If CS is out will Bryan be far behind? Is this a Covid casualty?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Experience BCS
4,255 Views |
30 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by bcstx06
What is this post about
So we are moving from a 3rd party that specializes in this to in house. I don't trust the CoCS to be able to handle this properly.
I think this is a potentially good idea if they can hire the right people to handle it.
This move by CoCS is very contrary to the "2 cities, 1 community" mantra they're trying to force down our throats, so I approve. The leaders and "powers that be" in each city are ok with the mantra so long as working with the other yields a larger benefit to themselves.
I've said it before, but I like that we have 2 distinct cities with different governments so that people can decide where to live and what pace of life they want to have, and the cities are different. People like having a choice.
My bet the is that Bryan follows suit because I think CS was putting in more $$ as they usually have more HOT tax. And yes, likely a victim of covid as HOT tax is way down, but Experience BCS has come under scrutiny in recent years, especially since they change their name to this current dumb name.
I've said it before, but I like that we have 2 distinct cities with different governments so that people can decide where to live and what pace of life they want to have, and the cities are different. People like having a choice.
My bet the is that Bryan follows suit because I think CS was putting in more $$ as they usually have more HOT tax. And yes, likely a victim of covid as HOT tax is way down, but Experience BCS has come under scrutiny in recent years, especially since they change their name to this current dumb name.
No so sure this is a great idea. When the super park become open in Bryan I can see a lot more opportunities for sports tourism in Bryan as well and the partnership would be better then
Yup, likely a resulting of budget belt tightening due to Covid. I don't have an opinion on good or bad.
Just what we need in the scope of COCS pork barrel spending, a new department. I believe 100% of the payments to Experience BCS were from hotel/motel taxes (which have restricted use and my be less these days). But moving this in house more than likely cannot be completely paid for using these restricted funds. They have never liked to share the stage with Bryan or the county, and I know they always disliked not having ultimate control but this is one of many areas I think they should take bids and contract out. Do we really need a video production and graphic arts department? Do we need dedicated vehicles (at least have seen labeled as such) to transfer mail between city sites? We probably need this about as much as we NEED that $750,000 you are entering the Republic of College Station sign they were proposing awhile back.
I am not sure how I feel about this either. We will all find out in a few years if this was a good idea. On the surface it seems Bryan could be hurt by this.
The money comes from the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT). It is not so much as where the event is located versus where someone actually stays. If people go to an event in Bryan (TX Reds, the new park, and so on); but stay in CS, then CS gets the HOT revenue.
With the oil field hurting a lot of the long term stays from workers will be declining which I think would hurt Bryan more.
CS also has more of the bigger chains where someone is more likely to earn points or have an agreement with a company for employee travel.
The Downtown Bryan association is also funded by the HOT. I wonder what percent of the funding they received and if this was a pain point.
I live in CS but do a lot in Bryan, especially downtown. I hope this works out for both cities.
The money comes from the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT). It is not so much as where the event is located versus where someone actually stays. If people go to an event in Bryan (TX Reds, the new park, and so on); but stay in CS, then CS gets the HOT revenue.
With the oil field hurting a lot of the long term stays from workers will be declining which I think would hurt Bryan more.
CS also has more of the bigger chains where someone is more likely to earn points or have an agreement with a company for employee travel.
The Downtown Bryan association is also funded by the HOT. I wonder what percent of the funding they received and if this was a pain point.
I live in CS but do a lot in Bryan, especially downtown. I hope this works out for both cities.
There's been some frank, public conversation about this in City Council. CS pays about 2/3 of the bill, but has gotten almost nothing out of Experience BCS. Failure to perform. Finally got tired of it. This was in the works way before Covid.
I know they help run the 7 on 7 tourney. The girls huge BB tourney after Xmas and we're starting a VB tourney this fall from a sport perspective. I hope the city understands the sport aspect of it as I have always thought if they could get 10+ sport events that fill a lot of the hotels they were doing a good job on the side of youth sports.
