Is it still the “chamber tax?” Probably so but it doesn’t have to be!
At the July 7, 2003, meeting of the Taney County Commission, Mr. Ross Summers, of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, did his level best to separate the “Chamber Tax” from the Chamber and suggested that everyone start calling it a “Tourism Tax.”Based on the reaction of those present, it appeared that he was about as successful, in this endeavor, as a gnat would be in separating buzzards from carrion they wanted to eat.
In its current form, if the “Chamber Tax” is to be called something else, it’s probably more accurate to call it a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” rather than a “Tourism” Tax.”As an example, the 10 percent for schools and 10 percent for community enhancement projects has nothing to do with the tourism marketing of our area and, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, was originally included by the “Chambers Secret Handshake visionaries” as a vote getting “carrot.”
What is necessary to make the transition to just a simple “Tourism Tax,” that can be debated on its own merits?The transition from a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” to “Tourism Tax” appears to be pretty simple.Just delete the “carrot provisions” and provide that “Ninety-seven percent of the revenues shall be used by the Districts Board for the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism as it deems appropriate to most effectively market the District [Branson area].”
The transitioning from the “Chamber Tax” to a “Tourism Tax” is a little more challenging.The first, and most critical step, is to eliminate the obvious bias in the original law toward just about guaranteeing that the proceeds from the tax will be administered by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce.The wording suggested above is one way to accomplish just that and provides the Districts Board with the flexibility it needs to effectively market Branson in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
The second step is to insure that the Districts Board of Directors is either elected directly or appointed by, and accountable, to a governmental body elected by the voters.Doesn’t common sense dictate that Board members should not be selected by non governmental entities, such as the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, which may be competing for the very marketing funds that the Board they are selecting people for has the responsibility for administering?
The simplest way to accomplish this is to eliminate any provision in the statute that permits any entity other than a government entity, elected by the voters, to select Board members.A suggested composition would be a five member Board with three (3) members selected by the Branson Board of Aldermen, one by the Taney County Commission, and one by the Stone County Commission.
After the February 2002 election, a new “voter approval” section was added to the law that authorizes the tax.This section appears to authorize the flexibility to accomplish the above but must be done so by the voters at the same time they vote on the sales tax.To an Ole Seagull, it is a cumbersome and legally dubious process, but it at least provides a mechanism for needed changes.
Could it be that a better approach would be for the community to agree on a new law and commit to getting it through the legislature?Is it unreasonable to expect the Chamber that created the problem to step forward and provide the leadership to give the voters the law they should have had in the first place?
Will the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce take the lead and say, “Whatever it takes let’s get it fixed?All we want is for Branson to be marketed in the most efficient manner possible and if that means that someone else does it that’s all right with us?”Will the public accept that, forget the past, and work towards what is best for Branson’s future?An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that they would but his fear is that they will never get the chance.
