Request By:
Mr. Wayne T. Rutherford
Pike County Judge/Executive
Courthouse
Main Street
Pikeville, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You point out that under Section 14 of H.B. 973, enacted in the 1980 regular session, effective July 1, 1980, the Department of Finance is required to pay quarterly in each fiscal year to each county its pro rata of any funds appropriated and any unexpended balance of funds appropriated for construction, reconstruction, improvement, and maintenance of county roads and bridges, and its pro rata of any funds allocated for urban roads and streets in the county. Thus the county will receive directly money derived from certain fuels excise taxes [see KRS 138.220, 138.565, 138.660 and 234.320] to be spent by the county on the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of county roads and urban roads.
You also mention that under Section 13 of H.B. 973, the legislature in practical effect, in amending KRS 179.410, has eliminated the responsibility of DOT for maintaining county roads and bridges, as mentioned in KRS 177.320(2). That is true, when you also consider that in Section 15 of the Act KRS 179.420 [which required that the county road money allocated under KRS 179.410 be expended for the construction and maintenance of county roads under the supervision of the department of highways] was expressly repealed.
This legislation, you say, has placed a time constraint and financial burden upon county governments, and especially Pike County due to the fact that Pike County is the largest county in Kentucky and, therefore has more road mileage and bridges.
Your question reads:
"Would any equipment, purchased with funds under the County Road Aid Program by the Kentucky Department of Transportation when they totally controlled the funds and program, be eligible to be turned over to the counties to use under the County Road Program which they will be operating July 1, 1980."
The Department of Transportation has informed us that no state road equipment has been bought with county road funds [KRS 179.410]. The equipment purchased by the Division of Equipment, Bureau of Highways, was financed from the Bureau's "210" account, which is a general highway account. A rental for state highway equipment previously used on county and other roads [KRS 179.420] was charged again to the particular road fund involved [if county roads, then the county road fund].
Under these facts, and since there was no agreement on the part of the state to transfer any equipment used on county roads to the counties, and since there is no statute providing for that, it is our opinion that there is no legal basis for transferring state road equipment used on county roads to the counties.