July 15, 2010
ANALYSIS: Whether From Mouths or Body Language, Huntington Occupation Tax Losing Supporters
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) - Reflecting on the nearly three hour Huntington City Council meeting Monday, July 12, moves a reform package forward but raises other questions. The answers to them do not appear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but a veiled gray.
However, a published report in the Herald Dispatch indicates that the occupation tax without a cap has no support on council.
HNN failed to receive a response from the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce prior to the first reading. But, Mark Bugher, president and chief executive officer of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce, told the H-D, the tax proposal has no support in the business community either.
Reading those words did not surprise. The severity of the consensus crisis came from faces, not words, during and after the council meeting.
Following the removal of the cap on Monday, Finance Chairman Steve Williams made parliamentary maneuvers but his face and shoulders told of his anxiety on the issue. City Attorney Scott McClure appeared anxious for the meeting to be over. Councilman Jim Ritter scratched his head and told council, it was getting time to go home, inferring more confusion on the package at the end of the meeting than when Mark Bates gravel called the meeting to order.
Too, Nate Randolph qualified his support on an amendment as based on the actions that have occurred tonight (i.e. removal of the cap).
HNN knows of two firm “no” votes on the occupation tax. At least two other members could be inferred as “no” based on prior comments.
The newspaper article quoted Steve Williams stating that the occupation tax without a cap “lost his vote.” The article goes on to say that Insco’s poll of members indicate that Nate Randolph and Mark Bates also will not vote for the tax unless there is a cap.
Actually, the tax with a $100,000 cap had a flaw. --- the honor system. During the tax reform hearings, finance director Deron Runyon stirred a council amendment when he inferred that one tax would virtually rely on the honor system. A series of random audits was then placed in an amendment. The same issue faced the $100,000 cap. Those supporting it assumed that Huntington’s few top earners would gladly hand out $1,000 annually to support the “moving forward” image.
Likely, others would not.
Unfortunately, too, it still placed the biggest burden based on ratio upon the middle class.
A vote analysis might suggest that Mark Bates 0.75% proposal for city residents at least had council’s ears open.
Still, it along with “floor” or “cap or both allowed the City of Huntington to take 1%, then, nine months or so later, you could apply to get it back, if you qualify. That sounds like adding employees to the Finance Department for the refund bureaucracy , as well as a few compliance auditors.
Judging from Bugher’s comments despite improvements the Chamber does not see the City of Huntington as “an entity that the business community is ready to invest in.” Why? The city’s “track record” and “wisely spent money.” That resonated with a prong of Mayor Kim Wolfe’s statement to council Monday night: He concurred with tax reforms but the city must “live within its means.”
Chalk the latest occupation tax maneuver up to bringing out the voices of democracy. Some Huntington council or administration members may feel a bit squeamish about not enacting the tax after having it in their home rule plate.
But, the response from one of the pilot committee legislators indicated that the project two fold --- it’s not just about passing new laws, it’s about gathering voter input from constituencies.
State Sen. Ed Bowman told WV PBS reporter, Clark Davis, in May 2008, that the program required the participation of city council and participation from their citizens in the rulemaking process.
“Ultimately it comes back to the citizens [speaking] out as to whether or not they agree with what city council wishes to do or not do. Then they’ll honestly take a vote at city council, but the whole philosophy is to let the people locally decide what they want. Let’s take Charleston out of what goes on at the local level and I think we will see a better more responsible municipal government in West Virginia.”
From all the arm chair political quarterbacks and prognosticators, it appears the tea leaves have once again spoken on the tax based on income earned in the city limits of Huntington, WV.
Where does that leave the “city hall closed on Friday until further notice” signs?
Reaching out to small business, MU faculty, constituents and even Chamber members would be a cool town meeting on how to better our city. Do it in a format similar to the “Chat ‘n’ Chew” session, but more formalized.
What options does that leave council and the administration?
To prevent residents becoming former residents (or employees) by voting with their feet, a re-thinking of other revenue mechanisms is necessary. Perhaps, one for short term and more study for long term. Essentially, Dr. Cal Kent who reminded about the dip in construction tax revenue has merit --- there are some on the drawing board projects for the coming year. Maybe a chunk of the MU and hospital expansion will return?
Until then, efficiency analysis from others appears a good move. Some continue to ask, the legislature helped us fix the pension funds, so why is there still a great money crisis? What will it be spent for?
Pardon me, (Ernie Salvatore), I am (like you did) just asking.....
