Request By:
Mr. Charles Hart
Bath County Judge Executive
Owingsville, Kentucky 40360
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The factual background for your questions was stated in your letter, which reads as follows:
"Bath County Jailer Hoover Rogers and Treasurer Brenda Thomas submitted to the Fiscal Court a budget for the Bath County jail to be in effect July 1, 1983. It included in this budget salaries for deputies. The budget was approved and accepted by the Fiscal Court. The jail was closed; the Jailer retained one deputy to help perform the duties of transportation namely: guard, driver, and/or matron. He submitted time sheets to the Treasurer of 12 hours per day 7 days per week. Money was available in Jailer's budget to meet this payment. Matter was presented to Fiscal Court -- Court rejected payment by tie vote.
"Question 1: Is Treasurer obligated to pay bill submitted by Jailer when funds are available in budget under line item of deputy salaries?
"Question 2: Is such a problem considered a personnel question?"
Under the current KRS 71.060, any jailer may appoint not more than two (2) deputies, and, with the approval of the fiscal court, he may appoint additional deputies at any time during his term of office. Under H.B. 182 (1984 session) , KRS 71.060 has been amended to provide that the jailer shall be responsible for the appointment and removal of jail personnel, provided, however, that the number of jail personnel shall be set by the fiscal court in the jail budget. H.B. 182 becomes effective July 13, 1984. In addition, that bill provides that if in the county there is no jail, Section 1 (relating to deputies) shall not be applicable, and the jailer shall not be entitled to nor shall he appoint any jail personnel.
In answer to question no. 1, under the present KRS 441.008, the county treasurer must disburse jail operating funds covering the deputy at the direction of the jailer, provided the expenditures are within authorized budget categories, and the money is actually available in the particular funds involved. The vote of fiscal court is not required. However, on and after July 13, 1984, where the jail is closed, the jailer can no longer use his appointed deputy. On and after July 13, 1984, under H.B. 310 (1984 session) , which amends KRS 441.500, in any county where there is no jail (or the county operates a holdover jail) , the fiscal court shall adopt a transportation plan for prisoners: (a) The fiscal court may require the jailer to serve as transportation officer to transport prisoners as necessary; or (b) The fiscal court may require the sheriff to serve as transportation officer for transporting prisoners; or (c) The fiscal court may adopt any reasonable transportation plan so long as the party responsible is specified. In any county where there is no jail and the jailer is not selected by the fiscal court to transport prisoners, the jailer shall serve as a bailiff to circuit and district courts of the county as provided for in KRS 71.050. The fiscal court may also require the jailer to serve as custodian of county buildings and grounds, as provided for in KRS 67.130.
H.B. 310 amends KRS 441.008 to provide that the county treasurer shall be responsible to the fiscal court as relates to jail budget expenditures, although he must cooperate with the jailer where there is a jail. All purchases from the jail account must receive fiscal court approval. Except for capital improvements, maintenance, utilities and insurance, and submission of time reports, the jailer has the authority to authorize expenditures from the jail budget, where there is a jail. Such expenditures shall only be made in accordance with the line item jail budget duly adopted or amended by the fiscal court and the established county procurement code or purchase order procedure of the county. Payment for purchases for the jail shall be subject to fiscal court approval prior to payment. The fiscal court shall not withhold approval of payment for jail expenditures which are within the jail budget and not unlawful.
Where there is no jail, the fiscal court has the responsibility under H.B. 310 to provide for the transportation of prisoners, including the provision of vehicles, drivers and guards. See Section 13, H.B. 310, amending KRS 441.006.
We have already answered question no. 2.
In summary, up to July 13, 1984, under the present law as relates to the jailer's deputy, where he assists the jailer as transportation officer, the county treasurer should disburse the compensation earned and payable to this deputy from the available budgeted "jail budget" funds. On and after July 13, 1984, the jailer's deputy can no longer pursue that role. It is then up to the fiscal court to provide any necessary vehicles, drivers and guards for whoever is transportation officer.