AN ACT relating to publication.
HB 368 makes two broad sets of changes to Kentucky law. First, it creates an alternative method for local governments to satisfy newspaper publication requirements by posting legal notices on a public “notice website,” while still requiring a short newspaper or digital-newspaper notice that directs the public to the online posting. The bill sets rules for how long notices must remain online, how they must be displayed, what information must be included, and what records local governments must keep to prove compliance.
Second, the bill revises notice and hearing procedures for local tax rates and school district tax levies. For counties, cities, urban-county governments, special purpose governmental entities, and school districts, it changes the timing window for public hearings on proposed tax rates above the compensating tax rate from a narrower period to a broader 7-to-21-day range after the second newspaper notice. It also preserves the existing requirement for public hearings, public testimony, and follow-up notice when a tax rate exceeds the compensating rate and is subject to recall procedures.
The bill would amend KRS 424.145 and several tax-notice statutes, including KRS 68.245, 132.023, 132.027, and 160.470. Its practical effect is to modernize publication law by allowing local governments to use online notice websites as a substitute for full newspaper publication in many situations, while keeping a minimal print notice requirement and imposing documentation, retention, and penalty provisions. It also standardizes and slightly relaxes the timing for public hearings tied to proposed local tax increases, affecting counties, cities, special districts, special purpose governmental entities, and school districts, as well as the taxpayers and property owners who receive notice of those actions.
The available vote history suggests the bill had majority support in the House, passing third reading 62-30 on February 26, 2025. The bill’s overall tone appears reform-oriented and administrative rather than ideological, with the main goal of updating publication practices and adjusting notice procedures. Because no committee transcripts were provided, there is no recorded committee debate to indicate broader consensus or opposition beyond the floor vote.
The most likely points of contention are the shift away from exclusive newspaper publication toward online posting, and the reduced role for traditional print notices in local government transparency. Supporters would likely view the bill as a cost-saving, modernization measure that improves access through the internet, while critics may argue it weakens public notice in communities that rely on newspapers or have limited internet access. The tax-related provisions may also draw scrutiny because they affect how local governments publicize proposed tax increases and how quickly hearings must be held, even though the bill does not change the underlying compensating-tax framework or recall rights.