April 27, 2010
No One From Audience Speaks in Favor of Proposed Huntington Occupation Tax
Two Speakers Suggest Raising User Fee; Ordinance Goes to Second Reading
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – After hearing a string of speakers continuing to express opposition to the proposed occupation tax, Council member Nate Randolph acknowledged the “more study and more time” is needed. “We still have that. We have to figure out how to make this thing equitable. We’re the only municipality [in West Virginia] that can try to make this thing work.”
Simultaneously, at large councilman and Finance Committee chairman , Steve Williams, offered numerous fine tuned fee and tax offsets that would be part of the tax reform package which is revenue neutral.
“We’re talking about imposing one tax and rescinding or reducing six other taxes and fees,” Williams explained. Previously, at least three other council members have appeared in favor of the tax restructuring.
Among proposed modifications, the previously mentioned elimination of business and occupation tax (a tax on gross receipts) on manufacturing and reduction in B & O on retail and services, adjusting the municipal service fee based from $120 to $100, and dropping the rate by a penny per square foot from 7.35 cents to 6.35 cents.
Residents, businesses and industries pay the square footage rate per parcel owned. These proposal coincide with full elimination of the $3.00 per week user fee.
However, the instant bottom line is that the tax as originally presented moves to second reading, but numerous amendments have been discussed --- some which require number crunching. The Finance Committee holds its next meeting Friday, April 30, at 4 p.m. at which time some of the additional proposed tax mitigation ordinances will come up for discussion.
Councilman Scott Caserta attempted to , for now, table the occupation tax ordinance. Rebecca Thacker seconded the motion, but there was no other support meaning tabling failed 8-2 (Frances Jackson was ill and absent).
Procedurally, the second reading will likely be May 10 at which time if substantial amendments are offered, the proposal would move to a third reading and final vote May 24. Originally, a special call of council had been contemplated for next week, but chairman Jim Insco who has that authority had said he will not do so.
Following the Monday meeting, Williams summed the new proposed reductions would be “revenue neutral,” but the specific figures were not yet available. Williams indicated that the these proposals had come to fruitarian in cooperation with the administration. Mayor Kim Wolfe indicated he was “comfortable” with the proposals and/or possible amendments.
Ironically, the vastly unpopular user fee which generated strong unfavorable opposition when adopted at $1.00 per week, now, has gained support from speakers telling council they would rather see it raised to $5.00 per week, rather than have the 1% occupation tax. Another speaker mentioned a city sales tax, but Mayor Kim Wolfe responded that an extra 1% per $1.00 on sales would “burden” business within the city limits, but not apply to those in Cabell County or beyond.
As a preliminary round of sparring, members of the audience lined up to criticize the new truck purchases by the Huntington Sanitary Board. The two second readings authorized the purchase of two Ford F-150 four wheel drive large pickup short beds with trailer tow package and three Dodge Dakota extended cab trucks. Purchase of these items would come from the operational maintenance fund of the Huntington Sanitary Board with reimbursement through the Division of Environmental Protection due to a low bid.
Loretta Covington, executive director, explained to council that “two transmissions fell out” and replacement cost would be prohibitive.
Speaker Paul Holley rose to state, “You should not be spending that kind of money; I have to fix my transmission” (not buy a new vehicle).
Virgil Pyles, owner of SWAT Exterminating, added that “everyone who’s a mechanic knows we can take care of repairs,” urging that used vehicles could be purchased to help conserve funds due to the $1 million dollar shortfall.
Although Covington stated two of the vehicles had in excess of 130,000 miles with “seats falling out” and “not worth fixing,” citizens did not understand the separation of the Huntington Sanitary Board from the city of Huntington’s budget. Further, the audience appeared dissatisfied when councilman Scott Caserta stated, “If we don’t ask for the [government money] somebody else will spend it.”
Activist Tom McCallister accused the city of “buying cars, trucks and everything in the Sears catalogue.” Council chairman called him out of order when he stated a literal interpretation of West Virginia Statutes regarding limited home rule and in a pointed manner reiterated members were not upholding the Constitution of the State of West Virginia , the City Chater, and other aspects of their oath.
Insco disagreed with McCallister’s conclusion and stated, “You will not be allowed to call any councilman a liar.”
