Request By:
Mr. Robert L. Warren
Assistant 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
You request an opinion concerning questions relating to the Coal Producing County Development Fund established pursuant to KRS 42.300.
First, you ask whether interest received from investments of idle money in this fund accrue to the fund? KRS 42.300 makes no mention of investment income.
The answer is that the general policy established in KRS 41.380, relating to investment of surplus or idle funds by the State Investment Commission, controls. This simply means that under KRS 41.380(3) interest earned from investments of the Coal Producing County Development Fund shall accrue to the credit of the state's general expenditure fund. The statutory exception to the provision just mentioned, i.e., the road fund and receipts reflecting contributions and gifts, has no application here.
Any exception to a general rule of legislative policy must exist in the form of an explicitly stated statutory exception. Hargett v. Kentucky State Fair Board, 309 Ky. 132, 216 S.W.2d 912 (1949) 917. As to the fund in question, there is no exception to the general policy expressed in KRS 41.380(3).
Section 3 of 200 KAR 4:010 reads in part:
"Funds in the Coal Producing County Development Fund not required to be held for immediate expenditure for the purposes authorized by KRS 42.300, 42.310 and this regulation shall be invested on a pooled basis and the income from such investments shall be prorated among the coal producing counties according to their allocable shares in the fund."
Your question: "Is this regulation in conflict with KRS 42.300 or any other statute?"
Administrative regulations properly adopted and filed have the force and effect of law. See KRS 13.082, et seq., and Rietze v. Williams, Ky., 458 S.W.2d 613 (1970) 617. However, such regulations can rise no higher than the statutes they are supposed to implement.
It is our opinion that the regulation in question exceeds statutory authority; and it is invalid or unenforceable. See Kentucky Assn, Etc. v. Jefferson Cy. Medical Soc., Ky., 549 S.W.2d 817 (1977) 821.
Question No. 3:
"If the above administrative regulation had not been promulgated, would your response to question number one be different?"
Our answer to question no. 1 is controlled by KRS 41.380(3), regardless of whether the regulation had been issued or not.