During last week’s regular meeting of the Holbrook City Council the council spoke at length about establishing an ordinance that would require a business license by certain businesses operating in the city.
Mayor Kathleen Smith summarized the intent of the ordinance by reading from the background discussion, stating, “The City of Holbrook currently lacks a standardized process for licensing businesses operating within city limits, establishing a business license requirement will help the city track active businesses, improve communication, support economic development efforts and ensure compliance with zoning and safety regulations.” The proposal would require businesses to obtain a license before operating. It would also establish application procedures, fees and penalties for violations. The ordinance, the mayor said, “aims to promote public health and safety by ensuring businesses operate in compliance with local regulations. It also provides the city with valuable data to better support local economic development and effort.”
There was also debate about enforcement. Councilmember Arcenia Pacheco asked, “So what if there’s a business that doesn’t pay that fee to get that business license, what happens then?” The mayor explained that each day of violation would be a separate and distinct offense and that noncompliance would be considered a Class 3 misdemeanor.
Councilmember Teri Tafoya pressed further, “So how would you know if the business didn’t come in and get one, who’s going to figure that out?”. Mayor Smith responded that enforcement would begin with existing code enforcement personnel and an initial grace period for businesses to comply.
Several members pointed out potential complications regarding home-based businesses and hobbyists. The ordinance text stated that persons engaged in a hobby or activity who make only occasional sales of their finished products or services, provided that the activity is not a primary source of income would be exempt. Mayor Smith admitted that there might need to be amendments to this later if they find a way that businesses are using loopholes but said that “it is a good start.”
After extensive discussion, the council voted to table the ordinance and bring it back during a work session to allow for more input from local businesses and time to refine details. The motion to table carried unanimously, with a council member suggesting, “I think we need to go speak with business owners, storefronts and non-storefronts.”
The council then moved on to the first reading of an ordinance that would levy a primary property tax for the upcoming fiscal year. City Manager Randy Sullivan explained that the rate “will be sufficient to raise $117,308” over the entire city and that it would amount to “$45.98 per $100,000 of your valued house.”
The item prompted questions from the council about the cumulative impact of taxes on residents. Councilmember Robert Black said, “I’m getting tired of seeing our citizens and property tax on taxes and taxes and taxes.” Sullivan clarified that the tax is a continuation of one approved by voters in 2019 and that for a while the city did not collect any property taxes. That doesn’t mean residents didn’t pay property taxes to the school and the county. Councilmember Pacheco spoke about constituents asking about why the city hasn’t taken care of certain projects and said that the tax could help get those projects finished. Black, again raised issues saying that the 2019 tax was supposed to be a temporary solution but has never been taken off the books.
Because the tax ordinance was only up for its first reading, no vote was taken. The second reading and vote were scheduled for the council’s next meeting. Following this item, the council voted to enter executive session to discuss the city manager’s contract. Upon returning to regular session, the council tabled any vote on the matter until the Aug. 13 meeting.
