Request By:
Mr. W. E. Quisenberry
McLean County Attorney
P.O. Box 261
Calhoun, Kentucky 42327
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The Agriculture Extension Council of McLean County requested the fiscal court, at a meeting held June 21, 1977, to give financial aid sufficient to permit the council to employ a full-time 4-H agent. A motion was made and seconded to hire such agent and pay his salary from the county's revenue sharing funds. The motion failed on a vote of four against three for passage of the motion, with the county judge abstaining.
At a later meeting of the McLean Fiscal Court, the question was again discussed, and they requested an opinion as to whether or not they could again consider the matter. No further action has been taken. The answer is "yes".
The extension board has the authority to accept contributions from the fiscal court for use in conducting extension work in agriculture and home economics. KRS 164.655(15) and 247.080. The extension board has to prepare an annual budget [KRS 164.655(8)] and present it to the fiscal court of the county in which the extension district is located. KRS 164.665. The fiscal court can accept or reject the budget in whole or in part, subject to KRS 247.300. The appropriation for extension work under KRS 247.300 is mandatory. If the fiscal court accepts the budget, and if the fiscal court is unable to provide all or any part of the funds of the budget under the provisions of KRS 247.080, the fiscal court is authorized to levy a tax for such funds. However, in connection with your specific question, we assume the subject matter of the motion does not involve the mandatory appropriation action treated in KRS 247.300.
Our appellate court has ruled that an appropriation is non-judicial and may be disregarded at its discretion, unless individual or contract rights have become involved. Crittenden County Court v. Shanks, 88 Ky. 475, 11 S.W. 468 (1889) 469. In that case the fiscal court made an appropriation to construct two certain bridges across Camp Creek. However, later after the orders were entered, the fiscal court decided the bridges would be unwise and set aside the orders. The Court of Appeals, in upholding the fiscal court's change of legislative action, said that the court had contracted with no one, and in their legislative capacity undertook to make the appropriation, but, whether legislative or judicial, it was the only party to the proceeding, and had the right at any time to revoke the order making the appropriation until the rights of others became involved. The court held in Smith v. Livingston County, 195 Ky. 382, 242 S.W. 612 (1922) 618, that in the construction of roads and making appropriations therefor, the fiscal court acts in a legislative capacity, and it may amend or set aside its orders upon such subjects, where no contractual rights are involved.
It is our opinion that the fiscal court, in dealing with this legislative function of appropriation, may reconsider at another meeting the matter of making an appropriation for the 4-H agent employment.