RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 TO BE PUBLISHED

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST

. .



### v. . ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2015-CA-001682-TG FRANKLIN. CIRCUIT COURT NO
..14-CI-01080
JOSEPH N. POPE, JR. DEPUTY REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST WORKERS' COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE FUND; JOSEPH N. POPE, JR., DEPl.JTY REHABILITATOR OF THEKENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST·PROPERTY AND .LIABILITY SELF:_INSURANCE FUND;.AND KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, INC.

OPINION· OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS AFFIRMING APPELLANT

APPELLEES

### Appell~t, Board ofTrustees ofthe KentU:cky School Boards Insurance
. · Trust (KSBIT), appeals from a decision ofthe.Franklin CircuitCourt rejecting

.its claim ofgovernmental immunity and thus denying its motion for summary judgment. Appeliee, Joseph N. Pope, Jr., is the Deputy Rehabilitator ofthe

. . . . Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and_the Deputy Reh_abiHtator ofKentucky School Boards Insurance Trust Property and Liability SelfI:nsurance Fund. · The circuit court concluded thatthe KSBIT Board is not entitled to governmentai immunity because its "parent" eritity is not an agency of state. goverriinent that enjoys governmental immunity and it does.not perforrn a

. function that is integral to state.government. The KSBIT**Bo~rd** appealed the

circuit court's decisionto,the Court ofAppeals. We granted Appellee's ·uncontested CR 74.02(2) motion to tra:nsfer this case directly to this Court. \

. . . ·Upon review, we agree that the KSBIT Board does not qualify_for governmental immunity and so we affirm the Franklin Circuit Court's order denying.· ·summaryjudgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Boatd of-Trustees ofthe Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust manages.the self-insurance funds established to_provide workers' compensation insurance .and property and liability insurance to local public school districts that are members ofthe Kentucky School Board Association (KSBA). Prior to the involvement ofthe.Deputy Rehabilitator, KSBIT's

.. responsibilities included the collection and**man~gement** ofthe Trust's funds,

which are comprised ofmember contributions, policy dividends, and rate refunds;**i~vestments** and income thereon; and other.money and property- in the handsofthe Trust in connection with its administration/KSBIT also. performed other duties required**i~** the administratiqn ofthe Trust. KSBA

2served as the administrator ofKSBIT providing the day-to-day managementof the. KSBIT funds until 2010. Two ofKSBIT's self-insurance funds, the Workers' Compensation Fund and the Property and Liability Fund, operated at a deficit for manyyears. Eventually, the Kentucky Department ofInsurance stepped in and directed KSBIT to cure the deficits or assess its member school boards additional feesto balance its accounts. In response, KSBIT entered into agreements with the**Ken~ucky** League ofCities (KLC) and the Kentucky League ofCities Insurance Services Association (KLCIS) to borrow money and to transfer the administration ofthe KSBIT fundsto those entities. Despite these**~fforts,** the financial condition ofKSBIT's insurance funds continued to deteriorate. KSBIT ·wrote its last insurance policy during the 2012-2013 fiscal

### y~ar. In the latter part of2013, KLC/KLCIS and.KSBIT filed a declaratoryjudgment action asking

· the Franklin Circuit Court to force the Department ofInsurance to assess .

KSBIT's members for the additional money needed to overcome the deficits and repay the KLC/KLCIS loan. Ultimately, the Franklin Circuit Court placed the KSBIT Funds into rehabilitation. I The Deputy Rehabilitator filed suit against the KSBIT Board for

. negligence, negligence per se, breach offiduciary duty ofdiligence and due

1 The Deputy Rehabilitator assessed.KSBIT gtoup members an amount in excess of$45 million to fill the KSBIT Funds'financial deficit. The assessment did not include the approximately $8 millionworth ofnotes from KLC/KLCIS. The Franklin Circuit Court has since ruled that the notes were not subject to**repayi;n~nt.** ' 3care, and breach offiduciary duty ofloyalty.2 The KSBIT Board asserted a defense ofgovernmental immunity and moved for summaryjudgment. After applying the two-prong test expounded upon in 

