Mayor Wolfe v Huntington City Employees

A struggling economy, crumbling roads, police and fire pensions, high crime rates and a decline in the population are all issues that Huntington Mayor Kim Wolfe has dealt with since he was elected mayor in 2008. It is not the fact that Mayor Wolfe has dealt with these issues, because these are all things that can and do happen across the country, it is how he has handled them.
In the first year as mayor, Wolfe got the police and fire pensions under control and beefed up the police department to deal with crime. Before the mayor took office, Huntington’s police department consisted of 94 officers since then the mayor added seven officers and six police vehicles thanks to the $1 increase in the user fee and seven new officers were also hired by grant funding.
The mayor also got the ball rolling on infrastructure, the 4th avenue corridor project, which starts at the corner of 4th ave. and Hal Greer blvd., was put into place as a way for Marshall University students to feel safer as they traveled downtown. More students going downtown means more money being spent in local businesses. If the newly paved roads and lighting weren’t enough, the mayor added police bike patrols that circulate from Marshall’s Old Main building, passed the Cabell County Courthouse on 4th ave. and all throughout the streets surrounding Pullman Square.
As a new fiscal year draws near, there are a whole new bag of issues the mayor has to face. The proposed budget for the 2011 fiscal year was $40.2 million, an estimated $867,000 or 5 percent cut from what was originally proposed. The Huntington City Council approved the budget on March 22 and this 5 percent cut means that some 20 city employees would be furloughed and 10 different departments would see cuts to their budget.
The Mayor told the Herald-Dispatch on March 22, “I know what I'm going to recommend, but I'll lay it all out at the appropriate time," Wolfe said after the budget meeting. "Obviously, we're looking at additional revenues."
A month later, that appropriate time came. The mayor purposed a 1 percent occupational tax on employees that work in the city. If this tax gets passed it would eliminate the current $3 user fee. Huntington city employees give approximately $156 a year to the city with the user fee. If the 1 percent occupation tax is approved it would mean that 1 percent of a city employee’s total income would go to the city, unless that person makes under $10,000, as stated in the 5-year home rule pilot project that began in 2008 and will end in 2013.
“Let’s take my salary for example,” Wolfe said. “I make $70,000 a year and I pay about $156 to the user fee. I would have to pay $700 if the occupation tax was approved. Divide that $544 up every week its about $10, I spend that much on lunch everyday.”
An example of the 1 percent occupation tax based on salaries at different income levels is listed at the end of this article.
At the finance department meeting on Thursday, which was the second finance meeting to discuss the occupation tax, the public was allowed to speak its mind and give its point of view on the 1 percent occupation tax.
The stage was set, Huntington down $867,000, trying to find a new source of income, a mayor trying to dig Huntington out of a hole, and 60 people of the public furious over being taxed even more.
The meeting started off slow, a few opening remarks from the mayor welcoming everyone and thanking the finance department for the opportunity to speak and receive feedback from the community concerning this occupational tax. The mayor did make one mistake during his opening remarks. He brought religion into the conversation.
“God doesn’t charge a user fee for people who don’t want to pay a user fee. He gets a percent of it which is fair in his eyes,” Wolfe said. “And you receive the blessings for that.”
The meeting went on with the mayor talking about his salary and how he will also have to pay into this 1 percent occupation tax. In an exclusive interview with the mayor on Monday April 19, the mayor gave his opinion on the occupational tax.
“Of the options that we had in the home rule this was the best option,” Wolfe said. “We didn’t want to do nothing, which was an option. I’m also not a big fan of the user fee and another option would have been to increase that.”
Back to the finance meeting, the time now 6 p.m., the public steps up to speak its peace after and hour of questioning between council members and the mayor’s office.
Maurice Lockridge, financial accounting professor and assistant chair of the faculty senate at Marshall University, was one of the members of the public to speak against the occupation tax. Lockridge said the Marshall University faculty senate was against this tax as well.
“I am a noncitizen, nonvoting victim of your proposal,” Lockridge said. “Maybe you didn’t think that my paycheck as a Marshall University employee is not cut by Marshall University, it is cut by the West Virginia State Auditors Office. If I was a municipality I would think twice about imposing requirements on the state auditors office, just a little hint.”
Lockridge said if the tax was approved he would take his business elsewhere and used Barboursville as an example.
“I make an effort to come down to Huntington instead of going to Barboursville because Barboursville doesn’t need my money,” Lockridge said. “You do.”
The majority of 60 people who attended this meeting lived outside the city limits. Many of them argued that they use a very short amount of city roads to get into work then they leave. They argued that the people that live in the city and do not work there don’t have to pay it, but they are the ones who see the difference and most of all the public did not want to bail out Huntington, especially after finding out they spend over $100,000 in cell phone bills.
Tom O’Conner is another city employee who spoke against this tax. He is one of the few attendees who live in the city limits.
“My concern is Huntington is becoming a vacuum,” O’Conner said. “We already see too many businesses leave Huntington for Barboursville. If we want to keep Huntington alive then we cannot tax them away.”
It is tough to say what direction this 1 percent occupation tax will lead, because it is a pilot program it would only be around until 2013 unless it is successful. Many of Huntington’s offices agree to take the chance because the opportunity is there to try a new approach. The public believes that trying this new approach will lead to a sharp decline in the economy and the possible death of Huntington.
The third finance department meeting was held on Monday and it was passed with only two votes against it. Now it is the city council’s turn. So far there have been no amendments to the proposal but there are projected amendments to decrease the taxation of other taxes like the business and occupational tax. The fate of the city lies in the hands of the city council. The mayor and the people have spoken. What’s next is all up to them.













Table 1

Impact of Proposed 1 Percent Occupation Tax on selected salaries.


Gross Earnings Occupational Tax Amount at 1% Weekly Contribution
Employee A $11,617.00 $116 $2.23
Employee B $23,234.00 $232 $4.46
Employee C $34,851.00 $348 $6.69
Employee D $46,468.00 $464 $8.92
Employee E $58,085.00 $580 $11.15
Employee F $69,702.00 $697 $13.40
Employee G $81,319.00 $813 $15.63
Employee H $92,936.00 $929 $17.87
Employee I $104,553.00 $1,045 $20.10

Office of Administration and Finance, Huntington W.Va.