[0:27] Excuse me, Representative. I need to start.

[0:33] » I call this meeting to order. Um, if you would follow along with the pledge of

[0:37] allegiance.

[0:40] Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:46] republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for

[0:53] all. >> Thank you madame clerk. We get a roll

[0:57] call please.

[1:01] » Yes I am here. >> Lucas

[1:02] » present. >> Cooper

[1:04] » here. >> Milton

[1:05] » here. >> Denim

[1:06] » here. >> Schles

[1:07] » here. Williams >> present.

[1:08] » Your honor, you have a quorum. >> On our agenda is discussion of the city

[1:14] of Branson's 2027 legislative priorities.

[1:18] This is a continued discussion from the July 14th, 2026 and August 11th, 2026

[1:26] study sessions.

[1:30] And so we'll get a report from Alex. >> Uh good evening, mayor and board. Uh

[1:35] this is the third continuation of our study sessions for the legislative

[1:39] priorities for the city. Uh this conversation includes both state and

[1:43] local priorities. In the past, we've gotten through all of the state

[1:46] priorities and the majority of the local legislative priorities. And this

[1:49] evening, we'll be finishing up discussion on the remaining city

[1:53] legislative priorities.

[2:02] Um for our proposed timeline, um after tonight's discussion, we'd be looking to

[2:08] compile a resolution of all the city and state priorities into two separate

[2:13] resolutions to bring back to this body for adoption that would help guide the

[2:18] next legislative session at the state level as well as guide the local

[2:22] legislative session for the board of alderman to champion these ideas.

[2:27] Um we went through a number of these last time and we'll resume where we left

[2:31] off.

[2:38] Um, I believe we got through number 20. Uh, we're writing Highway 165 sidewalks.

[2:45] Uh, the next opport the next legislative item on the list was opportunity zones

[2:49] 2.0. A number of you had reached out regarding this item and so I'd like to

[2:53] turn over the board uh for those that sponsored this item to give an overview.

[2:59] Um, did we not end at 19 on the list?

[3:05] » We can go back to number 20 if that's helpful.

[3:12] Would the board like to go back to number 20? Thank you.

[3:19] Okay. Uh these are I we just I think we stopped right before 19 on the last

[3:24] meeting and I know that we can zoom through these next three at least very

[3:27] quickly. These are some of the ones that I um submitted, but Highway 165

[3:33] sidewalks um I'm just going to read what I wrote for this. It Highway 165 serves

[3:39] far more than vehicle traffic. It connects residential neighborhoods,

[3:43] schools, businesses, attractions, and employment. Yet portions of the corridor

[3:47] provide no safe pedestrian infrastructure for the people who walk,

[3:50] bike, or otherwise travel without a vehicle. Um, we have actually already

[3:55] made very meaningful progress towards getting the sidewalks along Highway 165

[4:00] recognized as a transportation priority. So now we are petitioning SIMCOG to

[4:06] recognize it as well as a priority. And I'm convinced that chief of staff,

[4:12] Alex, Michael, Matt, and their teams are doing a great job making these

[4:16] connections and keeping it in front and center. So, it's not so much a uh I

[4:20] think the legislative part on this one was to reach out to SIMCOG, but we've

[4:25] already made that progress, so we're doing good.

[4:32] I'll go ahead with opportunity zones. I put that one up there as well. um with

[4:37] the emphasis on Highway 76 and how obviously it's important the corridor

[4:43] and the blighted area of it. Um as Missouri moves through the process of

[4:47] identifying its next opportunity zones, Branson should always actively be

[4:52] advocating for the governor to select the proposed areas that we submitted. Um

[4:57] and one of those includes the Highway 76 corridor. So, I'm not quite sure who

[5:02] knows the governor um and or if it's our lobbyist that could reach out to him. I

[5:08] just thought maybe it would be a good idea to um you know, put that bug in his

[5:14] ear. It's a great opportunity first to position Branson to compete for private

[5:18] investment by having it approved as an opportunity zone and to give property

[5:23] owners, developers, and businesses another potential incentive to reinvest

[5:27] in aging properties and bring new ideas to the corridor. So, um, if we're going

[5:33] to remain competitive and we have Highway 76 for the next generation of

[5:38] visitors, residents, and businesses, we definitely need to be pursuing every

[5:41] reasonable tool available. um for thoughtful reinvestment. So, it

[5:47] was kind of I mean, can somebody tell the governor we really need these

[5:52] approved? I don't know, but if we can, we should. [laughter]

[5:59] » Okay. What's next?

[6:04] » Uh the following three items were added um as part of our last meeting. Uh Clay,

[6:10] you may want to jump in on this one. I know this is something that's been a

[6:13] priority of yours. Uh the tunnel tunnel towers program. Um we had explored uh

[6:17] recently this program and I think Clay you had asked at one of the meetings to

[6:20] have this included on the list. [clears throat]

[6:23] » Uh yeah I brought this what year and a half ago or so. Uh and you did your due

[6:32] diligence and and got a we we had a zoom call meeting the mayor and I and I think

[6:36] Kathy and you were in there. Uh, and I know that there's um,

[6:43] one of the first things that I remember is that for our small population, it's

[6:49] going to be kind of tough to because most of the places that they've built, I

[6:52] think there's maybe a dozen or 13 of these around the the country. And what

[6:56] and if you're not familiar with it, what they're what I was inquiring about is a

[7:00] uh they do a a veterans village where they they take blighted hotels,

[7:06] refurbish the hotels and turn them into uh veterans villages for uh veterans

[7:13] with low income or homeless veterans. Uh and it's all, you know, income based and

[7:18] this and this and that. But it's really a a great opportunity. Uh, I just like

[7:24] to, you know, I I don't want to give up on it. I know I know it's going to be