### Comair, Inc. v; Lexington-

.J 

### Fayette Urban CountyAirport'**Corp~,** 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky._2009), the circuit court concluded that KSBIT did not qualify for governmental immunity. Specifically, the circuit court determined that KSBIT was created by KSBA, a nongovernmental entity. Since KSBA. had no governmentalimmunity, its progeny. KSBIT could not have immunityunder the 

### Comairtest. The circuit court held

. ' under the second prong ofthe

### ·.Comairanalysis tha_t KSBIT's purpose of maintaining a self-insurance trust fund to provid_e its member organizations
. (local sc_hool boards) with workers' compensation, and other insurance was not
a function integral to state government. This appeal followed. On appeal, KSBIT asserts that the circuit court's 

### Comair analysis was flawed for these reasons: 1) because the language ofthe Agreement and

·Declaration ofTrust that established KSBIT reveals that its true "parent"

. . organization is not KSBA, as the Circuit court fourid, but is instead the several local school districtsthat comprise KSBA and opted to participate in KSBIT's insurance programs, and tho.se member school districts do have governmental immunity; and 2) because KSBIT's function ofproviding local public school

.districts with statuto:r:ily-mandated workers' compensation insurance and

2 _!(SBA and Kentucky.League ofCities are co-defendants in the still-pending circuit court action but are not parties to this interlocutory appeal. 4. . property.ins1:1rance advances the governmental function ofpublic education and is, therefore, a function integral to state government.. For reasons set forth below, we affirm tqe decision ·Ofthe Franklin Circuit · Court.
II. ANALYSIS In 

### Comair, this Court sifted through and digested decades ofdecisions · illustrating Kentucky courts' struggle to apply the concept ofgovernmental immunity to public and quasi-public agencies outside the fundamental · ·departments of state government. We concluded that two elements are decisive. The first element is whether the entity in question was created by a governmental agericy that enjoyed the cloak ofgovernmental immunity
.. "This inquiry can be as simple as looking at the 'parent' ofthe·entity in question, i.e.,
was it created by the state or a county, or a city?" 295 S.W.3d at 99. The second element is whether the entity in question exercises a function that is "integral to ·state government." 

### Id. (citing Gross 

### v.·KentuckyBoard of Managers· ofWorld's Columbian Exposition, 49 S.W. 458, 459 (Ky. 1899); 

### Kentucky Center for theArts v. Berns, 801 S.W'.2d 327, 332 (Ky. 1990)). 

### Comairs adaptation ofa two-pronged test is consistent with our historical application ofgovernmental immunity and it has proven to be· a workable solution to a complex and often confusing issue as seen, for. example, in 

### Kentucky RiverFoothills Development Council, Inc. v. 

### Phirman, 504 S.W.3d 11 · (Ky. 2016),

# and in 

### Coppage Construction. Co. 

### v. SanitationDistrictNo.· 1, 

### 4S9

5S.W._3d85S(Ky. 2015). {)ur reviewaccordingly proceeds with an examination

· ofthe two elem.ents as they relate to KSBIT.



### A. The KSBiT**Bo~rd** 

### was not created by local public school boards.

.The KSBIT Board argues on appeal that it is immune from the claims of the Deputy Rehabilitator because it was created by locarpublic school boards whichhave traditionally and undisputedlyenjoyed governmental immunity. The KSBIT Board claims tq have inherited the governmental immunity ofits

. . "parent" agencies. The irony is inescapable: KSBIT claims to have inherited the governmental immunity ofthe local public ·school boards whose insurance trust fun_ds the rehabilitator claims KSBIT negligently mismanaged·. KSBIT

. . ·posits no other entity as its progenitor, and so ifit was not created by iocal.

·P1:1blic school boards, 

### it fails the first prong o_fthe Comairtest. · .

. . The. Deputy Rehabilitator claims that

### th~**par~ntal** entity oftheKSBIT Board is not the local p:ublic school districts who seif-insured through the KSBIT trust, but is instead the Kentucky School Board Association (KSBA).

. . .

