Request By:
Mr. Mark E. Gormley
Woodford County Attorney
Courthouse
Versailles, Kentucky 40383
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You say the jailer of Woodford County has recently elected to not act further as the custodian of the courthouse. Actually, it is not his option. Under KRS 67.130, the county judge/executive, with approval of the fiscal court, may employ the jailer as superintendent of county buildings. The converse of that is true, i.e., the county judge/executive, with approval of fiscal court, may employ someone other than the jailer as superintendent of county buildings. In any event, the fiscal court has apparently decided to employ someone else in that capacity.
The question now arises as to whether the jailer is statutorily obligated to continue waiting on the district and circuit courts. Specifically, you do not refer to presenting prisoners to the court. You are referring to such work as opening the courtrooms, checking the heat and air conditioning in the courtrooms, providing drinking water for the court, and generally waiting on the courts.
Under KRS 64.150(1) the county jailer is paid a fee of $6.00 (per each day a prisoner is transported to court) for attending district or circuit court. This statute was last amended by S.B. 5 [Ch. 15, Ex. Sess., 1979].
It is our opinion that KRS 67.130 relates strictly to the jailer's janitorial function in connection with county buildings, including the courthouse. That function involves keeping the buildings in a clean and operative condition and heating and lighting of same. Bath County v. United Disinfectant Co., 248 Ky. 111, 58 S.W.2d 239 (1933) 240. Under the decision of fiscal court, the county jailer no longer has that responsibility. However, under KRS 64.150 the jailer still has the duty of presenting the prisoners under his custody [KRS 71.040] to the courts, district and circuit, as directed by the courts.
Under KRS 64.150(2), the unit of government whose law a prisoner is charged with or convicted of violating shall pay the jailer's court attendance fee. Thus if the prisoner is charged or convicted under a state statute, the state pays the fee.
Campbell County Fiscal Court has filed suit in the U.S. District Court against the Commonwealth, concerning the responsibility of the county to maintain the county jail. Accordingly, that county has requested funds from your county to help defray costs of that legal action. You ask whether such contribution can be legally made.
The issue of whether the county has financial responsibility in maintaining the county jail is one affecting all counties in Kentucky. The case concerns the interpretation of state statutes dealing with the responsibilities of fiscal courts. While we are not informed as to the precise claimed basis for federal jurisdiction in that case, we are of the opinion that the fiscal court of your county may legally expend county money in contributing to the cost of that action, since it is designed to clarify the counties' legal responsibility in that facet of local government. See KRS 67.080 and 67.083. This is of course of direct interest to the county. Reasonably implied in the two statutes is the premise that the fiscal court can expend county money where necessary to seek judicial guidance in the carrying out of its governmental function and the proper exercise of its basic powers. As the court wrote in Hogge v. Rowan County Fiscal Court, 313 Ky. 387, 231 S.W.2d 8 (1950) 8, 9, the fiscal court has the implied power reasonably necessary to execute or to discharge its express duties. Thus the fiscal court may spend county money in paying legal expenses and costs incident to the courts' determination of fiscal court responsibilities and powers. Such payment is subject to proper budgetary procedure as set out in KRS Chapter 68.