
Inasmuch as the ordinance is invalid, we do not need to discuss your other questions.