RULE WAVIER
Normally, public comment would not have been permitted on a First Reading, but the controversial and critical nature of the Occupation Tax Package proposals prompted members to allow public comment. Unfortunately, few of those commenting had listened closely to the tax reform caviats, instead, questions related to corporate office exemptions. One woman declared that about 20 of her co-workers did not pay the user fee and likely would not have to pay the occupation tax since the company’s office was either outside of Huntington and/or outside of the State of West Virginia.
Finance Director Deron Runyon and City Attorney Scott McClure both explained that under the proposed law, none of them would be legally exempt. Runyon acknowledged the limited hand of the city to bring non-compliant corporate outsiders on to the tax rolls, but did ask the speaker for the names of those not paying the user fee. She declined to tell on her co-workers.
APPALACHIAN POWER EMPLOYEES JOIN MARSHALL, CHAMBER IN OPPOSITION
Speaking on behalf of 90 Appalachian Power workers, Steve Stewart inquired of how or if time would be calculated based on employees who work inside the city limits only a specific percentage of their working hours. City Attorney McClure indicated that a “ratio” could be provided by their employer and in unison with chairman Insco added that withholding could be at a schedule (monthly, quarterly, etc) worked out with the Finance Director.
At that time, Stewart stated that those he represented “urged that council vote against the tax” and in lieu raise the “user fee” to $5.00 per week.
Following Stewart, Bob White asked about lower the occupation tax for non-residents. “I’m not that upset about paying a user fee,” lending his vote for “paying a $5 a week user fee rather than an occupation tax which goes in the general fund where accountability goes down.”
Marshall Professor Dr. Maurice Lockridge brought questions to the council which could not be immediately answered. What percentage of city services are consumed by residents, non residents and businesses, he asked. What percentage of the budget is funded by residents, non residents and businesses, he asked.
“If you don’t have answers.” Dr. Lockridge coined the so-called money grab as “government mandated charity (i.e. theft), insisting, “You may have the legal authority, but you do not have the moral authority” to impose the occupation tax.
CAPPING THE TAX AND OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
Responding to an earlier statement of capping the tax at a maximum of $250,000 in earnings, Lockridge ridiculed the suggestion. He said only three Marshall employees (the football coach, the basketball coach and the president) would be affected, then, conjectured, that likely hospital C.E.O.’s would fall above that maximum.
Councilman Caserta later would suggest potential amendments that would alter the tax from a gross wage to a net income and set the cap at about $50,000.
“If we can’t kill it, let’s do it right. We can make this fair and equitable,” Caserta said, later specifying that taking $50 to $75 a month (or more) from a household budget would have adverse impacts on families with or without children.
Twice those at the podium asked for a show of hands from council as to whom would or would not be paying the tax, as written. The show of hands did not consider exemptions as written and/or exemptions to be written, so HNN will not state which council members would be paying without providing more data on their reasoning. In addition, the question had to be re-phrased to take into account that some receive in-city pay only from their income as council members ($7,200 annually), but the current low income $10,000 exemption would pertain to ALL income, not just that earned in the city.
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
Following the robust public comment session (that included one “This is Mafia-like extortion”) , councilman Williams stressed, “We do not in some respects have the information to make the decision.” Emphasizing the “fluidity” of the process, the at large councilman underscored “what we are now doing is looking at second suggestions.”
In referring to the budget process, he said, council and the city had already taken “strong steps” to “reduce the waste and size of government.” He acknowledged that the public hearings had brought questions to the table requiring “further consideration,” and, specified, “just imposing an occupation tax ended weeks ago. It’s a comprehensive tax reform [package].”
PETITIONS AND LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS
During the council meeting, numerous attendees signed petitions asking for a special city wide vote on the occupation tax.
McAllister again questioned the authority of the legislature to grant the ‘home rule’ taxation power to one city, when, a portion of West Virginia statutory law appears to prevent creation of “special” laws. In fact, the former councilman referred to an earlier vote to rescind the insurance proceeds debris withholding as an example of the fallacies of the pilot home rule program. After Huntington’s ordinance passed, a suit was brought. WV Governor Manchin intervened and eventually the legislature passed a similar version of the Huntington ordinance (now repealed thus mooting the law suit).
Finally, by the book Tom questioned the legality of council offering their proposed amendments at the time of second reading. He stressed such a violation would have possible jailable consequences, but one wonders if the city could afford to pay the Western Regional Jail daily fees should such an interpretation be valid.
