Did Kentucky's county tax rollback rule apply to a soil and water conservation millage tax?

Plain-English summary

In 1997, Kentucky's Attorney General concluded that the rate rollback provision for taxes levied by county fiscal courts applied to the millage tax used to fund soil and water conservation districts. The legislature had removed a separate rate limit from the conservation-tax statute in 1992, ending the conflict on which the AG had based the opposite answer in OAG 92-113. The new opinion expressly overruled that earlier opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

County fiscal courts and conservation districts

KRS 262.200(4) authorized fiscal courts to levy a millage tax for soil and water conservation districts. KRS 68.245 provided a rate rollback formula used to determine whether certain county tax increases were subject to a referendum. The AG said those provisions no longer conflicted after the 1992 change, so the conservation tax was subject to rollback.

The earlier contrary opinion

OAG 92-113 had said the rollback rule did not apply because the conservation statute then had its own rate-limiting mechanism. OAG 97-29 identified the removal of that mechanism as the reason the earlier answer no longer held and expressly overruled it.

Common questions

Was the conservation district millage tax exempt from the county rollback rule?

The AG said no. Its 1997 opinion applied KRS 68.245 to the tax authorized by KRS 262.200(4).

Why did the AG change its answer from OAG 92-113?

The legislature had removed the separate rate limit in KRS 262.200(4). The AG said the statutory conflict that had supported the earlier answer was gone.

Background and statutory framework

Bracken County Attorney Edward J. Rudd sought an answer about the tax. The opinion addressed the relationship between KRS 262.200(4) and KRS 68.245 after the 1992 amendment. It did not calculate a particular levy or determine whether a specific increase required a referendum.

Citations and references

• KRS 262.200(4): conservation district millage tax.
• KRS 68.245: county rate rollback provision.
• OAG 92-113: prior contrary opinion, expressly overruled.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_855154b3-5ce1-4858-83e3-a2a4c8ab3104/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_855154b3-5ce1-4858-83e3-a2a4c8ab3104

Original opinion text

OAG 97-29
August 8, 1997

Subject:

Soil and water conservation tax

Requested by:

Edward J. Rudd, Bracken County Attorney

Written by:

Ross T. Carter

Syllabus:

The millage tax authorized by KRS 262.200(4) is subject to the rate rollback provisions of KRS 68.245.

Statutes construed:
OAGs cited:

KRS 262.200(4)

OAG 92-113 (overruled)

Opinion of the Attorney General
KRS 68.245 contains a rate rollback provision applicable to taxes levied by fiscal courts. This rollback provision establishes a formula for determining whether certain tax increases are subject to a referendum. KRS 262.200(4) authorizes fiscal courts to levy a millage tax to fund soil and water conservation districts. In OAG 92-113, we said that the rollback provision of KRS 68.245 did not apply to the millage tax because KRS 262.200(4) contained its own rate limiting mechanism which was in conflict with the mechanism in KRS 68.245.

OAG 97-29
Page 2

In 1992 the General Assembly removed the rate-limiting provision in KRS 262.200(4). There is now no conflict between that statute and KRS 68.245. We therefore conclude that OAG 92-113 is no longer correct. The millage tax authorized by KRS 262.200(4) is subject to the rate rollback provision of KRS 68.245. OAG 92-113 is overruled. A. B. Chandler III Attorney General

Ross T. Carter
Manager of the Opinions Branch