FRANKFORT — The designation itself has taken on nearly mythical status in the Kentucky General Assembly — House Bill 44.

        It was the number of the bill in a 1979 special session of the legislature that imposed property tax caps in Kentucky. Few have dared to even suggest tinkering with those caps in the generation since; most lawmakers consider it tantamount to a gulp of political hemlock.

        Yet there it was, tucked away in the back of this session's House Bill 243, a revision in the way state property tax rates are calculated, the first crack in the House Bill 44 monolith.

        Yet many legislators who considered the bill last week during a meeting of the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee, and even some of its co-sponsors, said they were unaware of that provision in the bill.

        The change would mean an increase in state property tax receipts of an estimated $6.5 million in the coming budget year and as much as $11 million the following year. In re-election terms, it would mean voting for a tax increase, anathema to most legislators.

        Most of the bill would exclude the value of unmined minerals, such as coal, from the value attached to property that is used primarily for farming. That took up the bulk of the explanation to the committee by prime sponsor Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence.

        Mr. Gooch said he also described the effect on statewide property tax rates, which he referred to as a “glitch.”

        “It was clearly in my explanation,” he said.

        His colleagues had different recollections.

        “I was not aware that was in there at the time I signed on,” said Rep. Dwight Butler, R-Harned. Mr. Butler said he noticed the subject when the committee was considering the bill and felt obliged to vote for it because of his sponsorship. “It's going to have to change before I vote for it again,” Mr. Butler said.

        “I saw that provision tucked away on page 10,” said Rep. Steve Nunn, R-Glasgow, who voted against the bill.

        Joni Jenkins, D-Louisville, voted for the bill, but said she did not know of the change on state property tax calculations. “I would hate to think somebody would omit such important information on purpose,” Ms. Jenkins said.

        Rep. Jim Callahan of Wilder, the House Democratic caucus chairman, said he was also unaware of the change before his affirmative vote.

        Rep. Mark Treesh, R-Owensboro, a co-sponsor of the bill, said he had forgotten the proposal was in the bill. He said he would rather not say when it became clear, except that some members of the committee noticed it and either voted against the bill or declined to vote.

        “I didn't know that was in there when I signed the bill,” said Rep. John Arnold, D-Sturgis.

        Does his sponsorship mean Mr. Arnold is interested in seeing state property tax income rise? “I'm not in favor of increasing property taxes,” Mr. Arnold said.

        Only 13 members of the committee voted to approve the bill, two short of the number needed.

        Revenue Secretary Dana Mayton said administration officials were unaware of the provision in Gooch's bill relating to overall property rate calculations.

        Admittedly, it is not a simple topic. Calculating property taxes is akin to figuring earned run averages.

        Generally, a piece of property, such as a house and lot, is assigned a value based on the estimate of what it would bring if it was sold. Taxing entities, from state government to a library district, then apply a tax rate to the value of each piece of property individually. The rate is generally defined as an amount, say 25 cents, for each $100 of assessed value.

        Under the provisions of a 1979 law, receipts from property taxes are generally restricted to an increase of 4 percent each year. But there are gray areas and exceptions.

        Local governments can raise more than 4 percent more from property taxes each year, but the rate is then subject to a referendum of the voters. And the way the value of property is calculated each year for local districts excludes “new” property, such as a new building.

        The state calculation of the total value of property, however, must include the value of new property. The effect is that the overall state tax rate has declined each year because the value of property has increased and the 4 percent cap is in effect. Thus, the tax rate that was 27.9 cents per $100 of assessed value in 1979 had fallen to 13.6 cents by 2001.

        Mr. Gooch said he is most interested in the tax break for farmers who might have coal seams under their land and would be willing to remove the state property tax rate change before the committee next considers the bill.

Rapid pace escalates the debate over sprawl
Airport has plan to avoid runway gridlock
Eyes have it: Surgeons add new laser tool
Ohio-born astronaut carries state quarters aboard shuttle
Police recruits get cult lesson
UC set to expand online services for students
Blue Wisp could jazz Kentucky
Kentucky launches reform of jail care
Kentucky plan will not order raises without money
Mystery surrounds softening of cap on Ky. taxes
Butler day offers safety training
Dress code up for vote at schools
Gay minister encourages church
Grand Vic bus catches fire
Humana Festival plays to cover spectrum
Icy roads land 1 in hospital
Ohio most expensive place in U.S. to buy wine
Proposal would require baby hearing tests
State exams: Studying with software
Study links sleep, attention problems
Washington statue cover-up has left little to imagination
Some Good News
Taft's pick shows he's tone deaf
You Asked For It
Riot pictures win photography awards
Tristate A.M. report