Request By:
Mr. Thomas H. Bugg
Attorney at Law
217 E. Clay Street
Clinton, Kentucky 42031
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
A question concerning the responsibility of the county for certain expenses of the sheriff's office is contained in your recent letter. It reads in part:
"The Fiscal Court of Hickman County, Kentucky desires to amend its budget by transferring funds from the appropriation ledger accounts reflecting the fees, sheriff postage, and sheriff office supplies under the general heading of the Office of the Sheriff.
"We had previously been advised by the local finance officer, Jack Dunham, that the county was required only to pay for the sheriff's bond. We are now advised by Director Bob Purdom that the county must pay the sheriff's bond, postage, and utilities.
"Given the difference of opinion, would you please advise us which of the following the Fiscal Court is required to pay: sheriff's fee, sheriff's bond, sheriff's postage, and/or sheriff office supplies and utilities."
We have been informed by the State and Local Finance Office that the Sheriff in Hickman County historically has no excess fees. Sheriffs are required to turn over to the county treasury after each calendar year of their term any excess fees or receipts over and above the amounts allowable for his personal compensation, the compensation of his legally authorized deputies, and authorized official expenses.
Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958) 506.
We assume that the fiscal court has properly set the salaries of the sheriff and his authorized deputies and the maximum amount of office expenses for each calendar year pursuant to KRS 64.530. In
Harlan v. Sawyers, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 488 (1956) 489, the old Court of Appeals interpreted KRS 64.720 to mean that in counties of less than 75,000 population the fiscal court can direct payment of compensation to county officers out of the county treasury, which would include the sheriff and authorized deputies. See also KRS 64.530 and 67.080.
We are also informed that the fees of the sheriff of Hickman County are not sufficient to pay all of certain legal expenses of that office.
CONCLUSION
It is our opinion that the fiscal court, where the sheriff's fees and receipts are not sufficient, should by an appropriate order, and subject to proper budget procedure under KRS Chapter 68, direct that payments be made out of the county treasury for the sheriff's official postage, sheriff's office supplies and utilities. See
Barkley v. Gatewood, 285 Ky. 179, 147 S.W.2d 373 (1941);
Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958); KRS 67.080 and 67.083. Also see
Pulaski County v. Richardson, 225 Ky. 556, 9 S.W.2d 523 (1928).
As relates to the sheriff's bonds, KRS 70.020 treats the general bond of the sheriff, i.e., the bond for faithful performance. See KRS 62.060 and
Muncy v. Keen, Ky.App., 619 S.W.2d 712. However, the case of
Thompson v. Shipp, 298 Ky. 805, 184 S.W.2d 245 (1944) 247, dealt with the principle that the payment of bond premiums for county officials out of the county treasury by fiscal court must have statutory authorization.
Concerning the general revenue bond of the sheriff as tax collector, pursuant to KRS 134.230, we find no statutory authority for the county's paying the premium.
Land v. Fayette County, 269 Ky. 543, 108 S.W.2d 429 (1937). KRS 62.140 and 62.155 relate to counties of 75,000 population or more.
KRS 62.156, however, requires the county to pay the premium on the county levy bond treated in KRS 134.250.