Request By:
Mr. Hugh Frashure
McLean County Sheriff
Calhoun, Kentucky 42327
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The facts and questions surrounding procurement of your radio equipment repair were stated in your letter as follows:
"The McLean Fiscal Court in 1983 and 1984 budgeted $1,500.00 for radio repair for mobile and office radios for the sheriff out of the General Fund.
"The county judge appointed a committee of one assistant fire chief and one magistrate to have the radios repaired. They must approve when I have them repaired and by whom, I must get their approval before doing anything.
"Question: Is this legal? Can the fiscal court budget money for the sheriff's office and then spend it in this manner without any approval of the sheriff?
"Question: What is my place in this matter, if any?"
For necessary office expenses as provided by statute, or recognized as such by the courts, the sheriff may pay for such expenses out of available fees of his office.
Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958). Such radio equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of your office. In addition, the fiscal court, under Funk v. Milliken, above, may fix, in advance, the categories of reasonable official expenses that will be allowed out of the sheriff's fees. That authority exists, since a county fee officer is required to pay over to the county, after the end of each calendar year, the excess of receipts over and above the amounts allowable for his personal compensation, the compensation of his legally authorized deputies, and authorized official expenses. However, here the money for the radio equipment came out of or will come out of the county treasury. Thus, as sheriff, you cannot just on your own engage in a binding contract of purchase of supplies or repair of your official equipment, i.e., a contract binding on the county, where the money for the purchase is to come directly out of the county treasury.
Bath County v. United Disinfectant Co., 248 Ky. 111, 58 S.W.2d 239 (1933). The appellate court has held that the fiscal court possesses the sole power to authorize expenditure of county funds. Thus no county officer can bind the fiscal court by contract made without the fiscal court's specific direction to do so, where county treasury money is involved.
Fulton County v. Spartan Chemicals, Inc., Ky., 343 S.W.2d 125 (1961), 126; and
Nolan v. White, Ky., 411 S.W.2d 457 (1967).
The answer to your question is that where the fiscal court budgets money for the sheriff's office for a specific purpose (here official radio equipment repair) , only the fiscal court has the authority to finally authorize the expenditure of those budgeted county funds for that specific purpose. The fiscal court has no authority to delegate its fiscal court or decisional role in authorizing expenditure of county money.
In the particular factual situation, you, as sheriff, in obtaining radio repair, must conform strictly to the authorization of the fiscal court, acting as a body at a lawful meeting, since you are spending county treasury money, and not the fees of your office. However, the fiscal court has the responsibility of procuring your input, i.e., suggestions, and information relative to the repair problem in order that it may intelligently deal with that problem.
We hope this may be helpful to you, although we understand your feeling about wanting to run your own office. You see a fiscal court has the explicit power to regulate and control the fiscal affairs and property of the county. See KRS 67.080(1)(c) and 67.083(3)(u).