. KSBA is a private 50l(c)(4) non-profit c9rporation. According to its·articles of

·. incorporation, mernbersl?-ip·in KSBA is open to public school districts in
.. ·

.Kentucky as well as privately funded schools and colleges.in the state with interests and views consistent.with KSBA's objectives and ·purposes. One of KSBA's stated purposes is to assist its members in**me~ting** "legal requirements for the.efficient delivery ofeducational_services to the public;" Obtaining ·workers'compensation.coverage for_ school employees and property insurance

.6· for school property are among the legal requirements offocal public school boards. See KRS 342.340, KRS 160.105. , The KSBIT Board was established in 1978 upon the execution ofthe Agreement and Declaration. ofTrust (TrustAgreement). The founding parties identified in clause 1 ofthe TrustAgreement3 are: KSBA, seven.named

. . individuals to serve as Trustees, and the Trust itself. None ofthe individual public school boards or school districts that comprise the·KSBA membership or participate in KSBIT's insurance programs are mentioned in the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement notes, in clauses**~** and 3 ofthe preamble, that "boards ofeducation.in Kentucky are authorized tojoin together in a group·or groups for**th~** purpose ofproviding self-insurance ofvarious kinds" and that
some members ofKSBA "may deem it expedient tojoin fogether in purchasing ·and procuring insurance coverage ofvarious kinds or providing self-insurance." Clauses 4 and 5 ofthe TrustAgreement preamble declare that KSBA is "undertaking to furnish the leadership and guidance necessary to estal?Iish such [insurance] programs" and that "the :i:nost practical manner in which to establish and·administer these**[insu~ance]** programs is through a Trust created for. that purpose."

3 Clause 1 ofthe TrustAgreement states: "This AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OFTRUST :tnade
... by and between the Kentucky School Boards. Association (hereinafter referred to as 'KSBA' or 'Association') and [seven named individuals] as duly appqinted Trustees (hereinafterreferred to collectively as 'Trustees') and the Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust (hereinafter referred to as

. . 'Trust"), WITNESSETH:" 7Article III ofthe Trust Agreement states the purpose of KSBIT· shall be: (1) to enable school districts and other tax supported educational agencies ofKentuckj·who are members ofthe Association, to avail themselves ofthe benefits which will accrue to them in the forming ofa group or groups to provide self-insurance ·

. ' . 

### . '

. ofvarious kinds or procure permitted insurance coverages ofall

. . kinds; and (2) to provide risk management services. The trial court provided two reasons for determining that KSBA, rather than the. local public school board's members, is KSBIT's parent organization.

· First, the TrustAgreement language creating KSBIT directly ide!ltifies KSBA,

rather than the**individu~l** member school districts, as the entity undertaking

..the task ofcreatingKSBIT. SecondJ pursuant to the agreement, it is KSBA that

. . . appoints the KSBIT trustees, three of

### whoni must be the president,immediate past president.and vi.ce-president ofKSBA. The KSBITBoard acknowledges that individual public school boards are not actual parties to the TrustAgreement
.. The Board challenges the trial court's reasoning by pointing out, based upon**th~** language ofthe Trust

. Agreement, that in creating KSBIT, KSBA was acting onbehalfof, and through

the authority of, its member school boards. KSBIT also notes.that Article X of·

. . ' . the TrustAgreement explicitly provid_es that "the Trust is operated
... as agent and representative ofthe participating members only." We examinethe ·genesis of_KSBIT to ascertain.its "parental." entity beginning upon the same path followed by the trial court: the Trust Agreement which created**KSBIT~** The TrustAgreement is a contract, and is therefore subject to the rules ofcontractconstruction. In interpreting a contract, we 8first determine as a matter oflaw whether the contract is ambiguous: A contract written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to ' iriterpretation or construction and must be enforced according to its terms. 

### New York LifeIns. Co. v. Conrad, 107 S.W.2d 248, 250-251 (Ky. 1937). In the absence ofambiguity,
... a court will interpret the contract's terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence. A contract is ambiguous ifa ·reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or· inconsistent interpretations. 

### Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway,**49~** S.W.3d 691, 694-695 (Ky. 2016) (citations and**quo~ations** omitted). The terms ofthe TrustAgreement cited to show whether KSBA or the public scJ!ool boards being insured through KSBIT are the true progenitors of KSBIT are not ambiguous. The plain language ofthe Trust Agreement that · created KSBIT identifies only KSBA, KSBIT, and the Trustees. Ifthe Trust Agreement can be regarded as KSBIT's birth certificate_, then those parties are the parents. The language ofthe Trust Agreement also clearly expresses KSBA's leadership in undertaking to create KSBIT. The fact that it did so as a**serv~ce** to its members does not equate its actions to the actions ofindividual · public school boards. KSBA is not the 

### alter ego or the surrogate ofits
. members, antj. so KSBA's action upon the TrustAgreement, "undertaking to furnish the leadership and guidance ne-cessary to establish such [insurance] programs,'' cannot be attributed as the action ofthe many local school boards that comprise its membership.

9The TrustAgreement significantly fails to mention any public school board as a creator ofthe Trust. The document is not executed by any focal public school board. Ofeveri more significance is the fact that the member school boards have no inherent right to participate in KSBIT':;; insurance programs. The TrustAgreement requires local public school bofil.ds to apply for and gain acceptance to participate in KSBIT's insurance programs. It is difficult to conceive_that local school boards having no right to participate in KSBIT ate the entities that created KSBIT. The TrustAgreement's plain and unambiguous langliage reveals that KSBA, an incorporate_d legal entity, created KSBIT for the benefit ofits

. members. The fact that**K~BIT** was createdforlocal public school-boardsdoes

not go so far as to establish that KSBIT was created bylocal public school boards. No plausible reading ofTrustAgreement supports the assertion that KSBA's school board members created KSBIT. Regardless .ofthe terms ofthe Trust Agreement, the.KSBIT Board**ass~rts** · ' ' ' that because the res ofthe insurance trusts was funded by payments of participating school boards using state-appropriated moriies,**thos~** participating school boards must beregarded as KSBIT's "parents" for purposes ofimmunity analysis. KSBIT cites Franklin County v. Malone, 957 S.W.2d 195**(Ky~** 1997),4 as supportfor this argument.

4 Overruled on other grounds by Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001). ' 10In Malone,_an in:giate at the Franklin CountyJail committed suicide. The inmate's estate filed suit against several governmental entities including_ Franklin County, the members·ofthe Franklin County Fiscal Court, various · other Franklin County officials, the Commonwealth ofKentucky, and a state trooper. ·Against the backdrop ofnegligence_claims, the estateclaimed that Franklin County's participation in a self-insurance fund to 'cover liabilitY claimss against the county constituted a waiver ofits claim to governmental immunity. Rejecting the plaintiffs arguments, this Court held that "participation in a**self-in~urance** _fund is not an implied waiver ofimmunity" and that "[p]articipation in a self-insurancb fund pursuant to an**inter~local** cooperation act does not give rise to an implied waiver ofsovereign)mmunity." · Id. at 203-204. With respect to a waiver ofimmunity, in Malone this Court distinguished the expenditure ofcounty money to pay_ the premium for a commercial liability insurance policy from· the contribution ofcounty money into a self-insurance trust fund. Id. at 204. The KSBIT Board relies upon that distinction to support its claim of jmmunity.**The-K~BIT** Board's reliance upon Malone is misplaced; We are mindful that the instant case does not involve any claim ofnegligence or wrongdoing by
a local public school board; 

### the clain:i here is directly against the KSBIT Board

s The specific self-insurance trust involved was the KentuckyAll Lines Fund operated by the Kentucey Association ofCounties authorized pursuant to KRS 65.150(3) under the authority ofKRS 65.210 etseq., the Inter_;local Cooperation Act. 11for its alleged mismanagementof**th~** Trust. We see n_othing in Mafone that

. . remotely suggests that, asthe repository ofthe self-insurancefunds, the KSBIT Board cannot·be sued for mismanaging the. funds because it has the same governmental immunity as the public entities contributingfunds it oversees.. Moreover, Malone addressed the**i~sue** ofwhether governmental entities, such as Franklin County and the members ofits.Fiscal Court, which unquestionably

### ha~e governmental

### im~unity, waived their immunity at least

## to

. . the extent ofthe funds they placed in a self...:insuraiice program. The question before us in this _case is not whether the public school boards waived their
. immunity by pa,rticipating in KSBIT. Maloneholds that pu·blic entities with governmental immunitydo not lose that im·m';lnity when they participate in· a self-insurance fund. Malone does not hold that the administrators ofthe self- · insurance f-μnd acquire the governmentalimmunity oftheir patrons. · We are satisfied that**fr~m** the language ofthe Trust-Agreement, the seminal instrument creating KSBIT, that the KSBIT Board was not created by

. . . . the local public schoolboards that partidpatein·KSBIT's insurance programs..

