Request By:
Mr. George L. Atkins
Auditor of Public Accounts
Capitol Annex
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Your question is whether the state auditor should bill the counties one-half or the entire cost of the "state" audit. You are referring to county officers who handle state money such as state taxes and fines and forfeitures which must go into the state treasury.
KRS 43.050(2)(b) provides for your auditing local officials charged with the collection of fees or other money on behalf of the state.
Under KRS 43.070(1), prior to the 1974 amendment [Ch. 254, Section 8, 1974 Acts], the county was required to bear one-half (1/2) of the actual expense of the audit of the county fee officers and the "state" audit.
The 1974 amendment establishes explicitly two kinds of audits to be conducted by your office: (1) The audit of the county budget and (2) The audit of county fee officers. See KRS 43.070(1)(a) and (b). The "state" audit is not specifically mentioned as such. However, the audit in subsection (1)(b) includes circuit clerks, county judges, county clerks, sheriffs, and justices of the peace exercising criminal jurisdiction.
These latter officials are those handling state money as well as county money. Further, under KRS 43.070(2), as amended in 1974, the county must bear all of the expense in making the audit of county fee officers as mentioned in KRS 43.070(1)(b).
We therefore conclude that the state auditor should bill the counties for the entire cost of the "state" audit as well as the county fee officers audit. We think that the language in KRS 43.070(1), prior to the 1974 amendment, relating to the "state" audit, when viewed with the subsection as amended in 1974, clearly shows an intent to include the "state" audit with the county fee officers audit. It is also logical that the two audits be done at the same time, although KRS 43.070 does not now explicitly require it. Judge Stanley, in Shannon v. Dean, 279 Ky. 279, 130 S.W.2d 812 (1939) 815, wrote that "legislative history, which clarifies the language of the statute, may be properly considered in interpreting it." It is logical historically to assume that the legislature, in enacting the 1974 amendment to KRS 43.070, intended to combine the "state" audit aspect with the county fee officers' audit aspect, especially since several of the same officials are involved in the dual aspect. There is no other treatment of the state audit in KRS 43.070 [other than subsection (1)].