Could a Kentucky county judge/executive set fiscal court meeting dates despite a county ordinance assigning that decision to the fiscal court?

Plain-English summary

The Henderson County judge/executive asked whether he could override an ordinance that set dates for the fiscal court's regular meetings. The Attorney General said yes. Under the statute considered in 1993, the judge/executive fixed the dates for commencement of monthly regular terms by an order of record. A county ordinance that effectively gave that decision to the fiscal court conflicted with the state statute and was a nullity. The opinion addressed who controlled the dates, rather than the fiscal court's broader meeting procedures.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. 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.

Historical summary

County judges/executive

The AG read KRS 67.090(2) as vesting authority to fix the commencement dates of regular fiscal court terms in the county judge/executive. On that reading, the judge/executive could set those dates by order of record despite the conflicting local ordinance.

Fiscal courts and county officials

The Henderson County ordinance described in the opinion set the regular session on the first four Tuesdays of each month, subject to a holiday conflict. The AG said an ordinance could not transfer to the fiscal court a power that state law assigned to the judge/executive. It relied on KRS 67.083(6)'s consistency requirement for county ordinances.

Common questions

Could the fiscal court's ordinance control the regular meeting start dates?

The AG said no where it conflicted with the judge/executive's statutory authority to fix commencement dates. It treated the conflicting ordinance as a nullity.

How was the judge/executive supposed to fix the dates under the statute discussed?

The opinion said KRS 67.090(2) called for an order of record by the county judge/executive.

Did the opinion invalidate every part of the county's meeting ordinance?

It decided the conflict over who fixed the commencement dates. The opinion did not separately analyze every meeting provision or other county ordinance.

Background and statutory framework

The AG compared Henderson County's local meeting schedule with KRS 67.090(2), which it read as assigning date-setting power to the county judge/executive. KRS 67.083(6) allowed local regulation in an area also regulated by the state only when the county ordinance was consistent with state law. Because the local provision vested the scheduling authority in a different county body, the AG found it ineffective.

Citations and references

• KRS 67.090(2): judge/executive's authority to set regular-term commencement dates.
• KRS 67.083(6): consistency requirement for county ordinances in an area regulated by state law.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_c43dd032-1bf5-415b-8441-ec39d3bed4d9/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_c43dd032-1bf5-415b-8441-ec39d3bed4d9

Original opinion text

TO BE PUBLISHED

OAG 93-22
March 10, 1993

Hon. Paul Herron, Jr.
Henderson County Judge/Executive
Henderson County Courthouse
Henderson, Kentucky 42420

Re: Whether County Judge/Executive May Override
Ordinance Fixing Dates for Regular Meetings
of Fiscal Court. AGO Corr. No. 93-(O)-285.
Dear Judge Herron:
By letter of February 22, 1993, you ask whether, in view of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 67.090(2), the county judge/executive has authority to override an ordinance fixing the dates for commencement of the regular term of fiscal court. In our view the answer is yes. The county judge/executive, in exercising authority pursuant to KRS 67.090(2), may effectively override an ordinance fixing the dates of the regular term meetings of the fiscal court. Discussion follows.

Accompanying your letter was a copy of page 3 of what is apparently a compilation of Henderson County Ordinances. Section 30.02, as it appears on that page, indicates, in substance and in part, that regular meetings of the fiscal court shall begin at 9:30 a.m., and that the regular session shall be on the first four Tuesdays of each month, except when a holiday conflicts. As contrasted with the local ordinance, KRS 67.090(2) vests in the county judge/executive the authority to fix, by order of record, the dates for commencement of the monthly regular terms (meetings) of the fiscal court. A fiscal court's enactment of ordinances is governed generally by KRS 67.083(6). That statute provides, in part, that if a county is authorized to regulate an area which the state also regulates, county government may regulate the area only by enacting ordinances which are consistent with state law. Taking KRS 67.090(2) as authority for the county - here specifically the county judge/executive - to regulate the fixing of fiscal court regular term meeting dates, the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS 67.090(2), since the ordinance effectively vests in the fiscal court, rather than the county judge/executive, the authority for fixing such dates. We believe the ordinance, as inconsistent with a state statute, is a nullity. KRS 67.083(6). Accordingly, as county judge/executive, you may fix the dates for the commencement of the regular terms despite the ordinance in question. KRS 67.090(2). Sincerely, CHRIS GORMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gerard R. Gerhard
Assistant Attorney General
(502) 564-7600
GRG:par