Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Grocery Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Batavia approves ordinance to collect local grocery retailer and service occupation taxes
Summary
The Batavia City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2025-29, implementing local grocery retailer and service occupation taxes, to preserve revenue after the state removed a 1% grocery tax.
The Batavia City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2025-29, implementing a municipal grocery retailer—s occupation tax and a municipal grocery service occupation tax, during its May 5 meeting.
Council members said the ordinance simply preserves revenue the city expected to receive after the state removed a 1% grocery tax. Alderman Wolf, who presented the item, said "for us, it would be about a million or 2 in annual revenue that we would lose if we did not enact this tax." Alderman Silver added, "this is not a vote to raise taxes, this is just basically maintaining the status quo so that our budget doesn't have a $1,200,000 shortfall." The measure passed on a roll call vote with 14 yes, 0 no.
Nut graf: The ordinance is designed to replace revenue no longer collected at the state level, according to council discussion. Backers said passing a local grocery occupation tax keeps money in municipal budgets that otherwise would be removed by the state action.
Council discussion and rationale: Speakers emphasized local control and budget stability. One council member framed the item as aligning Batavia with neighboring municipalities that had taken similar steps. No speakers proposed an alternative rate or asked to delay action; the motion to adopt was made and seconded and carried unanimously.
Formal action and vote: The transcript records a motion to approve the ordinance followed by a roll-call vote. The roll call recorded the following members voting "Aye": Wolf; Sulfa; Aaron; Lehman; I. Malay; Ewer; Siron; Vogelsinger; Lancy; Beck; Pieper; Malone; (14 yes, none no, none absent). The ordinance was adopted.
What the ordinance does not do: Council members repeatedly characterized the ordinance as a continuation of an existing tax that the state removed, not a new tax increase. The council did not adopt any additional exemptions, fee schedules, or effective-date amendments during the session.
Next steps: With formal adoption on May 5, implementation steps (billing, administrative procedures, effective date) were not detailed in the meeting record and are not specified in the transcript.
