By: Dewey R. Wotring
Shawn Boyle is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Oldham County. As such, one of his duties is to brief the Magistrates during the Fiscal Court meeting when they consider the property tax rate. The Court is required to set this rate each year.
On September 2, 2008, the Fiscal Court was in session, and the setting of the propery tax rate was one of the items on the agenda. This is also referred to as the "ad valorem tax." Boyle appeared for the purpose of providing an overview of appropriate tax rates. Boyle made reference to two tax rates - 9.0 and 9.2. One would have thought that these were the only two rates available for the court's consideration. Boyle advised the court that the 9.2 rate was the maximum rate which could be set by the court without the rate being subject to a recall petition by the public.
Boyle advised the members of the court that the county would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years if they chose the lower rate of 9.0, as opposed to the maximum non-recallable rate of 9.2.
However, Boyle was remiss in not telling the entire story about tax rates. Boyle should have disclosed the "compensating rate" to the court. That rate is set by the state to the county and this year that rate happens to be 8.9. The compensating rate is the foundation for any rate set by the county, and is the rate that will bring the same amount of money into the county coffers as the county received last year, plus any taxes on "new construction." Thus, had the fiscal court considered and voted for the 8.9 rate, the county would still have received more money in property taxes than it received last year.
Further, when asked by Magistrate Iva Davis if new construction was included when the compensating rate was calculated, he replied that it was. Judge Murner subsequently corrected that statement.
At no time during his presentation, did Boyle state the rate which was needed to result in a balanced budget. I suspect that the 9.0 rate will result in a surplus. If that is the situation, then the rate should have been lowered. One should not forget that the insurance premium tax has been doubled, and the 911 tax substantially increased. Further, there will be new stormwater fees forthcoming in the near future and probably higher sewer rates for many. The court voted for the 9.0 rate. Two magistrates, Scott Davis and Bob Leslie, voted against the new rate.
If Boyle is going to counsel the court, he should certainly provide facts and he should provide all of them.
