Request By:
Mr. Charles Cantrell
United Steel Workers Local
Cline Street
Pikeville, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
As a member of the Coal Severance Economic Aid Board of Pike County, you and the other members request our opinion as to whether or not the Coal Severance Economic Aid Fund can be used to partially fund ($300,000 of the fund would be used to match Department of Transportation funds) the construction of a heavy duty bridge on the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River at Coal Run, which is approximately two (2) miles north of the city limits of Pikeville, Kentucky.
You recognize that KRS 42.330(2)(f) provides in part that "no money shall be expended out of the fund directly or indirectly, . . . for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, renovation or maintenance of any . . . of any road, street, highway or bridge. "
The general purpose and intent of KRS 42.330 was to create a fund to be used only for capital projects "which contribute to community development in coal producing counties." (Emphasis added).
You cite certain facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed project.
The proposed location of this bridge, you point out, would actually service a large industrial site owned by the City of Pikeville; and western end of the bridge would adjoin the industrial site property. The bridge would furnish access from the nearby state highway going north out of Pikeville to the industrial site. The industrial site adjoins the only airport now serving Pike County, which is without a fueling operation because of the weight limitations on bridges that now serve this area. There are presently two (2) suspension bridges which are the only means of access to this area, and both are severely restricted by weight limitations.
The Department of Transportation has just indicated to the board that the suspension bridge located at the proposed site of the new bridge is to be condemned within the next few days as being unsafe. The other suspension bridge has a five (5) ton weight limitation, which is considered to be at the very limits of its safety factor.
As the map, accompanying your letter, indicates, the industrial site in question is the largest industrial site in the Pikeville area, and it has been so classified by the state for many years. The board believes that the expenditure of funds on this bridge would be among the most beneficial of all its requested projects.
In addition to the facts and conditions dealt with above, the proposed bridge, you say, would open up a private industrial development of some five hundred (500) acres and access to land created by the Pikeville Cut Through Project and serve as a very important access link to increasing much needed housing development.
Anyone visiting the Pikeville area can visually understand the vital and strategic relationship between the main highway going north out of Pikeville and the nearby railroad and Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River which roughly parallel each other in serpentine fashion between the mountainous topography. This land between the highway (which includes the proposed bridge site) and the railroad are vital in the industrial and community development of Pikeville.
KRS 42.330(2)(d) authorizes expenditures of the fund for industrial development projects, including but not limited to land reclamation, clearing, grading, draining, landscaping and the construction of walkways and fencing. It can be seen from looking at the map or actually viewing the site that the proposed heavy duty bridge, if the industrial site is to be adequately used for industrial site purposes, will have to be erected.
Judge Thomas, in Oates v. Simpson, 295 Ky. 433, 174 S.W.2d 505 (1943) 507, for the court, wrote that "The rule for the interpretation of statutes is that literal language contained in some parts of it, in apparent conflict with the general scheme, should surrender to the general purpose and intent of the legislature as gathered from all parts of the statute." (Emphasis added).
It is our opinion that, when considering the general purpose and intent of the legislature in enacting KRS 42.330, i.e., to provide for community development in coal producing counties, the use of the fund for the proposed access bridge (access to a large industrial site) would be permissable under the statute as a whole. We think the prohibition against the use of the fund for bridges was designed to cover bridges in just an ordinary road system. This literal provision should not be used to defeat, in this instance, the clear application of the general purpose of the legislation.