Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 8 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
County abates taxes for KMA, CRH
Published Monday, August 25, 2008
The Chilton County Commission last night approved a 10-year tax abatement on new projects at Kumi Manufacturing of Alabama (KMA) and CRH North America.
KMA is investing in new equipment and a new building in order to continue producing different parts for Honda. The company, which currently employs 172 people, will reportedly hire 20 additional employees.
Meanwhile, a new equipment contract between CRH and Nissan will allow CRH to hire 20 new employees as well as maintain 30 employees it would have otherwise lost. The company currently employs about 500 people.
The abatement guarantees that the companies will not have to pay county taxes for the specified length of time. It applies only to the new projects and not to existing facilities and equipment.
One exception to tax abatements is the education portion of ad valorem taxes, which by law entities cannot abate.
The Clanton City Council approved a similar abatement for both companies during a recent meeting.
In other business, Probate Judge Bobby Martin reported that the Probate Office continues to serve as a backup for the Board of Registrars doing research on voter registration. The Board of Registrars’ office hours are mandated by the state and thereby cannot be extended by the county commission.
“It’s been pretty hectic with this voter thing,” Martin said, noting one incident in which a registered voter was incorrectly listed as deceased.
“Our clerks are busy running up and down the stairs trying to figure out who’s dead and who’s alive, and who’s voted and who hasn’t.”
The commission also approved a request by Tax Assessor Tom Powers to buy a 36-inch computer plotter/printer for the GPS digital mapping system, which will print maps to be sold to the public. The cost of the item is $5,591.
“We have some extra money we can utilize,” Powers said.
They also:
• voted 6-1 to purchase a laser printer for the Probate Office at an estimated $1,000, which will fall under the budget for 2008-09 (Commissioner Allen Caton opposed the measure)
• voted to fill an empty slot by moving Shannon Brown to the position of assistant chief clerk in the Probate Office
• approved a line item transfer of $1,200 from computer software to registration fees/others for the tax assessor
• approved line item changes totaling $3,000 for Tax Collector Tim Little
• voted 6-1 to increase indexing fees in the Probate Office from $5 to $8, which would require an amendment to be introduced in the Alabama Legislature. Commissioner Joe Headley opposed the measure.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I knew this would happen. The county is so broke they can't pay attention, always in need of some way to generate more money and they throw out the window one of the few sources they have. When you remove a tax liability from one or two businesses but not all, well that's just wrong. They might just as well have spit in the face of all the small businesses in the county, that when added together surely employ more people than the two companies that were selected for special treatment. If the county commission is interested in fairness at all, they will now have to vote to abate the taxes for all the businesses in the county, the same thing goes for the City of Clanton. I won't be holding my breath for that.
I know that the argument will be that by giving these companies special treatment then they will in turn hire more people or just keep the ones they have. I don't believe this would be the case just because of the tax abatement. They are not going to walk away from their investment here if they were to have to play by the same rules as everybody else. They hire or lay off people based on whether or not they have work to do, if they had to pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else, then they would treat that as just part of the cost of doing business, not close their doors and walk away.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think ANY business should have to pay taxes because that just makes our costs higher for everything we buy, but if small businesses have to pay it then the big ones surely should. The state does this kind of thing all the time but there's no reason that the city and the commission has to be that unfair. The county now has no moral right to complain about being short on money or to ask us for more but I can hear them whinning like little spoiled brats already.
Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on August 26, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
November,
I truly respect your opinion on this subject. I would like to point out a few things concerning tax abatements for companies.
First, this is a common practice by all levels of government to convince companies to build their plants and products in a particular place. This is not a Chilton County Commission or City of Clanton decision. While you don't agree with it, this is just the way it is and will probably always be this way. The concept is that the more people employed with decent wages will stay in the community and support their community through purchases and civic involvement. Take for instance a person who makes a career out of one of these jobs, they work for 25 - 30 years, the company only gets an abatement for 10, everything after that continues to help the community grow. This is just a part of the process. It takes money to provide services and this is just another link in the process. However, I will only support leaders who spend tax money wisely and in the best interest of the entire community.
Second, unless something has changed and my mind has failed me (which is very possible), the building that CRH is in is owned by the City of Clanton or it was in the beginning. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case and the building is owned by the City of Clanton as an industrial/commercial building it would be no problem for CRH to load their equipment up and go to a community who is willing to support them.
There must ALWAYS be a government/business partnership in a community for that community to survive and thrive. Just from press releases and such I feel that CRH has done their part for our community since they have been here. I am confident that this was just another link in the chain to keep this partnership alive and strong. A successful government is built upon compromise that benefits the majority, this one fits that description.
Posted by unclesam (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a shame you act so smart to be so dumb, this is the only way the City of Clanton could get these businesses. Other cities would be glad to give these abatements. Look at the amount of jobs these businesses offer, with these jobs the city gets property taxes and sale taxes from the people that work there and lives here.
Posted by MomOf2 (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
November,
I agree with Dan that the City of Clanton owns the CRH building and CRH would have no problem moving away should they decide to stop doing business here. Please remember that CRH, KMA and Merchants Co. moved here from somewhere else. Also, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, the county receives NO tax money from the businesses located in the city limits other than the education tax and the lodging taxes from the hotels.
Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on August 26, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After checking the City of Clanton website it does appear that the County receives taxes from manufacturing and sales from within the City of Clanton and I am sure it is the same in the other municipalities as well. The amount of County sales tax within Clanton is 1% and the manufacturing tax is 0.5%. The full web page can be viewed here:
http://www.clanton.al.us/business.html
You will have to copy and past this link in your browser's address bar.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
danwright--- I also respect your opinion, and I also know that the government at all levels does the same thing and I know that this is the way it is and that it doesn't matter what I think. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck last night. I just don't think it's fair to all of the small businesses that don't get any kind of tax break, they don't even get a thank you, and small businesses have always been the backbone of local economies.
After thinking about it for a while, I think you are right about the ownership of the buildings, I'm not sure. That tells me that when they decide to move on they'll do just that, and the decision won't revolve around the tax ababtement. The employees will be left high and dry, the company will be gone, and the county will still be broke having given them a free ride all along. And some of the small businesses will still be trying to hang on---- and still paying their taxes.
unclesam--- It sounds like you are very, very intelligent so I won't try to match wits with an obviously superior source of brain power. I will point out, however, that the employees of the small businesses pay sales taxes and if they own property then they also pay property taxes. If you add them all together I am certain it will be a large number of people. My only point is one of fundamental fairness. I don't have a problem with CRH or KMA or anyother alphabet soup company, I just want them to have the same advantage/disadvantage as everyone else. I remember when we cared about fairness, it's been quite a while back, though.
Posted by myhumbleopinion (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
November16200, if you will read the story in today's paper entitled "City Designates Parking for Voters" you will find this regarding the last city council meeting...: ' It gave a conditional approval for a tax abatement for a proposed new building for Cakes and Candies. City Attorney John Hollis Jackson said the city would need specific figures and details before the council could move forward on the matter.' I realize this is city and not county, but it seems that our local small businesses may be getting a little help. However, the best "help" they can get is for us to all buy locally.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
myhumbleopinion--- Thanks, I hadn't read that story. I guess I didn't expect anything of substance given that headline. That is encouraging, however, I still say that if they are going to do it for two or three, then they should do it for all. Maybe that's what they have in mind, nonetheless, it may be a step in the right direction. You are absolutely correct, the best stimulus small business can get is for us to buy locally when we can. Again, thanks.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)