Request By:
Mr. George W. Wilson
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Justice
Bureau of Corrections
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You have written us concerning recent legislation which earmarks $5 of court costs [which total costs are either $20 or $25] for county jail operations.
KRS 24A.175 was amended [Ch. 268, 1980 regular session] to add subsection (5), which reads:
"(5) The circuit clerk shall, at the time fines and costs are paid over to the state, pay five dollars ($5.00) from each court cost collected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to the county treasurer for use by the fiscal court for the sole purpose of defraying the costs of operation of the county jail. "
Question No. 1:
"Is there a time limit on spending money, if so must it be spent during the fiscal year received?"
A reasonable construction of the statute means that the jail money should be considered for expenditure, during the fiscal year received, through the budget item or items established for county jail operations. See KRS 68.240. The statute does not deal with the time limit aspect expressly. However, the constitution [see § 157] and KRS Chapter 68 contemplate a pay-as-you-go budget. Thus no fiscal court can deliberately budget surpluses.
Payne v. Covington, 276 Ky. 380, 123 S.W.2d 1045 (1938).
Question No. 2:
"Can the money be used for new construction of a jail or construction of a new addition?"
The answer is "yes".
The phrase "costs of operation of the county jail" is very broad; and the statute fails to indicate that any thing other than common usage of language was intended. Under ordinary usage of language the phrase "cost of operation of the county jail" is broad enough to embrace the use of the money for new construction of a jail or construction of a new addition. In
Green v. Moore, 281 Ky. 305, 135 S.W.2d 682 (1940) 683, Judge Stanley wrote that "unless there is something in the act plainly indicating a contrary sense in which the language was employed, the usual and ordinary meaning of the words used will be attributed to them." The Act's title [S.B. 278, Ch. 268, 1980 session] reads "An Act relating to detention facilities and raising revenues therefor." The general language of the title is consistent with the ordinary language construction. If the General Assembly had in mind excluding capital expenditures, they could have so easily done so, and thus could have employed the technical meaning approach. But it was a matter of common knowledge that the counties in Kentucky are faced, under current statutes, with the serious problem of providing county jails, with all of its financial implications.
"Can the money be put in escrow for the purpose of accumulating enough for new construction? "
It is our opinion that this money coming into the county treasury may be budgeted or earmarked by way of a special reserve fund for construction purposes, which may be maintained and carried over for the number of fiscal years necessary, provided that the fiscal court has by order or resolution committed the county to a definite capital project [construction, reconstruction, or renovation of the county jail] , supported by a bond issue or holding corporation action on the part of fiscal court. See KRS 67.450, et seq., and
Sizemore v. Clay County, 268 Ky. 712, 105 S.W.2d 841 (1937).
Finally, the question arises as to what happens to any county jail money, arising out of KRS 24A.175, which is actually surplus at the end of a particular fiscal year. To begin, the statute provides that the jail money will be paid to the county affected. There is nothing in the statute suggesting that any surplus at the end of a particular fiscal year will be taken from the county. Thus it is the responsibility of the fiscal court to see that any surplus is either placed in a reserve fund for construction, as mentioned above, or budgeted for expenditure for non-capital jail purposes (i.e., for other than construction repair, or renovation purposes) for subsequent fiscal years, depending upon the necessary operational expenses of the county jail. In any event, KRS 24A.175 requires that the so called jail money be spent for the sole purpose of defraying the costs of operation of the county jail. Thus any surplus in any particular fiscal year cannot be transferred into the county's general fund, in view of the fact that under present statutory law and the nature of the operation the operational costs of the county jail is a constant and recurring item for which the counties are presently responsible. Cf.