Request By:
Mr. R. Michael Amyx
Executive Director
Kentucky Municipal League
Suite 201 Bradley Hall
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Donald Roney, Assistant Attorney General
In your letter dated March 21, 1979, you posed the following question:
"Insofar as the following references relate to KRS 132.023 and KRS 132.027, as amended by House Bill No. 44, would those units of government operating on a calendar year be correct in interpreting: (1) ". . . a tax rate for 1979-80 . . ." to mean the unit's tax rate for the 1980 calendar year; (2) ". . . application of the maximum tax rate that could have been levied in 1978-79 . . ." to mean the unit's compensating tax rate for the 1979 calendar year, calculated in accordance with KRS 132.010 (6) as it read prior to February 13, 1979; and (3) ". . . the 1978-79 assessment." to mean the unit's assessment as of January 1, 1979, assuming that the unit's assessment date is January 1st?"
KRS 92.020 permits cities, other than cities of the first class, to begin their fiscal years on January 1, June 1, or July 1. KRS 92.420 establishes assessment dates for cities to be: July 1 for cities of the first and second class; a date fixed by the legislative body, for cities of the third class; and January 1 for cities of the fourth, fifth and sixth class. There is nothing in HB 44 that amends either of these above referenced statutes.
It is our understanding from your letter that, through a combination of statutory requirement and/or adherance to sound accounting practices, many of the governmental units operating on a calendar year basis have already prepared budgets covering the calendar year 1979. Local officials were required to establish 1979 tax revenues based ona projected tax rate developed in accordance with statutes existing at the time estimates were made, and out of necessity many of these units have proceeded in good faith and have already adopted a 1979 tax rate.
Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that, insofar as they are used in KRS 132.023 and KRS 132.027, as amended by HB 44, for those governmental units operating on a calendar basis: (1) ". . . a tax rate for 1979-80 . . ." means that unit's tax rate for the 1980 calendar year; (2) ". . . application of the maximum tax rate that could have been levied in 1978-79 . . ." means the unit's compensating tax rate for the 1979 calendar year, calculated in accordance with KRS 132.010(6) as it read prior to February 13, 1979; and (3) ". . . the 1978-79 assessment." means the unit's assessment as of January 1, 1979, assuming that the unit's assessment date is January 1.
The provisions of HB 44 cannot be applied retroactively; nor, by implication, as pointed out in our earlier opinion OAG 79 205:
"We can find nothing in HB 44 suggesting an amendment by implication of the statutes relating to the assessment and tax levy dates. An amendment by implication is not favored by the courts. Fiscal Court of Jefferson Co. V. City of Anchorage, Ky., 393 S.W.2d 608 (1965)."