IMHO this will make scheduling basketball and volleyball tournaments here very difficult. I suspect Experience BCS was heavily involved in these as no one facility or school district has enough gyms to handle a big tournament... they all use BISD, CSISD and some private school facilities to meet the need.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
How many CS councilmen are business owners or have any business experience. I'll hang up and listen.
Drilltime
Joined:
Oct 15, 2012
Posts:
200
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The HOT fund has about $19M sitting in the bank. In the past it has taken in about $ 6M per year and $ 1.7M of that goes to Experience BCS (my layman's reading of the budget). We can certainly cover the administration of the sporting events with $1.7 M. But the primary failure has not been sports, but failing to attract tax paying business (as opposed to non-taxable university growth). While we foot 2/3 of the bill, Bryan is ending with the companies and tax income.
Being taken advantage of is s a little irritating, but the real damage is from having fallen asleep at the wheel because you thought someone else was driving. We need more than a marketing contractor, we need a market identity to start with. Bryan has been consciously making the real changes needed to create a real market identity for more than a decade. The difference is really striking every year in the presentations they do at the Chamber Economic Conference. One talks about what they want to become and the other gives you an accounting report on what they are right now.
You can't contract out your company's business model, and a city can't contract out the creation of it's market identity. My sense is that the withdrawal from EBCS is largely due to this council coming to grips with this. Maybe
Being taken advantage of is s a little irritating, but the real damage is from having fallen asleep at the wheel because you thought someone else was driving. We need more than a marketing contractor, we need a market identity to start with. Bryan has been consciously making the real changes needed to create a real market identity for more than a decade. The difference is really striking every year in the presentations they do at the Chamber Economic Conference. One talks about what they want to become and the other gives you an accounting report on what they are right now.
You can't contract out your company's business model, and a city can't contract out the creation of it's market identity. My sense is that the withdrawal from EBCS is largely due to this council coming to grips with this. Maybe
Crompton to the rescue!
Thank you for your overview.Drilltime said:
The HOT fund has about $19M sitting in the bank. In the past it has taken in about $ 6M per year and $ 1.7M of that goes to Experience BCS (my layman's reading of the budget). We can certainly cover the administration of the sporting events with $1.7 M. But the primary failure has not been sports, but failing to attract tax paying business (as opposed to non-taxable university growth). While we foot 2/3 of the bill, Bryan is ending with the companies and tax income.
Bryan isn't taking advantage of College Station .... College Station is being too selective about the businesses they're willing to accept ... light industry and manufacturing for example. Take a look at the zoning maps/restrictions in Bryan vs College Station. It's the same pie-in-the-sky mentality that CS applies to residential development by using impact fees to kill new home construction below $300k.
I agree that Kollege Station needs more industry and far less dependence on tourism. The corona emphasizes this point, but it also highlights the importance of fiscal responsibility. It would be nice to blame experience BCS for this lack of business recruiting, but this is not their JOB. Since they are funded from HOT funds there are statutory limits on the activities that can be pursued with that funding, and that does not include business development. The saying is you can only use it to put heads in beds (Hotel beds), but there are nine allowed purposes which are basically Sports, Arts & Conventions and the facilities to host them. Of course CS has historically liberally interpreted this, I am pretty sure the David P Romei arts and felony center never attracted people to hotels, and am pretty sure the waterline from veterans park to the sewer plant is fringe use also. I am not sure there are issues with the re purposing the art center (an allowed use) to senior citizens center (not allowed).
I am not anti tourism since it generates local spend and sales revenue, but historically not happy with the HOT discussions. The councils "people don't have a choice so lets max rate" is plain wrong. The fund balance is an indicator of this. My desire would be tax at reasonable level then market lower HOT taxes to visiting groups to bring them local and collect the local tax and spend, but that is me.
But I am sure your anti AirBNB guys Crompton and Maloney will get those businesses to relocate here with their Trees and anti litter initiatives.
I am not anti tourism since it generates local spend and sales revenue, but historically not happy with the HOT discussions. The councils "people don't have a choice so lets max rate" is plain wrong. The fund balance is an indicator of this. My desire would be tax at reasonable level then market lower HOT taxes to visiting groups to bring them local and collect the local tax and spend, but that is me.
