A Constitutional Basis for a Taxpayers Suit against the Boone County Public Library

MEMO

by James Duvall, M. A.

Big Bone University

Big Bone, Kentucky

A Constitutional Basis for a Taxpayers Suit against the Boone County Public Library.


Section 180 of the Kentucky Constitution states that every Board "shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied". It is arguable that if the purpose it to buy land and build millions of dollars worth of buildings, that should be distinctly states.


Furthermore, section 170 states that there is an exemption from taxation of "public libraries, their endowments, and the income of such property as it used exclusively for their maintenance."


It is more than arguable that millions of dollars in buildings and land are not maintenance. Therefore, income generated by the library though endowments, investment portfolios, and sales of land, and other income from property, would be taxable. This, however, is impossible for a tax-exempt organization: therefore, it must not engage in such activities as a means of expanding its operations, only of maintaining itself.


Cindy Brown, the former director of the Boone County Public Library, stated at a Board Meeting which I attended last year, that the excess of the fifty acres of land in North Bend (bought for $3.1 million) and not needed by the Library could be sold for enough to pay for the building they intend to erect. She even mentioned that a part of it that should be sold for a strip mall. Can an institution legally use tax money for such land speculation? Can tax money be so used if it was not specifically designated that it would be used in this manner?


If it is legal, what would most tax payers think of the propriety of a tax-supported institution speculating in land with tax monies, in competition with builders and others?


Again: Since the Constitution provides for maintenance, not the growth, of the institution, should not any levy for buildings have to be stated specifically as being for this purpose? Would not money raised by investment, and other means, fall outside this definition, and not be usable for such a purpose?


If it is true that "no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose" (Section 180), could not a suit demand that the money be retained only for maintenance, that is, salaries, upkeep, and improving the book collection, etc. And would this not effectively bar the Library from proceeding to build three or more new additional buildings which are planned for Boone County? (North Bend, Walton, Rabbit Hash area; more eventually, according to the "Five Mile Plan"), that is unless the levy stated the money would specifically be used for building? The suit would ask for an immediate injunction (or "stop work" order) against any building on the North Bend site, and plans being prepared for the other sites until the Constitutionality of their proceedings have been determined by the Court.


Do not forget that it is also possible to impeach Board Members through the Fiscal Court, if they fail to do their duties satisfactorily. Perhaps the people can bring enough pressure to bear to bring a little fiscal sense to this organization!

Written 26 Aug 2010.