Request By:
Mr. William R. Young
Lyon County Attorney
P.O. Box 472
Eddyville, Kentucky 42038
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
On behalf of the Lyon County Judge Executive, you request our opinion concerning the fiscal court's hiring of an additional deputy sheriff at the cost of $10,440.00 per year.
Your facts and questions were stated as follows:
" FACTS
"At the regular March 1983 meeting of the Lyon Fiscal Court, the Lyon County Sheriff appeared and requested the hiring and funding of an additional deputy and offering to accept a reduction in the amount of reimbursement for mileage he was receiving from the fiscal court. After hearing his reasons for the request, the fiscal court voted favorably and agreed to 'an extra full-time deputy in the sheriff's office effective April 1, 1983 at an annual salary of $10,440.00' and agreed to reduce the mileage reimbursement for the sheriff from 30 per mile to 25 per mile.
"Previous budgets have reflected a dollar figure budget to the sheriff's department simply for 'deputy hiring. ' The number of deputies is not specified.
"After the question arose as to whether the Court's action at the March meeting violated the provisions of KRS 64.530, the Lyon County Sheriff appeared at the April meeting and requested in writing the additional funding for a deputy. This is where the matter now stands.
" QUESTIONS
"(1) Did the Court's action at its March 1983 meeting violate the provisions of KRS 64.530?
"(2) May the fiscal court, after receiving the sheriff's written request at its April meeting, proceed under KRS 64.530 and honor the sheriff's request; and, if so, may the funding be made immediately or only after properly budgeted for the next fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983?"
The answer to both questions is simply that the fiscal court's attempt to provide for an additional regular, full-time deputy for the county sheriff is illegal and invalid.
KRS 64.530(3) and (4) require that the fiscal court fix the number of deputies of the sheriff and their specific compensation not later than the first Monday in May in the year of the sheriff's election (that was in 1981). There are no provisions in the statute for changing the number of deputies during an incumbent's term. The statute does contain provisions for adjusting the salaries of deputies during the term.
In the landmark case of
Runk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958) 512, this was written about fixing the number of deputies under KRS 64.530:
" Considering the entire Act as a whole, we think the conclusion is inescapable that the legislature intended that both the number and the compensation of deputies be fixed by the fiscal court before the first Monday in May of the election year, and that if not so fixed the number and compensation will be limited by KRS 64.730 to that of the preceding term. In no other way can effect be given to the obvious purpose of the Act to prevent an increase in expenditures for deputy hire after election. " (Emphasis added).
Subsequent to the Funk v. Millken decision, the General Assembly liberalized the statute to the extent of providing for annual adjustments of deputy salaries. However, in the years intervening after 1958, the General Assembly has not amended the statute to provide for a change in the number of regular deputies during the term of the sheriff.
KRS 64.730 reads:
"Where any public body is required by KRS 64.480 to 64.740 to fix the compensation of an officer, and of his deputies and assistants, for terms commencing after June 30, 1950, not later than the first Monday in May in the year in which such officers are elected, and the body fails to do so, the compensation of the officer, and of his deputies and assistants, shall be the same as for the preceding term."
In your situation, since the number of deputies was not fixed by fiscal court in 1981, the number of deputies employed during the preceding term would govern. In any event, KRS 64.530 does not permit changing or adding to the number of deputies during term.
That part of the question relating to funding an additional deputy is, under our analysis, moot.