Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litter Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McCreary County shifts litter-fine revenue to sheriff to fund cleanup enforcement
Summary
McCreary County Fiscal Court voted March 13 to direct proceeds from amended littering fines to the sheriff's office to pay for cameras, enforcement and cleanup activities after extended discussion about roadside trash and public health.
McCreary County Fiscal Court on March 13 approved a plan to direct proceeds from recently amended litter statutes to the sheriff's department to pay for enforcement and litter-abatement work.
The change follows months of complaints about roadside trash and testimony from County Attorney Austin Price about the public-safety, environmental and tourism effects of litter. Price told the court that recent statutory amendments affected how collected fines are divided and proposed reallocating the funds to give the sheriff’s office more resources to pursue cases and reduce recurring littering.
Price described a recent prosecution that ended in a guilty plea and a $500 fine plus court costs. He said the statute now contemplates a split in which 40% goes to the sheriff’s department and 60% goes to the general fund for litter abatement, but asked the fiscal court to instead allocate the 60% to the sheriff’s department so the department would have more resources for cameras and investigations. “This will give the sheriff’s department an incentive and the resources,” Price said during the meeting.
A magistrate moved to adopt Price’s plan and a second was recorded. The court then voted by roll call: Magistrates Hale, Taylor, Strunk and Maxwell and Judge Green all voted yes; the motion carried unanimously.
The court did not specify an immediate dollar amount that will transfer; Price and court members said funds will come from fines when they are collected. Price and emergency-management staff stressed the court will continue to prosecute litter cases and that community service or other remedies could still be ordered by the court.
The court’s decision is intended to increase enforcement capacity — including potential purchases of cameras and computer systems — rather than create a new tax or service charge. County Attorney Price and Emergency Management Officer Stephen McKinney framed the move as a tool to reduce a small number of chronic violators who, they said, create disproportionate cleanup costs and safety risks.
Court members did not adopt a written spending plan at the meeting; Sheriff’s Office leaders will return with proposed uses for the funds if and when the money is collected and allocated.
Votes at the meeting show unanimous support for the measure; the court recorded no abstentions or votes against the reallocation.