But I am sure your anti AirBNB guys Crompton and Maloney will get those businesses to relocate here with their Trees and anti litter initiatives.
Bryan will not be hurt at all by all of this. Bryan is a lot more diversified than the neighbor to the south. CS relies heavily on sales tax from high end restaurants and retail. Bryan builds for the masses. Just take a look at the sales tax rebates that Bryan received in May. Bryan was up 6%, while CS was down 7%. Bryan is up for the year a little over 1 million in sales tax. CS is only up about 94,000 for the year. Plus, Bryan has BTU that brings in several hundred million a year. There is a part of CS that is on BTU utilities. Bryan has one of the best industrial bases in the state. Bryan has been the leader in home construction for over the last 3 years for Brazos County.
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/allocations/sales-tax/cities.php
https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/allocations/sales-tax/cities.php
The land use plan at the perimeter of both cities will always tend to be Rural until a developer asks for a specific use to be approved. Bryan has more industrial zoning because the industrial market chooses to be there, not because College Station has turned it down. It chooses Bryan due to cheap land. The land in College Station is more expensive because there's not much of it left. We're bounded by two rivers, and even the land between those contains a lot of flood plains. Forward thinking investors are holding the available land for residential and commercial development, and manufacturing cannot complete with those markets. Bryan can easily expand to the north where there's so much land available the cost is lower.
Impact fees are not a tax or an incremental burden. In the real world we would call them "cost recovery", The city has to pay for the connection costs to start with simply because the city owns and operates that piece of the infrastructure. The city either recovers this or it is giving the developer a freebie at the tax payer's expense. That money reduces the developer's base cost and may or may not be passed on. I think we all know developers do not add up their costs and only charge the buyers that amount. They get the most they can in the current market. Depending on the market dynamics at the time, the tax payer's uncovered cost may all become profit to the developer. Or not. Our governments subsidize many private investors. If you like that, then fine. I would personally prefer to see us subsidize grocery stores so everyone can benefit. What's the difference? they have their purposes, but government subsidy of private investors always distorts markets. Right now the subsidy to buy a new house is hurting the market for 20-30 year old homes that sold be the natural starting point for wntry level families.
In particular, lets let's not distort reality by claiming this has anything to do with affordable housing. The average home costs $ 250k and the subsidy is about $10k. That's about $50 on the mortgage if we recovered it. If you can't afford a $250k house because the city will not essentially supplement your income by $50, you should probably think about whether you should be buying.
We do have a serious problem with affordable housing that is hurting our ability to attract new industry, but that's housing for lower waged starter families, or quality family rentals. It should naturally be happening in the older neighborhoods, and in the $ 125-175k range. Those who have an actual concern with affordable starter homes should be able to agree to only subsidize new houses in that same range, and not Williams Creek, Mission Ranch and Phase XXX of some other high end housing. We are $300M in debt, largely from not recovering our costs during a period of very rapid, money-losing housing growth. The majority of that unrecoverable cost as been from investors building homes they sold at more than $ 250k. Lets put our charity where it's needed.
Impact fees are not a tax or an incremental burden. In the real world we would call them "cost recovery", The city has to pay for the connection costs to start with simply because the city owns and operates that piece of the infrastructure. The city either recovers this or it is giving the developer a freebie at the tax payer's expense. That money reduces the developer's base cost and may or may not be passed on. I think we all know developers do not add up their costs and only charge the buyers that amount. They get the most they can in the current market. Depending on the market dynamics at the time, the tax payer's uncovered cost may all become profit to the developer. Or not. Our governments subsidize many private investors. If you like that, then fine. I would personally prefer to see us subsidize grocery stores so everyone can benefit. What's the difference? they have their purposes, but government subsidy of private investors always distorts markets. Right now the subsidy to buy a new house is hurting the market for 20-30 year old homes that sold be the natural starting point for wntry level families.
In particular, lets let's not distort reality by claiming this has anything to do with affordable housing. The average home costs $ 250k and the subsidy is about $10k. That's about $50 on the mortgage if we recovered it. If you can't afford a $250k house because the city will not essentially supplement your income by $50, you should probably think about whether you should be buying.
