Request By:
Mr. Gardner D. Wagers
Clark County Judge/Executive
Clark County Courthouse
P.O. Box 5
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You request an opinion of this office as to whether the county jailer can deduct the interest paid on money borrowed to run the Clark County Jail from his excess fees.
The current jailer took office in November, 1980, but the jail was immediately closed until January 1, 1981. During the closing period the jailer had to pay deputies to be trained and other necessary expenses. He has had to borrow money to run the jail, paying interest on the loan. The borrowed money went into a special official account of the jailer. That money is released upon the signature of the county treasurer and county judge executive, although the jailer's account does not directly involve the county treasury. Banks are now charging 17% interest.
The question: May the jailer take credit against his excess fees as to the interest paid on the borrowed money?
The rule was established in
Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958) 506, that a county officer who is compensated wholly or in part from fees is required to pay over to the county, each year, the excess of receipts over and above the amounts allowable for his personal compensation, the compensation of his legally authorized deputies and assistants, and authorized official expenses.
Assuming that the claimed expenses related to the jailer's deputies compensation and training and other necessary purposes vital to the operation of the jail, such expenses would be official expenses. The jailer can properly take credit against his fees for such expenses have been made available to you and the fiscal court. We further assume that the expenses involve reasonable cost, since the jailer's excess fees go to the county, as mentioned earlier.
As relates to the interest paid to the bank, and considering the basic assumptions made above, it is our opinion that the interest is a proven and official expense, and for which he can take credit against his excess fees. The borrowing was necessary, since a closed jail generated no fees to the jailer. The fiscal court has the overall responsibility for maintaining the county jail. See KRS 67.080 and 67.083. Here the jailer borrowed the money to maintain the jail during the closed period, which was directly for the county's benefit. In such case the county may not accept the benefit without accepting the attendant burden, the interest cost. That is equitable and right under the circumstances. Actually the jailer, in borrowing this money, was in effect assuming a burden of the county. See OAG 80-661, written to you, of related interest.