Skip to content

Airport tax imposed

Following a more than three hour meeting the Board voted 5-1, with Pete Redden voting against, to adopt a one mil (1 cent per $1,000 property value) tax to raise about $33,000 per year.

The Board included language in the motion that would put the tax in effect for one year, and urging the McCreary County Fiscal Court to ask other special taxing districts in the county to lower their tax rates to compensate for the new tax so as to not increase the tax burden on the people of the county.

Board Chairman Bruce Murphy opened the meeting stating the Board had hoped to get help from the Fiscal Court, meeting with Judge Executive Stephens a year ago and outlining their issues, but the County was unable to provide any financial assistance.

“I understand money is hard to come by,” he said. “But we can not afford to walk away from a three-quarter million dollar investment in this airport. We have no other option.”

“This airport was established to enhance the ability to attract industry to the county and improve our economy. Counties that don’t have airports usually aren’t in the running for decent jobs.”

Murphy described the airport as a part of a county’s infrastructure, comparing it to water, sewer, power and roadways as a means to attract business.

He added the airport had been in existence for over 47 years and had not requested any financial assistance from the county in that time to his knowledge.

As a special taxing district it had the authority to enact a tax, but had never had the need to – until now.

Murphy stated he had met with Property Valuation Administrator Bruce Lominac who informed him a one cent tax would raise about $33,000 annually if imposed with the county’s current tax base.

That amount would not only allow the Board to meet their obligations for the $16,000 needed to complete the resurfacing project, it would also allow to meet operating expenses and give the airport an income to fund future projects.

The Board invited comments from the public regarding the proposed tax.

Though less than a dozen people attended the meeting, those that did were very vocal – both in their support of the airport, and in their opposition of the proposed tax.

PVA Bruce Lominac urged the Board to consider the impact adding an additional tax would have on the average home owner.

“I’m not opposed to anything planned,” Lominac said. “I’m opposed to adding more tax. The tax burden is getting oppressive.”

Magistrate Roger Phillips, the only other elected official to attend the meeting, echoed Lominac’s sentiments, stating he wasn’t opposed to the county having an airport, but didn’t want to see a tax imposed.

Phillips stated his fear that once enacted, the tax would be a continual burden on the population, and could be raised in the future by successive Boards. (Special taxing districts have the ability to raise their tax rate up to four percent without subjecting the move to public approval.)

The Board drew criticism for their purchase of 4,000 gallons of aviation fuel last year as part of installing a fuel delivery system. The purchase cost the Board $19,000, money which had been earmarked for the resurfacing project.

The Board defended their action, stating the purchase was required at the time in order to test the new system, and the hope was to be able to sell the fuel to offset the cost.

Though fuel sales have not lived up to expectations, Murphy admitted, but stated it was a necessary expense.

“Who would fly into an airport if they couldn’t get fuel there?”

Citizen and businessman Leamon Perkins urged the Board to seek other ways to raise the funds. He stated if he had made a similar purchase for his own business, he would have to absorb the cost and couldn’t pass the burden on to tax payers.

“I commend you on making it as long as it has,” he said. “But we don’t need another tax. There needs to be another way.”

Local citizen Tim Freels defended the Board’s request, stating he believed the airport was important to the future economic development of the county.

“It is geared for the overall economic benefit of the county,” he said.

Citizen David Shook stated he was opposed to the tax, and wondered if it had paid any benefit to the county in the past.

He asked Murphy if there was any concrete proof that any business had located in the county as a direct result of the airport.

Murphy replied that he couldn’t state any business had come specifically due to having an airport, but insisted it did play a roll, noting Dollar General executives fly in to the airport and other businesses such as ABC and Armor Shield had used it in the past.

“Do you honestly believe they would not have located here if we didn’t have an airport?”

Shook responded he sees a direct benefit from other special taxing districts, such as the library, fire departments and health district, but saw no benefit from the airport.

Some in attendance offered suggestions for raising the funding without the tax, such as selling the fuel for a loss, raising hanger rates and asking for donations.

The Board stated they were valid suggestions, but unrealistic for raising the funding necessary before the September end date for the project.

Board member Pete Redden suggested the Board members themselves taking out personal loans to cover the cost, but was not entertained as a motion.

Near the end of the public comment session, Murphy noted the Board had entered into a contract in good faith with Hinkle to undertake the runway project and they could face legal action if they failed to live up to their obligations.”

Board member Robert Spradlin entered a final plea to keep the airport active.

“I appreciate all your ideas, but please don’t let the airport close,” he said.

Airport Board member Bill Smith made a motion to adopt the tax, with the provisions that it be for one year and requesting the Fiscal Court to ask other special taxing districts to adjust their rates accordingly, with a second by Clifton Redden.

“We didn’t come here tonight with the intent to vote on a tax,” Board member Sam Strunk said. “We did want to see the input from the people. But I think Bill’s motion is the only solution we have.”

Magistrate Roger Phillips stated he would put the request before the taxing districts at this week’s Fiscal Court meeting, but had no authority to enforce the motion.

At 9:00 a vote was called, with Murphy, Strunk, Spradlin, Smith and Clifton Redden voting in favor. Board member Pete Redden voted against.

“I wish it had never come to this, but it is the only way it could happen,” Smith said after the vote.

The Board’s next action will be to seek a loan in anticipation of the expected tax revenues to pay for the resurfacing project, which should begin next month.

Leave a Comment