Could a Hopkinsville convention center take Kentucky state funds while rejecting the name in the budget line?

Plain-English summary

The 2005 Kentucky budget included a one-million-dollar capital-project line for the “James E. Bruce Convention Center in Hopkinsville.” A legislator asked whether the board managing an existing Hopkinsville convention center could receive those funds without applying that name. The Attorney General said no. It treated the name in the appropriation as part of the legislatively specified project, so using the money for a facility with another name would go beyond the authorized purpose.

The opinion reasoned that Kentucky's Constitution and budget statutes confined spending to the General Assembly's appropriation. Its conclusion addressed this named line item and the proposed refusal to name the facility; it did not establish a general rule about naming projects funded under differently worded appropriations.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the existing Hopkinsville center receive the funds under its current name? A: The AG said no. The appropriation identified the “James E. Bruce Convention Center in Hopkinsville,” and the opinion treated that designation as inseparable from use of the funds.

Q: Why did the AG treat the facility name as binding?
A: It said state money had to be spent for the purpose authorized by the General Assembly. The nine-word budget line named a specific project rather than any Hopkinsville convention center.

Q: Could local managers simply disregard the name in the budget?
A: The opinion said it found no statutory authority for the local board or the Governor's Office for Local Development to depart from the line item's stated project requirements.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted Section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution: “[N]o money shall be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law.” It also discussed KRS 41.110, KRS 45.244, KRS 45.251(1), and KRS 45.760(17). It concluded that the appropriated funds “can only be lawfully applied to a facility named the ‘James E. Bruce Convention Center.’”

Citations and references

Statutes: KRS 41.110; KRS 45.244; KRS 45.251(1); KRS 45.760(17).

Constitution: Ky. Const. § 230.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_68354d95-7ab8-4c96-9d10-eeb39d942311/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_68354d95-7ab8-4c96-9d10-eeb39d942311

Original opinion text

OAG 05-005
June 17, 2005
Subject:

Whether a local entity receiving state funds for a
specific capital project may refuse to apply the name
given to the project by the line item in the Executive
Branch Budget

Requested by:

Representative Robert R. Damron
House Majority Caucus Chairman

Written by:

Robert S. Jones, Director
Office of Civil and Environmental Law

Syllabus:

When a local development project is referred to by
name in a branch budget appropriation, the use of
the project name is inseparable from a local entity’s
receipt of the state funds.

Statutes construed:
KRS 41.110, KRS 45.244, KRS 45.251(1), KRS
45.760(17)
Constitutional
provision construed:

Ky. Const. § 230

Opinion of the Attorney General
The Capital Projects Budget in the 2004-06 biennial budget bill,
enacted in 2005 as HB 267, contains a line item (Part II-A, Budget Unit
5, Item 004) appropriating one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) from the
General Fund to the Governor’s Office for Local Development in fiscal
year 2004-05 for a project identified as “James E. Bruce Convention

OAG 05-005
Page 2

Center in Hopkinsville.”1 Pursuant to KRS 15.025(2), Representative
Robert R. Damron, the House Majority Caucus Chairman, has requested
an opinion addressing whether the local board that manages the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center can lawfully receive those appropriated funds to spend on that building without naming it the “James E. Bruce Convention Center.” The Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center, built in 2003, is operated by the Hopkinsville-Christian County Chamber of Commerce through a governing board. At its recent meetings, the board has reportedly expressed an unwillingness to name the building the “James E. Bruce Convention Center,” although it would seem that the board expects to receive the funds allocated to the Governor’s Office for Local Development for the James E. Bruce Convention Center. Section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that “[N]o money shall be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law.” The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently ruled that this section should be strictly construed, so that “absent a statutory, constitutional, or valid federal mandate, Section 230 precludes the withdrawal of funds from the state treasury except pursuant to a specific appropriation by the General Assembly.” Fletcher v. Com., No. 2005-SC-0046-TG, slip op. at 24, 2005 WL 1183241, *13 (Ky. 2005). KRS 41.110 reiterates that “[n]o public money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury for any purpose other than that for which its withdrawal is proposed, nor unless it has been appropriated by the General Assembly or is part of a revolving fund, and has been allotted as provided in KRS 48.010 to 48.800, and then only on the warrant of the Finance and Administration Cabinet.” The former Court of Appeals stated: “In dealing with Section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 41.110, we hold that the purpose of these constitutional and statutory provisions ‘was to prevent the expenditure of the State’s money

1

James E. Bruce, who has served in the state House of Representatives since 1964, is

the longest-serving state legislator in Kentucky’s history.

