Acclaro,

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

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

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

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

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 residein municipalities other than Middletown. Most of those municipalities probably have a 1.5% (or lower) city incometax.  Middletown cannot lower the ratethat 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 paythe highest payroll income tax in the area, but also will be subsidizing thelowering of the tax rate that some people pay in other municipalities witheven lower rates!!!

I have just finished watching most of the replay of the CityCouncil meeting held Tuesday evening, 11/15/2011.  I missed most of the citizens’ commentsportion.  I’m sorry that I did.  If the last citizen was any indication, itmust have been interesting.

Unlike most city council meetings, I did not review the workbookahead of time over the weekend, so I was seeing things for the first time as Iwatched 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 newcouncil is seated.”  I disagree with thissentiment.  I think that we do “know whatwill happen”.  I think that the “new”council will be exactly like the “old” council, and that nothing willchange.  Don’t look for anyone to seekadditional funds for roads and streets (unless they are roads and streets downtownor in the historic districts) and don’t look for anyone to buck theadministration.  The public was offeredchoices and they chose business as usual. That is what they will get.

I viewed the passage of Ordinance O2011-55, the incentivegrant 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 willbe a good corporate citizen—and we certainly need the jobs.  It’s just that usually the tax incentivesgiven in such cases are PROPERTY tax incentives!!!  I have never before been aware of our citycollecting the city’s INCOME TAX from a company’semployees and then giving 45% of that tax back to the EMPLOYER!!! In fact, it sounds illegal to me, butwhat 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 AssessmentEqualization Board”.  We can base thatguess on the tremendous openness with which that board was announced and themembers were selected.

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