Afterwards, attorney McClure explained that amendments which substantially change the proposed ordinance forces it to a third reading (or a second, second reading, if you must). Public comment is still taken at the subsequent readings.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Two Speakers Suggest Raising User Fee; Ordinance Goes to Second Reading
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – After hearing a string of speakers continuing to express opposition to the proposed occupation tax, Council member Nate Randolph acknowledged the “more study and more time” is needed. “We still have that. We have to figure out how to make this thing equitable. We’re the only municipality [in West Virginia] that can try to make this thing work.”
 |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
“We’re talking about imposing one tax and rescinding or reducing six other taxes and fees,” Williams explained. Previously, at least three other council members have appeared in favor of the tax restructuring.
Among proposed modifications, the previously mentioned elimination of business and occupation tax (a tax on gross receipts) on manufacturing and reduction in B & O on retail and services, adjusting the municipal service fee based from $120 to $100, and dropping the rate by a penny per square foot from 7.35 cents to 6.35 cents.
Residents, businesses and industries pay the square footage rate per parcel owned. These proposal coincide with full elimination of the $3.00 per week user fee.
However, the instant bottom line is that the tax as originally presented moves to second reading, but numerous amendments have been discussed --- some which require number crunching. The Finance Committee holds its next meeting Friday, April 30, at 4 p.m. at which time some of the additional proposed tax mitigation ordinances will come up for discussion.
Councilman Scott Caserta attempted to , for now, table the occupation tax ordinance. Rebecca Thacker seconded the motion, but there was no other support meaning tabling failed 8-2 (Frances Jackson was ill and absent).
Procedurally, the second reading will likely be May 10 at which time if substantial amendments are offered, the proposal would move to a third reading and final vote May 24. Originally, a special call of council had been contemplated for next week, but chairman Jim Insco who has that authority had said he will not do so.
Following the Monday meeting, Williams summed the new proposed reductions would be “revenue neutral,” but the specific figures were not yet available. Williams indicated that the these proposals had come to fruitarian in cooperation with the administration. Mayor Kim Wolfe indicated he was “comfortable” with the proposals and/or possible amendments.
Ironically, the vastly unpopular user fee which generated strong unfavorable opposition when adopted at $1.00 per week, now, has gained support from speakers telling council they would rather see it raised to $5.00 per week, rather than have the 1% occupation tax. Another speaker mentioned a city sales tax, but Mayor Kim Wolfe responded that an extra 1% per $1.00 on sales would “burden” business within the city limits, but not apply to those in Cabell County or beyond.
As a preliminary round of sparring, members of the audience lined up to criticize the new truck purchases by the Huntington Sanitary Board. The two second readings authorized the purchase of two Ford F-150 four wheel drive large pickup short beds with trailer tow package and three Dodge Dakota extended cab trucks. Purchase of these items would come from the operational maintenance fund of the Huntington Sanitary Board with reimbursement through the Division of Environmental Protection due to a low bid.
Loretta Covington, executive director, explained to council that “two transmissions fell out” and replacement cost would be prohibitive.
Speaker Paul Holley rose to state, “You should not be spending that kind of money; I have to fix my transmission” (not buy a new vehicle).
Virgil Pyles, owner of SWAT Exterminating, added that “everyone who’s a mechanic knows we can take care of repairs,” urging that used vehicles could be purchased to help conserve funds due to the $1 million dollar shortfall.
Although Covington stated two of the vehicles had in excess of 130,000 miles with “seats falling out” and “not worth fixing,” citizens did not understand the separation of the Huntington Sanitary Board from the city of Huntington’s budget. Further, the audience appeared dissatisfied when councilman Scott Caserta stated, “If we don’t ask for the [government money] somebody else will spend it.”
Activist Tom McCallister accused the city of “buying cars, trucks and everything in the Sears catalogue.” Council chairman called him out of order when he stated a literal interpretation of West Virginia Statutes regarding limited home rule and in a pointed manner reiterated members were not upholding the Constitution of the State of West Virginia , the City Chater, and other aspects of their oath.
Insco disagreed with McCallister’s conclusion and stated, “You will not be allowed to call any councilman a liar.”
RULE WAVIER
Normally, public comment would not have been permitted on a First Reading, but the controversial and critical nature of the Occupation Tax Package proposals prompted members to allow public comment. Unfortunately, few of those commenting had listened closely to the tax reform caviats, instead, questions related to corporate office exemptions. One woman declared that about 20 of her co-workers did not pay the user fee and likely would not have to pay the occupation tax since the company’s office was either outside of Huntington and/or outside of the State of West Virginia.
