Request By:
Mr. William L. Coffee
Commissioner
Department of Property Taxation
Capitol Annex
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You request an opinion from this office concerning the fiscal responsibilities of Property Valuation Administrators with respect to monies earned outside of their regular statutory function.
The letter reads in part:
"Provision is made for compensation of Property Valuation Administrators by KRS 132.590. One of the duties of a Property Valuation Administrator is to provide cities within his county with certain tax roll information. The city, in turn, is required to compensate the Property Valuation Administrator's office for this information. See KRS 132.285. On a few occasions, the situation has arisen in which a PVA has performed services for the city which are not required under KRS 132.285. In one specific instance, the PVA was hired by the city to assist in determining the proper amounts to go on tax bills to city residents who lived in the county school district and, thus, were not subject to city school tax. In this case and in others like it, the PVA did this work after hours or on weekends and did not make use of PVA office facilities. When this work is not performed by a PVA, other individuals such as CPAs, attorneys or other courthouse employees perform these duties for the cities for remuneration. Under these circumstances, may the PVA do such work and retain the income for his personal use?"
Under the facts given, the P.V.A. is performing a purely private function, which is not a part of his statutory function. Cf. KRS 132.285. Here the P.V.A. is working alone, after regular work hours, and is not making use of P.V.A. office facilities. The outside work is not work required under KRS 132.285.
Since this involves spasmodic employment by the city, and considering the nature of the work, he is not working as a city officer or employee. He is an independent contractor. Thus KRS 61.080(1) (incompatible offices) does not apply.
We do not believe a common law incompatibility of offices is involved, since two offices are not involved, and since we are not aware of any conflict in interest. We know of no reason why the P.V.A. cannot properly discharge his function as P.V.A. We have no facts indicating that the P.V.A. cannot execute his P.V.A. work and this special work with care and ability, and with impartiality and honesty. See Hermann v. Lampe, 175 Ky. 109, 194 S.W. 122 (1917) 126.
We are of the opinion, under the facts given, that the P.V.A. may perform this private work and may retain the income therefrom as nonstatutory personal income.