[7:28] tough for us because of the size of our community, uh, because I know they got

[7:31] one in Houston and they're usually larger cities where they have these, but

[7:34] we have plenty of blighted hotels. Um, and and I know we have at at one point

[7:41] when I checked a few years ago, there were uh on record 78 homeless veterans,

[7:46] and I'm sure there's more than that now. Um, and kind of tie into that, my my

[7:52] wife and I had a meeting with uh a couple hour meeting with Michelle Dean

[7:56] from Christian Action Minute from CAM uh day before yesterday. We did a full

[8:00] walkth through with her and she kind of showed us what goes on and how they do

[8:05] things and stuff and the discussion came up about, you know, all the extended

[8:10] stays and wouldn't it be great to turn those into actual converted one room

[8:15] living apartments and stuff. So that kind of falls into that same thing. But

[8:18] yeah, I just think that that would be a really great opportunity. And Tunnel to

[8:23] Towers is one of the biggest organizations in the world right now.

[8:26] And if we could get them on board uh for to come help our veterans in the most

[8:31] patriotic city in America, I think we uh it it I sure want to keep following up

[8:37] to that and see what the next step is. What is the next step? Another phone

[8:41] call or >> Yes, we could pursue another phone call.

[8:45] we had identified a fiveacre tract uh of land. They tend to look at fiveacre

[8:50] tracks of land that are easily developable uh to place their veterans

[8:54] village community on. Um and so we identified a number of city-owned

[8:58] properties that could do that. Um one of the things that they mentioned of course

[9:02] was proximity to a VA uh hospital which of course Branson has but population

[9:07] size seemed to be one of the the drawback. They have a ton of of of

[9:13] communities approaching them and of course they want to have the support

[9:16] assets of maybe a larger municipality. So that's just something that we could

[9:19] push further uh and further explore with them. But yes, probably a phone call and

[9:24] um maybe a little bit more firm um set of plans and a tangible offer of maybe a

[9:30] land donation or something to that tune. >> Okay. Well, thank you for that.

[9:37] » Uh the next two items uh I believe Alderman Williams submitted uh and I can

[9:41] turn it over to him to explain. Thank you.

[9:45] Yeah. So, number 23, um, when we're looking at I know we're doing

[9:49] comprehensive review of of planning and and other things. This came up, uh,

[9:54] through a couple of different alderman actually, particularly the last one was

[9:57] in W 2. Um, but just defining what terms like adjacent property light nuisance

[10:04] issues are. So, like it's called out in several areas of the in the code versus

[10:08] like, you know, is it a security light that shoots across the street? is it um

[10:14] you know what does that look like because you don't want government coming

[10:16] in enforcing absolutely everything but just clarity of what the term means in

[10:20] the code. So again, I don't know that this one um independently will carry its

[10:25] own uh legislative priority, but it's it's something as we're doing the maybe

[10:30] the grander grander scheme of things review, something to discuss with the

[10:35] team and the planning department. And then the last item, I believe during the

[10:41] last study session, we had a a discussion as a group about Branson's

[10:46] past with this topic and that um if there's a desire to move forward with

[10:50] something like that, um they're going to need a head nod prior to the legislature

[10:55] going to pre-filing. And so it' be a timely a timely way to go about adding

[11:00] that to our list if the the colleagues here were agreeable. It didn't seem like

[11:04] anybody was opposed to the idea uh during the last study session. So, I

[11:08] figured it should be on the list so that we can take some decisive steps towards

[11:13] that for pre-filing. >> I agree with that, Alex. Um I know that

[11:20] there was an attempt of this um six, eight years ago and at the time

[11:25] the board of alderman they approved this when it went to the state um the state

[11:31] denied it. Um yeah, so years have passed. It makes

[11:39] sense. Um I think it I think it's viable to be on our state

[11:48] um priority list for a legislation. Um, I think the way to start this though

[11:55] would be to have a study session to get and advertise it so we can get um our

[12:04] citizens input because this is a my opinion this should be a citizen

[12:12] based decision whether we want to go this route. It's

[12:17] involving um liquor sales in Branson. So

[12:23] maybe what we'll do is we'll get um Becky to present to this board what the

[12:30] description of what it is that they were going to be requesting.

[12:34] Um and then I still think we need to have a study session to get community

[12:39] input. Glenn.

[12:44] » Yeah. I would say the other thing we should do in conjunction with that is at

[12:49] least outline uh what the local ordinances would be

[12:54] that would enable this because um I you know we do not have code right

[13:01] now to deal with this type of issue on a permanent basis. So for example, you

[13:07] know, we're not going to allow it in the parking lots. we're not going to allow

[13:10] it on the boardwalk, you know, we're not going to allow it on the access roads

[13:15] and that, you know, they have to have sufficient security or perimeter control

[13:21] in some fashion to ensure that that happens. And I think the other thing

[13:25] that would be a question of the community is what hours will this be

[13:29] allowed for? And you know, that would be another

[13:32] » Yeah. >> or

[13:35] ordinance overlay that um we could you know, I think at least outline so

[13:41] that we're sure that what we would envision and what the landing is

[13:46] envisioning and what the community thinks this is would all kind of align.

[13:52] That's good, Glenn. I think those are all the things that Becky would bring up

[13:56] during her presentation and those would be the same things we would address

[14:00] during the U study session. Ruth,

[14:04] » thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I believe that the Branson Landing is currently zoned

[14:09] plan development. So, it would just need to be an amended because it is an

[14:14] overlay and it's an existing overlay. So, it would just need to be amended on

[14:19] whatever is decided changes. >> Yeah. And I'm not sure, Ruth, but I

[14:24] think it needed state approval because it addressed our liquor laws.

[14:29] » Yes. But all the other um items that were discussed

[14:33] » would be amendment. Yeah. That'd be great.

