Tepid support for tax boost

OPINION
Copyright 1999 Kansas City Star Co.
Reprinted with permission
Article date: July 31, 1999
 

Kansas City's proposed increase in the hotel/motel tax starts with two strikes against it but still deserves voter support on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, the one percentage point increase contained in Question No. 3 would funnel more money - around $250,000 a year - to the Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund. City Council members have financed questionable activities from that fund for far too long.

The problems with the fund should have been eliminated long ago.

Mayor Kay Barnes recently advanced some reasonable ideas to improve the situation. But voters won't know until later this year whether the council will make any of the needed changes.

Ideally, Kansas Citians should not have been asked to supply another quarter-million dollars to the tourism fund in its current form.

Another concern about the proposed tax increase is that Kansas City remains the prime funder of the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Greater Kansas City.

The bureau promotes tourism for the entire metropolitan area. But other cities with hotel/motel taxes - such as Overland Park, Lee's Summit and Blue Springs - don't send their revenues to the bureau.

Overland Park, for example, uses its hotel/motel tax to finance its own convention and visitors agency.

The current proposal in Kansas City would have been more attractive if it had been part of a bistate effort in which other area cities would help finance the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Greater Kansas City.

There are several points, however, to be made in favor of the tax increase:

Half of the money - about $1.25 million a year - would be used to finance some needed capital improvements at Kansas City's convention facilities, including Bartle Hall, Kemper Arena and Municipal Auditorium. Using designated revenue from the hotel/motel tax for these improvements is better than relying on the city's general fund.

The hotel/motel tax is mostly paid by outsiders, not local residents.

Even with the proposed increase, the tax rate for Kansas City's hotels and motels still would be lower than in many other cities.

The hotel/motel tax revenues could lead to more tourism spending in Kansas City, but only if the money is spent properly for better marketing and reasonable capital improvements.

Voters could be more enthusiastic about Question No. 3 if the problems with the Neighborhood Tourism Development Fund had been resolved and if other cities had agreed to pay their fair share of the costs for promotional efforts that benefit the entire metropolitan area. But Kansas City voters still have sufficient reasons to approve the proposed increase on Tuesday.

Reprinted with permission of The Kansas City Star
 

In the News