Request By:
William Murphy Howard, Esq.
Harlan County Attorney
Courthouse, Room 3
Drawer 980
Harlan, Kentucky 40831Mr. Ron Ball, Director
Harlan County Urban Renewal and
Community Development Agency
P.O. Box 792
Harlan, Kentucky 40831
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in response to Mr. Howard's letter of January 22, 1982, and Mr. Ball's letter of January 29, 1982, both of which concern the Harlan County Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency. At a recent meeting, the Harlan County Fiscal Court adopted an order, "That the present Board of Directors of the Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency be dissolved and the Fiscal Court serve as such Board until other orders are made."
Both of your letters concern whether the fiscal court may dissolve the board of directors of the Harlan County Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency and serve as such board in place of the one which has been dissolved.
It appears that the Harlan County Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency was created, pursuant to the provisions of KRS 99.350, by the Harlan County Fiscal Court in April of 1978. In his letter to the county judge-executive and the members of the fiscal court, dated January 21, 1982, Mr. Ball sets forth the activities of the agency from its inception to the present time. Included among some of the agency's activities and projects, according to Mr. Ball's letter, are the following:
1) Renovation of 49 homes in Wallins and Evarts.
2) Purchase of housing sites in Cumberland.
3) Evarts Hill Project (acquisition of blighted structures and rehabilitation of homes).
4) A county flood hazard mitigation study.
KRS 99.350(1) states that if the fiscal court of any county finds and declares that slum areas or blighted areas exist, that there is a need for the exercise of the powers, functions and duties conferred by KRS 99.330 to 99.510, and that the exercise of such powers, functions and duties by an agency created pursuant to those provisions would be more efficient and in the public interest than the exercise of such powers, functions and duties by the county or the housing commission of the county pursuant to KRS 99.470, an agency, to be known as the urban renewal and community development agency of the county, shall thereupon exist for the county with the powers, duties and functions provided in KRS 99.330 to 99.510. Note that the reference to KRS 99.470 in KRS 99.350(1) is incorrect and the statute intended to be mentioned is KRS 99.490. See OAG 68-134, copy enclosed, at page two.
KRS 99.360 sets forth the powers of an urban renewal and community development agency. In part, such an agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public and essential governmental functions, with the power to sue and be sued, to make and execute contracts, to make necessary rules and regulations, to purchase, lease, and acquire property within its area of operation for purposes of redevelopment, and to borrow and accept loans from various sources.
We have again reviewed the provisions of KRS 99.330 to 99.510 and, as stated in OAG 68-134, we can find no provision under those statutes authorizing the fiscal court or city governing body to dissolve an urban renewal and community development agency and to proceed to perform the duties assigned to such an agency, after the agency has begun operations. There is a provision in KRS 99.350 (10) stating that at any time after two years after the appointment of the agency members, if the agency has not redeveloped or acquired land for, or commenced the redevelopment of, a project, or entered into contracts for redevelopment, the fiscal court may declare that the offices of the agency members shall be vacated and the capacity of the agency to transact business or exercise its powers shall be suspended until the appointment of new members to the agency. Mr. Ball's letter of January 21, 1982, indicates that the agency has been exercising its duties and powers and has been involved in the types of projects contemplated by the statute. Thus, it would appear that the fiscal court cannot at this time utilize the provisions of KRS 99.350(10) to dissolve the agency, either temporarily or permanently.
KRS 99.490 provides in part that if the fiscal court within its discretion finds that it would be more efficient and in the public interest for the powers, functions and duties of an urban renewal and community development agency to be exercised by the county or the housing authority of the county, such an entity shall have all the powers, functions, rights and duties (subject to specific enumerated limitations) of the agency. However, in OAG 70-779, copy enclosed, we said that a city may create an urban renewal and community development agency, pursuant to KRS 99.350, if it is deemed to be a more efficient way to operate and is in the best interest of the public, but once such an agency is established the city may not dissolve the agency in the absence of legislative authority to do so and it may not place the duties of the agency in either itself or a municipal housing commission. What was said in that opinion would apply to a county and its fiscal court in addition to a city and its governing body.
See also the case of
Miller v. City of Louisville, Ky., 321 S.W.2d 237 (1959), where the Court upheld the validity of KRS 99.330 to 99.510.
Thus, in conclusion, it is our opinion that there is no existing legislative authority for a fiscal court to dissolve an urban renewal and community development agency and to proceed to perform the duties assigned to such an agency, after that agency has been established and created by the fiscal court pursuant to KRS 99.350. The fiscal court could only vacate the offices of the members of such an agency and suspend the agency's activities pursuant to the specific provisions of KRS 99.350(10) but that statute would not appear to be applicable in the situation you have presented in view of the contents of Mr. Ball's letter of January 21, 1982.