[14:39] » Alex, did you >> uh Mayor, great points. Community's got

[14:42] to drive it. And so, um what's interesting to me about that is it's

[14:46] just another creative way for us to say, "Hey, Branson wants uh folks to come and

[14:52] visit. There's a responsible way to do this, but by no means should we, as the

[14:56] elected officials do anything with it until the community blesses off on it,

[15:01] » right? Anybody else?

[15:07] » [clears throat] >> So the next items you've all seen

[15:13] here

[15:27] accomplish this into getting this into a manageable, workable and actual

[15:30] executionable type of priority list would be, you

[15:34] know, possibly on the statement.

[15:39] Uh they have contractual um uh they have a relatively small contract with the

[15:44] city, right? And so I think we have to be conscious of that. Um maybe you pick

[15:48] as a board and a governing body the top three issues that you'd like to bring to

[15:52] the lobbyist. Uh that those are code changes potentially or maybe a list of

[15:58] additional items that are more policy statements. Right. I think the truth and

[16:01] fees bill if that's something the board supports that's something the lobbyists

[16:05] can easily work in and not be a full-time issue that they're working on.

[16:08] Um but if a tourism tax amendment issue right for the the city's statutory

[16:12] authority for tourism tax that's a larger burden obviously so that maybe

[16:15] fall on one of the three. Um but you may wish to approach that. Um our

[16:20] recommendation as staff of course is these are all fantastic ideas. There's

[16:24] only so much time right that we can get these things done in these in these

[16:27] legislative sessions both in the state level and local level. So being very

[16:31] strategic on which ones we want to accomplish and which ones need to be top

[16:34] of the list priority of impact to the community might be a consideration you

[16:38] have. Um but I'm of course as staff we're open to uh whatever way the board

[16:43] would like to um prioritize these and getting these into resolution forms. On

[16:47] the local level you may wish to have 15 or so. Um I think we have more bandwidth

[16:53] here on the local level with staff and city administration to navigate some of

[16:57] these changes. Uh, it may also be something that the board wants to wants

[17:01] to divvy out and sponsor as individual alderman. There are certain issues that

[17:04] are really important to your ward that you've added to this list. Maybe that's

[17:08] something that you want to sponsor as an alderman um to help add on to the to the

[17:12] bandwidth and and ability to get these things across the finish line. So, I

[17:16] will respectfully turn it over to the board and the mayor uh but here to

[17:18] answer any questions if needed. >> Great input, Alex. I think um one of the

[17:24] first things we should do is take this list of 24 and divide it into these are

[17:31] really I believe two separate list intended to be two separate list. One is

[17:39] what list do we want to sit with our lobbyist and our state rep that we want

[17:46] to go to the state with to make changes which will be a short list out of this

[17:51] 24. The other items on this list either have been done or they're just decisions

[17:58] for our local board and city administration to work on. So, out of

[18:04] the first 24, I think we could quickly go through and

[18:10] just earmark which ones are state, which ones are local.

[18:14] » Uh, yes. And, um, I've just pulled up here onto the PowerPoint. These are

[18:18] generally the list of state priorities that were introduced both from staff and

[18:23] from the alderman uh, and mayor. And so, maybe it's a simple as uh, the board

[18:27] leading through and and looking to see here, are there are there two or three

[18:31] items that the board would like to designate? um that we can then compile

[18:34] into resolution coming back on September 8th uh of true policy items. Um you

[18:39] know, policy items off this list uh would probably include the Branson

[18:43] Tourism Tax modernization. Um

[18:48] truth and fees act, uh local health and safety authority for extended stay. um

[18:54] city licensing and health and safety inspection for group homes, uh ticket

[18:58] seller loopholes, uh amendment of 94.815 for the per

[19:03] permissible uses of the tourism tax. Those are more um true legislative

[19:09] statutory changes and I would classify the rest as general polic policy support

[19:14] statements. >> So again, would you remind us on the

[19:19] grants and tourism tax modernization? >> Correct. Uh that was two general um

[19:25] areas. One was uh to adjust possibly the restaurant rate

[19:31] that was an item of possibly um changing the tourism tax. Uh the type of tax or

[19:37] the actually the the collection of tax from ticket resellers.

[19:41] Uh there's also a conversation about uh changing the spending ratio of tourism

[19:45] versus infrastructure. And then there was also um tourism tax modernization uh

[19:52] to allow uh the existing tourism tax to include financing the construction of a

[19:56] sports facility. So those were all components wrapped into that one bullet

[20:00] point. >> So who proposed the uh change in the

[20:02] ratio?

[20:08] Lyn, >> I I think I put a number of those things

[20:11] on the list. And just to explain the intent, it was just as we got into the

[20:17] seven-year capital plan, it was to capture all the possibilities

[20:22] within the tourism tax that could be done to support the outcome of the

[20:27] seven-year capital plan. So, I didn't really intend that all those things

[20:32] would go forward. I really just wanted because I spent a fair amount of time

[20:36] looking at um both the state code talking with local business leaders

[20:42] about some of the history and what their issues were with the current structure

[20:47] and I just wanted to capture all the possibilities. Uh I I think it would

[20:52] almost be foolhardy to try to do all those just to be clear. But hopefully

[20:58] once we get into the seven-year capital plan, it'll become clear what some of

[21:03] our better priorities are out of that list.

