Granville gets Home Rule, eyes January sales tax rollout
May 2—GRANVILLE — Mayor Patty Lewis said she's currently projecting the implementation of a 1 % sales tax to take effect Jan. 1 in Granville.
The town received permission to do so late last month, when the West Virginia Home Rule Board made it the third Home Rule community in Monongalia County.
Granville was one of four Mountain State municipalities — all Class IV — approved during the board's first meeting of 2025. The others are Farmington, Roncevert and Welch.
Class IV is the state's smallest municipal classification — typically with a population of 2, 000 or less. Per state code, only four Class IV municipalities can be approved for Home Rule per year.
All told, there are now 68 municipalities in the Home Rule program, which began as a four-city pilot program in 2007 with the goal of giving the state's municipalities freedom within the law to tackle unique challenges.
In October 2014, the pilot cities of Bridgeport, Charleston, Huntington and Wheeling were joined by 16 additional municipalities, including Morgantown, as part of the expanded pilot program.
As of January 2019, Home Rule is permanent.
Westover became the state's 60th Home Rule city in October 2023.
Both Morgantown and Westover have implemented municipal sales taxes via Home Rule. Morgantown's tax took effect in July 2020 and is expected to generate about $10 million in the current fiscal year. Westover's tax went into effect in July 2024, and is expected to bring in about $3.3 million.
According to Granville's application, the town anticipates its sales tax will initially generate just over $4.4 million annually.
As a requirement of establishing the tax, the town must reduce its business and occupation privilege taxes—meaning non-construction B &O taxes. Those taxes fall into a number of categories, including amusement, banking, contracting, manufacturing, public service utility, rental, retail, service and wholesale.
Granville is proposing a rate reduction on retailers from.0050 to.0040, which, based on fiscal year 2023 numbers, would represent about $593, 420 on just under $591.2 million in retail sales. The elimination of B &O taxes on amusements ($7, 076.08) and a rate reduction on financial institutions from.01 to.0050 ($34, 840.37) bring the total estimated B &O cuts to $635, 336.59 and the net gain of implementing the sales tax to $3, 765, 250.97.
Lewis previously said the tax is a hedge against legislative discussions in Charleston regarding the elimination of the business and occupation taxes. When the legislature eliminated B &O taxes on automobile sales starting July 1, 2023, the town lost taxes on an estimated $127 million in car sales annually from the four dealerships within its small footprint.
While the sales tax is undoubtedly the headliner, Granville's Home Rule application includes four other initiatives, including:—Disposition of property and equipment without public auction—This would allow the town to directly dispose of real estate and personal property without auction in appropriate circumstances and to consider the value of public services to the provided or economic development expected when determining a fair value for the lease or sale of property.—On-the-spot citations—This would allow the town to issue citations immediately for life safety code, health and sanitation, and public nuisance violations.—Liens for solid waste fees—This would allow the town to place liens without instituting a civil action to collect unpaid fees for solid waste collection.
