During the public forum a property owner, Tracy Renee, addressed the Economic Development Commission to report she received a letter from the city (via contractor HDL) that appeared to require her to obtain a business license as a property owner for a tenant’s auto‑repair business at 37 Tennessee Street.

Renee said she and her husband own the building in a trust and that the tenant, Gene’s Auto Repair, has held a business license and operated at the address for more than 30 years. She said the letter’s language was unclear, that HDL staff were unable to explain why property owners were identified and that the language in section C of the ordinance seemed to reference only real‑estate brokers/agents, not property owners. Renee described the notice as a “money grab” and said the city should hold public meetings before expanding licensing obligations.

Commissioners and staff clarified that HDL is an outside contractor working on the city’s business license program and suggested Renee follow up with HDL and city staff; Commissioner Harrell asked whether the business was part of the trust. Commission members asked staff to research the issue and to report back; the commission did not take formal action. The public comment highlighted confusion about how the city’s licensing contractor identifies the responsible party on mailed notices and underscored the need for staff to confirm whether the notice applied correctly to the property owner or to the tenant business.