Request By:
Mr. Bill Laney
City Manager
517 N. Main Street
Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of October 20 in which you present the following facts and question:
"As per our phone conversation on Oct. 20, I am requesting a written opinion on KRS 241.170 pertaining to the appointment of the city administrator. The city of Nicholasville is a fourth class city operating under a city commission form of government with a city manager. "
You are referring, of course, to the appointment of the city ABC Administrator pursuant to subsection (2) of KRS 241.170 which reads as follows:
"(2) The city administrator in each city of the second, third or fourth class shall be appointed by the city manager if there is one. If there is no city manager, the city administrator shall be appointed by the mayor."
Under the above subsection the city ABC Administrator in a city of the fourth class is appointed by the city manager where the city is operating under the commission-city manager form of government which includes Nicholasville. Under this statute the appointment is made by the city manager without the approval of the city commission. However, Senate Bill 26, effective July 15, 1980, which now governs the operation of cities of all classes, contains a section namely KRS 83A.150(7)(b) covering the city manager's powers. Under this statute the city manager is only authorized to recommend to the Board of Commissioners the appointment of subordinate employees and officers of the city. It further provides that no officer or employee of the city shall be appointed except through action by the Board of Commissioners.
The provision of KRS 83A.150 would, we believe, impliedly repeal the provision of KRS 241.170(2) insofar as it conflicts with this statute and require that the city manager merely recommend to the Board of Commissioners for appointment a qualified person to serve as ABC Administrator. We base this interpretation on the principle of statutory construction that if two statutes are repugnant to each other the later statute must prevail. See
Head v. Commonwealth, 165 Ky. 603, 177 S.W. 731 (1915). The court in this case further clarified this rule of construction by saying that:
"In