[21:11] » Um, just in summary, I I think the the key policy statutory changes that might

[21:17] be amended may include the ticket reseller issue, the collection of

[21:20] tourism tax on ticket resellers. I think there's also the permissible use of

[21:24] tourism tax for parks, trails, indoor sports facility, sports, tourism. I

[21:30] think also um one of the other items in there is possibly changing the ratio of

[21:35] the 75% infrastructure and 25% um

[21:40] marketing. I think it's advantageous if you were to go approach the legislature,

[21:44] you may want to address those issues in mass. Uh, of course, every single issue,

[21:50] the ticket resell, you're going to be dealing with, different stakeholder

[21:52] groups, different constituencies, right? Um, I think it's really up to the sport

[21:55] to decide what component of all those components do you want to address in a

[22:00] in a possible statutory change, which is the most important that maybe you want

[22:03] to go after this session and in a future session continue to go after.

[22:07] » So, Alex, I'm still not sure of who's bringing up the ratio, the 7525,

[22:17] and Why is there some rationale of adjusting that? Is there any

[22:23] » information supporting that? >> That was submitted by an alderman and I

[22:28] defer. >> Yeah, I I think I was the one that

[22:32] submitted that. So, um it's not a rationale to support it yet. It's just

[22:37] listing again one of the options as we look for funding and how we could

[22:41] achieve some of the things on our longer term capital list. So, it's not it's not

[22:47] specific. It's not a baked suggestion. It's just one of those things that we

[22:52] could look at. And I did have some follow-on conversations since we started

[22:57] these study sessions uh with some uh people in the community. And one of the

[23:02] things that came out in the discussion was the issue of ticket retailers has to

[23:08] some degree, you know, and I think you've been

[23:11] involved, mayor, in this and Clay is involved in this, to some degree kind of

[23:16] shopped around in the past to try to change some of this. And it seemed like

[23:22] the notion that um ticket sellers are providing a service rather than selling

[23:28] tickets was the genesis of the divide in

[23:34] philosophy. And if I can just kind of use those words. So

[23:39] » smile. >> Yeah. Nice little smile with it. Yeah.

[23:41] So maybe one of the starting points of that is the other bullet that's up there

[23:48] is that um uh maybe it's not under this one. I'm

[23:54] not seeing it right off the top, but there was a truth in fees component.

[24:00] » Yeah. >> Right. To say, okay, if you're a ticket

[24:04] reseller, you got to be honest. What is your fee in this ticket and what is the

[24:09] ticket price? Then I think if all of that history is true, then I think you

[24:16] could mandate that taxes be collected on the ticket part of that transaction. So

[24:23] it would not only make it clear to the consumers what's happening. And you

[24:28] know, that was one of my feedbacks I got from a few new people to Branson was

[24:33] they were shocked how expensive our tickets were until they found out that

[24:38] 40% of that was the fees by the company that was selling it.

[24:43] » Not from the box office. >> Yeah. Not from the box office. And so I

[24:47] think we fixed two things potentially at once if we want to go down that path.

[24:52] You know, have the ticket resellers have to expose what their fee is. And now you

[24:57] can legitimately tax the ticket part of that sale. Just my thought. Anyhow,

[25:02] » I think the one component of that to mention is the ticket reseller does not

[25:06] collect tourism tax. And so if you do, there wouldn't basically be anything to

[25:10] disclose. >> Yeah.

[25:13] » So logically, it would increase the amount of tourism tax we'd collect if we

[25:17] can go down this path. It would >> Yeah.

[25:21] Um, there's also the analogy of when Walmart buys hammers by the gross and

[25:29] they pay $5 for a hammer. When they put it on their shelf to sell it, they're

[25:33] selling it for $20. Well, they pay tax on the $20.

[25:39] Tickets is the opposite. You buy wholesale for five, you pay tax on five.

[25:45] So, that's obviously a worthy um endeavor to go down.

[25:53] Mr. Mayor. >> Sure. The other the other thought on

[25:57] that is um oh I just lost my train of thought about

[26:02] what you were just saying is oh um if we try to contain this issue of collecting

[26:09] tourism tax strictly within the Branson tax code rather than trying to make it a

[26:16] broader tax discussion. We may not attract the attention of all

[26:21] the big ticket reseller lobbyists because they don't really play the game

[26:28] in Branson. You know, they're out in KC and St. Louis in those locations. And we

[26:33] may be able to avoid some of the usual resistance that we would run into in

[26:39] Jeff City. Well, and that's that's what kind of shut us down years ago is it it

[26:44] got out and here comes ticket master and all these big companies going h

[26:48] » the challenge that you have though is that as a fourth class city we're not

[26:52] able we don't have that authority to be able to exert that kind of taxing

[26:56] authority other than what the state allows and

[26:59] » yeah and this is the discussion about the state priorities though that's what

[27:02] I'm talking about is specifically ask our representatives to go after a change

[27:08] like this within in the state statute that enables our tourism tax because

[27:13] it's unique to Branson. It's Branson's tourism tax. Nobody else uses that

[27:18] section of code. And so we might fly a little bit more under radar if we

[27:24] structure it the right way. >> If I remember correctly, Jeff Justice

[27:28] was the representative that sponsored the last bill. And I think it actually

[27:31] combined two issues. Uh and that's why a lot of the attention from Ticket Master

[27:35] and Expedia was included. And I think it was on hotels in particular. So to

[27:40] Glenn's point, >> but yeah, we can work with them to

[27:42] create a carve out, you know, unice fourth class city of certain size with

[27:46] certain whatevers and customize it, right? So we can work on that on uh I

[27:52] just got a clarification question for all of you. I when Alex brought up the

[27:57] having an alderman sponsor an issue, this would be really helpful to us as

[28:01] staff and that um once we've triaged and we find out what's your top three or

[28:06] five for state priorities to get you whatever alderman wants to be a part of

[28:11] those conversations in early with our team to start working through the

[28:15] language and making sure we're hitting the mark on what you want to be said in

[28:19] final legislation would be really helpful to me. Um, and then I would be

[28:24] assuming that you guys would be kind of be bouncing ideas off of each other on

[28:27] and kind of gauging support without violating any sunshine rules, of course.