We do have a serious problem with affordable housing that is hurting our ability to attract new industry, but that's housing for lower waged starter families, or quality family rentals. It should naturally be happening in the older neighborhoods, and in the $ 125-175k range. Those who have an actual concern with affordable starter homes should be able to agree to only subsidize new houses in that same range, and not Williams Creek, Mission Ranch and Phase XXX of some other high end housing. We are $300M in debt, largely from not recovering our costs during a period of very rapid, money-losing housing growth. The majority of that unrecoverable cost as been from investors building homes they sold at more than $ 250k. Lets put our charity where it's needed.
There's lots more reasons industrial businesses choose to locate in Bryan and more houses are being built in Bryan than cheap land. Bryan has had cheaper land than CS for at least 30 years, but the trend towards Bryan has only been over the last 10 or 12 years. It started with wrestling the TAMU HSC away from CS and the redevelopment of downtown. It's that Bryan seems a lot more willing to negotiate and shows more flexibility when competing for business and residential development. Fact is, CS got lazy and thought why would anyone want to build in Bryan when CS Is right here. Then CS instituted a restrictive UDO and talks frequently about impact fees.
On the cost side, Bryan real estate is cheaper, but CS used to make up for that by having a tax rate 20 cents lower than Bryan, which it was as recently as 2013. Now it's within 9.5 cents of Bryan, who has given slight decreases as CS continues to rise, plus lower utility rates are in Bryan. So operating costs tend to be lower in Bryan as well.
And what does Bryan have to show for these efforts. New housing ranging from Siena to Oakmont to Traditions and Miramont, plus the HSC, Toyo Ink, and Hooters
! And lots of new hotels to take advantage of TAMU events (notice I didn't say CS events) as well as events at the Expo Center, Texas Reds, and for oilfield work. And we got our share of failed efforts and not so good things, but we're in there trying.
As for Experience BCS, it's not supposed to recruit new businesses or help locate housing developments. It's supposed to get people from outside of the community to come spend money at our community hotels and restaurants. When TAMU shuts down, that's gonna hurt their efforts, and the hurt is gonna be felt more by CS businesses than Bryan businesses just as CS businesses benefit more when things are going well. When everyone else cancels their events, same situation. Long term, a CVB can be really good, but in rough times like now, cities see their money going to such things as a waste, esp those who have not been as welcoming to new development.
On the cost side, Bryan real estate is cheaper, but CS used to make up for that by having a tax rate 20 cents lower than Bryan, which it was as recently as 2013. Now it's within 9.5 cents of Bryan, who has given slight decreases as CS continues to rise, plus lower utility rates are in Bryan. So operating costs tend to be lower in Bryan as well.
And what does Bryan have to show for these efforts. New housing ranging from Siena to Oakmont to Traditions and Miramont, plus the HSC, Toyo Ink, and Hooters
! And lots of new hotels to take advantage of TAMU events (notice I didn't say CS events) as well as events at the Expo Center, Texas Reds, and for oilfield work. And we got our share of failed efforts and not so good things, but we're in there trying.As for Experience BCS, it's not supposed to recruit new businesses or help locate housing developments. It's supposed to get people from outside of the community to come spend money at our community hotels and restaurants. When TAMU shuts down, that's gonna hurt their efforts, and the hurt is gonna be felt more by CS businesses than Bryan businesses just as CS businesses benefit more when things are going well. When everyone else cancels their events, same situation. Long term, a CVB can be really good, but in rough times like now, cities see their money going to such things as a waste, esp those who have not been as welcoming to new development.
