Council scraps occupational tax measure before OK’ing original one
By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette
Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 12:15 a.m. — For the second time in two weeks the Bardstown City Council scrapped an occupational tax proposal it approved the previous meeting — this time it returned to the original occupational tax proposal first approved by the council on June 15th.
Councilmen Fred Hagan, left, and Joe Buckman look over documents during Tuesday's session of the Bardstown City Council. Click to enlarge.
The revised occupational tax measure that passed first reading Tuesday evening removes both the current exemption on the first $15,000 of income as well as the $75,000 cap. The tax rate of ½ of one percent will remain the same.
This new occupational tax ordinance will need a second reading, presumably at the July 26 council meeting. If approved then, the changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2012.
The vote to approve the revised measure came only after considerable – and contentious – discussion by the council members and Sheckles.
FORMER COUNCILWOMAN PROTESTS TAX MEASURE. The meeting opened with comments about the occupational tax by former councilwoman Ann Rosalie Ballard, who blasted the council for its proposal to tax incomes under $15,000 while leaving a cap in place.
Ballard said she didn’t understand why the council would be willing to subject those who making $15,000 or less to a tax but not those who make more than $100,000.
“I just can’t believe you all really thought this through, I can’t believe you would do this to the ‘Everyday Joe,’” she said. She advocated removing the cap and letting those who make higher incomes pay a greater amount of tax.
Councilman Roland Williams listens as former councilwoman Ann Rosalie Ballard explains her opposition to leaving the cap on the occupational tax. Click image to enlarge.
“The little person has paved the way for a lot of good things that have happened in the United States and in this town,” Ballard said. “I think you all need to think long and hard about what you all are going to vote on.”
Ballard said she was sorry more people didn’t attend the meeting to complain about the proposal. “They’re thinking it’s a hopeless case and you’ve made up your minds,” she said. “But I think if you give it some thought, you’ve got to know that what you’re doing isn’t the right thing to do.”
LYDIAN PROPOSES ALTERNATIVE TAX PROPOSAL. When Mayor Sheckles first opened the floor to entertain a motion for second reading of the occupational tax ordinance approved two weeks ago, Councilman Francis Lydian moved to withdraw second reading of the occupational tax proposal and to replace it with another proposal.
Councilman Francis Lydian gestures while discussing his occupational tax proposal. Click image to enlarge.
Lydian asked the council to consider a new occupational tax proposal that would keep the exemption on the first $15,000 but remove the cap entirely.
Sheckles explained that the city’s budget passed in June requires the occupational tax be revised to raise about $350,000 in new revenue to balance the budget. Just removing the cap from the occupational tax may not raise enough revenue to meet the new budget, he explained.
Councilman Fred Hagan attempted to explain that removing the cap wouldn’t balance the budget, but Lydian was persistent. “That’s my motion and I’m not going to change it,” Lydian said.
Lydian’s proposed occupational tax revision failed 4-1, with Lydian casting the only vote in its favor.
Councilman Tommy Reed was absent from Tuesday’s meeting.
OCCUPATIONAL TAX VOTES 2 & 3. Following Lydian’s proposal, Hagan moved that the council approve second reading of the occupational tax ordinance approved two weeks earlier. In a surprise move, the ordinance failed its second reading in a 3-2 vote with councilmen Lydian, Roland Williams and Bobby Simpson voting against and Hagan and Joe Buckman voting for it.
Mayor Bill Sheckles discusses the occupational tax after it failed its second reading on Tuesday, July 12, 2011. Click image to enlarge.
The failed vote left the council without a working occupational tax proposal, prompting a scathing reprimand from the mayor, who called it “ridiculous” that the council couldn’t approve an occupational tax.
A visibly angry Sheckles scolded the council for failing to approve the ordinance, noting that the council’s job is to approve ordinances that are in the best interest of the citizens.
“To keep pushing this thing around just does not make a lot of sense to me,” he said. “Just because we don’t want to make the right decision, we need to make the right decision. This could go on forever and there’s no sense in it.
“This has gone on long enough. There’s no need to drag this thing out,” he said. “We know the right thing to do, so let’s just do it.”
Sheckles blasted the council for voting to approve a budget but failing to approve an occupational tax to fund it.
“I would like to entertain a motion for an occupational license fee structured the way we structured the budget,” Sheckles implored. “Let’s get this thing done!”
Councilman Roland Williams made a motion for an occupational tax ordinance that was identical to the one proposed by Sheckles some weeks ago – one that removes the $15,000 exemption, eliminates the cap and keeps the tax rate of ½ percent the same. After a second by Buckman, the council approved it in 3-2 vote, with councilmen Lydian and Simpson voting against it.
The measure will be given a second reading at the July 26th council meeting.
In other council business:
- the council approved first reading of a rezoning request by Two Hall Partners LLC for a change from B-3 business to R-4 residential on a parcel on Guthrie Drive;
- issued a proclamation that July is parks and recreation month;
- approved the previous meeting’s minutes 4-1, with Lydian voting against;
- approved a tax assessment moratorium certificate for the Dempsey Building in the 200 block of West Stephen Foster. Councilman Buckman excused himself from the discussion since he and his wife own the property. The moratorium prevents the city property tax assessment from increasing for a five year period. It does not affect the assessment for other taxes, including county property tax, school tax, etc.
-30-
