Thanks to The Kentucky Standard Editorial Board for reporting on the devil in the details. The Nelson County PVA has debunked #BluegrassPipeline s ad valorem tax estimate, and the editorial board makes a great point about local jobs……if locals will build the pipeline as stated in this weeks ads, why will there be any indirect economic benefit of construction personnel spending money on supplies, food and lodging? If they live here already, why will they be spending any more than they already are? And why will they be paying for lodging? Read more here: ------------------------- For pipeline claims, devil is in the details - By The Kentucky Standard Editorial Board Saturday, March 15, 2014 at 12:19 pm Last week, a representative for the Bluegrass Pipeline told attendants at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the pipeline would generate $2.7 million a year in taxes for Nelson County. In addition to that number, the representative also estimated that the company would hire 1,500 Kentuckians to build the pipeline in Kentucky and that property owners will be paid $36 million for easements. While the gentlemen from the Bluegrass Pipeline may have planned on winning over an audience based on big numbers and a sweet sounding deal, the message they got across loud and clear was that they didn’t do their homework. There was confusion when the company presentation turned to property taxes. A slideshow said the pipeline would generate $13.6 million in property tax revenue for Kentucky, $2.7 million of that going to Nelson County because “there’s an estimated 30 miles of pipes going through Nelson County.” That money was touted as being beneficial for area schools, roads, parks, tourism and development, and to go toward lowering property taxes. But when questioned about the details, representatives couldn’t provide details, nor did they seem to have much knowledge about how Kentucky’s tax system works. Before the meeting, a pipeline representative said in an interview with the Standard that he didn’t know if that figure included school districts, which he only assumed were paid for with county taxes. School districts, in fact, are not paid out of county taxes here. School districts are classified as taxing districts with their own governments. It didn’t take long after that presentation for Nelson County PVA Barbara Tichenor and county magistrates to provide their estimates based on their knowledge of local taxing rates. And their estimates were much lower. By Tichenor’s estimate, the project would generate $672,640 to be split between all affected local governments and the state. When pipeline representatives shared that their figures were based on 10 years of tax raises in counties where the pipeline was constructed, magistrates were quick to point out that there’s no way rates would increase at that rate, citing a statutory limit on increased property tax values that prohibits local governments from raising their revenue from property taxes by more than 4 percent from the year before without a referendum. It shouldn’t be too much to ask of Bluegrass Pipeline that get it gets its numbers straight and facts correct. At the very least, they could have researched how property taxes are calculated and what state laws influence that process. What other variable did they factor in — or leave out — to get the figures presented? If there was such a large discrepancy about property taxes, could there be similar inconsistencies with their other information? Take, for instance, the company’s claim that the project will bring with it 1,500 jobs. Pipeline construction requires specialized skills. Will those 1,500 jobs the company claims to be bringing to Kentucky actually employ Kentuckians, or will they simply be contracted workers who are housed in Kentucky for the duration of construction? Even the Bluegrass Pipeline website says that communities should expect indirect economic benefits as construction personnel and eventually full-time pipeline personnel spend money on supplies, food and lodging. If they live here already, why will they be spending any more than they already are? And why will they be paying for lodging? Obviously, we still have some questions. Let’s hope the company does more research before they offer up more answers.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:44:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015