[0:00] I'm going to call this meeting to order. If you would stand for the pledge of

[0:06] allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:12] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[0:18] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice.

[0:25] » Madam clerk, will we get a roll call vote, please? Harkness

[0:28] » here. Lucas Cooper >> here.

[0:31] » Milton >> here.

[0:32] » Denim Scholes >> here.

[0:34] » Williams >> present.

[0:35] » Your honor, you have a quorum. >> Thank you. Um, we have two items on the

[0:41] agenda. We're going to start off with listening to Becky Blair. She is

[0:46] director of marketing and events for Branson Landing regarding a Branson

[0:51] Landing Entertainment District.

[1:00] Hello, Becky. >> Hello there. [clears throat] That sounds

[1:03] strange. You never hear your own voice like that. So, all right. And I think

[1:09] I'm speaking not just generally as a Branson Landing entertainment district,

[1:13] but just entertainment districts period as well.

[1:17] Um, so I think the first is uh thank you for letting me speak today. To all of

[1:23] the board, mayor, city administrators, I appreciate your time. Um, for anyone who

[1:28] hasn't had the chance to meet me yet, my name is Becky Blair. I'm the director of

[1:32] marketing and events for Branson Landing. Um, I've spoken with most of

[1:36] you individually at this point [snorts] and, uh, I just kind of wanted to bring

[1:40] out into the public everything that we've kind of been discussing. And so

[1:43] we'll start with the easiest part. So it is what is an entertainment district

[1:47] just to make sure that everyone's aware and basically an entertainment district

[1:53] in kind of its wordiest context defined by a geographic area where participating

[1:58] licensed businesses can allow beverages into designated common areas under local

[2:03] rules, right? which is basically if you were at Branson Landing and you were

[2:08] enjoying a glass of wine at Smith Creek Winery, you could take that glass of

[2:13] wine and walk over to the fountains and watch the fountain show. It's very

[2:17] simple. It's it's doesn't have anything to do with any other types of u taxes or

[2:24] funding mechanisms or um it's not even really a new concept. This [snorts]

[2:29] already exists in many Missouri communities including um Kansas City,

[2:34] St. Louis, uh recently some legislation in Osage Beach and Chesterfield.

[2:41] Uh and it's not even a new concept for Branson period because it was supported

[2:47] in 2018 through a resolution that year um by the board of alderman at the time.

[2:53] Uh so basically I'm just asking that we pick that conversation back up again.

[3:00] Um for me this opportunity isn't really something that we're discussing about

[3:06] alcohol legislation necessarily. This is an economic tool. It's an opportunity uh

[3:11] for tourism and economic development. It's going to give our visitors more

[3:16] reasons to come, to stay longer, to spend more. It opens the door for us to

[3:21] have destination events that are difficult to execute today and it

[3:26] creates new experiences for our local residents. Um, an entertainment district

[3:31] doesn't necessarily create events, but it does remove one barrier that limits

[3:35] what we can create. Um, I think it's just, um, at its core,

[3:40] it's another tool for the city to use because even though we're we were

[3:43] discussing the idea of it at Branson Landing, um, it's not necessarily

[3:48] limited to Branson Landing, [snorts] this is a tool for all of Branson. Um,

[3:53] this would be citywide enabling legislation that would give the city of

[3:57] Branson the authority to designate qualifying districts

[4:02] um, basically wherever it chooses. Uh even though Branson Landing intends to

[4:08] pursue a designation, uh other properties could as well. Uh I've

[4:12] already had conversations with some other businesses in the Branson area

[4:15] that showed some interest in pursuing that legis pursuing that designation on

[4:18] their own were that to become the case. Uh and there's benefit to the potential

[4:23] of uh properties or developments that haven't even been imagined yet as an

[4:27] economic tool to potentially bring other things into Branson if they had that

[4:31] opportunity. Um, let's see.

[4:37] So, even though we're discussing this as a whole because the entertainment

[4:40] district legislation is is a state designation, uh, we do want to discuss

[4:45] why Branson Landing would be so good for something like that. And I think that

[4:48] it's because our infrastructure already supports it so well. Uh, we already have

[4:54] defined boundaries along with a centralized professional management. We

[4:58] have 24-hour security. We have existing licensed establishments that are

[5:02] accustomed to working with within the alcohol legislations that already exist.

[5:08] Uh we have nearly a 20 year history of major public events including what is

[5:14] probably the largest public event that kind of the the city of Branson has

[5:18] inside its city limits which would be Liberty Light Up on July 3rd. uh which

[5:22] tens of thousands of people alcohol is already involved in kind of an event

[5:27] setting with outdoor alcohol and and as of any records that I have there's been

[5:32] no major incidents of any kind. Uh so what could we do with that

[5:38] infrastructure and a little bit more flexibility?

[5:42] Well, we could create all kinds of festivals. That's kind of what we're

[5:46] looking at here. And this is just the the numbers that I'm throwing out here

[5:49] are just just basic numbers. This is not any kind of a real guesstimate on what

[5:55] something can do because even if they were spending this amount of money at

[5:58] potentially [snorts] an October fest or an artwalk or a food

[6:02] and wine festival, that doesn't include what they might be spending on their

[6:07] lodging, on other attractions, on dining. I mean, if you think about a

[6:11] family of four who is going to come to something like an Oktoberfest or an

[6:15] artwalk, one dinner is going to cost them $75.

[6:19] uh when it comes to the city of Branson, we believe that it's not just the city

[6:24] or the chamber's responsibility to necessarily create destination events

[6:28] and we'd like to be kind of a leader in the community for that. And we could if

[6:32] somebody could walk from one side of the landing to the other side of the landing

[6:36] engaging in something along the entire way with those beverages and with that

[6:40] stuff that that's what's going to allow us the opportunity I'm a hand talker.

