Request By:
Hon. Harvey Pennington
Rowan County Attorney
Post Office Box 489
Morehead, Kentucky 40351
Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
You ask whether the fiscal court is responsible for necessary repairs to a bridge serving one private residence. At one time the bridge was part of the route of a county road, but the road was rerouted, bypassing the bridge and leaving it to serve one residence. The old roadway and bridge were never officially closed by the county.
In our view, given the particular facts involved, the answer is no - the county is not responsible for repairing a bridge which, though in the county road syste, now serves one private residence. Discussion follows.
You ask whether the Rowan Fiscal Court is responsible for needed repairs for a bridge which serves one private residence in Rowan County. The bridge in question, as understood from a follow-up telephone conversation with you, and a conversation with Rowan County Magistrate Beecher Adkins, is the one shown in figure 1 of the attachments to this opinion. At one time, as understood from Mr. Adkins, the bridge was part of the path of the Buffalo Branch Road, off Highway 174, in Rowan County. At a time not detailed in your letter, the road was rerouted, leaving the bridge to serve one residence. The bridge, and related roadway, you indicate, were never officially removed from the county road system.
The undersigned visited the location in question on the afternoon of Saturday, December 28th, 1991, and observed what might be described as a small wooden bridge (see figures 1 and 2, attachments) . The bridge is perhaps six or eight feet in width, and eight or ten feet long. It consists of what might be two by six oak planks, over a structure of steel "I" beams, and perhaps wooden supports, between concrete abutments on either side of a creek with a five or six foot wide channel. What now is a graveled driveway, accessing a single residence (understood to be owned by magistrate Adkins), exits from the main county road, leads to the bridge, and, after the bridge, makes a loop in front of the residence in question (see figure 1, attachments) . No other properties are accessed via this driveway.
A residence in the right background (figure 1), is served by a separate, substantially similar, privately built and maintained, bridge (figure 3, attachments) . The owner of the residence served by the bridge you have asked about will be in no different posture vis-a-vis access to his or her property, than other residents similarly situated, e.g., the owner of the adjoining property.
The bridge you have asked about, providing as it does access to a single private residence, does not serve a public purpose. Accordingly, public funds cannot be spent to repair or improve it. Constitution of Kentucky, § 3, § 171.
When a county road is altered in such a way that a portion of it is relegated to private purpose, we believe a duty arises on the part of a fiscal court to discontinue as a county road, that portion of the road which no longer serves a public purpose. Cf .,
Walker v. Lyon County Fiscal Court, Ky., 425 S.W.2d 730, 731 (1968). And see, Opinion of the Attorney General (OAG) 82-180, 83-267, and 80-382, copies attached.
Statutory provisions that generally operate to require a fiscal court to maintain a county road, or that underpin an expenditure for such purpose, will not supercede constitutional provisions limiting governmental expenditures to public purposes. Constitution of Kentucky § 3, § 171.
For the reasons indicated, we believe the fiscal court is not responsible for repairing the bridge in question.