Paducah TIF district

A McCracken Circuit Court judge has denied the city's motion for summary judgment in a civil lawsuit involving the Paducah's Tax Increment Financing district. The TIF district is about 315 acres in the downtown and riverfront area, which can be partially seen in this view of Broadway Street.

A McCracken Circuit Court judge has denied the city of Paducah’s motion for summary judgment in a civil lawsuit involving the Tax Increment Financing district in downtown Paducah.

Circuit Judge Tim Kaltenbach’s ruling was entered on July 13, which came after a June 10 motion hearing at the McCracken County Courthouse.

The 8-page memorandum and order states the city defendants moved for the summary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. In the complaint, plaintiffs “challenge a Paducah city ordinance that authorizes tax increment financing for the redevelopment of downtown property.” The TIF ordinance was adopted in April 2019 by the previous Paducah City Commission.

Last year, in early November, a group filed a civil lawsuit in circuit court that seeks to prevent the city from acting upon its TIF ordinance.

The listed plaintiffs were Marshall and Alberta Davis, Mark and Paula Foglesong, Ronnie James, Kelly and Rebecca Ausbrooks, David and Linda Curtis, Beverly McKinley, Tony Veltri, Mike and Cindy Wyatt, Nicki Roof and Concerned Taxpayers of Paducah and McCracken County, KY, LLC.

“The city’s summary judgment motion will be denied because the taxpayers have standing to challenge the ordinance, the taxpayers’ complaint states a claim for which relief could be granted, and the taxpayers are entitled to conduct discovery on their claim that the city ordinance, Ordinance No. 2019-4-8569, is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious,” according to the court’s ruling.

The Sun reached out to attorney David Kelly, who’s representing the city, about the judge’s ruling and about what’s next in the lawsuit. He’s with the Keuler, Kelly, Hutchins, Blankenship & Sigler, LLP law firm.

“Basically, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery to further their case,” Kelly told The Sun on Tuesday.

“He didn’t rule on the merits that the ordinance is invalid. He basically said that the plaintiff had the right to take discovery and try to develop facts that would assist them in their argument.”

The Sun also reached out Tuesday to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Richard Walter, of Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP. Walter did not immediately return the call.

“I would envision that we would, probably, maybe move for a scheduling order and have this advanced on the docket, because it’s a declaratory rights action — set a brief discovery schedule, and have it decided by the judge at the appropriate stage,” Kelly said, regarding the next steps.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.