[28:33] But [clears throat] to be able to collaborate with others and your input

[28:36] from constituents in your districts or in your wards, I mean, would be very

[28:40] helpful to us, too. I think we can get a lot of the um maybe unnecessary noise

[28:45] out of the way up front by having an alderman sponsor some of these things.

[28:48] So, I would greatly appreciate that.

[28:53] And again, if we have constituents that are asking

[28:58] to adjust the ratio, I don't know if the drive is to increase the amount of

[29:05] marketing dollars or increase the percentage of monies going to

[29:10] infrastructure. So if that's not something that is is a

[29:16] priority, then I think part of making progress on this list is to start

[29:22] weeding out some of those things.

[29:29] Anybody else?

[29:35] What I'm again on the practicality of this, I'm trying to figure out what's

[29:39] the best way for us to utilize your time. I'm finding out what are your top

[29:43] out of the state submittals. What are your top five? Do you want to do that

[29:49] here? Should I do I mean I don't know if a poll of some sort or how how do you

[29:55] guys if you all email me what your top five are and we can cross reference and

[29:59] the highest vote total gets the triage list. I'm just trying to figure out how

[30:03] you want me to go about that. I think the healthiest way would be

[30:09] since this is a public discussion is to have these discussions so the public can

[30:14] hear what we're thinking and saying and we could get input from the public on

[30:19] what directions they would like to see us go.

[30:25] So, we have I'm gonna and I should have started out

[30:29] the meeting at the beginning, but I say this meeting will end at say 5:30.

[30:36] Um, so we have time if you want to start going through and I'm asking all the

[30:42] aldermen to give their input on which one of these items are priorities

[30:49] and which ones can wait so we can start narrowing down this list.

[30:56] » You want me to hop in here too? Um, I guess does the does the board generally

[31:00] support amending the tourism tax? I think that might be a first starting

[31:03] point.

[31:09] » Alex, >> thanks, Mayor. Um, I believe that that

[31:11] is on the table. It's it's been talked about a lot. Um, we have other

[31:16] discussions that are related to it and amending it at the state

[31:22] changes the definition which obviously opens up the opportunity to use it or

[31:26] not use it at the local level because we will have local level uh influence uh on

[31:33] any adjustments that are made there. So I I would say that we wouldn't want to

[31:36] leave that on the table. Um there it's something that we need to get amended.

[31:43] Okay. I agree with that. Any other alderman

[31:47] feel a yes or no on that? >> Yeah, I agree with that.

[31:51] » I agree also.

[31:56] » I need some um clarification. Amend section 94815.

[32:01] Is that basically what 1646 was doing?

[32:08] » And that's what we're saying we want to do. Um

[32:11] » Ashley, what was >> Yes. Uh

[32:15] 94.815 that's the tourism tax uh statute that pertains to how the 75%

[32:22] distribution and the permissible uses of that. Um so yes uh if you go back to

[32:26] this item the third bullet here that says expand allowable uses of the

[32:30] existing tourism tax to include sports indoor sports parks um public safety

[32:35] pedestrian safety quarter infrastructure tourism sporting capital of

[32:38] improvements. So it would generally reflect the language that was in the

[32:41] proposed bill uh to allow the 75% infrastructure to be allowed for the

[32:47] development, construction, maintenance of uh tourism producing uh

[32:51] infrastructure inside the city. So it might be trail development. That was one

[32:55] of the items that we put inside the bill. It might also include indoor

[32:58] sports facilities. Um it could other it could also be expanded to include other

[33:02] priorities of the board as well. >> Sure. I um I unfortunately am not sure

[33:07] that we're ready to say yes to that to the state legislation because we don't

[33:11] know our infrastructure needs and that's the point of needing the capital plan is

[33:15] so that we have a better snapshot of what that money actually needs to go to

[33:20] before we start taking from it and putting it in different places. And then

[33:24] also that is my understanding that that would be a community discussion. I know

[33:29] that this is an open forum, but this was not like, hey, let's talk about what we

[33:34] want to do with this specific item, and that one we need to really involve the

[33:38] community in. So, I I don't know that I would be in favor of saying today, yes,

[33:43] we need to move forward with that. >> Yeah, I don't think the question on the

[33:47] table is today, is it a yes or no to make that decision? The question is, is

[33:53] it a yes or no to keep it a priority to keep discussing it to make decisions?

[33:59] » Well, we need to keep discussing what that money needs to be used for

[34:05] before we discuss what else we want to use it for. Right.

[34:10] Well, I think in some of those discussions when we talk about the uh

[34:17] the capital list is there's some things there that are wants, some are needs,

[34:23] and this one in particular is an actual economic driver for the

[34:29] community, right? It generates revenues where the other things on that list do

[34:35] not actually generate revenues to the city.

[34:39] But again, at this meeting, all we're wanting to discuss is we have 24 items

[34:45] on here. We're not going to get through all 24. Do we want to pursue item number

[34:51] one and continue talking about it or do we want to move on to item number two?

[34:59] » Yeah, thank you for that. I um at this point do not want to pursue item one

[35:03] until we understand what we actually need those infrastructure dollars for.

[35:07] Okay, Marty,

[35:16] » I agree that it's kind of putting the chicken before the horse a little bit.

[35:21] Um we have discussed at length the the utilization of the 75% for different

[35:27] items including the indoor sports facility and um that is only one of the

[35:33] uses that you have discussed tonight or that we have discussed as a group and I

[35:40] I have to tend to agree with what Ashley has said that that I I am very

[35:46] interested in these different points but I'm also very interested in the capital

[35:54] plan as to how these monies would be used. So, I'm not I'm gonna I would say

[36:00] no. I don't want to do it at this time until we know for sure.

[36:05] » Interesting, Glenn.

