Request By:
Mr. George M. McClure, III
Boyle County Attorney
Courthouse
Danville, Kentucky 40422
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
For our opinion, you have raised a question about a bridge, which you described as follows:
"The situation is that a bridge is located outside the boundary lines of Boyle County, Kentucky in Casey County, Kentucky. In antiquity, it may be that the county agreed to maintain the bridge in exchange for some land in the vicinity, but no record of such an agreement exists, written or otherwise. The bridge does not connect to any county-maintained road and in fact only serves two or three families in that area. The roads which do connect to the bridge are all located in Casey County. The Boyle County Fiscal Court inquired of the Casey County Fiscal Court if they would be willing to undertake a joint venture to repair or rebuild this bridge, but the request was declined. Individuals in that area of the county are putting pressure on the county judge to do something about the bridge, and I have advised them, along with your advice, that it is totally improper and illegal for the county to expend funds on a bridge located outside the boundaries of Boyle County.
"'County roads' are defined in KRS 178.010(1)(b) as follows:
"'(1) As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
* * *
"(b) 'County roads' are public roads which have been accepted by the fiscal court of the county as a part of the county road system or private roads, streets, or highways which have been acquired by the county pursuant to KRS 178.405 to 178.425. 'County roads' includes necessary bridges, culverts, sluices, drains, ditches, waterways, embankments or retaining walls;'"
Subsection (1)(b) of KRS 178.010 envisions a formal acceptance, by the fiscal court by an appropriate order, of a road as a part of the county road system.
Sarver v. County of Allen, Ky., 582 S.W.2d 40 (1979); and
Illinois Central R.R. v. Hopkins County, Ky., 369 S.W.2d 116 (1963). By definition, above, "county roads" includes "necessary bridges. " See
Denton v. Pulaski County, 170 Ky. 33, 185 S.W. 481 (1916).
In your situation, the bridge in question is located outside of the Boyle County boundaries. It is in Casey County. The roads connecting with the bridge are all located in Casey County.
"County roads and bridges" are those county roads, as defined in KRS 178.010(1)(b), which are within the boundaries of the particular county. Counties, through their fiscal courts, have no general extraterritorial jurisdiction. The fiscal court's jurisdiction, including its powers relating to the county roads and bridges, extends only to territory within the particular county's boundaries. An early statute (§ 4306) provided that "the fiscal court of each county shall have general charge and supervision of the public roads and bridges therein." (Emphasis added). See
Christian-Todd Telephone Co. v. Commonwealth, 156 Ky. 557, 161 S.W. 543 (1913). See also KRS 67.080(2)(b), 67.083(3)(t), and 67.085. KRS 178.250 through 178.270 cover work on joint bridges and roads by fiscal courts of two counties; but that involves roads and bridges on a common boundary line. Note that KRS 178.115 (establishing county roads) involves a road or bridge "in such county." (Emphasis added).
The authority of the fiscal court to expend county money on a road or bridge located in another county would require an express statutory provision. See § 144, Kentucky Constitution; and
Lincoln Nat. Bank v. County Debt Comm., 294 Ky. 642, 172 S.W.2d 463 (1943). Cf.
Kenton County Fiscal Court v. Richards, 291 Ky. 132, 163 S.W.2d 302 (1942), in which Kenton County Fiscal Court established an airport in Boone County pursuant to an express statutory provision.
We pointed out in OAG 80-642, copy attached, that a county cannot unilaterally spend its money on a county bridge located in another county.
KRS 65.240, relating to interlocal agreements, provides that any power capable of exercise by a political subdivision of Kentucky "may be exercised and enjoyed jointly" with any other political subdivision. The Boyle Fiscal Court could enter into an interlocal agreement with the Casey Fiscal Court wherein both counties would contribute money to the repair or reconstruction of the bridge. However, for such an agreement to be valid, it must clearly appear that Boyle County, as well as Casey County, has a definite public interest in such project. In addition, Casey County would in no manner surrender its jurisdiction over the bridge. See also
Rash v. Louisville & Jefferson County Met. S.Dist., 309 Ky. 442, 217 S.W.2d 232 (1949), in which the court wrote this about joint governmental projects at page 237:
"As stated in McQuillin, Section 283, 'It is a self-evident proposition that two lawfully and fully organized public or municipal corporations cannot have jurisdiction and control at one time of the same population and territory and exercise like or similar powers in the same boundaries.' This is recognized in
Commonwealth v. Stahr, 162 Ky. 388, 172 S.W. 677. The same section of McQuillin continues: 'However, in the absence of constitutional restrictions no objection exists to the power of the legislature to authorize the formation of two municipal corporations in the same territory at the same time for different purposes, and to authorize them to co-operate so far as co-operation may be consistent with or desirable for the accomplishment of their respective purposes.'"
However, you have written that the Casey Fiscal Court is not interested in a joint Boyle-Casey venture to repair or rebuild the bridge.
Under the facts given, and under the above analysis, it is our opinion that Boyle County has no statutory authority to unilaterally spend Boyle County money on the bridge in Casey County.