BBB rewrite passes second reading

By: 
Leslie Silverman

The second reading of the Keystone ordinance 35-10 passed at the most recent Keystone Town Board meeting.

The ordinance removes the “earmark” 50 percent of the Bed, Board and Booze (BBB) tax to the Keystone Chamber of Commerce.

Chamber board president Julie Smoragiewicz went back and forth with the board over the wording of the ordinance.

“We’ve all decided we need a new model,” Smoragiewicz said. “The language that’s in there implies it’s following codified law. It does not follow it directly. The words are not the same as the codified law. There are words that are missing and are different.”

Citizen Cal Loock objected to the speed of the process.

“Why are we in a rush to do anything?” he said. “The rush to pass an ordinance. We got plenty of time. We don’t need to do it now. We finally have the town working together. Why don’t we put this on the back burner?”

Trustee Sandi McLain sided with Loock.

“Right now we’re working with the business people who don’t have a lot of trust,” McLain said. “They’ve got a lot of things that they’re struggling with. And to take and pass this and to move forward without listening to what their concerns are. It’s going to put a wedge in moving forward. We don’t have to make this decision until July.”

Trustee Kwinn Neff countered that without moving forward the town could not look at another model for promotion and advertising. 

Town attorney Mitch Johnson suggested the repeal of 35-10 altogether.

“I’m saying 35-10 is not necessary,” he said. “(Ordinance) 35-10 was years ago. Someone came up with the idea that the chamber should get 50 percent. You already have 35-08 which is the BBB tax where we adopt the ordinance and (ordinance) 35-9 states specifically what those funds can be used for. And it’s up to your discretion to figure it out. That’s what boards do. (Ordinance) 35-10 is not necessary.”

Smoragiewicz addressed her concerns for the repeal of ordinance 35-10.

“If there is an effort to repeal it and not include it,” she said., “There are business owners who don’t believe that the town will allocate it towards the promotion and advertising. You risk that original ordinance being referred. The ordinance itself is referable.”

After a five-minute recess, the board reconvened and town board president Rick Brandfas addressed all in attendance.

“As it stands we have three options,” he said. “To keep the chamber ordinance, to do the 50 percent marketing and advertising ordinance errors corrected or repeal the 35-10 (ordinance). That’s where we stand.”

The board took no other discussion on the matter and voted to adopt the amended version, ordinance 35.10 with a lone nay vote coming from McLain.

Loock again objected to the pace of the process.

Neff countered, “We have an ordinance now that funds a new model so let’s work on it.”

User login