09-30-1982 Minutes bIINUT~S
Septeu~er 30, 1952
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mrs. Joan Girene, Vice Chairman
Mr. C. L. Dookman
Z~. ~arry G. Daniel
~. R. Garland Do~d
~kr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Supervisors Absent:
SLaff in Attendance:
County Administrator
Mr. ~teva ~{icas, County
Attorney
~{r. ~ans Ramsay, Dir. of
Budget & Accounting
Mr. ~. ~4erlln 0~Neill, Sr., Chairman
~rs. Gircn~ celled the meeting to order in the absence of the
Chairman, at the Courtho~se at 3:15 p.m. (EDST).
Pkr. ~drlck stated the purpose of this meeting was for a work
~ta%e law raqulres the County to reduce it~ business license
taxe~ b~low state ceilings f~r the four major cateqori~ or
businesses prior to January 1, 1983. He stated a draft ordinance
nas'been prepared which reduces the only category in the County
~bove the state ma~imum to the stat~ c~iling (professional
service~ businesses from $.60 to $,$8 per $100~ while retaining
[he existing ta~ rate for the other categories o~ businesses
ate=ed the proposed Ordinance also race--ends a nu~er of other
changes which are not required by state law but would more fairly
apply the ~ax burden among ali busin~gne~ performing similar
services. ~e stated ~hcme which wonld be most ~ignificant woul~
be the taxing of real estate agents and the taxing of cable
television businesses. Ke stated that tbs effec~ of the proposed
ordinance would be to:
1. Bring the County into immediate compliance with State law;
2. Provide a more uniform and equitable business license ~ax
system~
~aintaia Ches:erfield~$ competitive position as the locality
with the to.est tax rat~s ~n the ar~a; and
Mr. Ramsay stated th~ ~ffect on the revenue by tran~£erring real
estate brokers to the professional service cs%egO~y from peruonal
services would result in $35,00~ additional revenue; =he
elimination of th~ entry f~es would result in a loss of $90,000~
and the axceDtion of the first $50,000 of gross receipts for
retail merchants would generak~ aD additional $64,000. He stated
these changes would result in the County rec~ivlng approximately
$~,000 in addition~I revenue. ~r. Ramsay reviewed individually
Mrs. Girone eta=ed she d{~ not feel it ~a~ fair to tax a man
because he doa~ mo~e or less business, She state~ she felt i%
would be mere equitable ~o charge a flat rate with no ~n~ry f~e.
She inquired what was involve~ with a business license. Mr.
Carmichael stated the amount of work varied, as ~ometim~s his
department has to audit th~ books of a business. Xr. }Iedrick
~=a=ed staff had attempted to keaD the rate as clo~ to what
stated the motive behind the proposed change was ~e~ause of state
could be obtained On the costs. Mr. Carmichaal stated it ceuld~
again later ~'ouId not b~ a good idea. ~ stated ~he proposed
!chanqe would comply with State law. Mr. Dodd inquired if this
$50,000 which was exempted and all ether categories will be taxed
would ~aI% under. Mr. Daniel stated that in the past the Beard
~he Board or do it in heuge ~nd he f~lt this should again be
previoumly :o include businesses which were nut specifically
mentioned.
proposed to be effec=ive January I, 1983. Mr. Bookman sta~e~
%ax brokers which he did not feel was fair. There was some
jurisdictions are not ~axed. It Wac indicated by the Board, the:
Mrs. Girone inquired if this were approved, when would the taxes
days and then they would not be paid until May 31~t.
The Board generally agreed with the proposal by mtaff with the
to be under brokers~ that brokers would be charged the $.58 as
would have higher taxes and professionals would have reduced
82-402
sent regarding machinery ~nd tomls tax and the Beard would then
decide if a work session were necessary.
~r. Carmich~l stated that or June 6, 19~2, the Board asked him
to look into the County's assessment method, to get with
industry, the State Department of Taxation, etc. ge statsd that
he thought the methnd of assessment WaS ~ot equitable at that
t~m~ but h~ has sinc~ learned a valuable Lesson. He stated that
in 1975 ~ha procedure had the bl~zsin~ of the Board of
Supervisors an~ the Tax Department which was a major
breakthrough. He stated afte~ discussing this me,hod, that Mr.
1982 he met and reviewed with industry their asset 1Lsting.
~ajor industries pay 70% of the machinery and tools tax in the
the end.
lO,GO a.m. on Ooto~ar 1~,
Mr. Dodd inquired i~ it were legal to put a severanne tax on
nat~rat reso~rnes when prime land is obliterated. Mr. Micas
indicated only on coal and gas. It was generally agree~ that the
County Attorney investigate this matter t¢ determine what other
jurisdictions are doing in controlling lard use decisions by
utilities. ~r. Minas indicated that normally the State
Co=poratioA Commission ha~ th~ final ~eci~ion in this matter.
On motion of ~rs. Giron%, ueconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board
adjeurned at 4:40 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on Ontober 13, 1982.
Ayes: Mrs. Girene~ Mr. Bookman, Mr, Daniel and Mr. DodO.
~sent: Mr. O'Neill.
~zck
County Administrator
~ Mezlln O'neill, fir
Chairman
~2-403