Request By:
Representative Robert R. Damron
House Majority Caucus Chairman
Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Robert S. Jones, Director, Office of Civil and Environmental Law
Opinion of the Attorney General
The Capital Projects Budget in the 2004-06 biennial budget bill, enacted in 2005 as HB 267, contains a line item (Part II-A, Budget Unit 5, Item 004) appropriating one million dollars ($ 1,000,000.00) from the General Fund to the Governor's Office for Local Development in fiscal year 2004-05 for a project identified as "James E. Bruce Convention Center in Hopkinsville." Pursuant to KRS 15.025(2), Representative Robert R. Damron, the House Majority Caucus Chairman, has requested an opinion addressing whether the local board that manages the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center can lawfully receive those appropriated funds to spend on that building without naming it the "James E. Bruce Convention Center. "
The Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center, built in 2003, is operated by the Hopkinsville-Christian County Chamber of Commerce through a governing board. At its recent meetings, the board has reportedly expressed an unwillingness to name the building the "James E. Bruce Convention Center, " although it would seem that the board expects to receive the funds allocated to the Governor's Office for Local Development for the James E. Bruce Convention Center.
Section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that "No money shall be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law." The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently ruled that this section should be strictly construed, so that "absent a statutory, constitutional, or valid federal mandate, Section 230 precludes the withdrawal of funds from the state treasury except pursuant to a specific appropriation by the General Assembly." Fletcher v. Com., No. 2005-SC-0046-TG, slip op. at 24, 2005 WL 1183241, *13 (Ky. 2005).
KRS 41.110 reiterates that "no public money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury for any purpose other than that for which its withdrawal is proposed, nor unless it has been appropriated by the General Assembly or is part of a revolving fund, and has been allotted as provided in KRS 48.010 to 48.800, and then only on the warrant of the Finance and Administration Cabinet." The former Court of Appeals stated: "In dealing with Section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 41.110, we hold that the purpose of these constitutional and statutory provisions 'was to prevent the expenditure of the State's money without the consent of the Legislature.'" Ferguson v. Oates, 314 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Ky. 1958)(citation omitted).
KRS 45.244 further provides as follows:
Except as expressly authorized in this chapter, no person shall incur, or order or vote to incur, any obligation against the Commonwealth in excess of, or any expenditure not authorized by, an appropriation of the General Assembly and an allotment of funds provided by KRS Chapter 48. Any such obligation so incurred shall not be binding against the Commonwealth, and shall be void and incapable of ratification by any administrative authority of the Commonwealth.
Penalties for violation of KRS 45.244 are provided in KRS 45.990.
Moreover, KRS 45.251(1) requires that "expenditures shall be limited to the amounts and purposes for which appropriations are made." It is unquestionable that the purpose of the appropriation in Item 004 was to fund a convention center named in honor of James E. Bruce.
We are not aware of any published cases or opinions specifically addressing a situation in which an entity receiving an appropriation of state funds for a capital project attempted to claim the funds while refusing to use the name assigned to the project by the General Assembly. It is well established, however, that "statutes authorizing the appropriation of public funds will not be extended beyond the natural and fair meaning of the words used. " Shamburger v. Tierney, 257 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Ky. 1953). In the present situation, only nine (9) words were used by the legislature: "James E. Bruce Convention Center in Hopkinsville -- General Fund." Three (3) of those words specified that the project was to be named for James E. Bruce. The budget bill does not refer simply to any convention center in Hopkinsville.
It would be exceeding the "natural and fair meaning of the words used" by the legislature to apply the appropriated funds in Item 004 to the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center without renaming the center for James E. Bruce. "When no ambiguity exists a statute is to be interpreted according to the intent of the authors which intent is gleaned from what the authors actually said, not what they may have intended to but did not say." Clark v. Clark, 601 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Ky. App. 1980). The intent is clear from the minimal language in Item 004 that the appropriation must be spent on some facility called the "James E. Bruce Convention Center. " If a facility by that name does not exist in Hopkinsville, it must be so designated or constructed if the appropriated funds are to be validly applied.
KRS 45.760 states, in part, as follows:
The provisions of any other law notwithstanding:
?
(17) When the General Assembly authorizes a capital construction item in the capital construction section of a branch budget bill, the entity head charged with executing the branch budget shall construct the capital construction item according to the requirements set forth in the branch budget bill, statutory budget memorandum, supporting documentation considered by the General Assembly, and branch budget records. The entity head shall not deviate from these requirements with regard to:
(a) Purpose or location to the extent that the capital construction item no longer meets the identified needs; or
(b) Configuration for reasons other than practical accommodation to the construction site or specific program to be accommodated within that capital construction item.
Pursuant to this statute, any entity charged with executing the provisions of HB 267 must implement the budget bill's requirement that the facility benefiting from the funds appropriated in Item 004 should bear the title of "James E. Bruce Convention Center. " We have found nothing in the statutorily enumerated powers of the Governor's Office for Local Development (formerly known as the "Department for Local Government") or of a local chamber of commerce that would authorize any deviation from the explicit terms of any legislative appropriation.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the appropriated funds, under the statutes and precedents cited, can only be lawfully applied to a facility named the "James E. Bruce Convention Center. " Any inconsistent use of those funds by the Governor's Office for Local Development or by any local entity receiving the funds would lack authorization from the General Assembly and would therefore be contrary to state law.