Request By:
Mr. Edwin McGary
Property Valuation Administrator
Hopkins County
Madisonville, Kentucky 42431
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; Joseph R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in response to your letter dated March 13, 1979, in which you request an opinion of this office whether the Department of Revenue may allow deputy approvals and necessary expenditures for postage and other related costs for the 120 Property Valuation Administrators in Kentucky outside the formula set forth in KRS 132.590(6).
As you noted in your letter, House Bill 44 was enacted by the 1979 Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly to require the Property Valuation Administrator to inspect physically one-half of all property in the county each year. Notices must be sent to owners whose property values are increased. House Bill 19 appropriated $1.3 million ($300,000 for the year 1979 and $1 million for the year 1980) for the offices of the county Property Valuation Administrators to aid in the implementation of House Bill 44.
KRS 132.590(6) sets forth the amounts that can be allowed by the state as compensation for deputies, other authorized personnel and other authorized expenses. In counties where the assessment is at least $300 million the limit is $35,000; in counties where the assessment is $300 million to $500 million, the limit is $50,000; in counties where the assessment is $500 million to $2 billion, the limit is $100,000; and all counties where the assessment is $2 billion or more, the amount is fixed by the Department of Revenue. The question is whether the $1,3 million provided for in House Bill 19 can be utilized in counties which have already used up their statutory allowance as set forth in KRS 132.590(6).
House Bill 44 provides for no appropriation to permit the hiring of additional personnel to aid in the assessment of property nor to pay for the mailing of notices to property owners whose property assessments may be increased. Even though it may have been the intent of the General Assembly to provide funds for the expense of assessing property of fair cash value and mailing the notices, the express language of KRS 132.590(6) precludes the allocation of any funds to those counties which have already received the statutory limit. The only alternative would be for those counties which have received their maximum allocation to demand that the Department of Revenue allocate funds as provided for in House Bill 19 and then if the Department refuses, file suit to determine the validity of the appropriation in House Bill 19 in light of KRS 132.590(6).