In the Sunday Feature on WDRB.com, Chris Otts asks a question regarding Mayor Fischer's proposal to give Kentucky cities the option of imposing their own sales tax to finance local projects: What if two cities in the same county – like Louisville and St. Matthews – each wanted to? Since the total increase within any county couldn't exceed one percent, whose tax would take precedence?
Of course, Fischer could simply change his proposal to include only first-class cities – of which Louisville is the only one. But because so many state legislators represent rural districts, they'd be unlikely to support that.
So how can this issue be resolved?
Well, why not allow only first- or second-class cities – that are also the seats of their respective counties – to implement such a tax? But with the caveat that five percent of all extra revenues collected would be returned to the state's General Fund for uses statewide?
That would still allow the residents of 13 cities -- from Ashland to Paducah -- to freely vote whether or not to impose such a tax, while also providing a new source of revenue for rural areas if they do.
That would mean Louisville would only get most of what it wanted instead of all. But politics is compromise. And a plan like this would allow many more Kentucky communities to better chart their own futures.
Call and tell us what you think.
I'm Bill Lamb, and that's my Point of View.