[6:44] [laughter] I'm going to get myself in trouble. [snorts] that's what's going to

[6:47] allow us the opportunity to create these larger festivals. Um so when we talk

[6:51] about the idea of a destination festival, um we're we're looking at

[6:57] um something that over time built over time obviously not 10,000 people all at

[7:03] once um but built over time that they eventually plan their trip around to

[7:06] come to Branson for these events that it wouldn't necessarily be cannibalistic

[7:11] from the people that are already in town. We're not taking away from what's

[7:15] already in town, but hopefully creating something that people are coming in

[7:18] towards and then involving the rest of Branson with it. Uh we don't have a

[7:22] whole lot of festivals in Branson where the entire town gets around them. Uh we

[7:27] like to think that we celebrate the entire Christmas season really really

[7:30] well and I think we do Veterans Week really really well, but aside from that,

[7:35] there are very few events that involve the entire city and we would love the

[7:40] opportunity to spearhead those kinds of things.

[7:44] right now. So, determining kind of what is an entertainment district and and

[7:48] what we're talking about here and how that functions. Um, the state

[7:52] legislation if given to the city of Branson does not automatically create a

[7:57] district. It doesn't do anything. Um, [snorts] it basically just gives Branson

[8:01] the authority to establish one of those. Uh, then it comes back to the city for

[8:05] local action. So when it comes down to what the city would be responsible for,

[8:09] basically all the control is in the city's hands. You guys would be

[8:13] responsible for helping to determine boundaries, common areas, hours, how

[8:18] participating businesses work together, what the security and signage has to

[8:22] look like, and what are the operations and enforcement for something like that.

[8:25] So at this [snorts] phase, um we're we're just looking for that ability to

[8:31] have that authority. We're looking for the city of Branson to say yes, I would

[8:34] like to have that kind of in my back pocket or or coming up very quickly

[8:38] » [snorts] >> uh to do something with. Not that all of

[8:41] this is still questions that'll have to be answered after the fact.

[8:46] Now, what does that mean for Branson Landing? Now, I've kind of already

[8:49] established that we already have the infrastructure, the boundaries, the

[8:53] professional security, lots of things that already do a really good job at at

[8:58] determining what an entertainment district would look like for us.

[9:02] [snorts] We're not trying to turn Branson Landing into a nightlife

[9:05] district or Branson for that matter. Um, we still who we know who we are and what

[9:10] we want to be and that's not going to change. Um, we're not proposing uh

[9:14] necessarily fencing the entire thing in like an enter like when you do for an

[9:18] event fencing. Um, it would still be something that would be kind of

[9:22] generally welcoming uh to each of uh each of our guests. So, it would still

[9:26] look relatively open, but [snorts] it would be up to the city to kind of help

[9:30] guide where we need to have security, what cameras would need to be, where

[9:35] where those entry and exit points would be. Um, the goal is to add opportunities

[9:40] but not change the safety or the welcoming and family-friendly character

[9:44] of Branson Landing. All right. So, basically that comes down

[9:48] to the last question is just what are we asking for at this point? We're [snorts]

[9:52] asking for the city to support state legislation. [clears throat] Um, I've

[9:57] spoken with Representative Sites and with Senator Hudson's office and they've

[10:00] both been relatively encouraging and their message has been very consistent.

[10:04] though they would need to see the city support that legislation first before

[10:09] they were willing to carry it any further.

[10:12] So that uh having conversations with everyone here, it looks like the easiest

[10:16] way for that to happen would be for the entertainment district legislation to be

[10:20] included in Branson's 2027 state legislative priorities. Um and again,

[10:25] this is just a first step. That's it. This is getting that determination from

[10:29] the state for Branson to use as it sees fit. We're not asking at this point to

[10:34] establish the exact Branson Landing Entertainment District. We're not asking

[10:38] for boundaries and hours and operating rules. We're asking for that very first

[10:43] step. Not would we love that for it to be for Branson Landing? Absolutely. But

[10:47] it still has opportunities to use wherever. Um I started pursuing this

[10:52] because it's been on the to-do list for Branson Landing for probably the past

[10:55] two decades. >> [snorts]

[10:57] » And as the more I've researched it and the more that I've talked to individuals

[11:00] throughout the community and other businesses, it's not just an opportunity

[11:03] for Branson Landing, but it's an opportunity for Branson. Um it's just

[11:07] another tool for tourism and economic development. And I can't see why that it

[11:12] isn't something that we want to move forward with um with the next

[11:15] legislative session. So, anyone has any questions?

[11:19] » Becky, thank you for that. Um I think that was a very welldetailed explanation

[11:25] of what you're doing to simplify it for this meeting.

[11:30] » Sure. >> There's a lot of discussions we'll need

[11:33] to have that you mentioned the boundaries, the hours and all that.

[11:37] » We're not here to discuss any of that. >> No.

[11:40] » What you're asking for us to do is to approve the concept of an entertainment

[11:47] district for these uses. report that to go to the state. Once the

[11:53] state gives Branson the blessing, at that point we would then have meetings

[11:59] to discuss all the rules and regulations.

[12:03] » Absolutely. This is just that very first step so that we get that that and again

[12:08] this is something that's been going on for 20 such years.

[12:12] Whether wh why it hasn't come to fruition in 20 years, I can't exactly

[12:16] say because I haven't been in this role that whole time. But I do feel like that

[12:20] the that the people are in the right place and the time is the right time and

[12:24] that the climate is currently in such a place that even if ultimately you go I'm

[12:29] not sure that that's something for Branson Landing, it's still something

[12:31] that you already have a designation that's already been given to the city

[12:34] and can be used at any point in the future.

