Request By:
Honorable Gardner D. Wagers
Clark County Judge-Executive
Clark County Courthouse
P.O. Box 5
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter asking whether it is proper for the Clark County Fiscal Court to make a contribution to the Whitney Young Center. You refer to OAG 78-3, copy enclosed, where we concluded that the City of Winchester could not legally appropriate funds to the Whitney Young Center.
As noted in OAG 78-3, the Articles of Incorporation of the organization in question state its basic purpose as follows:
". . . and its exclusive purpose is to promote, institute, improve, recommend and develop recreational and civic activities for the residents of Clark County, Kentucky, and to acquire and operate a community center where civic, church, fraternal orders, YMCA, YWCA, scout activities and other groups may meet, conduct programs and activities and to provide, maintain, conduct and manage all and every kind of facility, work or business incident to operation of a community center. . . ."
Clark County contains a city of the third class and KRS 204.200 states in part the fiscal court of a county containing a city of the third class is authorized to pay public funds to any private agency located in the county performing charitable and welfare work among the citizens generally of the county. Considering the basic purpose of the organization in question, as expressed in its Articles of Incorporation, and in view of accepted definitions of the word "charities" and the term "welfare work" as set forth in OAG 78-3, the organization involved does not perform charitable and welfare work among citizens of the county as required by KRS 204.200. Thus, the fiscal court cannot rely upon KRS 204.200 to support a contribution to the Whitney Young Center.
In the recent case of Fiscal Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky v. City of Louisville, Ky., 559 S.W.2d 478 (1977), wherein the Supreme Court of Kentucky declared the County Home Rule Act invalid (KRS 67.083), the Court said that county government in Kentucky is based on the premise that all power exercised by the fiscal court must be expressly delegated to it by statute. As previously indicated, KRS 204.200 is not sufficient authority for the fiscal court to make a contribution to the organization involved and we are unaware of any other statute containing express or implied authorization for the fiscal court to make a donation or contribution of this nature. See OAG 78-122, copy enclosed.
We also direct your attention to Section 179 of the to Section 179 of the Kentucky Constitution, set out in its entirety in OAG 75-366, copy enclosed, as well as the cases mentioned in that opinion which deal with that constitutional provision. Section 179 of the Kentucky Constitution states in part that the General Assembly shall not authorize any county to appropriate money for, or to loan its credit to, any corporation, association or individual except for certain purposes not applicable to your situation.
Thus, in our opinion, the fiscal court of a county containing a city of the third class may not legally appropriate money to a private nonprofit corporation not engaged in charitable and welfare work pursuant to KRS 204.200. In absence of specific statutory authorization to do so, such an appropriation of public funds is precluded by the Kentucky Constitution.