April 15, 2010
Audience Members Overwhelmingly Oppose Occupation Tax
Council Members Listening, Mulling
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
.jpg)
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- Having provided a draft proposal of an occupation tax to city council, members of the Wolfe administration had their ‘ears’ on when the public comment portion of Wednesday afternoon’s Finance Committee hearing began.
Council Finance Chairman Steve William good naturedly told tenacious, long time government activist Tom McCallister, “We look forward to crossing swords.” However, McCallister represented a tip of a lot of potential icebergs.
“It’s against the Constitution of the state [of West Virginia],” the former councilman and mayoral candidate insisted. He refers to Article 6-39a, which states that the legislature “shall limit the rate of taxes for municipal purposes.” However, Huntington has authority to implement the tax as one of its approved tenants in its pilot home rule program granted by the West Virginia Legislature.
Mayor Kim Wolfe has stated that Gov. Joe Manchin favors home rule authority for cities across the state. The “pilot program” runs through 2013.
PROFESSORS OPPOSED
Professor Suneel Maheshwari, professor of accountancy and legal environment at Marshall, told the administration and council that the proposed tax is unfair to those who earn higher incomes. Those who “pay more” should receive a “proportionate amount” of [additional] city services. He suggested that assets of the city be used to raise money, such as through advertising.
A second Marshall professor, Maurice Lockridge, pledged to equal the amount of the tax through contributions to opponents of the mayor and council members who vote in favor of the proposal.
Referring to his own choice to now shop downtown rather than in Barboursville, Lockridge told HNN, “When I leave my home, I make a conscious decision to turn left and come to Huntington. When this passes, I’ll turn right and go to Barboursville, even though Barboursville does not need my money and Huntington does. So that B & O tax will go way down. People who have a choice do not like being mistreated. They will do everything they can to offset it. Once again, rich Barboursville, will get my money. All that Huntington does not take from me is going to Barboursville.”
Various opponents --- particularly those residing outside of the city but working in the city --- called it a form of “taxation without representation.”
Virgil Pyles, a Barboursville resident who owns Swat Exterminating, called the proposal a “rape of everyone” to support the unions, whose members he claimed make $100,000 a year.
Others called for the sale of the Big Sandy Super Store Arena and suggested that any surplus generated by the tax would essentially be a “slush fund.” Another citizen stated the answer is not an additional tax that would discourage residency, instead, he stressed, “we have got to get jobs here.”
CITY INEXPENSIVE PLACE
The lone supporter, Richard Cobb Sr., called Huntington “the most inexpensive place to live [in the country] and [the occupation tax] a fair way to do it.” Stating that the city must be “safe, clean and well administered,” Cobb said the money collected will “increase attractiveness” of this “quaint city with a university.”
During the public comments, both the placement of money into the general fund and a suggestion of an upper limit on the tax were mentioned.
After the meeting, HNN asked City Attorney Scott McClure for legal insight on those suggestions. He ruled neither legally reprehensible, but the cap, in his opinion, is a better possibility than altering the general fund placement.
(Editor’s Note: In response to the removal of the user fee designations, Mayor Wolfe told council woman Teresa Loudermilk that monies taken out of the occupation tax would be “equitable” to the current fees for police and public works. And, like his transparency pledge with the “user fee,” the Mayor said the occupation tax revenue and expenditures would be “absolutely transparent.”
In addition, councilman Nate Randolph stressed that if the occupation tax is passed, “we will [then] reduce the Business and Occupation tax,” which he called so business unfriendly that only Washington imposes a tax on business gross sales like Huntington.
Administration and council members have downplayed exact statements on eliminations (other than the user fee) due to anticipated court challenge(s) of the tax and uncertainties of projected collection amounts.)
TOP CAP POSSIBLE; COUNCIL POLICY CHOICE
McClure explained that a “fee” goes toward “defraying the costs of providing service(s)” while a “tax” sustains government.
“I do not see frivolous expenses in the city budget,” McClure stated. “Everything that comes from the occupation tax is earmarked for ‘x,’ that’s within the realm of possibilities. I don’t think it would be recommended,” referring to designations. “It’s possible, but to me it’s semantics. You account for the dollars in the budget. I guess you could do that in a line item. We do it with the user fee and refuse fees.”
As for the high income “cap” suggestion, “It’s never been discussed, but it is a possibility. I’ve never seen a cap, but we are able to exempt people who make less than a certain amount, I would perceive there could be a cap on the tax paid. I don’t think it would be prudent, but it’s a policy choice of city council,” McClure opined. “Legally, I don’t see any impediment to do that.”
QUESTIONS AWAITING ANSWERS
.jpg)
Council chairman Jim Insco termed the public response as “comments not unexpected,” adding “there’s a lot of work left to be done on this ordinance.” Insco, though, called the citizen attendance surprising. “To be honest, I’m surprised there was not a bigger turn out. It may have been the notification process, but this meeting was for council and the administration to get on the same page.”
Insco added the challenging decisions awaiting will determine whether the city continues forward movement. “We have come to an agreement that we want to see the city to continue to move forward. How we do that are the questions we have to answer.”
At large council woman Rebecca Thacker told HNN that her mind remains open. “To me council is like [court bench], I have not made a definite decision. A judge should not make a decision until they hear all the evidence. I’m not committed either way at this point,” Thacker said.
SHINING MOMENT?
.jpg)
Assistant council chairman Mark Bates paused before re-stating the need for time to “digest it all.” He then commented, “ Obviously, we do not want to take a regressive stance back to the days of 2002 where we saw a great reduction in services. On the other side, this is the shining moment the city will use to determine its future.”
