[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.