[36:09] » Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat. As much as I've worked on this one, you

[36:12] know, and tried to list out what I think some of our options are in addition to

[36:18] what was proposed in the past. I just feel that um there's there's two things

[36:24] for me. One, the seven-year capital plan really starts to dictate, you know,

[36:30] where do we need to put our investments as a city? What are our priorities? And

[36:35] then I think that starts to say, "Okay, now if those are our priorities, how are

[36:40] we going to fund them?" And we're just not there yet. Um, I think the other

[36:45] thing is that for me personally, I'm waiting for the information about the

[36:51] correction of the uh tourism fund spending

[36:56] uh because we've got an issue where it appears, you know, that we're going to

[37:01] have to correct some fund balances here through the audit process.

[37:06] And I'd like to see where that comes out as well because we may find ourselves

[37:13] uh if I understand the math of it, we probably are putting as a result of that

[37:18] would be putting money into the tourism part of the fund and taking it out of

[37:23] the infrastructure part of the fund. Um which would deplete the infrastructure

[37:28] fund. And I think that would enter into a decision-making process as well when

[37:33] you look at all the other things that you might want to do with that spending.

[37:42] So are you saying that you're waiting to

[37:46] see if funds need to be transferred from whatever it was marketing to

[37:53] infrastructure? >> The other way around. It's likely that

[37:58] it'll be a transfer from infrastructure to marketing, which would deplete what

[38:03] we think we have in infrastructure today,

[38:06] » which >> is that a significant amount?

[38:09] » It's a It looks like it's about 1 and 3/4 million dollars a year, depending

[38:15] upon how many years it's been operating that way.

[38:18] » Per year. >> Per year.

[38:22] » For how many? >> It may be a little bit more. There's

[38:25] also a question of the [cough] division of [clears throat] the interest income

[38:28] on those funds and how that should be treated. But I think the more central

[38:32] part is the amount that uh was taken out of the

[38:38] gross tourism fund before calculating the 2575 split. That amount is about one

[38:45] and three/4ers per year for some number of years,

[38:49] » right? >> 20 years.

[38:50] » I don't know. I I have no idea. And that's what I'm waiting for. tourism tax

[38:55] passed >> that's sorry

[38:57] » 20 years ago didn't the tourism tax >> I don't know I don't know how long this

[39:01] is an accounting issue and I don't know how long the accounting's run this way

[39:08] right because what it does and maybe this is more detailed than we want to

[39:12] get into now but because I assume we're pretty close to getting the audit

[39:16] results but what it what was happening essentially was you have the gross

[39:21] tourism fund we were then deduct deducting

[39:25] um infrastructure debt from that gross tourism fund and that's that 1 and 3/4

[39:31] million. We're deducting that from the gross and then that residual amount the

[39:37] difference between those two was being divided 2575

[39:41] and that's not the way the state statutes read. The state statutes say

[39:46] take the gross, divide it 2575, and if you're going to spend some on

[39:51] debt, take the 75 and divide it further into debt and direct spending. And we

[39:58] did it the other way around. We took it off the top line for the debt. And so

[40:02] that suggests to me to my eyes that that means about one and three/4 million per

[40:09] year for however long we want to correct this for however long it was going on

[40:13] would go back into marketing out of infrastructure.

[40:19] » Okay. >> But as I said this is probably more than

[40:21] what we want for a legislative priorities discussion. It just answers

[40:26] to me it's part of the decision makingaking process as to what we want

[40:31] to do relative to item number one.

[40:36] Okay. Well, I would say that has to be a priority, right? Because you're talking

[40:41] about some figure $20 million taking from one fund today and

[40:47] reimbursing another fund, right?

[40:51] » Potentially. Yeah. It's in the auditor's hands, so we'll find out what the

[40:56] recommendation is there. >> Okay,

[41:00] » Abby. >> Um I I think what's important to

[41:03] remember is a lot of these things can run on parallel tracks. So in um the

[41:08] best interest of planning and keeping things moving, I don't see a harm in us

[41:14] advocating for it. Again, I guess it just depends on how you feel about an

[41:19] indoor sports facility at the end of the day. So, but if you're generally in

[41:23] favor of the city pursuing this endeavor, then there's no harm in having

[41:28] our legislators and our lobbyists work on getting legislation to the floor

[41:33] through committees, um getting it signed by the governor if it's able to pass

[41:37] both houses of the legislature. In the meanwhile, we would be having those

[41:41] conversations about what is the seven-year capital plan, what is the

[41:45] split 7525, was it done right or wrong for the last 20 years? all those things

[41:50] can be rooted out and then you guys can even if it passes and the governor signs

[41:55] it, you don't have to execute on that. It's just there if in the future the

[42:00] city of Branson both the elected officials and the citizens who vote want

[42:06] to take advantage of that elbow room. So I think in the interest of you know just

[42:11] keeping the conversation going in a positive direction on the potential of a

[42:15] sports facility, I would say yes, you should support that. But if you don't

[42:19] want a sports facility or you're just super unsure, um, again, your check

[42:24] valve is the voters, actually you first before the voters. So you guys would

[42:29] have to say yes or no, even if it passes the legislature and gets signed by the

[42:32] governor. >> So that gives a little perspective. Yes,

[42:36] Arty. It would be a lot easier to discuss whether we wanted to pursue this

[42:42] if the sports facility wasn't on the table

[42:46] because it appears that that's what we're trying to fund. And if in fact

[42:53] we go ahead and send this up to the legislature

[43:00] and they don't pass it, then are we saying that there will be no

[43:06] sports facility? Is that what you're trying to say?

[43:08] » Unless you pass a new tax. That's correct. We don't have 4 million or

[43:14] whatever laying around per year to be able to fund something like this.

