Hardin County Government Proposes 4% Increase in Property Tax Rates for 2025

The Hardin County Fiscal Court convened on August 26, 2025, to discuss property tax rates and financial matters affecting the county. The meeting featured presentations from various local entities regarding their proposed tax rates, culminating in a discussion on the county's overall tax strategy.

The session began with the Hardin County Cooperative Extension Service, which announced its decision to adopt a compensating rate for real property at 0.018, personal property at 0.028, and motor vehicle tax at 0.0146. The extension service also addressed tax rates for aircraft and non-Kentucky registered watercraft.

Next, the Hardin County Soil Conservation District, represented by Mr. Thompson, shared that this marks the second time in its history that the district will take the compensating rate. He noted the rising costs that influenced this decision and expressed hope for stabilization in the future.

The Lincoln Trail District Health Department, represented by Sarah Jo, reported that the Hardin County Board of Health voted to maintain its tax rate at 2.2 cents per $100 of assessed property valuation for all categories, including real and personal property, as well as motor vehicles. This rate has remained unchanged for nearly 24 years.

Following these presentations, the court moved to discuss the 2024 tax settlement, which is necessary for preparing the upcoming tax bills. The settlement was presented for approval, with the judge's signature required to proceed.

The meeting then transitioned to a detailed presentation on the proposed property tax rates for 2025. The county's property tax revenue is a critical funding source, and the court is required to set tax rates annually in accordance with Kentucky law. The proposed rates included a compensating rate of 10.4 cents per $100 and a 4% revenue increase rate of 10.8 cents per $100. The latter option necessitates a public hearing, which was conducted as part of the meeting.

The rationale for the proposed 4% increase was outlined, highlighting the county's financial challenges, including recurring operating expenses exceeding revenue. The court emphasized the need for this increase to balance the budget and maintain essential services.

In conclusion, the court recommended adopting the property tax rates with a 4% revenue increase, which would result in a slight decrease in the real estate property rate while increasing the business personal property rate due to declining valuations in that sector. The meeting underscored the importance of these tax decisions for the county's financial health and service provision moving forward.