[12:36] » Yeah. >> So any alderman have any questions?

[12:39] Clay, >> I do. Uh,

[12:43] so as it is right now, the ordinance, if there's a concert at the at the

[12:46] fountains or the whatever, a person can't sit there in their lawn

[12:50] chair and have a beverage. Is that correct?

[12:53] » It it actually >> they're not supposed to.

[12:56] » You are not supposed to open alcohol at the landing is not allowed. Now, if we

[13:01] have a concert, we often do have um an event license that's been created along

[13:06] with kind of a picnic alcohol license where the Hilton will come out with the

[13:10] some of the bars. Now, we typically are held into kind of some very tight little

[13:15] square center areas, which has certainly been fine for what we've been doing in

[13:19] the past, but it would be difficult to open up in that context for the entire

[13:23] landing. >> I got you. Yeah, Clay. I I believe the

[13:27] way the ordinance is currently written is they don't the city doesn't want you

[13:32] to have a drink and walk in front of another business. So this would be

[13:37] removing that obstacle walking in front of another business.

[13:41] » Okay. >> And generally without that it is right

[13:44] now as it stands the landing has a a set of rules that we use to govern ourselves

[13:48] that aren't necessarily city or state legislation. And right now we just don't

[13:52] allow open alcohol period. So, because it's it's it's it's not in a special

[13:58] cup. It's not in a well-managed way. We we don't want you just walking onto the

[14:02] landing with your six-pack. No. >> I got you. Uh

[14:07] so, are you saying that just ch making this change

[14:11] for someone to walk out of one place with a beer and walk into another or

[14:15] down the road there? That's just that one change is what would make this a

[14:21] entertainment district. >> That's it. That is the entire the the

[14:24] entire value of the whole entertainment district legislation is just walking

[14:28] around with with a drink a in a special cup that is clearly defined so that we

[14:34] can monitor that and make sure that everyone's following the rules. Uh walk

[14:37] into the common spaces. Yep. That's it. >> Um okay. Okay. I mean, I don't really

[14:41] have a personally have an issue with with I wouldn't I wouldn't say that this

[14:47] makes jumps up in front of something on the priority legislative list, but I I

[14:52] don't know that it'd have to be as this could just be a something you could do

[14:56] without it being, you know, um and I'd also want to I don't I'd also want some

[15:02] input from maybe Chief Smid on how this might affect,

[15:08] you

[15:11] people's mood, people's, you know, when you get when when you open it up,

[15:15] obviously you're going to have more people, more drinking because it's more

[15:19] accessible. I would just I'd want to hear before I made any kind of decision.

[15:22] Again, I'm not against it. Uh I'd want to hear the chief's take on how this

[15:27] might affect the temperament of people when when there's more alcohol

[15:33] available. Yeah, >> that's all I have. CLA, I think um we

[15:37] would absolutely get Chief Schmidt involved at the next step.

[15:41] » Yeah. >> Until the state approves it, we have

[15:44] nothing to talk about. >> Ashley, do you have anything?

[15:49] » Any other alderman questions, comments from the audience? Any questions or

[15:54] comments?

[15:59] Hearing none, then um is this something? We're not voting on

[16:04] anything. Okay, Becky. Thank you very much.

[16:09] » Thank you guys so much for your time. Again, I really appreciate it. And

[16:12] please let me know if you have any other questions.

[16:17] » Next on the list is our legislative priorities.

[16:23] » Well, good evening, mayor and board. Uh we are here on a fourth time to discuss

[16:29] our legislative priorities uh for the city, both the state and local. Uh,

[16:33] thank you, Hillary, for pulling that up.

[16:38] And >> so, we spent the last few meetings

[16:39] really talking about the the overall universe of all of the different

[16:42] priorities that staff have submitted, that the board has submitted. Uh, and

[16:45] really tonight's goal is to narrow these priorities down into an actionable list.

[16:51] Uh, five state priorities, 10 local priorities, uh, to ultimately guide a

[16:56] public comment session, uh, as well as a community listening session coming up

[17:00] over the next few weeks. um with the end goal of course of adopting a resolution

[17:04] for both priorities uh and to move forward as this board with the

[17:08] legislative parties in the local level and to pass on the state level

[17:11] priorities to uh state representatives sites and Senator Hudson.

[17:17] Thank you, Hillary.

[17:20] Um so there's been a number of state priorities that have been um displayed

[17:23] here and I think it probably makes the most sense to start with our state level

[17:26] priorities. Um, just to give you a little bit of an update on the timing

[17:29] and thank you for Alderman Williams uh for coming up with the the following

[17:32] timeline. I think it's important to kind of get a a better understanding of the

[17:36] process. Um, the goal would be to have our capital plan discussion on September

[17:42] 10th. That's on Thursday. Um, we've had the opportunity to preview that to a few

[17:47] board members already. Um, and of course that's been uploaded to your folders

[17:50] last week uh for review. Um, in addition to that, uh, we would be hosting, um,

[17:56] after the 10th, um, and after tonight's meeting, of course, a public comment

[18:00] session. We'd be able to use, um, public comment at Bransonmo.gov,

[18:05] uh, to solicit comment and feedback on these priorities discussed this evening.

[18:09] Um, and of course, then have a, um, comment period open until approximately

[18:14] October 5th. Uh at that point then we can have a community meeting scheduled

[18:18] for approximately uh October 6th and that will be a listening session

[18:22] dedicated solely to state and local legislative priorities for members of

[18:26] the public that are interested to come and provide comment and feedback to all.

