Request By:
Honorable Frankie Scott Hager
City Attorney
City of Owensboro
City Hall
Owensboro, Kentucky 42301
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of March 4 in which you raise a number of questions concerning the operation of the city of Owensboro having a city manager form of government, under the new budget act and Senate Bill 26 which appear to have conflicting provisions relating to the same subject.
Your initial question is whether the city commission or city manager is responsible for preparing the city budget.
The budget act states, pursuant to KRS 91A.030 (5), that the executive authority of the city prepares the budget. Also under the budget act the term "executive authority" is defined to mean the board of commissioners in cities operating under the city manager form of government. See KRS 91A.010 (2). At the same time Senate Bill 26 provides under the definition section that the term "executive authority" is the board of commissioners under the city manager form of government. See KRS 83A.010 (6). However, under the statute governing the city manager form of government pursuant to Senate Bill 26, we find that KRS 83A.150 (7) (c) provides that the city manager, as part of his duties, must prepare the city budget.
As a consequence, we have three sections of the statutes pertaining to the budget act and Senate Bill declaring in effect the the board of commissioners under the city manager form of government prepares the budget. At the same time the specific statute governing the city manager form of government under S.B. 26 provides that the city manager shall prepare the budget. These obvious conflicts can however be resolved by applying the provisions of KRS 83A.150 (7) (h) which declares that the board of commissioners may delegate to the city manager the power to perform any duty required of the board by statute. This subsection with respect to the powers that may be delegated to the city manager reads as follows:
"Performing other duties required of city executive authorities by statute or required of him by the board not inconsistent with this section." (Emphasis added).
Under the circumstances, the board of commissioners of the city must either prepare the city budget itself or delegate this authority to the city manager pursuant to KRS 83A.150.
Your second question concerns the disbursement of city funds. KRS 91A.060(2) provides that all city funds are to be disbursed by written authorization approved by the executive authority. You state that this provision may conflict with the Model Procurement Code the city has adopted which allows abbreviated purchasing procedures without the approval of the board of commissioners and the city in adopting the code has given to the city manager the responsibility of executing contracts on behalf of the board.
The apparent inconsistency to which you have referred can also be resolved pursuant to the board's authority to delegate the statutory responsibilities to the city manager under KRS 83A.150 (7) (h) previously referred to.
Your third question is as follows:
"If we use our Model Procurement procedure and if the Mayor's signature is on each numbered check which identifies the person paid, the purchase order number, from what fund expended, the date and any discount, would this be sufficient compliance with KRS 91A.060 (2)?"
In response to the above, we refer you initially to KRS 83A.150 (3) which contains the following provision:
". . . The mayor shall be recognized as the head of the city government by the governor for purposes of military law, but shall have no regular administrative duties. . . ." (Emphasis added).
Since the mayor can have no administrative duties and cannot be delegated any such duties by the board of commissioners the procurement procedure referred to would have to be delegated to the city manager under the authority mentioned above in KRS 83A.150 (7) (h).