Request By:
Larry D. Noe, Esq.
P.O. Box 15
321 East Broadway
Campbellsville, Kentucky 42718
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter raising a question concerning the county budget and the payment of claims from the "Road Maintenance Executive Fund." The sum of $6,401.50 was paid from the "Road Maintenance Executive Fund" for claims arising from the third magisterial district, with one claim amounting to $5,726.50. This particular claim was not let pursuant to bids.
Your specific question asks who administers the county's "Road Maintenance Executive Fund" and under what authority. You have been unable to find any specific statutory authority regarding this particular fund.
There is no specific statute dealing with a "Road Maintenance Executive Fund." The State-Local Finance Officer (Mr. Robert L. Purdom, Department for Local Government, 909 Leawood Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 - Telephone: (502) 564-2382) advises that the Taylor County Budget contains an account described as the "Road Maintenance Executive Fund" which is merely an account within the county road fund.
This account is not for the personal use of the county judge/executive nor is it an account administered unilaterally by the county judge/executive or any one of the county's magistrates. It is an account to be utilized for the maintenance of county roads and as such the determinations as to how much is to be spent and for what particular county roads the money is to be appropriated, must be made by the fiscal court acting as a body.
At this point we direct your attention to OAG 73-423, copy enclosed, where we said in part as follows:
"A fiscal court can only act as a body, and it cannot act to fragment the county's business on a mere magisterial district basis.
Leslie County v. Keith, 227 Ky. 663, 13 S.W.2d 1012 (1929). Thus the expenditures must be framed around expenditures for the county as a unit of local government. So there is no such thing as a magistrate's share of the county funds, although the fiscal court must determine within its sound judgment what may be equitable for the whole county."
In OAG 65-381, copy enclosed, we said that expenditures for a particular magisterial district can only be determined by the fiscal court as a body. Individual members of a fiscal court have no legal authority to make contracts or incur indebtedness on behalf of the county unless authorized to do so by proper orders of the fiscal court.
The fiscal court has the authority to regulate and control the fiscal affairs and property of the county. KRS 67.080(6). It also has the authority and duty to provide for the good condition of the roads in the county. KRS 67.080(9). Once a road is accepted into the county road system the fiscal court members may be personally liable (civilly) for failure to keep such a road in proper repair. See
Shearer v. Hall, Ky., 399 S.W.2d 701 (1966) and OAG 72-88, copy enclosed.
In connection with bidding and the bidding process, note the provisions of KRS 424.260 requiring the advertisement for bids where the required services, supplies or materials exceed $2500. In