V
I I
  `
- lll ~
117) FiS9¤l Court l (First entry, p. 117)
to proposition to the voters for their approval or rejection. (46) The court
Btion was given power to levy a special ad valorcm tax not to exceed twenty-five
)n' Agents per $100 for the construction and improvement of roads and bridges.
Ssion This tax was to be collected in the same manner as other county revenue, and
zill ( the proceeds were designated as the "road and bridge fund." (47) An act of
1908 provided that the proceeds of the poll tax could be used by the fiscal
court for the maintenance of roads; however, when this was done, the court
lmy was required to enter an order to that effect. (48) In November 1906 an amend.
ment to the present constitution was ratified, providing that any county could
Other, incur indebtedness for public road purposes in any amount fixed by the county,
bhc not in excess of five per cent of the value of taxable property, on condition
than that such additional indebtedness be submitted to the voters for approval or
of rejection at a special election held for the purpose. When any such indebteda
EO ness is incurred by the county, the court may levy, in addition to the tax of
Q fifty cents authorized by the constitution, an amount not exceeding twenty
“ yeim cents on the $100 for the purpose of providing for interest and sinking fund
quen requirements. (49) Bonds issued under this section must be limited to such
amount as can be paid from the twenty cent tax. This limit is not affected
issim by the appropriation of a part of the fifty cent tax, levied for general court
ngS’ purposes, to pay interest and to create a sinking fund. (50)
gim Legislation in 1914 allowed the court to issue and sell five per cent
H. (wy bonds within the constitutional limitation for the purpose of constructing
and improving roads and bridges. Before issuing such bonds, however, the
rs county judge, upon petition of 150 legal voters and freeholders of the county
t ’tO was required to order a special election so that the voters could approve or
t’a reject the proposal. (51) Although this law specifically stated that pro-
X ceeds from the bonds could be used for the building and maintenance of roads
fund only, two recent decisions of the Court of Appeals held that "a bridge is
but nothing more than that part of a road which crosses a stream" and that there-
LG fore the proceeds of the bonds could be used for the construction and repair
lidiw of both bridges and roads. (52) Under this ruling of the court, section 4507
a " plainly permits fiscal courts to issue bonds for both road and bridge purposes,
and raises the question whether section 1862 has not been clearly superseded.
The same act provided that, if bonds were sold for such purpose, the court
Court Gould levy a tax not exceeding thirty cents per $100 to be appropriated as
Of follows: 1. to the payment of the interest on the bonds; 2. the balance to be
un- Pl&G0d to the credit of a sinking fund for the redemption of the bonds. The
court could lend any accumulation in the sinking fund on first mortgage real
estate security, on the basis of fifty per cent of its value, at legal inter-
est which accrued to the sinking fund. (55) This latter section, giving the
__" court permission to levy a tax not ever thirty cents, was held unconstitutional
46. gels, 1s91—93, pp. 203-206.
47. 1pjp., PP. 1193, 1194. _
48- Agjg, IQOS, P. 71.
49- goggsi. _q1»;j_QQJ_, AS AIJIENDED 1\10vr»;mB£R 1909, SEC. \57A.
TN 50- SMITH v. LIVINGSTON COUNTY, 195 KY. 382 (1922).
*—' 5*- LQIQ, 1914, ps. 347, 340; cARaoLL, sac. 4307.
52. Damrow v. PuLAsK1 COUNTY, 170 KY. 33 (1916); WHITLEY COUNTY v. LUTEN BRIDGE Co.,
200 KY. 625 (1925).
53- QQJE, 1914, P. 348; CARaoLL, SEC. 4308.