I have just finished watching most of the replay of the City Council meeting held Tuesday evening, 11/15/2011.  I missed most of the citizens’ comments portion.  I’m sorry that I did.  If the last citizen was any indication, it must have been interesting.

Unlike most city council meetings, I did not review the workbook ahead of time over the weekend, so I was seeing things for the first time as I watched the replay.

Several times during this meeting we heard comments such as: “We don’t know what will happen after the first of the year, when the new council is seated.”  I disagree with this sentiment.  I think that we do “know what will happen”.  I think that the “new” council will be exactly like the “old” council, and that nothing will change.  Don’t look for anyone to seek additional funds for roads and streets (unless they are roads and streets downtown or in the historic districts) and don’t look for anyone to buck the administration.  The public was offered choices and they chose business as usual.  That is what they will get.

I viewed the passage of Ordinance O2011-55, the incentive grant for Barrett Paving, with great interest.  Now it’s not that I am against Barrett.  Quite the opposite—I welcome them to the city and I think that they will be a good corporate citizen—and we certainly need the jobs.  It’s just that usually the tax incentives given in such cases are PROPERTY tax incentives!!!  I have never before been aware of our city collecting the city’s INCOME TAX from a company’s employees and then giving 45% of that tax back to the EMPLOYER!!!  In fact, it sounds illegal to me, but what do I know???  But how can a municipality have a payroll tax of 1.75% on most workers in the city, yet tax some workers at an effective rate of only 1.1375%, via a 45% rebate through their employer???

We can guess how much actual consideration the “objector” will get before the new “South Main Street Decorative Street Light Assessment Equalization Board”.  We can base that guess on the tremendous openness with which that board was announced and the members were selected.

Lastly, I do feel sort of vindicated after hearing some of the comments from council members during the fire department budget discussions.  Some of you may recall that, during the Candidates’ Forum held at the Community Center before the election, I declined to state my personal stance on State Issue 2 (SB 5) and explained that since contracts were being negotiated at that time with city unions and at least the three, and possibly five, of the people at that Forum would be required to vote on the contract, I thought it would be inappropriate to indicate our stance on Issue 2 at that time.  Shortly thereafter at least three people accused me of using that as a “cop out”, as a way to sort of “straddle the line” on the issue with the voters.  Apparently someone has spoken with the council members in the meantime, since now nearly everyone (except Mr. Smith) was careful to avoid stating their views on issues related to collective bargaining, and some even revisited their earlier comments to “hedge” on them.  I just had more experience with collective bargaining issues than the others at the Forum and I was simply trying to do the right thing.  I wasn’t trying to turn it into an election issue.

TonyB wrote: Vet, Entertainment should not be occurring in council chambers and at the City Building. There are enough venues for that. Besides, who wants to watch a rerun? Mr P, Thank you for running for council. While your didn't get elected, you did make the effort to participate in the governing process and that counts for something. Too bad we don't have a commercial TV station in town; you'd now be qualified to be a pundit on the "infotainment" programs!!! lol I am concerned about this council designating income tax rebates to specific businesses. Doesn't sound "legal" to me. Does this mean that the city can hike the rate on businesses that it wants to remove from the city? Is this the new way to attract business to town? As much cry and hue as there is about Section 8, what makes this any different? It's just corporate welfare; if they really wanted to have an effect, they should lower the income tax rate on those employees that actually live in town. What's the point of rebating income taxes to people who don't live and spend their money in Middletown?

Tony B,

More importantly, regarding using the payroll tax as an economic development incentive, consider this:Many of the employees of this business probably currently reside in municipalities other than Middletown.  Most of those municipalities probably have a 1.5% (or lower) city income tax.  Middletown cannot lower the rate that these residents pay to the cities where they reside.  Yet, after receiving  the 45% of the payroll tax kickback, the employer could elect to pass it along back to the employee, in effect lowering the rate that they pay in their city of residence.  In effect, Middletonians now not only pay the highest payroll income tax in the area, but also will be subsidizing the lowering of the tax rate that some people pay in other municipalities with even lower rates!!!

Acclaro,

Of course the use of tax incentives is not uncommon.  It happens all of the time, and I am certainly not opposed to it.

However, usually such incentives are property tax incentives.  That is, the company saves (or is rebated) money that the company would otherwise pay (or has paid).  In this case it is a payroll tax rebate.  The company is getting a kickback of funds that their employees have paid!!!

Perhaps that is a small point in the eyes of some, but it is a huge distinction in my eyes.

Just think what would happen if the “Occupy” people would hear about this.  A government entity (especially one with the highest income tax rate in the area) is collecting income taxes from the poor, exploited masses and kicking a portion of those taxes back to the rich, greedy corporation.   It's an entirely different situation than offering property tax breaks to a company in order to bring job opportunities to an area.