Hardin County Fiscal Court v. Hardin County Bd. of Health

Decision Date16 June 1995
Docket NumberNo. 93-CA-002142-MR,93-CA-002142-MR
Citation899 S.W.2d 859
Parties; David L. Logsdon, Hardin County Court Clerk, Appellants, v. HARDIN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Ken M. Howard, Elizabethtown, for appellants.

Donald E. Skeeters, Radcliff, for appellee.

Before EMBERTON, JOHNSTONE and MILLER, JJ.

EMBERTON, Judge.

This is an appeal by the Hardin County Fiscal Court from a declaratory judgment holding that the Fiscal Court is required to enact the tax rate presented to it as adopted by the Board of Health.

The Hardin County Board of Health was created by operation of law in June, 1968, pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 212.750. In 1992, the Board of Health sought to obtain additional funding through a special ad valorem tax of two cents per $100 assessed valuation of all real and personal property in Hardin County. The tax rate at that time was 1.76 cents per $100 assessed value, as it had been for several years. On June 30, 1992, the Board passed a resolution in favor of the higher tax rate which was later approved by the Cabinet for Human Resources in accordance with KRS 212.755. The Board then submitted the new tax rate to the Hardin County Fiscal Court for its consideration. On September 14, 1992, the Court met for the purpose of establishing the various tax levies, and at that time determined that the 1992 public health tax rate would remain at 1.76 cents per $100.

The Board of Health then filed a declaratory judgment action against the Fiscal Court to determine the power and authority of the parties to set the tax rate. In conjunction with its complaint, the Board filed a motion for temporary injunction to prevent the Hardin County Court Clerk from preparing and distributing the 1992 tax bills. The trial court did not find that irreparable injury, as required by CR 65.04, would result; and therefore, denied the motion.

A bench trial was held on March 3, 1993, and the trial court entered judgment on May 7, 1993, holding that the Fiscal Court was required to include the special public health tax, as imposed by the Board of Health, in the next county ad valorem tax levy. This appeal followed.

The issue before us requires that we determine the relative applications of KRS 212.720, which creates public health taxing districts by voter referendum, and KRS 212.750, creating the public health taxing districts by operation of law in districts where one had not been established pursuant to KRS 212.720. Likewise, we interpret the corresponding sections of KRS 212.725 and KRS 212.755.

KRS 212.720 was originally enacted in 1954 and provided for the establishment of public health taxing districts. KRS 212.725 set forth the rules for funding the tax district as follows:

212.725. Imposition of special ad valorem public health tax.--If, after the establishment of the public health taxing district, as provided in KRS 212.720, the tax levying authorities of the district, in the opinion of the county or city-county board of health, do not appropriate an amount sufficient to meet the public health needs of the county or the city-county health department or do not appropriate an amount sufficient to meet the standards prescribed by the cabinet for human resources for health departments, the county or city-county board of health, acting as the governing body of the taxing district, shall with the approval of the cabinet for human resources, impose by resolution a special ad valorem public health tax in such amount that it deems sufficient, but not in excess of the maximum amount approved by the electorate as provided for in KRS 212.720. The fiscal court shall upon receipt of a duly certified copy of said resolution, include in the next county ad valorem tax levy said special public health tax imposed by the county or city-county board of health which shall be in addition to all other county ad valorem taxes. Said special public health tax shall be collected in the same manner as are other county ad valorem taxes and turned over to the county or city-county board of health to be used solely for the maintenance and operation of the county or city-county health department. (Emphasis added).

KRS 212.750 establishes public health taxing districts in those districts that had not created such district prior to June, 1968...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • In re Camp
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 7 Junio 2004
    ... ... 03-00254 ... United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division ... June 7, ... Camp owned no real properties in either county. This leaves only those issues determinative of ... ...
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Stars Interactive Holdings (IOM) Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 17 Diciembre 2020
    ...limited liability companies[.]" (emphasis added). "May" is clearly permissive. KRS 446.010(26) ; Hardin Cty. Fiscal Court v. Hardin Cty. Bd. of Health , 899 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Ky. App. 1995) (holding that "[i]t is elementary that ‘may’ is permissive"). While the majority opinion states that t......
  • Stevenson v. Anthem Cas. Ins. Group
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 17 Junio 1999
    ...is to construe a statute, if possible, so that no part of it is meaningless or ineffectual. Hardin County Fiscal Court v. Hardin. County Board of Health, Ky.App., 899 S.W.2d 859, 861-62 (1995), citing Brooks v. Meyers, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 764 (1955). Permissive language in a statute "obviously ......
  • Stars Interactive Holdings (Iom) Ltd. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2018
    .... . . ." KRS 446.010(33) (emphasis added). "It is elementary that 'may' is permissive . . . ." Hardin Cty. Fiscal Court v. Hardin. Cty. Bd. of Health, 899 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Ky. App. 1995). A court has the discretion whether to incorporate KRS 446.010's definition of person into the statute i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT