April 23, 2010
Proposed Huntington Occupation Tax Goes to Council Agenda, But Finance Committee Votes 4-1 to Take No Position
MU Faculty Senate Votes to Oppose Tax
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Following a three hour session, the Finance Committee voted to send the Occupation Tax to the full council without any recommendation whatsoever i.e. neither for nor against. The motion introduced by Jim Ritter and second by Sandra Clements allows the proposed ordinance to move out of the committee. Chairman Steve Williams dissented.
The first reading will be Monday, April 26. According to council rules, public comment is normally not taken on first readings. Council members themselves discuss the proposal --- and possible amendments --- at the meeting.
During the Thursday, April 22, public hearing, Prof Maurice Lockridge told council that the Marshall University Faculty Senate had just voted to endorse the position of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce in opposing the occupation tax. Marshall President Stephen Kopp expressed opposition too, calling it “bad for business, bad for the university and bad for faculty retention.”
Lockridge, who at the last hearing told the committee he would take his business elsewhere if the tax passes, had now done some expenditure totaling. Reemphasizing that “people are going to quit spending in Huntington,” he told of shopping in the city at Kroger and other retailers. “I quit looking [for receipts] at $40,000.”
Continuing the much repeated mantra of “no taxation without representation,” the employed within Huntington and living outside the city limits professors capped his remarks with, “Adios Huntington, Hello Barboursville.”
Other employees told council they would stop eating lunch at city restaurants to offset the money taken from their paychecks. Distinguishing herself from those calling for boycotts of city business, Carla Murphy of Hurricane, simply stated the lunches would go because after the new withholdings she and her husband would not be able to afford them anymore.
With the exception of former Mayor Dean, all those speaking opposed the tax. About twenty five residents living outside the city spoke in opposition while five city residents opposed the tax. Many of those from outside the city complained of a “taxation without representation” circumstance where they receive little or no services in return for the proposed one percent tax on income earned within the city limits.
Councilwoman Frances Jackson, watching on public access due to medical issues, suggested afterwards by phone to HNN that all the individuals do receive a service from within the borders of Huntington --- they have a job. The company or entity for which they work has chosen to locate in Huntington despite all the business unfriendly challenges. Finance Committee chair, Steve Williams, alluded to the same when he articulately described Huntington as a “hub” of regional activities.
Former Mayor Jean Dean, who now hosts a radio talk show, told the committee, “You have made some very important steps forward,” adding the legislature’s pilot project “allows the city to do something for itself.” Calling the current “user fee” unfair, Dean praised the occupation tax “as at least based on percentage of income.” Ironically, Councilwoman Jackson recalled that the first ‘user fee’ of $1.00 per week was passed during Dean’s administration.
Prior to public comment, Councilman Scott Caserta expressed his reservations about the proposed draft occupation tax: “I cannot speak in favor of it at this time.” Listing savings over time from the reworking of the police and fire pension funds approved by the WV legislature, he asked, “How much money do we need?” Extending an olive branch for “not rushing into the occupation tax,” Caserta revealed that the city annually pays $100,000 for employee use of cell phones . In addition, he questioned the use of city employee “furloughs” instead of “layoffs.” Furloughs prevent those impacted from qualifying for unemployment compensation.
Councilwoman Rebecca Thacker joined Caserta later cautioning that the home rule pilot program has an end date. “It scares me that we’re going to get used to this money being there. I will not support this,” the physically challenged at-large member asserted. Council vice chairman Mark Bates held up a handful of received and unread e-mails received Thursday. Bates stated he would like to read and digest them --- as well as public comments --- before taking a vote on the tax proposal.
Council chairman Jim Insco enumerated a variety of changes to the draft that would require research and study . He outlined, perhaps, capping the tax, placing its revenues in line items (such as for paving or landfill closing) not the general fund, and supported a evaluation of our “outdated” tax system, including phase outs and/or reductions to municipal service fees and manufacturing B & O.
He found the root of the city’s woes --- the inability to entice more people to live in the city.
Having stated the proposal remains in the “who knows” phase, he twice questioned a rush to passage (by May 3) and implementation (by July 1, 2010) . He pondered whether the “city could sue itself” to gain a court opinion on the legality of the component approved in the legislature’s pilot program. The administration and council members have previously cautioned their revenue projections are based on academic estimates, which could be thrown off track by extended litigation.
City Attorney Scott McClure, however, has confidence in the constitutionality of the program and the tax based on research from other jurisdictions. Still, the city sails in “uncharted waters” and McClure does not foresee “a shortage of potential litigants” to challenge the tax.
But, activists like Tom McCallister have indicated they will petition for a vote on the occupation tax. Many in the audience line up to sign petitions.
As anticipated, Finance Chairman Steve Williams re-shaped the proposal stating, “We have no business passing the occupation tax by itself. If we are short on money, we can increase the user fee.”
Embracing a safer, cleaner more accountable city that encourages business (and job) development, Williams asked McClure to draft ordinances by the April 30 finance committee meeting calling for the phasing out of the municipal services fee beginning July 1 with a 25% reduction per year and to eliminate the gross revenue based B & O tax on manufacturing (businesses) by July 1.
Along with the mandatory elimination of the user fee with passage of an occupation tax, Williams eloquently called Huntington the hub of the region that affects everything and said, “We can make ourselves healthy by adopting a [revamped] tax package” designed to make the city appealing to business and residents.
Finance Director Deron Runyon had, after the meeting, already run projections on the impacts of the tax package proposals on city revenue. The proposal would tend to bring the budget closer to “revenue neutral,” which is based on the complex procedures of implementing the occupation tax with its exemptions, removing the user fee and then reducing the municipal service fee (approximately $1.5 million) and removal of the B & O from manufacturing (about $120,000).
Passage of the occupation tax may bring in $8 to $11 million dollars, but the user fee removal brings the conservative estimate down to a $2 million dollar gain for fiscal 2010-2011.
Finally, Legislator Kelli Sobonya , R- Cabell, asked the administration and council to meet with stakeholders such as the legislative delegation and the Chamber of Commerce prior to taking action. She also reminded them that only one of the legislators representing Cabell County voted in favor of the home rule pilot program.
Huntington City Council meets Friday afternoon, April 23, at 4 p.m. for their “work session” prior to the Monday night meeting. The work session is open to public attendance.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
MU Faculty Senate Votes to Oppose Tax
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Following a three hour session, the Finance Committee voted to send the Occupation Tax to the full council without any recommendation whatsoever i.e. neither for nor against. The motion introduced by Jim Ritter and second by Sandra Clements allows the proposed ordinance to move out of the committee. Chairman Steve Williams dissented.
 |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
During the Thursday, April 22, public hearing, Prof Maurice Lockridge told council that the Marshall University Faculty Senate had just voted to endorse the position of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce in opposing the occupation tax. Marshall President Stephen Kopp expressed opposition too, calling it “bad for business, bad for the university and bad for faculty retention.”
Lockridge, who at the last hearing told the committee he would take his business elsewhere if the tax passes, had now done some expenditure totaling. Reemphasizing that “people are going to quit spending in Huntington,” he told of shopping in the city at Kroger and other retailers. “I quit looking [for receipts] at $40,000.”
Continuing the much repeated mantra of “no taxation without representation,” the employed within Huntington and living outside the city limits professors capped his remarks with, “Adios Huntington, Hello Barboursville.”
Other employees told council they would stop eating lunch at city restaurants to offset the money taken from their paychecks. Distinguishing herself from those calling for boycotts of city business, Carla Murphy of Hurricane, simply stated the lunches would go because after the new withholdings she and her husband would not be able to afford them anymore.
With the exception of former Mayor Dean, all those speaking opposed the tax. About twenty five residents living outside the city spoke in opposition while five city residents opposed the tax. Many of those from outside the city complained of a “taxation without representation” circumstance where they receive little or no services in return for the proposed one percent tax on income earned within the city limits.
Councilwoman Frances Jackson, watching on public access due to medical issues, suggested afterwards by phone to HNN that all the individuals do receive a service from within the borders of Huntington --- they have a job. The company or entity for which they work has chosen to locate in Huntington despite all the business unfriendly challenges. Finance Committee chair, Steve Williams, alluded to the same when he articulately described Huntington as a “hub” of regional activities.
Former Mayor Jean Dean, who now hosts a radio talk show, told the committee, “You have made some very important steps forward,” adding the legislature’s pilot project “allows the city to do something for itself.” Calling the current “user fee” unfair, Dean praised the occupation tax “as at least based on percentage of income.” Ironically, Councilwoman Jackson recalled that the first ‘user fee’ of $1.00 per week was passed during Dean’s administration.
Prior to public comment, Councilman Scott Caserta expressed his reservations about the proposed draft occupation tax: “I cannot speak in favor of it at this time.” Listing savings over time from the reworking of the police and fire pension funds approved by the WV legislature, he asked, “How much money do we need?” Extending an olive branch for “not rushing into the occupation tax,” Caserta revealed that the city annually pays $100,000 for employee use of cell phones . In addition, he questioned the use of city employee “furloughs” instead of “layoffs.” Furloughs prevent those impacted from qualifying for unemployment compensation.
Councilwoman Rebecca Thacker joined Caserta later cautioning that the home rule pilot program has an end date. “It scares me that we’re going to get used to this money being there. I will not support this,” the physically challenged at-large member asserted. Council vice chairman Mark Bates held up a handful of received and unread e-mails received Thursday. Bates stated he would like to read and digest them --- as well as public comments --- before taking a vote on the tax proposal.
Council chairman Jim Insco enumerated a variety of changes to the draft that would require research and study . He outlined, perhaps, capping the tax, placing its revenues in line items (such as for paving or landfill closing) not the general fund, and supported a evaluation of our “outdated” tax system, including phase outs and/or reductions to municipal service fees and manufacturing B & O.
He found the root of the city’s woes --- the inability to entice more people to live in the city.
Having stated the proposal remains in the “who knows” phase, he twice questioned a rush to passage (by May 3) and implementation (by July 1, 2010) . He pondered whether the “city could sue itself” to gain a court opinion on the legality of the component approved in the legislature’s pilot program. The administration and council members have previously cautioned their revenue projections are based on academic estimates, which could be thrown off track by extended litigation.
City Attorney Scott McClure, however, has confidence in the constitutionality of the program and the tax based on research from other jurisdictions. Still, the city sails in “uncharted waters” and McClure does not foresee “a shortage of potential litigants” to challenge the tax.
But, activists like Tom McCallister have indicated they will petition for a vote on the occupation tax. Many in the audience line up to sign petitions.
As anticipated, Finance Chairman Steve Williams re-shaped the proposal stating, “We have no business passing the occupation tax by itself. If we are short on money, we can increase the user fee.”
Embracing a safer, cleaner more accountable city that encourages business (and job) development, Williams asked McClure to draft ordinances by the April 30 finance committee meeting calling for the phasing out of the municipal services fee beginning July 1 with a 25% reduction per year and to eliminate the gross revenue based B & O tax on manufacturing (businesses) by July 1.
Along with the mandatory elimination of the user fee with passage of an occupation tax, Williams eloquently called Huntington the hub of the region that affects everything and said, “We can make ourselves healthy by adopting a [revamped] tax package” designed to make the city appealing to business and residents.
Finance Director Deron Runyon had, after the meeting, already run projections on the impacts of the tax package proposals on city revenue. The proposal would tend to bring the budget closer to “revenue neutral,” which is based on the complex procedures of implementing the occupation tax with its exemptions, removing the user fee and then reducing the municipal service fee (approximately $1.5 million) and removal of the B & O from manufacturing (about $120,000).
Passage of the occupation tax may bring in $8 to $11 million dollars, but the user fee removal brings the conservative estimate down to a $2 million dollar gain for fiscal 2010-2011.
Finally, Legislator Kelli Sobonya , R- Cabell, asked the administration and council to meet with stakeholders such as the legislative delegation and the Chamber of Commerce prior to taking action. She also reminded them that only one of the legislators representing Cabell County voted in favor of the home rule pilot program.
Huntington City Council meets Friday afternoon, April 23, at 4 p.m. for their “work session” prior to the Monday night meeting. The work session is open to public attendance.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
