Can Boone County use public funds for school resource officers at private schools and charge all schools the same reimbursement rate?

Plain-English summary

Boone County asked whether its general fund could cover part of the cost of placing sheriff's deputies as school resource officers at both public and nonpublic schools. It also asked whether the sheriff's office could seek reimbursement at the same percentage from every participating school. The attorney general answered yes to the proposed plan.

The plan directs county money to the Boone County Sheriff's Office, which pays the officers' salaries, training, uniforms, and equipment. Schools receive no direct payment and have no control over the funds beyond choosing whether to participate. Each participating school must be able and willing to reimburse a percentage of the cost, with the same percentage for public and nonpublic schools. The office found that protecting students and staff is a public purpose and that any benefit to a nonpublic school is indirect.

The opinion also found the proposal consistent with the federal Establishment Clause and Kentucky's ban on preferences among religious groups. It relied on the plan's equal terms for eligible schools regardless of religious affiliation. The conclusion addresses this proposed funding structure, not a direct grant of county money to a school.

What this means for you

Boone County's Fiscal Court and Sheriff's Office

The opinion permits general fund money to pay part of the sheriff's costs for school resource officers at public and nonpublic schools under the stated plan. The money goes to the Sheriff's Office for employing the officers. The opinion treats uniform reimbursement requirements as part of the plan's neutral, public purpose.

Public and nonpublic schools

Under the reviewed proposal, either type of school may choose whether to participate and must reimburse the same percentage of the officer's costs. The opinion says a school's participation depends on its ability and willingness to reimburse that share. It does not authorize the schools to direct how the county funds are spent.

Parents and students

The opinion identifies student and staff safety as the public benefit of placing trained officers at schools. It says that purpose applies whether a child attends a public or nonpublic school, while any benefit to the school itself remains indirect under this plan.

Common questions

Q: May Boone County pay part of a school resource officer's cost at a private school?
A: Yes, under the proposal reviewed. County general funds would go to the Sheriff's Office to employ and station the officer, while the participating school would reimburse a uniform percentage of the cost. The opinion did not approve direct county payments to private schools.

Q: Can a religious school participate on the same terms as a public school?
A: The attorney general said the proposal's equal opportunity and equal reimbursement requirement for eligible public and nonpublic schools is consistent with the federal Establishment Clause and Kentucky's prohibition on religious preference. The funds remain with the sheriff's office for officers rather than going into a school's accounts.

Q: Can the sheriff charge private schools the same reimbursement rate as public schools?
A: Yes. The opinion found that seeking the same percentage from each participating school is permissible and consistent with the plan's school-safety purpose.

Q: Did the opinion require every private school to take an officer?
A: No. Under the proposal, schools decide whether to participate. The office described the condition as being able and willing to reimburse a percentage of the costs.

Background and statutory framework

At the time of the request, Boone County's public school districts generally reimbursed the Sheriff's Office for up to 40% of the actual cost of an officer's time on campus. Nonpublic schools could also participate, but were required to reimburse all associated expenses. The Fiscal Court proposed county budget funding to lower costs for both groups and increase nonpublic school participation.

Kentucky Constitution § 171 restricts taxes to public purposes. Sections 186 and 189 protect public school funds and restrict use of education taxes in aid of sectarian schools. The opinion relied on Nichols v. Henry and Neal v. Fiscal Ct., Jefferson Cnty. for the distinction between a public service that may indirectly benefit nonpublic schools and direct payments to those schools. It cited KRS 158.440(1)'s school-safety policy and the training described in KRS 158.4414. For religious neutrality, it also cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Carson v. Makin.

The proposed funding goes to the Sheriff's Office; participating schools neither receive the money nor control its use. Those details are central to the opinion's constitutional analysis.

Citations and references

• Ky. Const. §§ 171, 186, 189 (public purpose and school-fund restrictions)
• KRS 158.440(1) (school safety)
• KRS 158.4414(9) (school resource officer training)
• Nichols v. Henry, 191 S.W.2d 930 (Ky. 1945)
• Neal v. Fiscal Ct., Jefferson Cnty., 986 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. 1999)
• Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Pages/Opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG%2026-06.pdf

Original opinion text

October 12, 2026

OAG 26-06

Subject: Can county funds be used to cover out-of-pocket costs incurred by
a sheriff’s office in providing school resource officers to both public and non-public schools? Moreover, can a sheriff’s office request partial reimbursement at the same rate from both the public and non-public schools at which a school resource officer is placed?