[43:17] Absolutely. And we've all as Teny County Partnership and a lot of the

[43:21] conversations that have been had over the years about this have always said

[43:24] that there would have to be an additional revenue source in order to

[43:27] fund something like this. I don't know of any community in the country that's

[43:30] that's um built something like this and didn't have an additional revenue

[43:35] generator. Um so yeah, absolutely. And so I guess at the very base level of

[43:40] this, it depends on if you're thinking you could ever support a sports facility

[43:44] because if not, there's no need to support this.

[43:46] » Yeah. [snorts] Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. I'm sorry, Ruth.

[43:52] » Um, I think we need to remain focused on yes, we can take advantage of of it or

[44:00] not take advantage of it, but to take away

[44:04] the ability to let our voters vote on this, our citizens vote on this. I mean,

[44:10] they're the ones making the decision. We're just giving them an opportunity.

[44:14] If they really don't want it, we won't have it. if they do, which I have heard

[44:20] a lot of people speak in support of this. I mean, I do not want to take that

[44:24] right away from our voters. >> Very good point,

[44:29] » Ashley. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I may need

[44:32] some more time to process this because when we did the feasibility study,

[44:36] pretty sure I remember the guy presenting it saying that even in the

[44:40] tourism fund, there was not enough money to make the payment for the bond for the

[44:44] sports complex. So, Um there needs to be additional information or did I

[44:49] understand that wrong? >> Uh correct that is incorrect

[44:52] unfortunately. Um the amount of revenues collected every year due to the economic

[44:56] impact driven by the sports facility does not pay for the facility

[45:00] year-over-year. So an additional revenue stream tax, tourism tax, etc. could

[45:05] support that. their analysis at bigger tilly was to look at the economic impact

[45:10] to the community outside of the building to to quantify the projected revenues of

[45:15] tourism tax, sales tax, etc. and then quantify that to what could support a

[45:20] payment. Those total total to the tune of 300 to $600,000 a year. Um, so no, if

[45:26] a bond payment was estimated to be a three million or four million, um,

[45:32] obviously 300,000 or so of tourism tax collected every single year would not be

[45:35] able to fulfill that entire payment. That was his findings of the report.

[45:40] » Thank you for that clarification.

[45:45] » Okay, >> Alex. Thanks, Mayor. Uh, would it be out

[45:51] of line given how big this topic is? It's 520. We want to make sure that all

[45:56] these things that were put in by everybody don't get uh breezed over that

[46:01] we and then we allow the community to come in and have a discussion and a

[46:05] meeting format that allows them to participate um like on the landing

[46:09] discussion and the tourism tax because if not what we're going to do is I'd

[46:13] hate to take all these jam them into a top three type situation and then in two

[46:18] weeks come back and send it into a resolution. It seems like that might be

[46:22] rushing to failure. Is it completely out of line to ask for the possibility of a

[46:27] special meeting so that the community does have an actual participation, an

[46:31] opportunity like we advertise it? We let everybody know exactly what we're doing.

[46:35] We prepare for that meeting and then they come in, they speak, then we move

[46:40] forward with the resolution. Now, if we have to move September 8th back, I guess

[46:44] that that might have to happen unless a special meeting can happen next week.

[46:48] Um, but I know that's just another meeting. I just look at like pre-filings

[46:52] in December and this seems like we're not on a trajectory that's going to do

[46:57] justice to this uh very large list and the community hasn't had a chance to

[47:02] come up and address these bigger topics that we just spent the last 20 minutes

[47:07] having a discussion about. >> Yeah.

[47:12] » Yeah. >> Mr. Mayor,

[47:14] » so Ashley, >> I I I agree with probably what you're

[47:19] about to say. Um, but as I read through this and I get that it says tourism tax

[47:23] modernization. I feel like the last bullet point might be the the sports

[47:29] complex and the bill, but the rest of them are kind of not that. Am I So like

[47:35] is this all one thing or could these be separated out as into like individual

[47:41] topics?

[47:44] » Alex, >> um, they very much could be. Yes. uh

[47:47] they they could actually impact different parts of the of the statute.

[47:51] Um and so yes uh ticket resellers for instance is separate issue obviously

[47:56] than funding an indoor sports facility. Um the ratio right of tourism

[48:00] infrastructure spending um that does that's a the same stat statute but um

[48:06] you know a little bit different of a of a conversation. So there I would say

[48:10] there's three main policy points underneath this one bullet point

[48:14] policy issues to address. I agree. So, it's kind of weird to say yes or no to

[48:19] item one when it's kind of like three parts. So, maybe we even break it out so

[48:25] that can help us understand what we're really not moving forward with and

[48:29] moving forward with. >> Okay. So, Alex, I agree with you, Alex

[48:34] Williams. U but I do believe that this board, we are

[48:42] elected officials. I believe this board it it's prudent for us to go through the

[48:48] list, break it down to the items that we think is most important and then invite

[48:55] the community to discuss those three. It would be very ineffective to have the

[49:00] community come in and discuss 25 items. No,

[49:03] » I agree. I just know that with the the the amount of time we have available,

[49:07] yeah, we're going to have to adjust this timeline so that we can do that process

[49:10] because it's warranted. Otherwise, this resolution is going to mean nothing

[49:14] because it's it's going to have not been vetted. We're going to have made a

[49:18] decision on the fly that we shouldn't make. And so, if it means adding a

[49:21] little bit of runway to the the adoption of that resolution, as long as it still

[49:25] gives the legislators time ahead of pre-filing, I think that's prudent um at

[49:30] this point. Otherwise, we're kind of we're we taking the time to get feedback

[49:34] and we're now trying to prioritize them on the fly. The community deserves to

[49:39] hear us talk about it. um publicly and then prioritize and then they deserve a

[49:45] chance to to give us their feedback on how we're prioritizing.