Finally, activist McCallister spoke in a more metaphoric rhetoric by telling administration, committee and council members, “I’ll haunt you the rest of your natural life. We will take this to an election.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Audience Members Overwhelmingly Oppose Occupation Tax
Council Members Listening, Mulling
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- Having provided a draft proposal of an occupation tax to city council, members of the Wolfe administration had their ‘ears’ on when the public comment portion of Wednesday afternoon’s Finance Committee hearing began.
Council Finance Chairman Steve William good naturedly told tenacious, long time government activist Tom McCallister, “We look forward to crossing swords.” However, McCallister represented a tip of a lot of potential icebergs.
“It’s against the Constitution of the state [of West Virginia],” the former councilman and mayoral candidate insisted. He refers to Article 6-39a, which states that the legislature “shall limit the rate of taxes for municipal purposes.” However, Huntington has authority to implement the tax as one of its approved tenants in its pilot home rule program granted by the West Virginia Legislature.
Mayor Kim Wolfe has stated that Gov. Joe Manchin favors home rule authority for cities across the state. The “pilot program” runs through 2013.
PROFESSORS OPPOSED
Professor Suneel Maheshwari, professor of accountancy and legal environment at Marshall, told the administration and council that the proposed tax is unfair to those who earn higher incomes. Those who “pay more” should receive a “proportionate amount” of [additional] city services. He suggested that assets of the city be used to raise money, such as through advertising.
A second Marshall professor, Maurice Lockridge, pledged to equal the amount of the tax through contributions to opponents of the mayor and council members who vote in favor of the proposal.
Referring to his own choice to now shop downtown rather than in Barboursville, Lockridge told HNN, “When I leave my home, I make a conscious decision to turn left and come to Huntington. When this passes, I’ll turn right and go to Barboursville, even though Barboursville does not need my money and Huntington does. So that B & O tax will go way down. People who have a choice do not like being mistreated. They will do everything they can to offset it. Once again, rich Barboursville, will get my money. All that Huntington does not take from me is going to Barboursville.”
Various opponents --- particularly those residing outside of the city but working in the city --- called it a form of “taxation without representation.”
Virgil Pyles, a Barboursville resident who owns Swat Exterminating, called the proposal a “rape of everyone” to support the unions, whose members he claimed make $100,000 a year.
Others called for the sale of the Big Sandy Super Store Arena and suggested that any surplus generated by the tax would essentially be a “slush fund.” Another citizen stated the answer is not an additional tax that would discourage residency, instead, he stressed, “we have got to get jobs here.”
CITY INEXPENSIVE PLACE
The lone supporter, Richard Cobb Sr., called Huntington “the most inexpensive place to live [in the country] and [the occupation tax] a fair way to do it.” Stating that the city must be “safe, clean and well administered,” Cobb said the money collected will “increase attractiveness” of this “quaint city with a university.”
During the public comments, both the placement of money into the general fund and a suggestion of an upper limit on the tax were mentioned.
After the meeting, HNN asked City Attorney Scott McClure for legal insight on those suggestions. He ruled neither legally reprehensible, but the cap, in his opinion, is a better possibility than altering the general fund placement.
(Editor’s Note: In response to the removal of the user fee designations, Mayor Wolfe told council woman Teresa Loudermilk that monies taken out of the occupation tax would be “equitable” to the current fees for police and public works. And, like his transparency pledge with the “user fee,” the Mayor said the occupation tax revenue and expenditures would be “absolutely transparent.”
In addition, councilman Nate Randolph stressed that if the occupation tax is passed, “we will [then] reduce the Business and Occupation tax,” which he called so business unfriendly that only Washington imposes a tax on business gross sales like Huntington.
Administration and council members have downplayed exact statements on eliminations (other than the user fee) due to anticipated court challenge(s) of the tax and uncertainties of projected collection amounts.)
TOP CAP POSSIBLE; COUNCIL POLICY CHOICE
McClure explained that a “fee” goes toward “defraying the costs of providing service(s)” while a “tax” sustains government.
“I do not see frivolous expenses in the city budget,” McClure stated. “Everything that comes from the occupation tax is earmarked for ‘x,’ that’s within the realm of possibilities. I don’t think it would be recommended,” referring to designations. “It’s possible, but to me it’s semantics. You account for the dollars in the budget. I guess you could do that in a line item. We do it with the user fee and refuse fees.”
As for the high income “cap” suggestion, “It’s never been discussed, but it is a possibility. I’ve never seen a cap, but we are able to exempt people who make less than a certain amount, I would perceive there could be a cap on the tax paid. I don’t think it would be prudent, but it’s a policy choice of city council,” McClure opined. “Legally, I don’t see any impediment to do that.”
QUESTIONS AWAITING ANSWERS
Council chairman Jim Insco termed the public response as “comments not unexpected,” adding “there’s a lot of work left to be done on this ordinance.” Insco, though, called the citizen attendance surprising. “To be honest, I’m surprised there was not a bigger turn out. It may have been the notification process, but this meeting was for council and the administration to get on the same page.”
Insco added the challenging decisions awaiting will determine whether the city continues forward movement. “We have come to an agreement that we want to see the city to continue to move forward. How we do that are the questions we have to answer.”
At large council woman Rebecca Thacker told HNN that her mind remains open. “To me council is like [court bench], I have not made a definite decision. A judge should not make a decision until they hear all the evidence. I’m not committed either way at this point,” Thacker said.
SHINING MOMENT?
Assistant council chairman Mark Bates paused before re-stating the need for time to “digest it all.” He then commented, “ Obviously, we do not want to take a regressive stance back to the days of 2002 where we saw a great reduction in services. On the other side, this is the shining moment the city will use to determine its future.”
Finally, activist McCallister spoke in a more metaphoric rhetoric by telling administration, committee and council members, “I’ll haunt you the rest of your natural life. We will take this to an election.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