[18:30] Uh with of course uh October 13th being the date uh that the state and local

[18:36] priorities are consolidated and put into two resolutions for adoption by this

[18:40] board. Um, so to get started on the state priorities, uh, Hillary's actually

[18:45] created a tracker which is super helpful. Um, and will help guide

[18:48] tonight's discussion. Um, and, uh, we'll be able to, um, go through, uh, the

[18:54] number of priorities here and provide a chance for each alderman to provide

[18:58] their top five priorities and then we'll be able to rank them. Uh, is there an

[19:02] alderman or mayor who would like to go first?

[19:09] » Okay. Um, thank you again for uh your support. Um, I appreciate you very much,

[19:14] sir, and the clerk for obliging that. Just giving us some type of guardrails

[19:18] to go off of for this process. First, I read a state only first, right? And then

[19:23] Okay. So, my priorities are as follows. Tourism tax modernization,

[19:28] local health and safety authority for extended stay lodging and group homes,

[19:33] mental health, substance abuse and public safety support, Highway 65 and 76

[19:38] gateway authority and enable Branson to have entertainment districts.

[19:45] » Um, something that I had sent out to the board recently and sorry Chad, our

[19:49] clicker here isn't isn't working.

[19:55] We could go to Yes. Yep. Thank you. Um on tourism tax

[20:02] modernization, I I should have led with this, so my apologies. Um we separated

[20:05] this out into three different options. Uh the tourism tax modernization is a

[20:09] relatively large subject and it incorporate incorporated about three uh

[20:13] different parts. I know this is something Alderman Harkness had asked

[20:16] for. Um, and so I' I'd of course encourage clarification on uh what part

[20:21] of the tourism tax modernization that if if the if this is one of your items that

[20:25] you'd like to please comment on. Um, there's a there's a few here. One

[20:29] pertains to ticket reselling and the collection of tax, remittance of tax, uh

[20:34] clarifying reseller fees, server fees for service fees, etc. Uh the second is

[20:39] the ratio, the 75% infrastructure, 25% marketing. And then the third tenant uh

[20:44] or option that was presented at previous study sessions um was using the tourism

[20:49] tax and expand the allowable and permissible use of the tax uh for parks

[20:53] uh or sports tourism infrastructure facilities.

[20:58] » And for clarity uh I would be supporting option C as the state priority I listed

[21:03] off for tourism tax. >> Thank you.

[21:06] » Who um ask I'm sorry, mayor. Um so you're saying A, B, and C would all

[21:13] count as separate on on the list. Okay.

[21:17] » Yes. Numerous aldermen had submitted in um amendments possibly to the tourism

[21:24] tax. And so there's a number of different options that were available

[21:27] and so we segmented those out into uh different options or partis.

[21:33] » What's the rationale of uh part B? Um this was an idea floated by one of

[21:40] the aldermen uh pertaining to changing the ratio for the tourism and

[21:44] infrastructure as part of the tourism tax. The tourism tax and state statute

[21:48] uh currently allows for 75% of the collected uses um

[21:54] besides the administrative fee uh to use for infrastructure primarily

[21:57] infrastructure meaning hard infrastructure, streets, roads, bridges,

[22:01] wastewater distribution systems and the 25% is for marketing.

[22:05] » U there was different um conversation that occurred at a previous study

[22:08] session >> possibly amending that ratio to be 6040

[22:12] or uh 8020. Um, and so I of course would defer back to the alderman that

[22:17] sponsored that. Um, that was the general discussion at the time.

[22:20] » So, who was the alderman that sponsored that?

[22:25] » I don't recall.

[22:30] » Well, it would be great to hear some rationale of changing those percentages.

[22:41] Okay. So, so under Alex, under your um

[22:48] recommendations, you recommended

[22:53] 1C. Is that correct? >> That's correct, mayor. As part of my

[22:57] state priorities, I'm supporting tourism tax modernization of option C or part C.

[23:03] » Okay. And number

[23:07] which one did you say? Num number two. Is that

[23:12] right, Alex? >> So, I don't have them by number, but

[23:16] I'll read them again. Tourism tax modernization with option C, local

[23:21] health and safety authority for extended stay and lodging, group homes, mental

[23:25] health, substance abuse, and public safety support, highway 65 and 76

[23:31] gateway authority, and enable Branson to have entertainment districts.

[23:38] » Okay. So, Alex, number eight,

[23:45] Alex, that's one of your priorities. That's correct.

[24:00] » Anything you wanted to share on that, Alex?

[24:03] » Uh, which part, Mayor? um why you're promoting and suggesting this one as a

[24:09] legislative priority. >> Number eight.

[24:13] » Number eight. Okay. Um so number eight um it's no secret that there's um some

[24:18] clarity that's needed for the operators of these types of businesses in the

[24:22] city. And part of that, um, as I believe the city administrator and some other

[24:26] folks have mentioned, is that as a fourth class city, we're limited in our

[24:30] ability to be able to, uh, pass meaningful ordinances that would help

[24:34] resolve some of those issues. So, I'm supportive of state legislation that

[24:38] enables us to better tackle the issue of local health and safety authority for

[24:43] extended say lodging in group homes. >> Kathy,

[24:48] » thank you, Alderman Williams. Um my understanding was um the recent meeting

[24:54] that we held with some of the folks from Bala um was I was looking to advocate to

[25:00] the state to actually define what extended stay lodging means. Not that we

[25:06] have our own like little mini health department or mini licensing agency

[25:11] inside. That's kind of how I'm reading number eight. It's like give us the

[25:14] authority to take care of all these things, but yet we can't if just the

[25:19] very first step isn't met. And I don't think we'd need to if the state can meet

[25:23] the first step, which is have a clear understandable definition of what

[25:27] extended stay means and how to classify that and then what rules they would fall

[25:32] under. So I think it wouldn't be us necessarily having to come up with our

[25:36] own and I would challenge that that would be a many yearsl long gigantic

[25:40] slog of a process to do that versus just let's out of the box go for getting a

[25:48] definition with the help of Bala and their membership on extended stay

[25:54] maybe simplifying the expectation there a bit.

