Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Registration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesilla trustees review business-registration rewrite that would clarify who must hold licenses and raise late penalties
Summary
Town staff proposed amendments to Section 5.05 to clarify "place of business" (including online sellers), require vendors/contractors to register, allow per-location/class licensing and strengthen late-fee enforcement (proposed $50/month and license revocation after 90 days); trustees asked for legal review and referral of final redlines at the next meeting.
The Mesilla Board of Trustees heard a staff presentation on proposed changes to Section 5.05 of the municipal code governing business registration and licensing.
Eddie Salazar, with the Community Development Department, told the board the draft clarifies the definition of a "place of business" to include online sellers, adds vendor/service contractors and landscapers to the entities required to obtain a Mesilla business license, and proposes that licenses be required per location and, where appropriate, per class of business (for example, separate retail and short-term-rental categories). Salazar said the changes are intended to reduce ambiguity: "It stated that any person or party, doing business autonomy is required to have a business license. We just wanted to be a little bit more clear on exactly what that meant," he said.
Salazar also described proposed changes to penalties for late renewal that he said are intended to encourage compliance and avoid multi‑year late fee accumulation. The draft reduces an existing unclear reduction and instead "I put $50 per month," Salazar said, and adds that if fees and penalties are not paid within 90 days after expiration the license "shall be revoked" and a new application will be required. He said unpaid fees beyond that window could become a lien on personal property.
Trustees asked procedural and implementation questions. One trustee asked that the short‑term‑rental acronym ("STR") be spelled out in the ordinance; Salazar agreed. Trustees also discussed whether the town should maintain a single, consolidated fee schedule on one page so adjustments are easier to manage. Salazar said the town is adopting an add‑on to its permitting software to automate renewal notices and help tracking: "it would send our notifications," he said, which staff expect to reduce manual work.
Board members debated timing and the scope of the fee schedule: Salazar said the town could keep fees in the ordinance until a separate fee schedule is published, or move them to the single reference page once it exists. Trustees asked for legal review and clearer wording where the draft uses broad placeholders such as "etcetera." No formal motion was taken on the ordinance at the meeting; the board directed staff to produce redlines and to return the item for further review and possible resolution at a future meeting.
The proposal is primarily aimed at compliance and clarity rather than a large fee increase; staff emphasized options remain for the trustees to set the exact penalties, grace periods and whether renewals become biannual. The trustees did not adopt the amendment at this meeting and asked staff to bring finalized language, with legal review, to a future session.
