Request By:
Dale Beighle, Chairman
Pendleton County Ambulance Taxing District
Opinion
Opinion By: ANDY BESHEAR,ATTORNEY GENERAL;Taylor Payne,Assistant Attorney General
Opinion of the Attorney General
Dale Beighle, Pendleton County Ambulance Taxing District Chairman, requests an opinion of this office as to whether an ambulance service district may provide ambulance services to residents of another ambulance service district. We advise that an ambulance service district may not provide ambulance services to residents of another ambulance service district.
Kentucky Revised Statute 108.090 authorizes the establishment of "an emergency ambulance service district for the purpose of financing and administering emergency ambulance services for the residents of the district . . . ." Kentucky Revised Statute 108.100 permits the imposition of a special ad valorem tax to "not exceed ten cents ($ 0.10) on each one hundred dollars ($ 100) of the assessed valuation of all property in the district."
An emergency ambulance service district is operated by a board of directors that "shall provide ambulance service to inhabitants of the district. . . ." KRS 108.110; KRS 108.140. In doing so, the board has the authority to "[c]ontract with private persons, partnerships, or corporations for providing ambulance service to residents of the district . . . ." KRS 108.140(9). It also may "[a]dopt rules and regulations necessary to effectively and efficiently provide emergency ambulance service for the district[.]" KRS 108.140(3).
In OAG 83-470, we interpreted these statutes to permit a board of directors of an emergency ambulance service to provide ambulance service only to the inhabitants or residents of the district. "It is obvious under the literal language that the district is designed to serve only the residents of that special taxing district." OAG 83-470
We see no reason to depart from that conclusion. The plain language of the statutory scheme allowing for the establishment of an emergency ambulance service district only contemplates service provided to the inhabitants or residents of the district. Moreover, compare KRS 75.050, which permits a fire protection district to:
contract with any other fire protection district, fire prevention district, municipal corporation, volunteer fire department, volunteer fire prevention unit, or volunteer fire protection unit, either within the same county or within an adjoining county in an area adjacent to the boundary line between the counties, for the furnishing ... of fire protection services for all property within the confines of the area included in and covered by the contract or contracts , where such fire protection is not otherwise provided by some division of government or governmental agency.
(Emphasis added). A rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. See
Fox v. Grayson , 317 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Ky. 2010). Here, the General Assembly expressly permitted fire protection districts to furnish its services to inhabitants outside of its district by contract.
This implies that the General Assembly did not intend for ambulance service districts to have the same authority and supports our conclusion in OAG 83-470, which we incorporate, attach and adopt herein.