Request By:
Mr. Charles H. Scott
Bourbon County Jailer
Courthouse
Paris, Kentucky 40361
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The Bourbon County Fiscal Court is in the process of preparing contracts which will allow you to house other counties' inmates during the fiscal year 1982-1983. During your discussions of the above mentioned contracts, four (4) questions have arisen as follows:
(1) Which county will be held responsible for the processing for payment of medical expenses incurred by inmates, the sending county or the holding county?
See Section 2, H.B. 440, 1982 regular session, creating a new section KRS 441.006, permitting fiscal courts to either provide a jail in the county or contract with another county or city for the incarceration and care of its prisoners. Section 38 of H.B. 440 amends KRS 441.010. However, the subsections on medical care for indigents were retained. Thus the administration of the county's function in that regard would rest with your county as the holding county for such prisoners of the contracting counties. As relates to non-indigent cases, the prisoners are responsible for medical care cost.
Question No. 2:
Which county will be held responsible for any damages to the county jail or county property caused by an inmate?
KRS 441.006 (H.B. 440) states that the fiscal court of any county may provide for the incarceration of prisoners arrested in that county or sentenced or held by order of the courts in that county by: (a) providing and maintaining a jail in the county or (b) "Contracting with another county or city for the incarceration and care of its prisoners . . . ." (Emphasis added). The statute contains no requirement that the sending county shall guarantee against any jail building damage to the holding county which may be subsequently brought about by the sending county's prisoners. See 72 C.J.S., Prisons, § 17 (b). Thus the holding county would have to look to its own remedies.
Question No. 3:
Can the responsibility for processing medical claims of inmates and the responsibility for damages to property caused by inmates be transferred by contract between counties transferring and counties receiving inmates?
The processing of medical claims extends to the holding county by virtue of its undertaking to care for the other county prisoners. No special contractual provision is necessary. As to any damages created by the sending county's prisoners, the fiscal courts of the holding and sending counties have the authority to specifically contract in order to remove the risk of liability for such damages on the part of the holding county. See KRS 67.080(2)(d), as amended by H.B. 440, Section 25. That subsection ((2) (d)) expressly provides that the fiscal court shall provide for the incarceration of prisoners according to the provisions of KRS 441.006. That reasonably implies that a contract between the holding and sending counties may be executed in relieving the holding county of any risk of liability for such property damages. In fact, KRS 441.006 (1)(b) provides that the fiscal court shall provide for the incarceration of prisoners by (a) providing and maintaining a jail in the county or (b) contracting with another county or city for the incarceration and care of its prisoners. Thus the transfer of risk from the holding to the sending county may be effected under an appropriate contract between them.
Question No. 4:
In the event an area in the jail building has been approved for detention of juveniles, can Bourbon County contract with other counties to receive juveniles and detain them in Bourbon County in light of Section 2 of KRS 441 (HB 440)?
The answer is "yes". See Section 1 of H.B. 440, amending KRS 441.005(1), providing that "jail" means county jails and correctional or detention facilities, including correctional facilities defined in KRS 67B.020 and juvenile detention facilities, operated by and under the supervision of any county, city or urban county government.
Finally, as we said, KRS 441.006 (Section 2, H.B. 440) gives any county the option of providing a jail in the county or contracting with another county or a city for the incarceration of its prisoners. See also Section 25, H.B. 440, amending KRS 67.080(2), providing that the fiscal court shall provide for the incarceration of prisoners according to the provisions of KRS 441.006 (Sect 2, H.B. 440). The latter new statute, KRS 441.006, provides for jail agreements under the interlocal act, KRS 65.210 to 65.300.
It may be noted that KRS 441.006 contains no guidelines as to the per diem contract rate to be paid by the sending county. The rate must be reasonable. We believe the rate should at least include these factors: (a) the cost of feeding, supervising and caring for prisoners (See KRS 71.020, as amended by Section 27, H.B. 440 and KRS 71.040); (b) the reasonable allocation of capital construction cost or value of building as a reasonable rental factor.
Section 3, H.B. 440, creating KRS 441.,007, involves state contribution for jails. The sending county would be reimbursed finally by the holding county based upon the formula outlined in KRS 441.007(1) and (2).