Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 27 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Council considers repealing reciprocity provision
All residents would pay 1 percent of income
Published Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Many Ironton residents working outside the city may soon be paying a little more in their income taxes.
The Ironton City Council is considering an ordinance that would repeal income tax credit for tax paid to other governments.
If passed, the ordinance would mean all residents would pay 1 percent of their income to the city, regardless of employment outside the city limits.
The council heard the first reading of the ordinance at its regular meeting Monday night.
The ordinance will need to be read at two meetings in January before it is voted on, unless council opts to try to pass it as an emergency measure.
Under the current structure, those Ironton residents who work in other municipalities with an income tax are only required to pay half the city’s 1-percent income tax. In 2004, the council passed this 50 percent reciprocity provision.
Before that, the city had a long-standing 100 percent reciprocity agreement that meant that those residents who worked in other municipalities that had a tax equal or higher to 1 percent did not have to pay Ironton’s tax at all because they were paying elsewhere.
The meeting started with opposition as former Ironton mayor and former councilman Jim Tordiff addressed council about the ordinance. He said the measure is almost unheard of in other cities.
It is very uncommon, Tordiff said, to make a person pay the full tax both in the city they live in and where they work.
“I’m not trying to be argumentative,” he said. “I know that there’s two sides to this issue. I’m just thinking, ‘do we really want to do something that’s peculiar to the others?’”
Instead of no reciprocity, Tordiff suggested that the council consider a police fee, because the police department is the biggest department of the city.
The city could also consider raising the $8 per month city municipal fee, Tordiff said.
City Finance Department Director Kristen Martin said the ordinance would generate approximately $500,000 if it passes.
Council chairman Kevin Waldo argued that those people who currently pay only a half percent still need full city services such as the fire department and police.
“If their house was burning, we’ve got to send the whole fire (department),” Waldo said.
Waldo and councilman Frank Murphy sponsored the ordinance.
Mayor Rich Blankenship said the city will have to work with whatever budget the council passes.
“What I have to do is live by the budget that is passed by the city council, and that’s my intentions,” Blankenship explained after the meeting. “They came up with this, it’s not Rich Blankenship saying ‘Hey, why don’t we do this.’
“My job as the mayor is to live by the budget that is given to me by the city council members, and that’s what I do.”
Blankenship suggested that the budget committee may be able to come up with other solutions to the budget problems.
“This gives us an opportunity to continue to work on the budget, as the finance committee will, and members of council,” he said, adding that the city budget committee has had four meetings since the start of October.
“We’re trying to do our best to continue services for the city,” Blankenship said. “I think our future looks bright. I’m confident in our future but we still need to provide the basic services to every resident.”
City departments cannot afford any cuts to personnel, Blankenship said,
“They’re working on a skeleton crew on all levels, fire, police and streets,” he said, adding that when he took over as mayor two years ago, he intentionally did not fill three positions.
The lack of personnel prevents the city from completing several projects that it would otherwise do, Blankenship said.
In other business, the Ironton City Council also:
• Heard the first reading of an ordinance reestablishing the city’s municipal fee at $8.00 per month per residential household
• Passed an ordinance allowing the city to adopt a temporary operating budget for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010. The budget will get the city through the first few months of 2010, so that it then can determine the budget for the remainder of the year.
• Passed an ordinance authorizing the mayor to execute a quit claim deed for Memorial Hall to the Ironton Port Authority. If the Port Authority approves the deed, it plans to then deed the property to the American Legion, provided the Legion has the funds to pay for repairs of the property.
• Heard the second reading of an ordinance that would allow Blankenship to purchase new dumpsters for the city.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by muskratt (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Might as well just go ahead and add it to the water bill...not like it won't happen anyway.
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just one day, 11 days, 30 minutes till Christmas kids. woohoo!!
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
scratch that, sry.
1 day 12hours 53 minutes.
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gonna get this right.
1 day 12 hours 53 minutes till Christmas kids.
Be Good.
Posted by swimmingupstream (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As usual, Mr. Tordiff isn't thinking beyond the end of his own paycheck. If you put a police fee or increase the municipal fee you will be hitting not only those people who are not paying the full city income tax, but hitting again those who do. That's more unfair than letting people off the hook on the income tax because they are taxed where they work.
Reciprocity used to mean that you paid income tax where you lived; if the city where you worked charged a tax, they would relieve you of their tax, collect the tax based on your residence and send it to that city. If the city where you worked charged a higher tax than where you lived, you would have to pay the higher amount, but your city of residence received their full amt. and the work city got the difference. Why can't this be worked out with Russell, Ashland and Boyd County. These three places are the problem, not Ironton.
Posted by RabidTiger (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TORDIFF...??? HAS THERE BEEN A COO... AT CITY HALL?!?!
NO MORE FEES..!!! NO LEVY'S..!!