Requested by: Jordan Dallas Turner, Boone County Attorney

Written by: Christopher L. Thacker, General Counsel 1

Syllabus: Kentucky courts have repeatedly upheld the use of public funds
to benefit students attending non-public schools, so long as the funds serve a public purpose and any benefit to the schools is indirect. Accordingly, money from a county’s general fund may be used to employ and station school resource officers at both public and non-public schools in the county. The sheriff’s office may also request reimbursement from both public and non-public schools of a percentage of the out-of-pocket costs of employing and stationing a school resource officer at the schools.

Opinion of the Attorney General

The Boone County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”) currently contracts with its local school districts to furnish schools with school resource officers (“SROs”). From its budget, the BCSO pays the SRO’s salary and for the SRO’s training, uniform, and equipment costs. While the cost of such provision varies among school campuses, the

1 The author is grateful to Jordan Hasenbalg, 2026 Summer Associate and 2028 Juris Doctor candidate

at Belmont University College of Law and Christina Mays, Law Clerk, Office of Legal Counsel for their research, drafting, and substantive contributions to this opinion.

Page 2

Opinion of the Attorney General 26-06
October 12, 2026
Page 2 of 5

BCSO is generally reimbursed by the districts for up to 40% of the actual cost of the SRO’s time on campus.

Currently, the BCSO provides the county’s non-public schools with the opportunity to place an SRO on campus under the same conditions. However, the non-public schools must reimburse the BCSO for 100% of the expenses associated with placing an SRO on campus. Consequently, not all non-public schools in Boone County participate in the program.

The Boone County Fiscal Court (“Fiscal Court”) wishes to increase non-public school participation in the program and to lower costs for both public and non-public schools. To accomplish this goal, the Fiscal Court is considering a proposal to include funding in the county’s budget for the BCSO to offset the costs of providing SROs to public and non-public schools alike. Under the proposal, public and non-public schools in Boone County would receive the same reimbursement percentage for the cost of an SRO, with the Fiscal Court partially covering each school’s out-of-pocket expense.

The proposal includes the following provisions: (1) the money would be allocated to the BCSO, rather than to the schools directly; (2) the funding would serve the sole purpose of employing SROs; (3) the funding would be utilized for all public and non-public schools, dependent on the school’s “ability and willingness” to reimburse a percentage of the costs; (4) the only discretion afforded to the schools would be whether they choose to accept the aid; and (5) reimbursement requirements would be uniform among public and non-public schools.

Boone County’s request for an advisory opinion presents two questions: (1) may the Fiscal Court use general fund revenues to subsidize the out-of-pocket costs of employing SROs at public and non-public schools, and (2) may the BCSO have non- public schools reimburse part of the SRO placement cost at the same rate as public schools?

I. Because the proposal serves a public purpose, it is permissible under the Kentucky Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

The Kentucky Constitution states, “[t]axes shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.” Ky. Const. § 171. A public purpose is defined as a public use “calculated to aid all people in the State.” Kentucky Bldg. Comm’n. v. Effron, 220 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Ky. 1949). Furthermore, our state constitution mandates that “[a]ll funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose.”, Ky. Const. § 186, and that “[n]o portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.” Ky. Const. § 189.

Page 3

Opinion of the Attorney General 26-06
October 12, 2026
Page 3 of 5

However, Kentucky’s highest court has long recognized that those provisions do not prohibit the use of public funds to further a legitimate public purpose even where there may be an indirect benefit to a nonpublic school. See Nichols v. Henry, 191 S.W.2d 930 (Ky. 1945) (holding that an act providing supplemental transportation to elementary school children—including those attending private, sectarian, and parochial schools—did not violate any provision of the Kentucky Constitution and that it was a valid exercise of police power in the public interest of child safety); see also Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Cnty. v. Jefferson Cnty., 333 S.W.2d 746 (Ky. 1960) (permitting county to expend money from its general fund for transportation of students attending private schools). Rather, it is well established that such benefits to a non-public school may be permitted to further a valid public purpose where no direct payments are made to the private schools themselves. See Neal v. Fiscal Ct., Jefferson Cnty., 986 S.W.2d 907, 911 (Ky. 1999) (upholding a fiscal court plan that paid transportation subsidies directly to local board of education transportation systems and contracted bus companies).

