Request By:
Mr. Lloyd B. Berry
Mason County Jailer
116 West Third Street
Maysville, Kentucky 41056
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The jailers in Kentucky present a question as to whether any money accruing to the jailer under KRS 67.130, as an appointed superintendent of county buildings and grounds, would be considered as a part of his compensation, which is subject to the rubber dollar maximum. The maximum compensation for county jailers for the year 1980 is $23,184. See § 246, Kentucky Constitution;
Commonwealth v. Hesch, Ky., 395 S.W.2d 362 (1965); and KRS 64.527.
Pursuant to KRS 67.130, the county judge/executive, with approval of the fiscal court, may employ the jailer as superintendent of such county buildings, grounds and other properties at the county seat as he deems appropriate. The statute provides that the fiscal court of each county shall annually appropriate a sum sufficient to purchase the labor and materials necessary to maintain and operate county property, including the jailer's residence if owned by the county, and to keep the jailer's residence in repair and in clean, confortable and presentable condition. Any sum appropriated for maintenance and operation of the jailer's residence shall be expended by the jailer.
Prior to the 1978 amendment to KRS 67.130 (1978 Acts, Ch. 118, § 10), the jailer in most counties of Kentucky was automatically superintendent of the public square and of all county buildings at the county seat. The basic provision about an annual fiscal court appropriation for the proper maintenance and repair of county buildings has been retained.
We wrote in OAG 80-161 that the county jailers would have to include in their compensation any net compensation paid under KRS 67.130, which would represent money paid to him for janitorial services rendered by the jailer personally.
Apparently some of the jailers feel that since the janitorial job is not mandatorily imposed upon the jailer (he can now take the job or he can refuse it), the jailers should not have to include any such janitorial money in their personal compensation.
Even prior to the 1978 amendment to KRS 67.130, the jailer retained the authority to actually designate the person or persons to be employed for such janitorial work.
Ball v. Scott, 281 Ky. 449, 136 S.W.2d 48 (1940) 49.
The case of
Perkins v. Cumberland County, 294 Ky. 737, 172 S.W.2d 651 (1943) 652, points out that Kentucky Statute § 3948 (now KRS 67.130) provides for the fiscal court's paying the jailer a salary or compensation for any janitorial work he may do and paying additional money for the janitorial supplies and equipment necessary and for the janitorial work of persons other than the jailer. Thus only where actual compensation can be is lated as being paid to the jailer for his personal janitorial work can such compensation be logically added to any other jailer's compensation. From that case it can be seen that it was never intended that the jailer include in his "personal compensation" money appropriated by fiscal court for supplies and equipment necessary for the janitorial work and necessary for the compensation of persons other than the jailer who actually perform janitorial work. The later case of
Fannin v. Davis, Ky., 385 S.W.2d 321 (1964) 324, stresses the fiscal court's setting a salary for the jailer as compensation for janitorial work performed by him personally under KRS 67.130.
The maximum rubber dollar amount of compensation applies to the jailer's compensation, whether public services are rendered in one public position or more than one.