Request By:
Joseph R. Rubin, Esq.
Suite 300 Fireside Building
209 South Fifth Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter concerning a proposed interlocal agreement which you have asked this office to review. The proposed agreement involves a cooperative undertaking by three counties and provides in part for the issuance of bonds jointly by those counties. The agreement will be executed pursuant to the provisions and requirements of KRS 65.210 to 65.300.
The proposed agreement involves the adoption of a Homeowners Mortgage Finance Plan to facilitate the construction of new housing and the acquisition of existing housing. The plan will enable persons meeting maximum income limitations, as approved by the counties, to finance the purchase of safe and sanitary new housing and existing housing, and to redevelop existing housing, at less than the prevailing market interest rate.
The proposed agreement is made pursuant to the authority set forth in the county home rule provisions, specifically KRS 67.083(3)(j), as interpreted by the
Court of Appeals in Jones v. County of Laurel, Ky.App., 600 S.W.2d 489 (1980), and discussed in OAG 80-473, copy enclosed.
KRS 67.083(3)(j) provides as follows:
"The fiscal court shall have the power to carry out governmental functions necessary for the operation of the county. Except as otherwise provided by statute or the Kentucky Constitution, the fiscal court of any county may enact ordinances, issue regulations, levy taxes, issue bonds, appropriate funds and employ personnel in performance of the following public functions:
* * *
Causing the repair or demolition of structures which present a hazard to public health, safety or morals or are otherwise inimical to the welfare of residents of the county; causing the development of housing and related commercial, industrial and service facilities in urban or rural areas; providing education and counseling services and technical assistance to present and future residents of publicly assisted housing; "
In
Jones v. County of Laurel, Ky.App., 600 S.W.2d 489 (1980), a taxpayer had brought an action for a declaratory judgment that a county ordinance, facilitating construction of new housing in the county, was invalid because the General Assembly, in its 1979 Extraordinary Session, deleted from the provisions of KRS 67.083(3)(j) the provision authorizing "Facilitating the construction of new housing. " At page 491 of its opinion the Court held:
"We hold, therefore, that the court below correctly determined that the action of the 1979 Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly in amending subsection (3)(j) of KRS 67.083 by deleting the phrase 'facilitating the construction of new housing' was beyond the subject matter of the proclamation for the session and is void."
This office, in OAG 80-473, concluded, at page five of the opinion, that the words "Facilitating the construction of new housing" must be construed as being legally contained in the current version of KRS 67.083(3)(j).
Since a county, individually, has the authority, pursuant to KRS 67.083(3)(j), to facilitate the construction of new housing and to cause the redevelopment of existing housing, it may join together with other counties, under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act (KRS 65.210 to 65.300) to collectively engage in such permissible activities. We have examined your proposed interlocal agreement and it satisfies the requirements set forth in KRS 65.210 to 65.300.