Guest Editorial: Hotel/Motel task force member offers explanation

As a member of the hotel/motel tax task force appointed by the Red Oak City Council, I worked hard with the other members to develop an ordinance for the election.

We conducted eight meetings, held two public forums and surveyed many communities that already have the tax. We prepared the information, submitted it to the City Attorney and the Commissioner of Elections to assure it met the requirements.

The ordinance as prepared by our committee was for all revenue to be used for the promotion and encouragement of tourism related activities.

It also created a committee of community members approved by the City Council to recommend disbursement of the requested allocations.  

Final decisions on committee members and disbursements would always be approved by the City Council.

The draft suggested eligible projects as those improving or promoting recreation, convention, culture, entertainment and/or tourism in Red Oak. They were to be designed to enhance and initiate efforts to retain or improve existing businesses and/or attract new businesses to the community and to improve the economic vitality of the community.

The interest of the committee members was to insure these ideas would always be followed. This tax once passed stays in place until it’s re-moved by a voter referendum.  

Our wish was to insure future Councils would be held to task in the use of the funds.  

The ordinance approved earlier by the Council for the ballot did not give that assurance. It said “at least 50 percent of the tax revenue shall be used for recreation and the remaining shall be used for any lawful purpose.”

It omitted any reference to tourism even though it is being collected from tourists and “any other lawful purpose” could mean just that.

There was no reference to the State Code nor was there any provision for citizen approval for any decisions. Only through future election of Council members could citizens show approval.

Memorandums of understanding, resolutions and motions are just that. They are not laws and can be changed at the will of the Council. They are adopted by a majority vote at one meeting. An ordinance is a law of general and permanent nature that governs behavior and may be enforced through fines and penalties. You cannot use a resolution or a motion to repeal or amend it.

The committee was not self-serving but devoted many hours to developing a program to benefit Red Oak and encourage tourists to visit. We wanted to insure these tax dollars would always be used this way no matter who was on the  Council.

We did not want it to become a campaign issue with people seeking Council seats in order to control these funds.

Our intent was not to create discord within the City but to make the original ordinance better as a result of our meetings and public forums.

We used the community input to come up with a plan that by law would have continued through the years.

The present Council may use parts of the plan developed as I feel they are interested in the same things we referenced.

However, succeeding Councils will be different and this was our concern. The phrase “any other lawful purpose” which now will appear in the ordinance can justify most any expenditure of funds.

The hotel/motel tax could be a benefit to the community if appropriately used. This is why I worked with the others in studying the issues and making the recommendations. I felt my job was done when only two members of the Council approved the actions of the committee. I have no interest in recommending what lawful purposes will receive funding.

My interest was in improving the economic vitality of the area through use of funds for improving and promoting recreation and tourism.

Karen Blue is a former mayor and city councilperson for Red Oak.