Could a Kentucky county judge redirect the road-program expense allowance to the county treasury?

Plain-English summary

In 1994, Kentucky's Attorney General said the Transportation Cabinet could not send a county judge/executive's local road-program expense allowance to the county treasury, even if the judge requested that arrangement. KRS 67.722 said the judge “shall receive” the allowance. The AG found no statutory authority for the Cabinet to pay someone else instead.

The opinion addressed the Cabinet's payment obligation. It did not discuss what the judge could do with the allowance after receiving it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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 law quoted in the opinion provided an annual $3,600 allowance for duties in the local county road program, paid in $900 quarterly installments. The AG said the statutory direction that the judge receive the payment gave no authority to waive it or direct the Cabinet to pay another recipient.

Transportation Cabinet

The AG said an agency disbursing public funds had to follow the recipient named by statute. He identified KRS 67.722 and KRS 177.320 as the basis for the Cabinet's allowance payments and concluded that the Cabinet could not substitute the county treasury as payee.

Common questions

Could the judge ask the Cabinet to deposit the allowance with the county instead?
The AG said the Cabinet had no statutory discretion to do that, even at the judge's request.

How much was the allowance under the statute the AG quoted?
KRS 67.722 then specified $3,600 per year in $900 quarterly payments.

Did the opinion decide how a judge could spend an allowance after receiving it?
No. It answered whether the Cabinet could make the payment to the county treasury instead of the judge.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 67.722, as quoted in the opinion, directed that a county judge/executive receive an expense allowance for administering the local county road program. The AG also cited KRS 177.320 for the Cabinet's payment role. He applied the statutory payee language to the proposed redirection of the allowance.

Citations and references

• KRS 67.722
• KRS 177.320

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG94-067.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 94-67

November 15, 1994

Subject: County Judge/Executive's Expense Allowance

Written by: Gerard Gerhard

Requested by: Hon. Steve Tribble

Syllabus: Where statute directs that an expense allowance shall be received by the county judge/executive, paying agency cannot accede to the request of the county judge/executive that such payment be instead made to the county treasury.

OAGs cited: None.

Statutes construed: KRS 67.722, 177.320.

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The following question, in substance, has been presented:

Where a statute expressly directs that an expense allowance for performance of duties and fulfilling responsibilities in the administration of the local county road program shall be received by the county judge/executive, may the allowance be paid instead, upon the request of the county judge/executive, to the county treasury?

KRS 67.722 provides:

The county judge/executive shall receive an annual expense allowance of three thousand six hundred dollars ($3,600) for performing his duties and fulfilling his responsibilities in the administration of the local county road program. Payment shall be made quarterly in the amount of nine hundred dollars ($900) per quarter, the first such payment to be made for the quarter ending March 31, 1978.

The specific command of the statutory language quoted above is that the county judge/executive shall receive an annual expense allowance for performing and fulfilling his duties and fulfilling his responsibilities in the administration of the local county road program. No authority is granted for the county judge to waive such payment or to direct a paying agency to make the payment to another as the county judge/executive may direct. Surely it will be recognized that a governmental agency, in making disbursement of governmental funds, is bound by the express language of the statutes. Stated another way, a paying agency cannot lawfully make a payment from governmental funds except in conformity with statutory direction.

In the matter here involved, the expense allowance is paid by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to county judge/executives based upon KRS 67.722 and KRS 177.320.

No statutory discretion is provided for the Cabinet to accede to the request of a county judge/executive, that the payment statutorily mandated to be received by the county judge/executive shall instead be sent to the county treasury. It follows that the Cabinet may not lawfully do so.

Sincerely,

CHRIS GORMAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gerard R. Gerhard

Assistant Attorney General