GALVESTON
The city council today will consider asking voters in May to weigh in on a charter amendment that would fundamentally change management of about $10 million a year in hotel occupancy tax revenue.
Council members will consider calling the referendum to seek change in a provision mandating the city give the Park Board of Trustees all revenue from 3 percent of the city’s 15 percent hotel occupancy tax. That slice of the rate generates about $9.9 million a year and is restricted to spending on efforts to market and promote tourism.
City Councilman David Collins, who along with Mayor Craig Brown put the item on the agenda, said the change was needed to make the charter agree with the state tax code.
Aside from conflicting with state law, however, the charter now forces the city to give the convention and visitors bureau, which the Park Board operates under the name Visit Galveston, more marketing and promotional money than it has been spending each year, advocates of the change argue.
Visit Galveston budgets about $6.6 million but receives $9.9 million and banks the excess, about $3 million a year recently, in what Collins called a “slush fund” from which public money can be spent without much public oversight.
Park Board leaders, however, see the proposed change as a “war on tourism” that would put Visit Galveston’s funding in the council hands, make it vulnerable to politics and hamstring efforts to promote tourism, which is arguably the island’s most important industry.
“With no clearly communicated plan or process in place for this charter amendment, the overall economic impact of tourism on Galveston Island is in question,” park board Chairman Marty Fluke said in a prepared statement Wednesday.
“As HOT is a tax on hotel rooms and paid by visitors, it is an economic benefit for residents. Tourism generates 40 percent of the property tax and 50 percent of the sales tax, reducing the tax burden on our residents.”
Park board leaders also have pointedly objected to the idea the organization’s spending lacks oversight and suggested the city would be more likely to misspend the money.
Collins, however, argued the change would not defund Visit Galveston, but would free up money that had been idle in Visit Galveston’s budget for use to build a robust means for funding arts and cultural programs in the city.
“The CVB has been doing this work for decades and it does a good job,” Collins said. “I don’t think anyone at the city wants to take any money from the CVB, but it’s not spending anywhere near $10 million a year.”
A central question, among advocates for change at least, is the intent among voters who approved the existing charter provision in 1967.
At the time, the 3 percent was expected to generate about $90,000 a year, Collins said.
“Adjusted for inflation today, that’s only $800,000 not $9.9 million,” Collins has said.
The existing charter language prevents the community from exploiting the boon of a booming tourism industry to the fullest extent, City Manager Brian Maxwell said.
“It’s like deciding you’re going to devote a third of your income to paying your water bill,” Maxwell said. “Maybe when you decided to do that it made sense, but after you start making a lot more income, it doesn’t any more.
“Nobody wants to take any money from the CVB. I’m sure that if the park board came to the council with a budget to spend $10 million it would be approved.
“This is not a money grab. Nobody is saying we should pay the city’s light bill with it or spend it on police. But it would free up money for arts and culture programs, which is legitimate spending that would benefit tourism and residents, it would enhance quality of life.”
The deadline for the city to call a May referendum is Feb. 17, Collins said.
The next election date would be in November.
Collins argued there was no legitimate reason to delay the vote. If the council defers the vote Thursday, he and other advocates on the council would call a special meeting before the Feb. 17 deadline, he said.
Galveston City Council will meet at 5 p.m. at City Hall, 823 25th St.
(2) comments
When one has a monopoly, a guaranteed gig or contract, it’s difficult if not impossible, to understand that one isn’t a king. All of this recent strife stems from this idea of knowing competition does not exist due to a bizarre charter provision referencing an entity that does not exist in its voted upon form for over 50 years.
In 1967, there was a “beach park board” with very limited powers. Today we have a park board that uses public funds to sue private property owners, researches how to sue the state to take what the PB deems appropriate action against tax paying property owners, and spends public funds to fight the city for requesting that misappropriated Excess funds are returned to the city accounts where it earns interest.
It’s time to let the citizens vote instead of blocking their right to vote by claiming a “war on tourism” instead of a war on abuse of power and monopolies and spending without any checks and balances by elected officials.
Yes tourism is very important and regardless of whether the charter section is removed or changed with the current terminology, 3 % will be spent on advertising.
By spending all this money on legal fees that does not put any heads in beds, one must wonder how the PB can claim to be a bastion of good spending habits and fiscal accountability.
What excuses will be given to prevent a residentbvote? I can’t wait to hear the excuses.
If I had to guess based on workshop, I believe council will defer this 3% charter topic and block the ability to vote in May. Maybe the residents will be allowed to vote in November.
As a fyi, there was confusion on the difference of excess funds from looking at budget and expenses and excess funds from that process and excess from undervaluing the penny and socking away the excess in reserves. And the significance of those amounts are huge.
Everyone should insist the PB start completing an ACFR - a special audit that has an introductory, financial, and statistical section so that new council member and the public can easily understand the issue. State law requires an ACFR for political bodies.
Approving a charter change on the 3 % required to go to the “beach park board” doesn’t mean a defunding of the CVB. It means we would adhere to the state law code. Yes, please.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.