[25:57] » No that's fair. I just read the definition. um it's supporting

[26:00] legislation uh that would enable us to better be able to perform some of those

[26:05] functions that are listed. It's not calling for the establishment of a local

[26:10] authority because we contract that out to Tan County Health Department. So, I

[26:13] guess when it's talking about local health authority, like when these folks

[26:16] are going out to do inspections or if the city's going to do inspections and

[26:20] they're trying to do enforcement, um it's our understanding that their hands

[26:24] are tied while they're trying to um tackle some of these tough topics and

[26:29] that we don't have the ability to pass ordinances that would help clarify that

[26:34] it requires the state's involvement. just to provide some clarity here. So,

[26:40] chapter 315 is the um state statute code that pertains to lodging establishments

[26:45] and subsections 6 and 8 talk about permanent guests and transient guests.

[26:49] And really the only different differential part of that is uh

[26:53] transient guests is anything less than 30 days, 31 days and permanent guests is

[26:59] 31. And so from a municipality perspective, we have short-term rentals,

[27:04] we have lodging establishments, we also have uh apartments, right? And it goes

[27:09] by zoning mostly at municipality level, but those definitions are relatively

[27:13] broad in nature. And so it helps to have a extended stay definition um or at

[27:18] least a little bit of delineation between permanent guest and transient

[27:22] guest because I'm imagining probably not many permanent guests um will be at a

[27:26] lodging establishment. Um and if they are, what does that mean? Uh that would

[27:31] help provide clarity to the local municipalities.

[27:35] Before

[27:43] we move on, Alex, do different alderman have they each [snorts] submitted like

[27:47] five priorities that they want to discuss?

[27:49] » Uh, they have not submitted. Uh, but we're here this this evening to have

[27:52] those presented publicly. >> Okay. So, right now we're just going

[27:56] through Alex's suggested list. >> Yes, sir. So, and Alex, I hate to have

[28:02] you keep What was your third item? And we'll just find that up here to discuss.

[28:06] » That's uh item number 10. Mayor. >> Okay.

[28:15] Any alderman have any questions or comments on that?

[28:22] » Okay, Alex, your next one. It is the uh let's see here highway 65

[28:29] and 76 gateway authority which is item number three.

[28:46] Any alderman have any questions or comments on that?

[28:50] I should have asked anybody in the audience have any questions or comments

[28:53] on these

[28:56] hearing none. Alex, what's your fourth one?

[29:00] » Uh, enable Branson to have entertainment districts.

[29:03] » Okay, we just got that report from Becky.

[29:06] Um, is that your last one, Alex?

[29:10] » That is my list of five, mayor. >> Okay, so Alex has submitted a list of

[29:14] five. Are there any other alderman have

[29:18] suggested our top priorities for the state level

[29:23] other than these five?

[29:29] Other than these five, Glenn,

[29:35] » it was my understanding we were each going to um go through our priorities.

[29:41] » I think that's what we're doing. >> Okay. We just heard from Alex.

[29:45] » All right. Um then I'll go through mine. Um number one, I did not

[29:52] anticipate the splitting of number one. In fact, I I kind of view it as it's a

[29:58] worthwhile discussion if we're going to go up in Jeff City to deal with anything

[30:02] we want to do with tourism tax. And so I just said number one in total. Number

[30:08] three, which is the Highway 76 Gateway

[30:13] Authority. Um, number seven, the Truth and Fees

[30:18] Act. Number eight, local health and safety

[30:23] authority. And then, uh, entertainment district for

[30:29] Branson.

[30:35] » Okay. So, Alex, we're going to need to keep track. somehow

[30:39] Hillary's doing that. Thank you, Hill. Okay, Ruth,

[30:52] amend the section 94.815 to expand the permissible uses of City

[30:56] of Branson's existing tourism tax to include financing the construction and

[31:01] maintenance of an indoor sports facility.

[31:05] Number three, Highway 76 and 65 gateway. >> I'm sorry, your first one, Ruth, was

[31:14] that one a

[31:19] » Yeah, one in total. I I agree with Alman Schultz.

[31:22] » Okay. >> Um and then the next one, Highway 76 and

[31:27] 65 gateway. Number four, work workforce housing and

[31:34] attainable housing incentives.

[31:38] Number seven, truth and fees act. I think we're

[31:43] losing out on a lot and that could be taken that would be really helpful.

[31:48] » And then number nine, regulatory certainty for small businesses.

[31:59] Okay.

[32:02] » Why did you have five? >> Uh I had Well, if it's uh one and all of

[32:08] one, I guess. Um number three, Highway 76, Highway 60.

[32:12] » Sorry, Clay. When you said one, is it? >> Yeah. And ho just Yeah.

[32:15] » A, B, and C. Okay. >> Uh number three, the Gateway Authority.

[32:21] uh four workforce housing and then I had seven

[32:27] and nine

[32:39] » sure >> if I could just ask a question Alex is

[32:42] number nine a state issue or a local one because it's sounding like it says

[32:47] zoning complexity as barriers to development Branson is a state barriers

[32:52] or local barriers? I mean, there are state barriers.

[32:55] » We have a companion one in the local. >> Do we? Okay, very good. Thank you.