Finance Director Deron Runyon and City Attorney Scott McClure both explained that under the proposed law, none of them would be legally exempt. Runyon acknowledged the limited hand of the city to bring non-compliant corporate outsiders on to the tax rolls, but did ask the speaker for the names of those not paying the user fee. She declined to tell on her co-workers.
APPALACHIAN POWER EMPLOYEES JOIN MARSHALL, CHAMBER IN OPPOSITION
Speaking on behalf of 90 Appalachian Power workers, Steve Stewart inquired of how or if time would be calculated based on employees who work inside the city limits only a specific percentage of their working hours. City Attorney McClure indicated that a “ratio” could be provided by their employer and in unison with chairman Insco added that withholding could be at a schedule (monthly, quarterly, etc) worked out with the Finance Director.
At that time, Stewart stated that those he represented “urged that council vote against the tax” and in lieu raise the “user fee” to $5.00 per week.
Following Stewart, Bob White asked about lower the occupation tax for non-residents. “I’m not that upset about paying a user fee,” lending his vote for “paying a $5 a week user fee rather than an occupation tax which goes in the general fund where accountability goes down.”
Marshall Professor Dr. Maurice Lockridge brought questions to the council which could not be immediately answered. What percentage of city services are consumed by residents, non residents and businesses, he asked. What percentage of the budget is funded by residents, non residents and businesses, he asked.
“If you don’t have answers.” Dr. Lockridge coined the so-called money grab as “government mandated charity (i.e. theft), insisting, “You may have the legal authority, but you do not have the moral authority” to impose the occupation tax.
CAPPING THE TAX AND OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
Responding to an earlier statement of capping the tax at a maximum of $250,000 in earnings, Lockridge ridiculed the suggestion. He said only three Marshall employees (the football coach, the basketball coach and the president) would be affected, then, conjectured, that likely hospital C.E.O.’s would fall above that maximum.
Councilman Caserta later would suggest potential amendments that would alter the tax from a gross wage to a net income and set the cap at about $50,000.
“If we can’t kill it, let’s do it right. We can make this fair and equitable,” Caserta said, later specifying that taking $50 to $75 a month (or more) from a household budget would have adverse impacts on families with or without children.
Twice those at the podium asked for a show of hands from council as to whom would or would not be paying the tax, as written. The show of hands did not consider exemptions as written and/or exemptions to be written, so HNN will not state which council members would be paying without providing more data on their reasoning. In addition, the question had to be re-phrased to take into account that some receive in-city pay only from their income as council members ($7,200 annually), but the current low income $10,000 exemption would pertain to ALL income, not just that earned in the city.
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
Following the robust public comment session (that included one “This is Mafia-like extortion”) , councilman Williams stressed, “We do not in some respects have the information to make the decision.” Emphasizing the “fluidity” of the process, the at large councilman underscored “what we are now doing is looking at second suggestions.”
In referring to the budget process, he said, council and the city had already taken “strong steps” to “reduce the waste and size of government.” He acknowledged that the public hearings had brought questions to the table requiring “further consideration,” and, specified, “just imposing an occupation tax ended weeks ago. It’s a comprehensive tax reform [package].”
PETITIONS AND LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS
During the council meeting, numerous attendees signed petitions asking for a special city wide vote on the occupation tax.
McAllister again questioned the authority of the legislature to grant the ‘home rule’ taxation power to one city, when, a portion of West Virginia statutory law appears to prevent creation of “special” laws. In fact, the former councilman referred to an earlier vote to rescind the insurance proceeds debris withholding as an example of the fallacies of the pilot home rule program. After Huntington’s ordinance passed, a suit was brought. WV Governor Manchin intervened and eventually the legislature passed a similar version of the Huntington ordinance (now repealed thus mooting the law suit).
Finally, by the book Tom questioned the legality of council offering their proposed amendments at the time of second reading. He stressed such a violation would have possible jailable consequences, but one wonders if the city could afford to pay the Western Regional Jail daily fees should such an interpretation be valid.
Afterwards, attorney McClure explained that amendments which substantially change the proposed ordinance forces it to a third reading (or a second, second reading, if you must). Public comment is still taken at the subsequent readings.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
