July 26, 2010
Tax Protest Planned Before Council Meeting
Amendments Anticipated for Huntington Tax Reform Package at Council Meeting
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – An occasionally feisty Thursday work session likely foretells the nature of the tonight’s (July 25) council meeting with city tax reform heading the agenda. Struggling in the hot seats, the eleven councilmen and councilwomen face a quandary.
No one wants to raise taxes especially in the trenches of a deep recession, but what about fairly re-distributing the responsibilities? The balancing appears to be what’s best for the city balanced on the best interests of business and individuals continuing to receive city services.
Council will be receiving additional input beyond three favorable neighborhood association meetings. Flyers have been distributed throughout the weekend setting a “tax protest” for 7 p.m. Monday, one half hour prior to the council meeting.
Interestingly, councilwoman Frances Jackson asked at the Thursday work session that she wants to hear more comments, not from the same individuals who’ve been at the mike in council chambers previously but from new one’s particularly those who both live in and work in the City of Huntington. Councilman Steve Williams, later, told HNN, that his e-mails from residents working in the city was about even, perhaps, slightly in favor of the tax.
QUESTIONS REMAIN
Questions asked at the work session ranged from has the public seen the full ordinance and what for which will collected money be used?
Councilwoman Sandra Clements has asked that “what the money will be used for” section be read into the record. Councilman Jim Ritter agreed “it’s needed to move the city forward,” but stated that finalized details will determine the degree to which “you need to work on me.”
Absent from the work session due to a physician’s appointment, councilwoman Rebecca Thacker, who has steadfastly opposed the tax.
CHAMBER CHALLENGE?
Councilman Nate Randolph challenged Chamber of Commerce opposition. He said that he had spoken to members that favor the tax --- with a cap. "I've finally reached the conclusion that some people are more interested in protecting their own real estate and the private interests of a few than the small businesses of this community," Randolph said.
Councilman Scott Caserta maintained his stance that IF a tax is to be levied it should be equal on everyone with no caps.
Jackson also asked Insco if a separate line item could be created by council for paving. Although she understands the priorities and amount of paving allowed by the available money in the Spring of 2011, the former labor leader feels that ordinary folks do not comprehend the pushed back paving schedule.
Actually, the city’s ability to complete paving last year in advance of actual user fee money in the back has prompted some of the confusion. Brandi Jacobs – Jones, director of finance and administration, explained that last year the money to pave was temporarily advanced from contingency so as to pave in appropriate weather. When the user fee money came in, it then repaid the portion of advanced contingency.
But, the deep recession had the City the year without the reserves to temporarily advance paving funds. Complicating the circumstance, a drop in the number of employees within the city, cut the amount of user fee collections, too.
Jackson feels that with a separate line item marked paving the amount could not be altered. Even now, the amount of funds available for Spring paving has dropped from $600,000 to $500,000 due to a decline in user fee payments (i.e. employees working in Huntington).
Such a line item would appear necessary. Since the user fee goes away with passage of an occupation tax, stipulations of funding placement outside the general fund would remain. The ordinance provides revenue collected above $7 million to be used for improvements, such as to infrastructure, like storm sewer separation.
(A copy of 2010 user fee collections/expenditures is posted at: http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ServiceFeeMay2010.pdf)
OPPOSITION TO THE TAX
Many of the speakers before council at the public hearings on the previous inception of the tax repeated the same mantra --- taxation without representation if you work in Huntington but live outside of the city. Jackson, for one, wants input from people who live and work in the city that would be subject to the tax. (As written, pensions, for instance, are not taxable.)
Expressing the stern opposition from individuals, one posting on another web site complained, “Someone making $50,000 per year goes from $3.00 every two weeks to $19.23, a 600 % increase? My daughter and son-in-law both work. They will be paying $1,000 total. They have three children and a mortgage. Spending that kind of money requires a lengthy discussion, instead, it will just be "taken" from them.”
(Editor’s Note: The fee is $3 per week. The posting is printed as written.)