Good grief. Where to start with this typical CS buffoonery. Maybe, by just showing the cost difference in building fees/permits required to build a new 2,000 SF home in Bryan vs/ CS .... and to ask the question; why does Bryan see value in growth and CS doesn't?Drilltime said:
Impact fees are not a tax or an incremental burden. In the real world we would call them "cost recovery", The city has to pay for the connection costs to start with simply because the city owns and operates that piece of the infrastructure. The city either recovers this or it is giving the developer a freebie at the tax payer's expense. That money reduces the developer's base cost and may or may not be passed on. I think we all know developers do not add up their costs and only charge the buyers that amount. They get the most they can in the current market. Depending on the market dynamics at the time, the tax payer's uncovered cost may all become profit to the developer. Or not. Our governments subsidize many private investors. If you like that, then fine. I would personally prefer to see us subsidize grocery stores so everyone can benefit. What's the difference? they have their purposes, but government subsidy of private investors always distorts markets. Right now the subsidy to buy a new house is hurting the market for 20-30 year old homes that sold be the natural starting point for wntry level families.
- Bryan: $0.00
- College Station: $8,000
I appreciate the previous poster providing the bold font. I'm not very good at making my key points and this really helps.
There's a lot of good information in these posts. I agree that pulling out of EBCS won't help CS at all. My point was that it might be part of a larger shift in mindset among CS - that will help.
CS needs to take control of its future independently of Bryan, establish its own market objectives, and do the real things required to achieve an economically sustainable market identity (which is what Bryan started to do about 20 years ago). It cannot compete in the same space as Bryan, with its low cost land, diverse population and skilled labor pool I agree this alone isn't making Bryan more successful. But they are prerequisites of ran industrial base..
I disagree with the suggestion CS should have made the same decisions as Bryan, or that it would be successful if it had done so. I think CS's natural base is the tech or knowledge industries and it should literally circle the wagons around becoming the "The Knowledge City" - or something like that. CS has professors, researchers, an enormous number of graduate students from all over the world pursuing entrepreneurial ideas, and it's doing very little to build on it. The knowledge industries do not require land and you could put the next 5 years of growth on the property at the failing mall alone. Small business, land developers, neighborhood advocacy groups, and Joe Blow would all get behind that if it came with realistic steps to make it happen and grow the commercial tax base and jobs. But we're not seeing that leadership. And before you start bashing the current council, other interests have been in power for a decade and we didn't see this from them either..
I think this quote says it well, "If one does not know to which port they are sailing, no wind is favourable". That's actually about 2000 years old. CS is squandering a lot of wind.
The question is, where does CS go from here? The shortest path would be for the current Council to just begin the conversation. If not, I hope someone steps up in November to do so. It starts with awareness. .
CS needs to take control of its future independently of Bryan, establish its own market objectives, and do the real things required to achieve an economically sustainable market identity (which is what Bryan started to do about 20 years ago). It cannot compete in the same space as Bryan, with its low cost land, diverse population and skilled labor pool I agree this alone isn't making Bryan more successful. But they are prerequisites of ran industrial base..
I disagree with the suggestion CS should have made the same decisions as Bryan, or that it would be successful if it had done so. I think CS's natural base is the tech or knowledge industries and it should literally circle the wagons around becoming the "The Knowledge City" - or something like that. CS has professors, researchers, an enormous number of graduate students from all over the world pursuing entrepreneurial ideas, and it's doing very little to build on it. The knowledge industries do not require land and you could put the next 5 years of growth on the property at the failing mall alone. Small business, land developers, neighborhood advocacy groups, and Joe Blow would all get behind that if it came with realistic steps to make it happen and grow the commercial tax base and jobs. But we're not seeing that leadership. And before you start bashing the current council, other interests have been in power for a decade and we didn't see this from them either..
I think this quote says it well, "If one does not know to which port they are sailing, no wind is favourable". That's actually about 2000 years old. CS is squandering a lot of wind.
The question is, where does CS go from here? The shortest path would be for the current Council to just begin the conversation. If not, I hope someone steps up in November to do so. It starts with awareness. .
Interesting fiction.
Drilltime said:
There's a lot of good information in these posts. I agree that pulling out of EBCS won't help CS at all. My point was that it might be part of a larger shift in mindset among CS - that will help.
CS needs to take control of its future independently of Bryan, establish its own market objectives, and do the real things required to achieve an economically sustainable market identity (which is what Bryan started to do about 20 years ago). It cannot compete in the same space as Bryan, with its low cost land, diverse population and skilled labor pool I agree this alone isn't making Bryan more successful. But they are prerequisites of ran industrial base..