[49:49] And I I think that that's not probably possible by September 8th unless we add

[49:54] some other public uh meeting opportunities prior to that.

[50:00] » Yeah. Okay. So, what do you think, Kathy? Do

[50:04] you think um hate to say this um put the put this as

[50:10] the fourth attempt on the next board of alderman meeting to once again

[50:17] try to narrow down or maybe a study session before the

[50:21] board meeting to again attempt to narrow down these 24 items down to a

[50:30] realistic list for the state priorities. and then um get into the local

[50:35] priorities.

[50:40] » I guess I'd like to ask Representative Sites um because it takes time to draft

[50:45] bills, right? Even when we give you your list, you've got to get your legislative

[50:50] reference bureau or whoever you guys use up there, right, to draft the language,

[50:54] etc. And it's got to be vetted enough on our end so that you actually know what

[50:58] we want the language to have in it. And I'm sure is there a busier time for your

[51:04] drafters in Jeff City to I mean they're getting inundated, right? Hundreds and

[51:09] hundreds of bills from legislators and you got to get in line uh in order to

[51:14] get it ready for the pre-filing date. So do you want to speak at all to when's

[51:17] the drop dead date that you all would need the clear direction from this

[51:21] board?

[51:25] » I don't know if I'm supposed to do for the record, but I am State

[51:28] Representative Brian Sites. Um, yes, I think we have plenty of time. If you

[51:33] need to lengthen this out to get community involvement, I do pre-file on

[51:38] December 1st, but the fact that I've attended most of the study sessions and

[51:43] the alderman meetings, I have a gist of what we're attempting to do, especially

[51:46] on things like tax must be collected by ticket resailers for the actual price of

[51:53] the ticket. That to me is a no-brainer. So, that's something even if you don't

[51:58] approve that early, I'll be up there on September 15th and I can get that ball

[52:03] rolling immediately. I can get the ball rolling on an entertainment zone as well

[52:09] if that's something that the boy I can, you know, I can have it teed up. I just

[52:13] don't have to swing the club yet. The other issue as far as the uh sports

[52:18] facility and so forth, I think that involves, as you're saying now, a

[52:22] greater community involvement. So, I think there is time for us.

[52:27] » Okay. But what is that time, Brian? So, you're thinking what's your drop dead

[52:31] date? >> If I Yeah, if I can get it by mid to

[52:35] late October, I'm still good. >> Okay.

[52:37] » Okay. >> Okay. Then, mayor, let us please uh go

[52:41] back and we'll work on putting together another public meeting or two to talk

[52:45] about these priorities.

[52:49] » Okay. >> So, I'm sorry. So you're saying Alex

[52:53] what Alex suggested the next one would be like a special meeting that's so the

[52:56] public can come up and give their input to these 24 items. Is that what we're

[53:01] talking about doing? >> No, I think we need to have I don't I

[53:06] don't think it'd be productive. >> No, I I agree. I just don't know. We're

[53:09] still going to have to narrow this down then before that next meeting at some

[53:12] point. >> We have to narrow it down before we

[53:14] invite the public. >> Yeah. When's that happening?

[53:18] Um, next, can we do the study session before

[53:22] the next alderman meeting? >> I'm not sure because we've got the

[53:26] holiday in there, too. So, I'm not quite sure. And I don't know if we had

[53:30] something else that we were going to tee up for you by then, too. So, I'm not

[53:33] quite sure at this moment, but we'll sure work to make it as expeditious as I

[53:37] can. Um, I just maybe it would be helpful if if you all on your own and

[53:41] tell me if this is not the right way. I'm trying to solve this puzzle. if you

[53:45] just send me what are your as individual alderman top five priorities and then

[53:50] we'll coate that information bring it back to the next meeting and then talk

[53:55] through those items and some somebody might have one that's not on anybody

[53:58] else's list and that's their chance to advocate for it and at the end of the

[54:02] day I just want to remind everybody because it doesn't make a list at this

[54:07] point in time doesn't mean we can't still approach our legislators during

[54:11] the rest of the legislative session. So, it's not like you're going to fall off a

[54:15] cliff if we don't get this total perfectly vetted list. Um, legislation

[54:20] is dynamic and the process is very dynamic. So, I don't want you to think

[54:24] if it yours doesn't make the top five, it doesn't mean it can't make a

[54:27] subsequent next five right during this legislative session. So, just be

[54:32] thoughtful about that. >> Glenn,

[54:35] » yeah, I appreciate the suggestion of um ideas like sending in priorities, but

[54:40] I'd personally ask that we avoid that. Um, I just think it it if it doesn't

[54:46] violate the letter of sunshine law, it probably violates the intent of it. Um,

[54:52] you know, I think we need to discuss it publicly. I would suggest a variation to

[54:57] that would be for our next meeting, we each go around and say, "These are my

[55:02] top three or four." And we just say it right out in public. We don't compile it

[55:07] ahead of time. We just do it. And then that way the public hears it from us and

[55:12] not something that happened that they couldn't see.

[55:17] » Okay. So then what we'll do is um ask each

[55:22] alderman to come up with their when you say the top five

[55:27] talking about the top five for the state. Okay. So the items of these 24

[55:32] items the top five items that would go to the state and need state approval on.

[55:41] bring those prepared for the next board of alderman meeting study session

[55:49] and um so we can try to expedite this process.

[55:53] » Mayor, would you like the local ones too as well? There's another

[55:57] » Well, you know what? Let's do the top five for the state and the top five

[56:00] local at least that we'll narrow it down for

[56:04] discussion. Okay, that good. Everybody agree? Okay.

[56:09] Entertain a motion to adjurnn. A motion to second. All in favor?

[56:15] » I >> I

[56:16] » oppose. Same sign. Eyes have it.

Board of Aldermen - Study Session - 8/25/26

Transcript