Both City Attorney Scott McClure and Council Chairman anticipate amendments to the occupation tax proposal, which now contains no cap. A version of the tax proposed by the administration was withdrawn in May by council. Having found intense public opposition, the object was to take a time out and regroup. Based on the planned 7 p.m. protest, those potentially subject to the tax appear to have not changed their minds.
The version brought to the July first reading included a $1,000 cap on liability (i.e. for those earning $100,000 and over, there is a maximum amount of city taxation.). However, council voted to remove the cap. An attempt to place a $200,000 (2,000) cap failed.
While the work session included a strong case by city attorney Scott McClure derailing the “taxation without representation” argument which pertains to those working in the city but living outside the city, no amendments have yet been offered.
SALES TAX, REPEAL OR LOWER CERTAIN BUSINESS TAXES
The reform package has three components --- the one percent occupation tax and a one percent city sales tax then specific reductions or eliminations of B & O taxes on business grosses within the city. The user fee by Home Rule agreement ceases if an occupation tax is imposed. Home rule authority does not define or mandate a specific percentage.
The reform places more of a burden on individuals and less on business on the economic principle that businesses less taxed will expand and hire more employees.
The budget passed by council projects revenue declines in city service fees ($312,000), business and occupation tax ($1.545 million, property taxes ($120,146), delinquent property taxes ($260,347), video lottery ($33,756), building permits ($87,000), federal grants ($989,536), state grants ($1.117 million), amusement tax ($15,000), gaming income ($40,400), and hotel/motel ($70,000). (For full 62 page budget click: http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/budget2010-11.pdf.
COUNCIL PROCEDURE
The tax reform package --- as individual items --- will be given second reading. The public is allowed to comment. Since significant amendment(s) are anticipated, public input COULD be limited to the AMENDMENT ONLY. If , for example, a “cap” is added, the ordinance would go to a Third Reading. During the Third Reading (at the first council meeting in August unless there is a special call) council would then vote on the actual enactment of the occupation tax.
As for public input, a majority of council can “waive the rules” and allow public comment on the full ordinance , even if a third reading will be held.
The council meets at 7:30 p.m. with a telecast on Comcast channel 24.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Tax Protest Planned Before Council Meeting
Amendments Anticipated for Huntington Tax Reform Package at Council Meeting
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – An occasionally feisty Thursday work session likely foretells the nature of the tonight’s (July 25) council meeting with city tax reform heading the agenda. Struggling in the hot seats, the eleven councilmen and councilwomen face a quandary.
No one wants to raise taxes especially in the trenches of a deep recession, but what about fairly re-distributing the responsibilities? The balancing appears to be what’s best for the city balanced on the best interests of business and individuals continuing to receive city services.
Council will be receiving additional input beyond three favorable neighborhood association meetings. Flyers have been distributed throughout the weekend setting a “tax protest” for 7 p.m. Monday, one half hour prior to the council meeting.
Interestingly, councilwoman Frances Jackson asked at the Thursday work session that she wants to hear more comments, not from the same individuals who’ve been at the mike in council chambers previously but from new one’s particularly those who both live in and work in the City of Huntington. Councilman Steve Williams, later, told HNN, that his e-mails from residents working in the city was about even, perhaps, slightly in favor of the tax.
QUESTIONS REMAIN
Questions asked at the work session ranged from has the public seen the full ordinance and what for which will collected money be used?
Councilwoman Sandra Clements has asked that “what the money will be used for” section be read into the record. Councilman Jim Ritter agreed “it’s needed to move the city forward,” but stated that finalized details will determine the degree to which “you need to work on me.”
Absent from the work session due to a physician’s appointment, councilwoman Rebecca Thacker, who has steadfastly opposed the tax.
CHAMBER CHALLENGE?
Councilman Nate Randolph challenged Chamber of Commerce opposition. He said that he had spoken to members that favor the tax --- with a cap. "I've finally reached the conclusion that some people are more interested in protecting their own real estate and the private interests of a few than the small businesses of this community," Randolph said.
Councilman Scott Caserta maintained his stance that IF a tax is to be levied it should be equal on everyone with no caps.