The plan proposed by the Fiscal Court here would undoubtably serve a public purpose. In Nichols, the Court held that providing children with safe transportation to both public and private schools was in the public interest considering the hazards and dangers of the highway. 191 S.W.2d at 934. Similarly, the proposed Boone County SRO initiative would clearly advance a public purpose already recognized by the General Assembly, namely ensuring that “[e]very student should have access to a safe, secure, and orderly school that is conducive to learning.” KRS 158.440(1).

Promoting the greater presence of SROs in all schools within the county unquestionably advances that public purpose. An SRO must complete a specialized three-level training program and continuing education courses. KRS 158.4414(8)- (13). The course curriculum for the SRO training program includes threat assessment and response, youth drug use and abuse, social media and cyber security, and de- escalation strategies. KRS 158.4414(9). As qualified and certified law enforcement officers, SROs are subject to the same legal standards and professional obligations as other law enforcement officers. They serve the same overarching public purpose of preserving peace and protecting the safety of the community—a duty calculated to benefit all Kentuckians. Although SROs’ duties are tailored to students and school staff, that specialized assignment does not diminish the public purpose served by maintaining a safe and secure learning environment. And this is true regardless of whether the school is public or nonpublic. As the Nichols Court observed, “the fact that in a strained and technical sense the [non-public] school might derive an indirect benefit … is not sufficient to defeat the declared purpose and wholesome effect of the law.” 191 S.W.2d at 935.

Because the Fiscal Court’s proposal would utilize general funds for the public purpose of providing for the safety and general welfare of all the county’s children

Page 4

Opinion of the Attorney General 26-06
October 12, 2026
Page 4 of 5

and would do so in a manner that maintains governmental control of the use of those funds while resulting in only an incidental benefit to non-public schools, it is consistent with the Kentucky Constitution. Similarly, the proposal comports with the requirements of Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to practices that the founding generation would have understood to be an establishment of religion. Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 537 & n.5 (2022). And the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Establishment Clause does not mandate that the government act as an adversary to religion. Rather, the Establishment Clause permits the government to interact with religious programs or entities so long as it does so on a religiously neutral basis. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839 (1995).

The Fiscal Court’s proposal expressly provides that public and non-public schools will have an equal opportunity to participate in the program as the only requirement is that a school be “able and willing” to reimburse a percentage of the costs paid by the BCSO. Indeed, under the Fiscal Court’s proposed reimbursement process, every participating school is required to bear the same percentage of SRO costs. The uniform treatment of public and non-public schools, as described in Boone County’s proposal, comports with constitutional mandates by ensuring that all eligible schools—regardless of religious affiliation—have an equal opportunity to participate and are subject to the same requirements. See Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). 2

II. Requesting reimbursement at the same rate from all schools, whether public or nonpublic, is permissible and consistent with the public purpose of the proposal.

Boone County’s proposal to require equal reimbursement from both private and public schools that choose to participate in the SRO program does not run afoul of any statute, constitutional provision, or court precedent. Moreover, the even- handed distribution of public funding is consistent with the expenditure’s legitimate

2
For the reasons addressed here and earlier in this opinion, the SRO proposal also does not contravene Section 5 of the Kentucky Constitution which prohibits giving any “preference . . . to any religious sect, society or denomination.” As in Neal, the funds will go directly to the BCSO rather than the schools’ coffers. See 986 S.W.2d at 911. The program’s benefits directly safeguard the health and welfare of school children rather than funding non-public school accounts. Id. Furthermore, the proposed program leaves no room for manipulation or control of the funds by the schools beyond their decision to participate. Because the SRO program makes no specific reference to—and exhibits no favoritism toward—religious schools, its goal remains the neutral, public purpose of protecting all students. Id.

Page 5

Opinion of the Attorney General 26-06
October 12, 2026
Page 5 of 5

public purpose of enhancing safety for all children and school staff within the county. See Neal, 986 S.W.2d at 912.

For these reasons, it is the opinion of this Office that the Fiscal Court’s proposed SRO funding plan is constitutionally permissible.

Russell Coleman
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Christopher L. Thacker
General Counsel