[33:00] » Number nine is more of a policy statement versus a specific maybe state

[33:04] statute. But that may there may there may be an opportunity where if an issue

[33:08] pops up um concerning permitting that would pertain to a municipality, our

[33:12] lobbyists can flag that for us and we can bring it to the board and see if

[33:15] this is something that you want to tackle.

[33:20] Ashley. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I did number

[33:25] one, Branson Tourism Tax Modernization Part C and part

[33:32] A because I'm I agree with the ticket reseller thing and I felt like that was

[33:37] similar to Truth and Fees. So, that's how I did that one. Um, I did number

[33:43] two, workforce housing and obtainable housing incentives. I did um the

[33:48] entertainment districts. I did number three, 7665 Gateway Authority. I did

[33:54] number 10, very I'm very out of order right now. Sorry. Mental health,

[33:59] substance abuse, and public safety support. And then also number eight,

[34:03] local health and safety authority for extended stay lodging and group homes. I

[34:07] think I actually got six in there.

[34:15] Did you get those, Hillary? >> So now, Hillary, you're gonna

[34:19] consolidate these and show the board what each board member chose.

[34:27] » I don't know that I can show them, but I can announce them when we're all done.

[34:30] » I think we're done. >> Arty, are you online?

[34:36] » He is not. So then

[34:41] Hill. >> Okay. So number one, the Branson Tourism

[34:44] Modernization. Um everybody voted for um with Ashley voting for option A and

[34:53] Alex and Ashley voting for option C, but everybody else was just the whole um

[34:59] then we had or for the number three Highway 76

[35:04] um and 65 gateway. We had three for the Workforce Housing

[35:11] incentives. We had three for the Truth and Fees Act. We had three for the um

[35:18] extended stay lodging and group homes. We had two for the mental health,

[35:24] substance abuse, and public safety support. Two for the safeguard small

[35:29] businesses for the impact of bur burdensome regulations. Sorry. And uh

[35:34] one for section 94.815

[35:40] for the um existing tourism tax to include

[35:44] financing the construction and maintenance of an indoor sports facility

[35:47] and then we had 3416 which is to enable the creation of an entertainment

[35:51] district citywide. >> So there's a lot of ties as far as that

[35:56] goes. >> So how does the board want to handle

[35:59] these and prioritize these?

[36:03] » Open for suggestions.

[36:07] Is it are we doing like top five? >> Well, we're doing our plan was to submit

[36:12] five to the state

[36:18] » when I personally I would say, you know, this was a pretty good culling process.

[36:23] We've got clearly top five items and I think we should make that our list going

[36:29] forward and then um you know start the public discussions and then eventually

[36:35] get to a formal vote on those. So we're going to have a public comment

[36:42] section on these items that we've earmarked each of

[36:47] the ones that were nominated if you will.

[36:51] Okay. So, are we doing the same for local

[36:55] priorities? Okay,

[36:58] everybody submitted a list for local priorities.

[37:09] Uh to clarify, the top five was for the state priorities and the top 10 is for

[37:14] the local legislative priorities.

[37:18] So, >> were we announcing what the top five

[37:22] were of the state ones tonight or No, >> we did not. We didn't have a top five.

[37:27] We had several tie. I mean, I could I could announce the top ones that

[37:30] received votes. >> Yeah,

[37:32] » there's a lot of them that didn't. >> Yeah. What are the top five? Top however

[37:36] many. >> The definite top two is the Bransom

[37:39] Tourism Tax Modernization and the Highway 76 and 65 gateway authority. And

[37:46] then workforce housing, truth and fee acts, um extended stay and group homes,

[37:52] uh all got three votes. So those all tied amongst themselves.

[37:55] » So that would be the five, wouldn't it? >> And and I'm sorry. And then the

[37:59] entertainment district also received three. So there was four different ones

[38:02] that received three. So whittling that down.

[38:07] » Then I suggest we just go with the six going forward and sort it out during the

[38:11] public discussion and final vote. I would still like more clarity on one B

[38:19] because I'd hate for that to end up on our list of top five to submit when we

[38:23] haven't even discussed that

[38:31] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes.

[38:32] » Um I I know that we had a bunch of things thrown kind of in all of this

[38:38] over a course of time. So, it could be why none of us are quite understanding

[38:42] where that one came from or why it's there. But I am with you on that that I

[38:47] don't I'm not in a position where I think we need to change the ratios. I

[38:51] don't have any information for it. I haven't seen any studies on it and

[38:55] that's why I left it out and that's that is why I asked for that to be broken out

[38:59] because I wanted to pull that out of there.

[39:01] » Right. And and to be clear, I two of mine were going to be 1 A and one

[39:06] C, but then I just thought y'all said, "Well, just keep it all together." So

[39:10] that's But I mean, if we were breaking it out, I would I would go with A and C

[39:14] as well. >> Okay. Anybody else have any input on B?

[39:20] Glenn. >> Yeah, I think this is the kind of

[39:23] discussion we can just let play out in public. I think we can let the three

[39:27] things be there, let the discussion happen, and then we fine-tune what

[39:31] number one is as we get through that process.

[39:37] » Okay. Again, I'm just questioning I'm not sure who threw that idea out. I

[39:43] don't know if it has any weight to it, any substance behind it. And so I I'm

[39:51] reluctant to bring something out for public comment on something that the

[39:55] board just that just one person just threw out as a how about this idea?

[40:05] So he'll with Clay amending his

[40:10] one A and C. How many uh how many votes did

[40:17] one get? A, B, and C. >> Isn't that going to be problematic when

[40:21] you start giving people six votes and now you're trying to find the top five?