I disagree with the suggestion CS should have made the same decisions as Bryan, or that it would be successful if it had done so. I think CS's natural base is the tech or knowledge industries and it should literally circle the wagons around becoming the "The Knowledge City" - or something like that. CS has professors, researchers, an enormous number of graduate students from all over the world pursuing entrepreneurial ideas, and it's doing very little to build on it. The knowledge industries do not require land and you could put the next 5 years of growth on the property at the failing mall alone. Small business, land developers, neighborhood advocacy groups, and Joe Blow would all get behind that if it came with realistic steps to make it happen and grow the commercial tax base and jobs. But we're not seeing that leadership. And before you start bashing the current council, other interests have been in power for a decade and we didn't see this from them either..
I think this quote says it well, "If one does not know to which port they are sailing, no wind is favourable". That's actually about 2000 years old. CS is squandering a lot of wind.
The question is, where does CS go from here? The shortest path would be for the current Council to just begin the conversation. If not, I hope someone steps up in November to do so. It starts with awareness. .
You could wipe off the mall and stack 100 years of high-value tech growth there, and it still would be of no benefit to anyone but CoCS. No matter how much growth there is in tax base, sales tax, etc, CoCS will never pause value and tax rate increases.
In regards to the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) and Experience BCS (Convention & Visitors Bureau), it is all about tourism. The infrastructure of a particular city as to livability is could only have a secondary effect. Because the HOT comes from hotels, the effect on local residents close to zero. Most people do not stay in a hotel in the same city they live, except for rare occasions. The tax is designed not to be a burden on locals.
HOT funds have a very narrow scope in which they can be spent (determined by state law). Spending must be related to tourism, arts, sporting events, beach cleanup, colosseums/multi-use centers (Brazos Expo), advertising, signage, and related.
In BCS, a few common things HOT funds are used for include 7 on 7 football tournament, Games of Texas, TX Reds Festival, Bush Library promotion & signage, Downtown Bryan Association, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, and so on. Experience BCS (HOT) funds can also be given as grants in the form of cash to those who put on events that generate visitors from greater than 50 miles away.
It does not really matter which city you believe is a better place to do business or live. HOT funds (in turn Experience BCS funding) is only about hotel stays. Those other arguments are separate.
Bryan has The Stella, LaSalle, and some lower budget chains. Those chains were frequently used by oilfield workers who would stay for 1 2 weeks at a time. With the oilfield decline, I assume those hotels are hurting more than normal and will have a harder/longer road to recovery.
College Station has more more hotels with the mid-tier chains that are the most popular with personal and business travelers. I can see why the city of CS wanted to split. They have the potential to benefit financially (mainly pre Covid or if we get back to normal) Right now everyone in tourism is feeling pain.
Overview on HOT Funds in TX: https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16104507/2018-04-RR-Hotel-Occupancy-Tax-in-Texas-CEP-MartinezHunker.pdf
Article citation from article above by our very own city council member John Crompton: http://agrilife.org/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf
It looks like a lot of council member Crompton's research and academic papers are about economics, large events and tourism. I assume his opinion has a lot more influence on the other members and mayor because of this.
The big questions:
Regardless of the Experience BCS split. What will live events look like in the next year five years?
How badly will our community be hurt by the decrease of tourism & business travel?
When will we recover / "return to normal"? What will the new normal look like? (still 100k+ in the stands and 60k+ on campus????)
With the major hit on travel & tourism, is the city of College Station just fighting for peanuts at the moment?
Will the City manage the funds/program efficiently? (they are restricted by law on how they can be spent. (However, government can always finds a way to mismanage.)
HOT funds have a very narrow scope in which they can be spent (determined by state law). Spending must be related to tourism, arts, sporting events, beach cleanup, colosseums/multi-use centers (Brazos Expo), advertising, signage, and related.