Prior to enactment, each of these items—including the sales tax—must be individually adopted by ordinance of the town council.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
2 days ago
- Business Wire
Marin Software Incorporated Receives Nasdaq Notification Regarding Delisting From Nasdaq
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Marin Software Incorporated (NASDAQ: MRIN) ('Marin,' 'we,' 'our,' or the 'Company'), a provider of digital marketing software for performance-driven advertisers and agencies, announces that, on June 17, 2025, the Company received a notice (the 'Notice') from the Listing Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ('Nasdaq') stating that Nasdaq had determined that the Company did not provide a definitive plan evidencing its ability to achieve compliance with the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) (the 'Listing Rule'), which requires listed companies to timely file all required periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). The Company had previously submitted a letter to Nasdaq requesting an exception to extend the Company's listing on Nasdaq for 180 days, until October 13, 2025. As a result of Nasdaq's determination, the Notice states that (i) the Company's request for continued listing on Nasdaq was denied; (ii) the Company's securities will be delisted from Nasdaq; (ii) trading of the Company's common stock will be suspended at the opening of business on June 26, 2025; and (iii) a Form 25-NSE will be filed with the SEC, which will remove the Company's securities from listing and registration on Nasdaq, unless the Company appeals these determinations. The Notice further states that the Company continues to be delinquent in the timely filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2025, as previously communicated by Nasdaq on April 16, 2025 and May 21, 2025, respectively. The Company does not expect to appeal Nasdaq's determinations and expects Nasdaq to file a Form 25-NSE (Notification of Removal from Listing) with the SEC to remove the Company's common stock from listing and registration on Nasdaq. Further, the Company does not currently intend to apply for its common stock to be traded on any of the markets operated by the OTC Markets Group Inc. due to the associated costs and in light of both the previously announced potential transaction the Company is currently exploring whereby a private equity firm would acquire substantially all of the assets of the Company, which may be through a voluntary reorganization transaction (the 'Potential Transaction'), as well as the voluntary dissolution and liquidation of the Company (the 'Dissolution') that was previously approved by the Company's stockholders. There can be no assurance that the Potential Transaction will be entered into or ultimately be successful, and the Company may abandon pursuing the Potential Transaction and instead pursue the Dissolution as previously described in the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC on May 7, 2025 (the 'Proxy Statement'). For additional information regarding the Nasdaq notification and related terms, please see the Current Report on Form 8-K that the Company filed with the SEC today, which is available at Forward Looking Statements This press release contains 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (which Sections were adopted as part of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). Statements preceded by, followed by or that otherwise include the words 'believe,' 'anticipate,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'plan,' 'project,' 'prospects,' 'outlook,' and similar words or expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as 'will,' 'should,' 'would,' 'may,' and 'could' are generally forward-looking in nature and not historical facts. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Marin disclaims any intention to, and undertakes no obligation to, revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, a future event, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Actual results may differ from those indicated by such forward-looking statements the risks described under 'Risk Factors' in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 12, 2024, the Proxy Statement under the heading 'Risk Factors to be Considered by Stockholders in Deciding Whether to Approve the Plan of Dissolution,' and the Company's future reports to be filed with the SEC. The forward-looking statements in this press release are based on information available to Marin as of the date hereof. The Company disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
The budget rule that killed the minimum wage hike could save climate policies
In the 2021 and 2022 Congress, Democrats had a narrow Senate majority but nonetheless achieved major accomplishments through a combination of bipartisan legislation and the use of the budget reconciliation process. As chief counsel for the Senate Environment Committee, I was personally involved in some of these efforts and had a front row seat for others. The approach brought major successes: the biggest investment in America's infrastructure ever, the most meaningful climate change bill ever passed by Congress and new policies that reinvigorated U.S. manufacturing. However, there were also some notable failures. For example, Democrats sought to increase the federal minimum wage in the budget reconciliation process. The budget implications of raising the minimum wage were estimated to be $54 billion. Despite that huge effect, whether the provision could be included in the budget package hinged on the application of the 'Byrd Rule,' which provides that budget bills cannot include provisions that have merely incidental budget effects compared to the provision's nonbudgetary effects. Democrats were crestfallen when the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian ruled that including the wage provision would not comply with the Byrd rule. Simply put, indirect budgetary effects, even large ones, are considered incidental to the major and direct policy effects of raising the minimum wage. The White House said at the time that President Biden 'respects the parliamentarian's decision and the Senate's process,' and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, 'reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.' The conservative Heritage Foundation was certainly relieved, as it had warned that including the wage provision would be the 'equivalent of detonating the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster.' Democrats might have been disappointed then, but the rules of reconciliation should work in their favor this year, provided that the traditions of the Senate hold. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has proposed budget reconciliation language that would defund, repeal and rewrite the nation's energy, environment and climate policies. Under a fair application of the Byrd rule, many of the provisions would have to be stripped out. The budget director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) recently observed that this effort to repeal Congress's policy language in a budget measure is 'clearly unprecedented.' For starters, the proposed reconciliation bill would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution standards for cars and trucks. Although some have referred to these standards as an 'electric vehicle mandate,' they really just require cleaner vehicles, whether powered by gasoline or electricity. EPA's analysis suggests that the rule will likely spur automakers to manufacture and sell more EVs, which, in addition to reducing pollution, will also help create jobs and grow the economy. These EPA standards are projected to provide a stunning $1.9 trillion in health, climate and other benefits over the coming decades and will save hundreds of billions of dollars for consumers because electricity is cheaper than gasoline and EVs require so much less maintenance. Despite these benefits, proponents of repeal will argue that there are budget effects from removing the standards. They will point to projections that American families will pay more in federal gas taxes and receive less in incentives for EVs if automakers bring fewer EVs to market. But these kinds of indirect budget effects are analogous to the effects of the 2021 minimum wage proposal. The Senate parliamentarian should thus find that repealing pollution standards is not compliant with the Senate budget rules. Unfortunately, the emerging bill looks like it will have many provisions that don't belong in a budget bill. Even as Congress attempts to cut the healthcare safety net for Americans, they are creating a new safety net for gas and coal companies so that the American taxpayer backs up uneconomic investments they may make. The bill singles out gas pipelines for special help from the federal government, ensuring their approval within one year, even if the pipeline would not be approvable under current law. Another provision states that if a gas company pays a $1 million fee, it can export as much gas as it chooses, even if those exports are not in the public interest. The list goes on. This radical set of policy proposals fails the test that Graham set in 2021. They put the business plans of fossil fuel companies ahead of the health and welfare of American families. Fortunately, just as happened in 2021 with the minimum wage proposal, these provisions should be stripped out of the bill prior to congressional passage. That is, of course, if Senate rules hold and Republicans respect the traditions and precedent of the body. Greg Dotson is an associate professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. Dotson served as the chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2021 and 2022.
Cosmopolitan
4 days ago
- Cosmopolitan
Lewis Hamilton's Net Worth and Ferrari Contract
Hands up if you're someone who binged Drive to Survive and have now made your entire personality F1? Welcome, this is a safe space. By which we mean a space where we're losing our mind over how much money there is to be made in this sport. Though let's be honest: no one is earning more than Lewis Hamilton. We did a deep dive into the Ferrari racer's bank account and have learned some interesting (read: jealousy-inducing) things so buckle up. There's a lot of wildly disparate info on what Lewis made for Mercedes depending on if reports are taking into account just his base salary or his base salary and bonuses. But Celebrity Net Worth reports that Lewis was making $60 million per year for Mercedes—and he was on the team for 12 years! Meanwhile, Forbes notes that Lewis made $80 million from May 2024 to May 2025, with $60 million earned "on field" and $20 million earned "off field." HOWEVER, Lewis broke his contract with Mercedes and started driving with Ferrari in 2025, meaning his yearly earnings have shot up thanks to a major raise. I mean...I'd break my Mercedes contract for that much money too. Again, reports on Lewis' exact salary vary (this $107 million figure is from Celebrity Net Worth), but the BBC confirmed that he is getting "close to 50% pay rise." Lewis said of the move, "In the summer we signed, and obviously I, at that time, saw my future with Mercedes. But an opportunity came up in the new year and I decided to take it. I feel like… it was obviously the hardest decision that I think I've ever had to make. Obviously I've been with Mercedes for, I think it's like 26 years they've supported me, and we've had an absolutely incredible journey together. We've created history within the sport, and it's something I take a lot of pride in and I'm very proud of what we've achieved. But I think ultimately I'm writing my story and I felt like it was time to start a new chapter." Lewis reportedly earns an additional ~$50 million through endorsements and prize money every year thanks to more brand ambassadorships than he knows what to do with. And let's not forget the fact that he's a producer on F1, meaning he gets a cut of the film's earnings this summer. Per Wall Street Journal, Lewis owns a New York City penthouse worth $40.7 million, as well as a $25 million home in London, and apartments all over the world (specifically in major racing hubs). Some of his nicest cars apparently include a 1995 McLaren F1 worth $20 million, a Ferrari LaFerrari Aperta worth $4.1 million, and a Mercedes-AMG One worth $2.7 million. According to Celebrity Net Worth, Lewis is sitting on $450 Million. In conclusion: why didn't I become a race car driver?