[40:27] » I don't understand that, Glenn. >> Well, Clay cast, correct me if I'm

[40:31] wrong, Clay, but he I'm just using him as an example. I'm not picking on him,

[40:35] but he cast five votes. That's in the tally we have now.

[40:41] for Clay to say he's voting for 1 A and 1 C separately, he'd have to pull one of

[40:47] the other votes that he gave out of those totals. Yeah.

[40:51] » And we're kind of going to start this process all over again.

[40:54] » Well, because I had six initially because

[40:58] » and when I heard Glenn say, "Well, it's just kind of one in general." I mean, I

[41:02] mean, for discussion point, I don't think it's a big

[41:05] » I'm just saying if it were split out, that was going to be mine. But then I

[41:09] heard Glenn say, "Well, we're just kind of doing it all as one." So, I'm I'm

[41:11] good with that as of now. If that helps.

[41:20] Okay. Yeah, this

[41:24] this whole process is um convoluted.

[41:33] So, we'll keep it convoluted and move on to

[41:39] Community priorities, >> local legislative priorities. Correct.

[41:46] » So again, did alderman submit their would you say we're choosing we're

[41:50] reducing this to 10? >> That is correct, mayor.

[41:53] » Did all men submit 10? >> Uh I believe the aldermen are here to uh

[41:57] publicly present their top 10. >> Okay. So let's go down the list. Alex,

[42:02] you want to start? >> Yes, mayor. Thank you. Uh, I will

[42:04] clarify this time for the sake of everyone's benefit. I apologize for not

[42:08] listing the item numbers. For my local priorities, I start with item number

[42:12] one, which is the adoption of the rolling seven-year capital plan. Do you

[42:16] want me to pause in between for discussion or roll through the list?

[42:20] » Let's just roll through it. >> Okay, perfect. Uh, my next one is item

[42:23] number 19, Highway 76 revitalization. Um, and I just clarify all segments,

[42:30] whatever that looks like. I know it says community improvement district

[42:32] expansion, but I'm supporting item number 19. The third one is item seven,

[42:38] finalize and approve the new community plan.

[42:42] My fourth is item number eight, permitting reform.

[42:46] My fifth is item 10, group home and extended state ordinance overhaul.

[42:52] My sixth is item number 16 with modification um increase walkability and

[42:59] safety of state and local roadways because that's the intent in the

[43:02] definition. Item number seven is item 17. Uh I've

[43:08] broken it out over three different sections. So bear with me instead of it

[43:11] being one item since it was identified as too lofty by itself. Um my seventh

[43:17] item is improved child care opportunities in support of our

[43:20] workforce. My eighth item is improve the health and well-being of our community.

[43:26] My ninth item is prioritize the establishment of a 12-month economy. And

[43:31] I end with um a new item uh that I discovered during community feedback.

[43:37] And that is the establishment of a funding source for our community's parks

[43:41] department.

[43:45] » Okay. Did you get those? >> Hill

[43:50] Williams, if you could repeat. I got your very last one. If you could repeat

[43:53] eight and nine for me just to make sure I got them correct.

[43:55] » Eight and nine. Number eight. Item number 17, improve the health and

[43:59] well-being of our community. Item number nine, prioritize the establishment of a

[44:04] 12-month economy. And again, I broke those out because it had been previously

[44:09] identified as too much under one bullet. They are all three separate topics, and

[44:13] they are all three equally as big.

[44:18] Okay, thank you. >> You good, Hill?

[44:20] » Yes, >> Glenn.

[44:24] » Yeah, for mine. Number two, advisory committees. Number four,

[44:31] outdated business license requirements. Number five, city housing workforce

[44:38] housing initiative. Number six, rewrite code for alderman

[44:43] meetings. Number eight, permitting reform.

[44:49] Number nine, the blighted area of Highway 65.

[44:54] 10, group homes. 11, neighborhood parking ordinances.

[45:02] 14, tourism tax accountability. I think that's nine. Is that correct? Or is that

[45:08] 10?

[45:13] I guess you have one more.

[45:20] » Yeah, I guess I'll add the rolling seven-year capital plan.

[45:28] Okay, Ruth.

[45:32] Number three, review water sewer rate performance for 2026.

[45:39] Number four, eliminate outdated or unnecessary business license

[45:42] requirements, including workers comp documentation where not legally

[45:46] required. Number seven, finalize and approve the

[45:51] new community plan. Number eight, permitting reform.

[45:57] Number nine, declare blighted area on 76 main and off 65.

[46:03] Number 15, downtown and 76 gateway improvements.

[46:08] Number 16, public safety, homelessness and sidewalk access.

[46:13] Number 19, 76, cities expansion. Number 22, tunnel towers. I think that

[46:22] just goes along with what we're doing in the city and and I think that would be

[46:27] wonderful to do for our veterans. And 24, creation of Branson Landing

[46:32] Entertainment District.

[46:38] Okay, Clay, >> I had number start at the top. Uh,

[46:44] let's see. Where was here? Oh, sorry. And they're not I don't have

[46:49] them in. Uh, 19. Sorry, Chad. Yeah, I had eight.

[46:57] And I Yeah. 17

[47:03] four.

[47:08] A number nine.

[47:13] It wasn't the top, was it? Sorry. Start at the top. 19. Uh, where was I? Number

[47:19] eight. Did I say eight already? Yes. Number nine.

[47:24] 15.

[47:27] Yeah. 22

[47:33] and 20. Wait, wait. 20. Oh, that's all I had. Is that 10? How many is that?

[47:46] Was that 10? It was 10, wasn't it? I I counted eight

[47:54] » then that's all I got.

[47:58] » Or if you want two more >> you want I can I can start at the

[48:03] beginning here >> Ashley.

