Request By:
Mr. David Blair
Elliott County Judge-Executive
Sandy Hook, Kentucky 41171
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter to which you attached documents pertaining to the Elliott County Emergency Medical Services Authority. You ask for an opinion as to whether or not this authority is a separate political subdivision or instrumentality thereof as defined in KRS 61.410 to 61.500 (Social Security for Public Employes).
From the information you have furnished, the Elliott County Ambulance Service, Inc. was organized in 1972 as a nonprofit corporation to provide ambulance service for Elliott County. In 1973 the incorporators and directors assigned and conveyed to the city of Sandy Hook and the Elliott County Fiscal Court all rights, title and interest in the nonprofit corporation along with all assets and liabilities of the corporation. The city and county then established a joint Emergency Medical Services Authority to operate the city-county ambulance service, to be governed by a three-person board (two members to be chosen by the county and one by the city).
In connection with ambulance service, KRS 65.710 authorizes cities and counties to contract with private persons, partnerships or corporations for providing such service to the residents of cities and counties. KRS 65.730 stated in part that ambulance service could be provided by the county and any city within the county cooperating to provide such service. Presumably that statute was the basis upon which the city and county decided to jointly operate the ambulance service in Elliott County. In OAG 73-790, copy enclosed, we concluded that under KRS 65.730, authorizing a city and a county to jointly operate an ambulance service as a governmental operation, the board operating such an ambulance service was a "political subdivision" for social security coverage purposes [KRS 61.420 (5)], as it was an arm or instrumentality of the city and county. KRS 65.730 was, however, repealed effective June 17, 1978.
Thus, if the city and county are going to continue to operate directly a joint city-county ambulance service they will have to do so pursuant to statutory provisions other than KRS 65.730. KRS 67.083(3)(d) provides in part that the fiscal court may enact ordinances, issue regulations, appropriate funds and employ personnel in the performance of public functions, including the providing of ambulance service.
While we cannot find a specific statute authorizing a city to operate directly an ambulance service, the
Court in Ray v. Owensboro, Ky., 415 S.W.2d 77, 80 (1967) said:
". . . As we view the law, the city has the right to provide emergency ambulance service to its inhabitants, and if the use of a franchise can be an effective instrument or tool in the providing of a more effective service, then certainly it is justified. . . ."
In addition, in
Herd v. City of Middlesboro, 266 Ky. 488, 99 S.W.2d 458 (1936), the Court said that the preservation of the public health of the citizens of a municipal corporation is a legitimate corporate purpose. Thus, the city in the exercise of police power may enact regulations to secure and protect the general health, comfort, convenience, morals and safety of the public.
Since a city and a county, individually, may directly operate an ambulance service, we think they could utilize the provisions of KRS 79.110 to 79.180 (political subdivisions within the same county may contract for joint governmental services) or KRS 65.210 to 65.300 (Interlocal Cooperation Act) to agree to directly operate, jointly, an ambulance service. Thus, the city and county have methods to provide for a joint city-county ambulance service even though KRS 65.730 has been repealed.
Assuming that the city and county utilize one of the methods at their disposal to provide for a joint city-county ambulance service, questions then arise as to the applicability of KRS 61.410 to 61.500 (Social Security for Public Employes) to that city-county undertaking and the status of the board or unit operating the ambulance service for the city and county.
KRS 61.420(5) states:
"For the purpose of KRS 61.410 to 61.500:
* * *
(5) 'Political subdivision,' in addition to counties, municipal corporations and school districts, includes instrumentalities of the commonwealth, of one or more of its political subdivisions or of the commonwealth and one or more of its political subdivisions, and any other governing unit thereof;"
The county and city involved here are clearly political subdivisions as provided by the above-quoted statute. If they, pursuant to KRS 79.110 to 79.180 or KRS 65.210 to 65.300, agree to provide for the joint operation of a city-county ambulance service and create a board to govern the program, that board or entity could be an arm or instrumentality of the city and county and, therefore, a "political subdivision" for social security purposes pursuant to KRS 61.420(5). See OAG 75-497, copy enclosed, and OAG 73-790, at page three. In any event, the city and county can no longer rely upon KRS 65.730, which has been repealed, as the basis for a joint city-county ambulance program and they will have to utilize other statutory provisions if such a program is to continue. We do not know what type of joint program the city and county will enact and how it will be governed and, therefore, we cannot make a specific determination as to whether something to be created will constitute a "political subdivision" for social security purposes as an instrumentality of the city and county government.