Jackson also asked Insco if a separate line item could be created by council for paving. Although she understands the priorities and amount of paving allowed by the available money in the Spring of 2011, the former labor leader feels that ordinary folks do not comprehend the pushed back paving schedule.
Actually, the city’s ability to complete paving last year in advance of actual user fee money in the back has prompted some of the confusion. Brandi Jacobs – Jones, director of finance and administration, explained that last year the money to pave was temporarily advanced from contingency so as to pave in appropriate weather. When the user fee money came in, it then repaid the portion of advanced contingency.
But, the deep recession had the City the year without the reserves to temporarily advance paving funds. Complicating the circumstance, a drop in the number of employees within the city, cut the amount of user fee collections, too.
Jackson feels that with a separate line item marked paving the amount could not be altered. Even now, the amount of funds available for Spring paving has dropped from $600,000 to $500,000 due to a decline in user fee payments (i.e. employees working in Huntington).
Such a line item would appear necessary. Since the user fee goes away with passage of an occupation tax, stipulations of funding placement outside the general fund would remain. The ordinance provides revenue collected above $7 million to be used for improvements, such as to infrastructure, like storm sewer separation.
(A copy of 2010 user fee collections/expenditures is posted at: http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ServiceFeeMay2010.pdf)
OPPOSITION TO THE TAX
Many of the speakers before council at the public hearings on the previous inception of the tax repeated the same mantra --- taxation without representation if you work in Huntington but live outside of the city. Jackson, for one, wants input from people who live and work in the city that would be subject to the tax. (As written, pensions, for instance, are not taxable.)
Expressing the stern opposition from individuals, one posting on another web site complained, “Someone making $50,000 per year goes from $3.00 every two weeks to $19.23, a 600 % increase? My daughter and son-in-law both work. They will be paying $1,000 total. They have three children and a mortgage. Spending that kind of money requires a lengthy discussion, instead, it will just be "taken" from them.”
(Editor’s Note: The fee is $3 per week. The posting is printed as written.)
Both City Attorney Scott McClure and Council Chairman anticipate amendments to the occupation tax proposal, which now contains no cap. A version of the tax proposed by the administration was withdrawn in May by council. Having found intense public opposition, the object was to take a time out and regroup. Based on the planned 7 p.m. protest, those potentially subject to the tax appear to have not changed their minds.
The version brought to the July first reading included a $1,000 cap on liability (i.e. for those earning $100,000 and over, there is a maximum amount of city taxation.). However, council voted to remove the cap. An attempt to place a $200,000 (2,000) cap failed.
While the work session included a strong case by city attorney Scott McClure derailing the “taxation without representation” argument which pertains to those working in the city but living outside the city, no amendments have yet been offered.
SALES TAX, REPEAL OR LOWER CERTAIN BUSINESS TAXES
The reform package has three components --- the one percent occupation tax and a one percent city sales tax then specific reductions or eliminations of B & O taxes on business grosses within the city. The user fee by Home Rule agreement ceases if an occupation tax is imposed. Home rule authority does not define or mandate a specific percentage.
The reform places more of a burden on individuals and less on business on the economic principle that businesses less taxed will expand and hire more employees.
The budget passed by council projects revenue declines in city service fees ($312,000), business and occupation tax ($1.545 million, property taxes ($120,146), delinquent property taxes ($260,347), video lottery ($33,756), building permits ($87,000), federal grants ($989,536), state grants ($1.117 million), amusement tax ($15,000), gaming income ($40,400), and hotel/motel ($70,000). (For full 62 page budget click: http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/budget2010-11.pdf.
COUNCIL PROCEDURE
The tax reform package --- as individual items --- will be given second reading. The public is allowed to comment. Since significant amendment(s) are anticipated, public input COULD be limited to the AMENDMENT ONLY. If , for example, a “cap” is added, the ordinance would go to a Third Reading. During the Third Reading (at the first council meeting in August unless there is a special call) council would then vote on the actual enactment of the occupation tax.
As for public input, a majority of council can “waive the rules” and allow public comment on the full ordinance , even if a third reading will be held.
The council meets at 7:30 p.m. with a telecast on Comcast channel 24.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
