[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.