OAG 05-005
Page 3

without the consent of the Legislature.’” Ferguson v. Oates, 314
S.W.2d 518, 521 (Ky. 1958) (citation omitted).
KRS 45.244 further provides as follows:
Except as expressly authorized in this chapter, no person
shall incur, or order or vote to incur, any obligation against
the Commonwealth in excess of, or any expenditure not
authorized by, an appropriation of the General Assembly
and an allotment of funds provided by KRS Chapter 48.
Any such obligation so incurred shall not be binding against
the Commonwealth, and shall be void and incapable of ratification by any administrative authority of the Commonwealth. Penalties for violation of KRS 45.244 are provided in KRS 45.990. Moreover, KRS 45.251(1) requires that “[e]xpenditures shall be limited to the amounts and purposes for which appropriations are made.” It is unquestionable that the purpose of the appropriation in Item 004 was to fund a convention center named in honor of James E. Bruce. We are not aware of any published cases or opinions specifically addressing a situation in which an entity receiving an appropriation of state funds for a capital project attempted to claim the funds while refusing to use the name assigned to the project by the General Assembly. It is well established, however, that “statutes authorizing the appropriation of public funds will not be extended beyond the natural and fair meaning of the words used.” Shamburger v. Tierney, 257 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Ky. 1953). In the present situation, only nine (9) words were used by the legislature: “James E. Bruce Convention Center in Hopkinsville – General Fund.” Three (3) of those words specified that the project was to be named for James E. Bruce. The budget bill does not refer simply to any convention center in Hopkinsville.

OAG 05-005
Page 4

It would be exceeding the “natural and fair meaning of the words
used” by the legislature to apply the appropriated funds in Item 004 to
the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention Center
without renaming the center for James E. Bruce. “When no ambiguity
exists a statute is to be interpreted according to the intent of the authors which intent is gleaned from what the authors actually said, not what they may have intended to but did not say.” Clark v. Clark, 601 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Ky. App. 1980). The intent is clear from the minimal language in Item 004 that the appropriation must be spent on some facility called the “James E. Bruce Convention Center.” If a facility by that name does not exist in Hopkinsville, it must be so designated or constructed if the appropriated funds are to be validly applied. KRS 45.760 states, in part, as follows: The provisions of any other law notwithstanding:
....
(17) When the General Assembly authorizes a capital construction item in the capital construction section of a branch budget bill, the entity head charged with executing the branch budget shall construct the capital construction item according to the requirements set forth in the branch budget bill, statutory budget memorandum, supporting documentation considered by the General Assembly, and branch budget records. The entity head shall not deviate from these requirements with regard to: (a) Purpose or location to the extent that the capital construction item no longer meets the identified needs; or (b) Configuration for reasons other than practical accommodation to the construction site or specific program to be accommodated within that capital construction item. Pursuant to this statute, any entity charged with executing the provisions of HB 267 must implement the budget bill’s requirement that the facility benefiting from the funds appropriated in Item 004 should bear the title of “James E. Bruce Convention Center.” We have found nothing in the statutorily enumerated powers of the Governor’s Office for

OAG 05-005
Page 5

Local Development (formerly known as the “Department for Local Government”) or of a local chamber of commerce that would authorize any deviation from the explicit terms of any legislative appropriation. Conclusion Accordingly, it is our opinion that the appropriated funds, under the statutes and precedents cited, can only be lawfully applied to a facility named the “James E. Bruce Convention Center.” Any inconsistent use of those funds by the Governor’s Office for Local Development or by any local entity receiving the funds would lack authorization from the General Assembly and would therefore be contrary to state law.

Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General

Robert S. Jones, Director
Office of Civil and Environmental
Law