The citizens of Ironton and Lawrence County have had ENOUGH..!!
Live within YOUR MEANS...!!!
WE HAVE TOO...Or we'll be out on the streets..!!
Quit wasting money on worthless buildings that should
have been torn down years ago... Your trying to raise
money to payoff your PENDING LEAGLE FEES AND FINES for
not re=instating IPD Officer Rist.
GET OFF OF OUR BACKS AND STAY OUT OF OUR WALLETS..!!
and to you Council and Mayor...
BAH..HUMBUG..!!!
Posted by Country (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great to ask for more money but the city did put a roof on an old building out of some kind of city fund.
Posted by notagain (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More attention needs to be put on bringing better paying jobs to Ironton in order for people to not have to seek employment out of town. Yes we need the services but, quit squeezing us. It's hard enough to pay for gasoline to get to our jobs. And the Mayor says our future looks 'very bright". How does he know. When he was asked about what business was coming to the old Big Lots Building. He stated that he didn't know. How can the leader of the city not know what businesses are coming to town? Bend over and hang on Irontonians we're gonna get it again.
Posted by chazz (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2010 Income Tax Form (short form)
How much did you make in 2009?_____________
Send it in to the government. We are smarter than you and know better how to spend it.
Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It could have been that the "I don't know" answer was given because the deal wasn't finalized. Which is worse, to tell someone that something is gonna happen, get everyone all excited, and then have the deal fall through, or keep quiet until everything is in place?
Posted by hdm1903 (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WALDO and MURPHY Need voted off this council.
THEY R NUTS!
Posted by wakeupamerica (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They say that they do not have enough revenue coming in to cover their operating expenses. NO, The problem is that they mismanage all of the money that they have and everytime they expect us to bail them out. Tell them "NO MORE!" I'm sure that they spend their own money a little more wisely than our tax dollars. Also, if they get ride of all the lazy employees that don't do any work they would have a whole lot more funds available.
Posted by IrishFan (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Tordiff is as usual mis informed. Most cities don't have a reciprical agreement. most folks pay in one or more city income tax levels. You guys have gotten off free for ever, now it is time to pay for the services.
Posted by wakeupamerica (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have always been paying for the services or lack there of and then some in one way or another also isn't double taxation supposed to be illegal?
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!!
I guess the safest thing to do
with everyone is to agree.
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG, I just watched part of Jerry Springer, sheesh.
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really cannot tell if Mr. Tordiff is a Maverick or
just telling it like it is. The monies have to come
from SOMEwhere.
Posted by michaelOH (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone must be out doin the last minute Christmas Shopping.
(tis the season to be jolly)
Posted by billybob (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do any of you remember when the city put a new roof on the fire department that was going to be torn down within a year? Go figure that one out! What a waste of money!
Posted by goybar1 (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THE NEXT TIME ONE OF YOU CRYBABIES HAS TO CALL THE POLICE OR FIRE DEPT. THEY SHOULD TELL YOU TO TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF!!! PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICES YOU RECEIVE.I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH WHAT CAT IS SAYING. I THINK YOU ALL JUST WANT TO CRY!!!
Posted by sugar08 (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the people of Ironton have a right to cry, everytime you turn around they are wanting more money for something. They sound like the commissioners, don't know how to budget.
Posted by wakeupamerica (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to goybar1's statement he must be employed by the city and believe me I take care of things myself rather than calling the police, fire dept or any city employee, what a waste they are!
Posted by 4victims (anonymous) on December 23, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We as a people do need to realize that police, fire, ems service all comes with a price. These people risk their lives everyday to provide these services yet they make no glorified amount of money. However I feel about other issues does not matter. These employees of the city do have a great responsibility. These elected officials have that too but they get by with not doing anything about it. It starts with the elected offices, it trickles down to each department.
Posted by crackerjack (anonymous) on December 24, 2009 at 2:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do Ironton residents working in Boyd County also pay equal amounts of Ironton city tax and the Boyd County "employment" tax?
Posted by Thevoice (anonymous) on December 24, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Tordiff needs more money to pay his brother working for the city, even though I have seen him go clock in then go home and sit at his computer until time to clock out on many occasions...all at our expense......The city council only cares about how to bleed the citizens more dry for their own benefit, as always. Never a thought of getting jobs in here to boost revenue, that would take away from all their own investments
Posted by nottellin (anonymous) on December 26, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet ANOTHER reason not to live in Ironton. Thanks for giving me ANOTHER argument against it when my husband sees one of the many beautiful homes for sale there.
The homes are fairly reasonably priced, BUT, all I have to do is remind him of all the "extra" fees y'all have to pay for the privilege of living there.
Posted by notagain (anonymous) on December 27, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is a new business coming to the interchange at Park avenue and 52, I see construction. Oh, "I don't know", the deal hasn't been finalized. DON'T ANYONE GET EXCITED!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)