Request By:
Honorable Wilburn J. Pratt
Commissioner, Department for Local Government
Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of August 5 in which you present the following questions with respect to the effect of Senate Bill 26, enacted by the 1980 General Assembly, as it relates to cities of the sixth class. Your questions are as follows:
"1) Does Section 2(1) of Chapter 235, Acts, 1980 require the commission form of government for sixth (6th) class cities currently governed and structured under KRS Chapter 88?
"2) If a change in form of government is necessary, on what date must members of the new governing body be elected?
"3) If sixth (6th) class cities are required to change to the commission plan, when does a vacancy occur in the office of mayor as required under Section 3(2) of the same chapter? How and when does that vacancy have to be filled? If an election is required, when does an election to fill that vacancy have to be held?"
In response to the above questions, KRS 83A.020 (1) declares that each city presently organized and governed under the provisions of Chapter 88 KRS is declared to be organized and governed under the commission form of government. Subsection (2) provides that the present organizational structure of each city shall remain in force until changed under this chapter. KRS 83A.030 (2) provides that each city organized and governed under the commission form of government shall have a legislative body composed of a mayor and four (4) commissioners. Subsection (3) provides, however, that before the expiration of the terms of the present legislative body, members of each city shall take necessary action to be in compliance with this section and in no event shall a city fail to be in compliance within two (2) years from the effective date of this act [July 15, 1980].
KRS 83A.080 (3) further provides that each elective city office existing upon the adoption of this act shall continue until abolished by ordinance except that of the mayor and legislative members, however, no abolition of an elective office shall take effect until the expiration of the current office holder's term.
In reading the above referred to statutes together, it is initially clear that all sixth class cities of the Commonwealth are required to change to the commission form of government, thereby making an organizational change in the structure of their present form of government by reducing their legislative body to four (4) and adding a mayor. It could be argued that the change must be made as of July 15, the effective date of the act. However, we believe that by reading the referred to statutes together, it was the legislative intent for the interim period section to apply to sixth class cities as well as other classes in order to give them time to make the changes required by the act, in this instance changing to the commission form of government.
Where there exists some ambiguity in the language of the related statutes, the statutes as a whole as well as separate parts may be examined to ascertain the intention of the legislation in order to reach a reasonable and workable conclusion. Moore v. Alsmiller, 289 Ky. 682, 160 S.W.2d 10 (1942), and the case of May v. Clay-Gentry-Groves T.W. Co., 284 Ky. 502, 145 S.W.2d 84 (1940). The statutes must also be given a practical construction. See Commonwealth v. Randolph, 277 Ky. 724, 127 S.W.2d 398 (1939).
Thus, we have reached the conclusion that all sixth class cities must change to the commission form, however, they have been given up to two (2) years to make such transition and be in compliance which should be done by an appropriate resolution. This simply means that any cities of the sixth class may, following July 15, change to the commission form of government at any time but not later than two (2) years thereafter.
Assuming that a sixth class city desired to comply at this point in time, it would face certain legal problems. The present members of the board of trustees (5) would become members of the city commission (4), except for the fact that there would be one too many commissioners whose office cannot be abolished until his term expires [KRS 83A.080 (3)]; Tandy v. City of Hopkinsville, 174 Ky. 189, 192 S.W. 46 (1917). Also a vacancy would be created in the office of mayor to be filled by appointment by the other members of the newly formed commission, subject to the requirements of § 152 of the Constitution. If the changeover was made at this point in time [which is less than ninety (90) days before the general election] no election could be held to fill the mayor's vacancy because of the requirements of the constitutional section mentioned and the appointee would serve out the remainder of the mayor's term which ends in January, 1982. The next regular election for the office of mayor and members of the legislative body, including commissioners, being in November, 1981 in accordance with § 167 of the Constitution.
It would appear that the change in government could be accomplished more easily and orderly by doing so in time for the 1981 regular November election, to become effective the first Monday in January, 1982, the beginning of the next regular term for members of the city commission and the office of mayor. This would permit the present board members to complete their regular term, eliminate the problem of the extra board member that would otherwise exist if the change were to be made earlier and provides uniform transition for all sixth class cities.
The 1981 general election for the office of commissioner and mayor would be conducted under the general election laws which now apply to all elections outside of those involving cities of the second class operating under the city manager form of government. See KRS 83A.050.