STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6166

July 7, 1983

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Intermediate school districts--authority to take over transportation of mentally impaired pupils from the local school districts

An intermediate school district may not unilaterally assume responsibility for the transportation of all pupils enrolled in its trainable mentally impaired program and require local school districts to relinquish this function.

Although an intermediate school district superintendent may disapprove overlapping and duplicate routes involving transportation of trainable mentally impaired pupils, the superintendent may not prohibit a local school district from operating a disapproved route at its own expense.

Honorable David M. Serotkin

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on a question regarding the authority of the Macomb Intermediate School District to transport certain handicapped children presently being transported by their local school districts. My office has been advised by officials of the intermediate school district that the intermediate school district provides special education programs for severely mentally impaired, severely multiply impaired, and trainable mentally impaired students, at a central location which is operated by the intermediate school district. The intermediate school district presently transports all children enrolled in the severely mentally impaired and severely multiply impaired programs. Each local school district transports its resident students enrolled in the trainable mentally impaired program. The intermediate district has proposed that it also transport the pupils enrolled in the trainable mentally impaired program. You have inquired whether the intermediate district may provide such transportation and, if so, whether it may require local districts to relinquish this function.

The State School Aid Act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, Sec. 71(2), as amended; MCLA 388.1671(2); MSA 15.1919(971)(2), authorizes reimbursement of local school districts and intermediate school districts for transportation of pupils attending special education programs. The School Code of 1976, 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1751; MCLA 380.1751; MSA 15.41751, requires a local school district to provide special education programs for its resident handicapped pupils. The local school district may either operate the program itself or it may contract with an intermediate school district, local school district or other agency for delivery of the program. 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 1751(2)(b) and Sec. 1756 explicitly requires that such a contract also provide for any necessary transportation. Thus, an intermediate school district operating special education programs for handicapped pupils who are residents of its constituent local districts may provide transportation for such students.

The State Board of Education has promulgated administrative rules governing transportation of handicapped persons. Administrative Code, 1979 AACS, R 380.51-R 380.61. These rules govern transportation provided to handicapped pupils which exceeds the regular transportation services provided to all students eligible for transportation. In the fact situation posed in your inquiry, all of the students involved are receiving appropriate transportation services as prescribed by these rules.

R 380.55 requires the intermediate school district to coordinate or provide for additional and specialized transportation. R 380.56 provides that a school district is not eligible for state school aid reimbursement for such transportation unless the bus route or other transportation service is approved by the superintendent of the intermediate school district or his or her designee. R 380.57 requires the superintendent of the intermediate school district to deny authorization for a bus route or other transportation service that unnecessarily overlaps or duplicates another route or service.

The purpose of these rules is to promote more efficient and less costly transportation. To the extent that routes operated by the intermediate district and local district are unnecessarily overlapping or duplicative, the intermediate school district superintendent must disapprove one of them. A local school district may not be prohibited from continuing to operate a disapproved route but it will not be eligible for state school aid reimbursement for transportation over the disapproved route.

It is my opinion, therefore, that an intermediate school district may not unilaterally assume responsibility for transporting all pupils enrolled in its trainable mentally impaired program and require local school districts to relinquish the function. It is my further opinion that although an intermediate school district superintendent may disapprove overlapping and duplicative routes involving transportation of trainable mentally impaired pupils, the superintendent may not prohibit a local school district from operating a disapproved route at its own expense.

Frank J. Kelley