Could a Kentucky county sponsor a federally funded flood project that included land inside a city?

Plain-English summary

In 1996, Kentucky's Attorney General concluded that Martin County could sponsor a federally supported flood-control project even though part of the work lay inside the City of Warfield. The county had statutory authority to act on flood control. Warfield remained within the county, its residents paid county taxes, and the proposed project would benefit the county as a whole.

The AG also observed that the county's proposed responsibilities did not conflict with Warfield's governmental interests or authority. The opinion addressed this project, with most work in unincorporated areas, and did not give counties unlimited power to spend inside cities. County contributions remained subject to available funds and proper county budgeting.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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

Martin County Fiscal Court

The county expected to share costs and assume responsibilities under an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Army. The AG read KRS 67.083(3)(i) as authority to act on flood control and considered the project's county-wide benefit. It said the county could sponsor the portion in Warfield, provided any county spending met availability and budget requirements.

City of Warfield

The city was a separate jurisdiction but within Martin County. The opinion noted that the proposed county role was not adverse to Warfield's governmental interests or authority.

Common questions

Did the city boundary prevent the county from sponsoring that portion?

No. The AG concluded that the county could sponsor the whole proposed flood project, including work within Warfield.

Why could county money support work inside the city?

The AG pointed to the county's flood-control power, the county-wide benefit, and the fact that city residents also paid county taxes. It applied similar reasoning from an earlier opinion about a county contribution to a city stoplight.

Was county funding automatic once the project was authorized?

No. The opinion said county funds had to be available and committed through proper budgeting.

Background and statutory framework

Martin County contemplated an agreement with the federal government for a project centered outside incorporated areas but extending into Warfield. The AG relied on KRS 67.083's county powers concerning floods and hazards, noted KRS 67.084's flood-insurance provision, and cited KRS 68.240 and KRS 68.260 on county budgeting. It also referred to earlier AG opinions on county-wide benefits from projects located inside a city.

Citations and references

• KRS 67.083(3)(i) and KRS 67.083(3)(j): county powers discussed in the opinion.
• KRS 67.084: county flood-insurance ordinance authority noted by the AG.
• KRS 68.240 and KRS 68.260: availability and budgeting of county funds.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG96-030.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 96-30

July 18, 1996

Subject: Whether county may be non-federal sponsor for portion of federally supported flood control project in city within the county.

Written by: Gerard Gerhard

Requested by: Hon. Bob Arnold, Commissioner, Department of Local Government

Syllabus: County fiscal court may act as non-federal sponsor of federally supported flood control project, including that portion of such project within incorporated area of a city within the county.

OAGs cited: 75-654, 84-323.

Statutes construed: KRS 67.083(3)(i); 67.083(3)(j); 67.084; 68.240; 68.260; 81.010(6).

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The following question, in substance, has been presented:

May a county fiscal court act as the non-federal sponsor for a federally supported flood control project, a portion of which will be carried out within the incorporated area of a sixth class city within the county?

In our view the answer is yes. Discussion follows.

A flood control project is proposed for Martin County, with principal funding to come from the federal government under various federal statutes. An agreement in such regard is called for as between the U. S. Department of the Army, and the Martin County Fiscal Court. The agreement would require the Martin County Fiscal Court to share a portion of the costs of the project, and to assume certain responsibilities as described in the proposed agreement, a draft of which was supplied for review incident to this opinion. While the major portion of the project would be carried out in unincorporated areas of Martin County, a portion of the project would be within the incorporated area of the City of Warfield, a sixth class city (KRS 81.010(6)) within Martin County.

The question has been raised as to whether the Martin County Fiscal Court may act as the non-federal sponsor of the project as to that portion of the project that is within the City of Warfield. As a general rule, a unit of local government may exercise its authority and expend its revenues only within its own territory.

The fiscal court of a county has express statutory authority upon which it may base acting as a non-federal sponsor of a federally supported flood control project. KRS 67.083(3)(i) empowers a fiscal court to act in connection with the control of floods. KRS 67.083(3)(j) empowers a fiscal court to cause the repair or demolition of structures which present a hazard to public health, safety or morals or are otherwise inimical to the welfare of residents of the county.

While the City of Warfield is a jurisdiction unto itself, it is within Martin County. Residents of the city pay taxes to county government that benefit the county as a whole. The project in question will benefit the county as a whole. It would be absurd to suggest that while residents of the City of Warfield may be required to pay taxes for the benefit of Martin County, a portion of those taxes may not be applied to a project that would be beneficial to the county as a whole within a city within the county. See OAG 84-323. We note that the responsibilities of the Martin County Fiscal Court, as non-federal sponsor of the project in question, are not adverse to the governmental interests or authority of the City of Warfield. It might be further noted that legislative intent that a fiscal court of a county may participate in federally supported flood relief efforts is indicated by KRS 67.084, which authorizes fiscal courts to enact ordinances to qualify the county for flood insurance subsidized by the United States.

In OAG 75-654 this office indicated that a fiscal court could contribute to the cost of erection of a stop light within a city, given the broad authority provided by KRS 67.083, and the fact that the light in question would involve the safety, welfare and convenience not only of the inhabitants of the city, but also of the county. By similar reasoning here, and based upon the specific provisions within KRS 67.083 cited above, as well as our observations in the paragraph immediately above, we believe the Martin County Fiscal Court has full authority to act as the non-federal sponsor of a federally supported flood control project within the county, to include that portion of the project that is within a city within the county.

The commitment of county funds to the project is, of course, subject to their availability, and proper budgeting within the county's budget. KRS 68.240, KRS 68.260.

A. B. CHANDLER III

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gerard R. Gerhard

Assistant Attorney General