Charles City supervisors defer action on implementing business permit fee

Charles City supervisors have chosen to temporarily halt implementing a business permit fee after questions arose at their Oct. 28 regular monthly meeting.

While supervisors had no problem with the $30/year cost for the permit, language written in the proposed ordinance about which businesses should receive an exemption confused the leaders. Specifically, supervisors wondered if farmers were on the exemption list.

“I want to make sure we have the list of exemptions correctly,” said District 3 representative Floyd Miles Sr. “If we decide to give farmers exemptions, I want to make sure the language reads correctly.”

According to county attorney Randolph Boyd, current language allows businesses that sell farm products from a building (such as a greenhouse) to be exempted, but not farms themselves. Further language distinguishes what is defined as a business, leading Miles to explain a hypothetical scenario.

“What if I wanted to sell crops that I raised in my garden from a stand once a month?” said Miles. “Would I have to pay the $30 a year to do that?”

County administrator Zach Trogdon explained that state code requires minimal exemptions for certain groups, but farmers currently did not fall under the code. Trogdon also said language can be written for the additional exemption.

Supervisors chose to defer action, but District 2 representative Bill Coada said no matter which way the board decides to vote, passing the permit would probably not be a problem.

“I want to make sure we’ve got everything right in the language before we put this in writing,” said Coada. “I don’t see where it’s difficult for these businesses to afford $30 a year for the permit.”

In other actions taken during the monthly meeting, Charles City supervisors:

–Unanimously adopted an environmental and site plan ordinance.

–Unanimously adopted a floodplain ordinance. The adoption comes as a result of changes made by the federal government.

–Unanimously approved addition of administrative fees for collecting delinquent tax bills. In the change to an existing ordinance, the county may now turn to an outside agency to collect money on accounts deemed delinquent by the county. All fees would fall on the taxpayer, which would include a 20 percent fee from the collection agency plus an additional attorney fee. According to county finance director Michele Johnson, there is approximately $300,000 in delinquent fees owed to the county.