Request By:
Honorable James S. Secrest
Allen County Attorney
Box 35
210 W. Main Street
Scottsville, Kentucky 42164
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of July 17 in which you relate that on April 14, 1980, the Allen County Board of Education levied a utility gross receipts tax pursuant to an order authorized by KRS 160.613. On May 2, a recall petition was presented to the county board of elections requesting that the order levying the tax be placed on the ballot for voter approval or disapproval pursuant to KRS 160.597. The board met and determined that the petition contained the appropriate number of signatures as required by the statute and certified to the board of education as provided therein, that the petition was properly presented. Thereafter, on May 9, the board of education passed a resolution withdrawing the tax levy.
The question is raised by the board of elections as to whether or not it is required to submit the recall question to the voters in view of the action taken by the board of education withdrawing the tax levy.
It is true, as you point out, that KRS 160.597 provides, upon determination by the board of elections, that the petition contains enough valid signatures to suspend the effect of the board of education's tax levy order, the board shall submit the question to the voters of the district at the next regular election. It is also true that there is no provision in the statute authorizing the board to withdraw its tax authorization at any time or presumedly for any reason regardless of whether or not a recall petition has been filed. At the same time, however, there's nothing in the statute prohibiting such withdrawal by the board of education. Thus, we believe that the action taken by the board in withdrawing the tax levy order is well within its discretion, particularly under the existing circumstances where a vote on the question would be required.
We base this conclusion on the general statutory rule of construction to the effect that statutes should be liberally construed so as to be given a practical construction. See KRS 446.080 and
Commonwealth v. Randolph, 277 Ky. 724, 127 S.W.2d 398 (1939).
Assuming we are correct in holding that the board's withdrawal of the tax levy order, is a valid exercise of its discretion, the necessity of the public having to bear the expense of holding an election on the question would, from a practical and economic standpoint, serve no useful purpose on the assumption that the tax would in all probability be defeated in view of the board of education's action.