. . From our conclusion**th~t** the KSBIT Board is not the offspring oflocal public scl;lool.boards, it follows that the KSBIT Bo.ard does not }?.ave the**gove~mental** immu11ity accorded.to those

### gov~rnmental**bodi~s.** We next consider the

### s~cond prong ofthe Comairanalysis: whether the KSBIT Board serves a function

· integral to state government.

12

### B. The KSBIT Board does not serve a function integral to state government. KSBIT describes its role in providing insurance for public school boards
as a governmental fu:μction bec;;i.use Kentucky school boardsare mandated. to carry workers' compensation insurance and property insurance, and they can

. . . . satisfy that obligation by participating in KSBIT. We do notagree with that
.,I analysis. As we held in.

### Yanero**v~** 

### Davis, "[l]ocal school boards fulfill a governmental function of state government by providing public education within a particular geographical area." 65 S.W.3d 510, 526 (Ky. 2001) (quoting

. . . 

### Cullinan v. Jefferson County, 418 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Ky. 1967)). To.be more precise in light of 

### Comairs two-prong test, we would say that local public school boards perform an 

### integral state.function by providing education for children and others situated within their respective geographic areas..

· However,. the factthatlocal school boards, like private employers, must have workers' compensation coverage and other kinds ofinsurance does not transform the acquisition ofthat insurance into a governmental function. Providing or obtaining insurance, even though a self-insurance progr8;m, is not providing education; Innumerable things necess.arily contribute to the**a~ility.** ofthe school.boards to fulfill their governmental function, but the entities that supply those things do not themselves perform an integral state function. To determine whether an entity such as KSBIT performs ari integra) state function, we examine two elements: 1) "whether its function 

### iS 'governmental'



### 13. . . as opposed to. proprietary," and 2) "whether it is a matter of 'statewide' concern." 

### Coppage, 459 S.W.3d at 862. Providing employers with workers' compensation coverage or managing a self-insurance fund that enables employers to meet theirworkers' compensation requirement is not a function integral to .state government; it is ·

. . not a governmental function at all. Workers' compensation coverage through insurance and self-Insurance pools is conduc.ted almost exclusively by the private seCtor anc;l is clearly a proprietary function. Even ifKSBIT could be. said to serve the public purpose of serving public· sch_o9l boards, as we forewarned in 

### CQppage, "not every 'public purpose' qualifies as an 'integral state function.' Ifthat we·re the case, sovereign immunity would extend far beyond its current constraints, reaching virtually every local government agency fulfilling

# aperceived 'public purpose."' Id.

.**Th~** KSBIT Board is not.ari integral part ofstate government; it does not

. . . . . fit "within regular. patterns ofadministrative organization and**structure"-~f** state government. 

### Berns, 801 S.W.2d at332_{"[I]mmunity should extend only

.to 'departments, boards or agencies that are such integral parts of state government as)to come**with~n** regular patterns**o(admi~istrative** organiZation

. . .**a~d** structure."') (quoting 

### KentuckyRegionEight v. Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d :

. ' . . . . 489, 491 {Ky. 1974)). ·Performing the same business activity that is ordinarily accomplished by private individuals or_business corporations is not engaging in a governmental ·function. 

### YanerQ, 65**S.W.~d** at 51:9-520 {citing 83 L.Ed. 794, 804-05). KSBIT 14 r"performs substantially the. same functions as any private business engaged in the [insurance] business." 

### Berns, BOl S.W.2d at 331. KSBIT cites 

### Breathitt County Board of Education v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 (Ky. 2009), as an example where a service in**ai~** ofthe educational mission ofa local school board was deemed to be the performance of a governmental , function. The local school board iri 

### Praterprovided on-site housing to the person serving as night watchman and groundskeeper. A social visitor to the property was injured and sued the school board. ·The v_isitor argued that the school board was not immune from suit because providing**on~campus** housing
was proprietary in nature. We analyzed the facts under the theory that "education is an integral aspeCt of state government and that activities in ditect furtherance ofeducation will be deemed governmental rather th.an proprietary." , 

### Id. at 887 (citing 

### Yanero, 65 S.W.3d 510; 

### Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340 (Ky.1997); 

### Autry v. Western Kentucky University, 2_19 S
..W;3d 713 (Ky. 2007)). We :resolved the issue in favor ofimmunity, reasoning that the school board provided the groundskeeper**w~th** housing, not in the proprietary role ofcommercial landlord, "but to further its educational mission by protecting the facilities where that mission is carried out." 

### Id. at 888. In other words, the watchman/groundskeeper was not housed on campus so that the

. . school board could rent out the house as a proprietary landlord; the watchman/groundskeeper was hou·sed on campus so that he was always available to protect school property.

15The Board argues-that, like the housing provided in 

### Prater, KSBIT was

. . not created forthe purpose ofparticipating in the commercial insurance market, but was instead created to provide local school boards with cheaper insurance coverage than was otherwise available. The differen.ce between 

### Praterand the present.case is clear·. A private landlord could not serve the school board's need to have a riight watchman housed on the school grounds; obvio.usly only the school board, as the owner ofthe property, could do that.

. . Requiring**(~r** allowing) the watchman to live on school property did not put the school boc:i.rd in the proprietaryrole ofa landlord. In contrast to that, KSBIT
was**eff~ctively** a participant in the_ insurance market;providing its members the same "product" available from and ordinarily provided by nongovernmental entities. Finally, we note that KSBIT's function is not a matter of statewide
concern. We do not imply that KSBIT's service is not important. But, the

analysis is to determine ifit performs

# afunction integral to state government. Unlike the airportboard in 

### Comairwhich provides essential air transport infrastructure.which cannot be provided by private entities to meet Kentucky's commercial, industrfal, and public transportation needs, KSBIT provides

· insurance protection readily available frorri a number ofprivate. sources.

KSBIT compares more closely to the substance abuse programs provided by the
area development district in**K~ntucky** 

### RiverFoothills Development Council, Inc
.

. v. Phinnan, 504 S.W.3d 11 (Ky. 2016), which operates for the benefit of a

discrete group. 16**KIS~IT** does not satisfy the elements required for concluding.it serves an integral state function. 

### III. CONCLUSION For reasons stated above, we affirm the order ofthe Franklin Circuit. Court's denying summaryjudgment to the KSBIT Board.based upon the
.

. grounds 

### ofgovernmental immunity. This case·is remanded to Franklin Circuit

Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. ·All sitting. All concur.

COUl'lSEL FOR APPELLANT: Douglas L. Mcswain William Craig Robertson Ill Sharon Leslie Gold Courtney Ross Samford Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP 250 West Main Street, Suite 1600 Lexington, KY 40507-1746 COUNSEL FORAPPELLEE JOSEPH N. POPE JR, DEPUTY REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOLBOARDS INSURANCE TRUST PROPERTY AND LIABILITY SELF-INSURANCE FUND, AND JOSEPH N. POPE, JR. DEPUTY. REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST WORKERS'.COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE FUND: Perry Mack Bentley Todd Smith Page Sfoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 300 WestVine Street, Suite 21-00 Lexington, KY 40507-lBOl JustinDrew Clark Stoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 

### 172000 PNC. :Pl8Za 500 WestJefferson Street

.Louisville, KY 40202 Paul C. Harnice SarahJackson Bishop Stoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 20l West Main Street, Suite A ·

.**P.O~Box** 5130

Frankfort, KY 40601 Barry LeeDunn
· ·Public Protection Cabinet ·

Office ofLegal Services Emily Warf
. Fultz Madtjox Dickens, PLC 101 S. 5th Street, Suite 2700· · Louisville, KY 40202

. COUNSEL FORAMICUS CURIAE, KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,

INC.: Timothy A. Sturgill
.**K~ntucky** Association ofCoμnties,·Inc.
·General-Counsel 400 -Englewood Dr. Frankfort, KY 40601

1819