[48:06] » Thanks. So number one rolling seven-year capital plan. Number five city workforce

[48:12] housing initiative. Um, I don't know if you guys are aware, but Southwest

[48:16] Arkansas is changing some zoning, which I think could be cool to look at, where

[48:21] they're allowing um, studios and small houses on said property. If you own the

[48:26] property and you've got a lot of land there, you don't have to reszone to add

[48:31] like a studio house, which is really helpful when it comes to housing. Um,

[48:36] number eight for permitting reform, but I wanted to include the eliminating

[48:41] unnecessary business license requirements because I felt like they

[48:46] were very similar. Number four, so I I kind of combined these. You ready, Hill

[48:52] Larry? [laughter]

[48:53] » Okay, we're about to hear it. >> Number nine, 13, 15, and 19. they are

[49:00] all about 76 it being blighted and having permission to make that better.

[49:06] So I just lumped them all together [snorts] um to declare it a blighted

[49:11] area reducing demo fees maximizing the capital

[49:14] uh building fee permit up to 10,000 and expanding the 76 C to include section 7

[49:20] and 8. So it kind of all works together. Um number 16, public safety homelessness

[49:26] and sidewalk access. Number 17, unlike Alex, I kept it all together so I could

[49:32] get more in. So, it's child care, healthcare, and a 12-month economy.

[49:36] Number 14, tourism tax accountability, which I feel like mirrors the um freedom

[49:43] and and tax act or whatever. [snorts] Number 24, creation of the Branson

[49:49] Landing Entertainment Zone. So, once we get that legislation passed, I do think

[49:53] on a local level, that's something we should pursue. And then I added the

[49:58] chambers list that we adopted. And then um I'm with Alex on this one. Didn't

[50:04] know it was an option, but I love it. So anyway we can get funding for parks, I'm

[50:09] always going to be 100% for that. So thanks for that one, Alex.

[50:14] » So what are you going to do with that, Hillary?

[50:17] » Yeah, that one is a little more all over the map.

[50:21] Would you like me to tell you the ones that didn't get any votes? Would that be

[50:24] easier? [laughter] I'm kidding. Um, so

[50:28] the uh so number one, the seven-year capital plan got three.

[50:36] I I mean I Yeah. Okay. So number two got one. Number three got one. Number four

[50:43] got three. Number five got two. Six got one. Seven got two. Eight got

[50:51] five. 10 got two. 11 got one, 13 got two, 14

[50:57] got two, 15 got two, 16 got three. So you can see it's kind of all over the

[51:02] place. Uh 17 got four, 19 got two, 22 got two,

[51:08] 24 got two, and then there was the additional establishing of funding

[51:12] source for parks which got two. So, um what we can do is

[51:19] combine this and bring them back and a couple of those will need to be um

[51:24] discussed as well and refined um too. >> Yeah. I'm just curious, Hill, how many

[51:30] received three or more votes?

[51:41] » Uh five received three or more. The rest of them were two. It's split up amongst

[51:46] two. There's about five that are split up with two votes or more.

[51:51] » Okay. So, basically, next time we bring it up, we're going to be discussing the

[51:55] items that receive three or more and those that receive two.

[52:01] » That works. >> Good for the board.

[52:07] » Okay. Um, do you have anything else?

[52:11] » Uh, no. Just to recap on the timeline uh for everyone, um we're going to be

[52:15] having our capital plan public meeting, a special meeting on uh September 10th.

[52:20] We're going to um provide a community feedback um email address and put that

[52:25] on social media for folks to have a um chance to weigh in on these priorities,

[52:30] the proposed priorities. We'll publish this list publicly. There'll be a email

[52:35] um link that they can uh access to submit any comments. We'll provide those

[52:40] comments of course on the night of the resolution once until Hillary gets that

[52:44] all compiled as well. Uh we'll have that comment period open for approximately

[52:48] three weeks or so. Uh and then on the 6th uh we're going to have a special

[52:53] meeting. Um I don't know if that's been scheduled yet. We're still in the works

[52:58] on that. That's tenative at this time. And then on the 13th um that's when

[53:02] we'll actually approve the resolutions. Uh, of course there'll be debate and

[53:05] you'll be able to narrow those down to your five state and 10 local priorities

[53:11] as well as receive any public comment that was submitted uh written.

[53:16] Thank you. >> Any other additional comments from the

[53:21] board? >> I would just say why we, you know, tried

[53:26] to express our top 10 on local priorities. We may find that we have to

[53:31] go either a few more than 10 or a few less than 10 to get it sorted out. I

[53:35] don't think we had imagined that we necessarily were going to lock ourselves

[53:39] into 10 through this process. So, we have to remain a little bit flexible as

[53:44] we get to the goal line. >> Alex,

[53:47] » thank you, Mayor. I think another important com um thank you for your work

[53:51] on this. Uh the staff did a great job fielding a billion questions and trying

[53:56] to put some uh process in place for us to get to the finish line. Um I think

[54:00] the other important thing to recognize is that once we get a resolution passed,

[54:04] it's not stopping. Like it's not going to be the end of advocacy and things

[54:08] that are important. So if something doesn't make it, it doesn't mean it's

[54:11] not going to get looked at and that we we're not it's going to be a resolution

[54:15] for priorities, but it's not the end all beall. We'll do nothing else that's not

[54:19] on that list. I think that's important as well. Anybody

[54:23] else? Any uh comments from the audience?

[54:28] Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the study session.

[54:32] » So move. >> Second.

[54:33] » We have a motion to second. All in favor say I.

[54:36] » I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Eyes have it. Thank

[54:40] you. Meeting adjourned.

Board of Aldermen - Study Session - 9/8/26

Transcript