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
ANALYSIS: Whether From Mouths or Body Language, Huntington Occupation Tax Losing Supporters
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) - Reflecting on the nearly three hour Huntington City Council meeting Monday, July 12, moves a reform package forward but raises other questions. The answers to them do not appear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but a veiled gray.
However, a published report in the Herald Dispatch indicates that the occupation tax without a cap has no support on council.
HNN failed to receive a response from the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce prior to the first reading. But, Mark Bugher, president and chief executive officer of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce, told the H-D, the tax proposal has no support in the business community either.
Reading those words did not surprise. The severity of the consensus crisis came from faces, not words, during and after the council meeting.
Following the removal of the cap on Monday, Finance Chairman Steve Williams made parliamentary maneuvers but his face and shoulders told of his anxiety on the issue. City Attorney Scott McClure appeared anxious for the meeting to be over. Councilman Jim Ritter scratched his head and told council, it was getting time to go home, inferring more confusion on the package at the end of the meeting than when Mark Bates gravel called the meeting to order.
Too, Nate Randolph qualified his support on an amendment as based on the actions that have occurred tonight (i.e. removal of the cap).
HNN knows of two firm “no” votes on the occupation tax. At least two other members could be inferred as “no” based on prior comments.
The newspaper article quoted Steve Williams stating that the occupation tax without a cap “lost his vote.” The article goes on to say that Insco’s poll of members indicate that Nate Randolph and Mark Bates also will not vote for the tax unless there is a cap.
Actually, the tax with a $100,000 cap had a flaw. --- the honor system. During the tax reform hearings, finance director Deron Runyon stirred a council amendment when he inferred that one tax would virtually rely on the honor system. A series of random audits was then placed in an amendment. The same issue faced the $100,000 cap. Those supporting it assumed that Huntington’s few top earners would gladly hand out $1,000 annually to support the “moving forward” image.
Likely, others would not.
Unfortunately, too, it still placed the biggest burden based on ratio upon the middle class.
A vote analysis might suggest that Mark Bates 0.75% proposal for city residents at least had council’s ears open.
Still, it along with “floor” or “cap or both allowed the City of Huntington to take 1%, then, nine months or so later, you could apply to get it back, if you qualify. That sounds like adding employees to the Finance Department for the refund bureaucracy , as well as a few compliance auditors.
Judging from Bugher’s comments despite improvements the Chamber does not see the City of Huntington as “an entity that the business community is ready to invest in.” Why? The city’s “track record” and “wisely spent money.” That resonated with a prong of Mayor Kim Wolfe’s statement to council Monday night: He concurred with tax reforms but the city must “live within its means.”
Chalk the latest occupation tax maneuver up to bringing out the voices of democracy. Some Huntington council or administration members may feel a bit squeamish about not enacting the tax after having it in their home rule plate.
But, the response from one of the pilot committee legislators indicated that the project two fold --- it’s not just about passing new laws, it’s about gathering voter input from constituencies.
State Sen. Ed Bowman told WV PBS reporter, Clark Davis, in May 2008, that the program required the participation of city council and participation from their citizens in the rulemaking process.
“Ultimately it comes back to the citizens [speaking] out as to whether or not they agree with what city council wishes to do or not do. Then they’ll honestly take a vote at city council, but the whole philosophy is to let the people locally decide what they want. Let’s take Charleston out of what goes on at the local level and I think we will see a better more responsible municipal government in West Virginia.”
From all the arm chair political quarterbacks and prognosticators, it appears the tea leaves have once again spoken on the tax based on income earned in the city limits of Huntington, WV.
Where does that leave the “city hall closed on Friday until further notice” signs?
Reaching out to small business, MU faculty, constituents and even Chamber members would be a cool town meeting on how to better our city. Do it in a format similar to the “Chat ‘n’ Chew” session, but more formalized.
What options does that leave council and the administration?
To prevent residents becoming former residents (or employees) by voting with their feet, a re-thinking of other revenue mechanisms is necessary. Perhaps, one for short term and more study for long term. Essentially, Dr. Cal Kent who reminded about the dip in construction tax revenue has merit --- there are some on the drawing board projects for the coming year. Maybe a chunk of the MU and hospital expansion will return?
Until then, efficiency analysis from others appears a good move. Some continue to ask, the legislature helped us fix the pension funds, so why is there still a great money crisis? What will it be spent for?
Pardon me, (Ernie Salvatore), I am (like you did) just asking.....
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
