Request By:
Mr. David Patton
Route 2, Box 4-A
London, Kentucky 40741
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter requesting a clarification of KRS 65.040 (2) concerning the membership of the governing body of a special purpose district. That statute provides as follows:
"The membership to the governing body of such multi-county special purpose districts shall be apportioned among the counties in ratio to their population, with each county having at least one member."
You next refer to KRS 65.220 providing in part that cities may enter into interlocal agreements with counties. You apparently are under the impression that KRS 65.040(2) and KRS 65.220 are conflicting and inconsistent because the first mentioned statute makes no reference to cities being parties to the agreements and members of the governing body in connection with such agreements while the second mentioned statute refers specifically to cities.
In our opinion the statutes are not inconsistent or conflicting because two different types of agreements are involved. KRS 65.210 to 65.300, which, of course, includes KRS 65.220, is known as the "Interlocal Cooperation Act. " This Act provides a device whereby governmental units, including cities and counties, may exercise their powers on a basis of mutual advantage to provide services and facilities in a more efficient, economical, beneficial manner than they could individually.
KRS 65.040, which is not part of the statutory provisions pertaining to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, refers to another type of agreement. This particular arrangement involves the formation of special purpose districts by two or more counties. No provisions are made for the inclusion of cities into these agreements. Thus, membership on the governing board is limited to member counties because cities cannot be members of such special purpose districts.
Therefore, in our opinion the provisions of KRS 65.040(2) relating to special purpose districts are not inconsistent and in conflict with the provisions of KRS 65.220 (a section of the Interlocal Cooperation Act) because two different statutory agreements are involved. The provisions pertaining to each type of agreement are separate and apart from each other.