In BCS, a few common things HOT funds are used for include 7 on 7 football tournament, Games of Texas, TX Reds Festival, Bush Library promotion & signage, Downtown Bryan Association, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, and so on. Experience BCS (HOT) funds can also be given as grants in the form of cash to those who put on events that generate visitors from greater than 50 miles away.
It does not really matter which city you believe is a better place to do business or live. HOT funds (in turn Experience BCS funding) is only about hotel stays. Those other arguments are separate.
Bryan has The Stella, LaSalle, and some lower budget chains. Those chains were frequently used by oilfield workers who would stay for 1 2 weeks at a time. With the oilfield decline, I assume those hotels are hurting more than normal and will have a harder/longer road to recovery.
College Station has more more hotels with the mid-tier chains that are the most popular with personal and business travelers. I can see why the city of CS wanted to split. They have the potential to benefit financially (mainly pre Covid or if we get back to normal) Right now everyone in tourism is feeling pain.
Overview on HOT Funds in TX: https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16104507/2018-04-RR-Hotel-Occupancy-Tax-in-Texas-CEP-MartinezHunker.pdf
Article citation from article above by our very own city council member John Crompton: http://agrilife.org/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf
It looks like a lot of council member Crompton's research and academic papers are about economics, large events and tourism. I assume his opinion has a lot more influence on the other members and mayor because of this.
The big questions:
Regardless of the Experience BCS split. What will live events look like in the next year five years?
How badly will our community be hurt by the decrease of tourism & business travel?
When will we recover / "return to normal"? What will the new normal look like? (still 100k+ in the stands and 60k+ on campus????)
With the major hit on travel & tourism, is the city of College Station just fighting for peanuts at the moment?
Will the City manage the funds/program efficiently? (they are restricted by law on how they can be spent. (However, government can always finds a way to mismanage.)
Firstly, when a CS-friendly 'big fish' comes shopping ... they'll be looking for a tax abatement and incentive from both cities. CS needs to get over their hubris as a "Knowledge City" ... except within the context of a BCS type partnership. CS has no real world advantage over Bryan (geographically or otherwise) as a "natural base for tech or knowledge industry." Get over it.Drilltime said:
The question is, where does CS go from here? The shortest path would be for the current Council to just begin the conversation. If not, I hope someone steps up in November to do so. It starts with awareness. .
Secondly, in my opinion, the only real world advantage CS has over Bryan is CISD. Instead of leveraging the CISD advantage, what did CS do? ... jack up the price of new homes for young families with impact fees . What did Bryan do? ... waive permitting fees. Look at what's happened to new construction ad valorem tax base and building permits in Bryan vs CS since then. New neighborhoods change demographics ... and this will eventually have a huge positive impact on BISD ... narrowing the gap to CS's best advantage.
Lastly, where does CS go from here? I'd start with an honest real world assessment of why any resident or business would choose CS over Bryan ... and then adopt city policies in support of that advantage.
meinkee said:
If CS is out will Bryan be far behind? Is this a Covid casualty?
This is simply life repeating itself. Back when we came to BCS (in 1983), the tourism division was a part of the City of College Station (not a part of the Chamber of Commerce). Then the Chamber was able to merge the functions for both cities.
Seperate
Rejoin
It'll happen again and again.
TxFig said:meinkee said:
If CS is out will Bryan be far behind? Is this a Covid casualty?
This is simply life repeating itself. Back when we came to BCS (in 1983), the tourism division was a part of the City of College Station (not a part of the Chamber of Commerce). Then the Chamber was able to merge the functions for both cities.
Seperate
Rejoin
It'll happen again and again.
The BCS Chamber of Commerce is a different group. Experience BCS used to be Called the BCS Convention and Visitors Bureau.
If this was 15 plus years ago I would think that it would hurt Bryan, but not as much today. Although I don't think separating the two will help either city or the county. Maybe this will force each city to be greater because now if they say it or not, now the cities will be competing for events and tourism. Can't say anymore that this city has this and this city has this and together it makes for a complete experience. It's all separate now. Bryan has RELLIS, the TAMU Health Science Center and 2 Blinn campuses. That's a great base to build on tourism. Don't forget Big Shots Is coming to Bryan.