Branson

Simply put, if Branson is to continue to be successful, ideas like the “Miss USA Pageant,” a pie contest and Christmas lights will play an important part. Not by themselves necessarily, but certainly in terms of the promotion of Branson, general concepts and the thought process each represents.

It’s pretty simple in economic terms, based on Branson’s current economic foundation of tourism. Branson’s future success depends on the same thing that has brought it this far, getting people to come to Branson and spend money. The more people that come and spend money the more economically successful Branson is going to be.

Marketing, including advertising and promotion, is what brings a lot of people to Branson initially and helps to make them want to return. Marketing presents Branson to as many potential visitors as possible in a way that will interest them in either coming to Branson initially or wanting to return.

For years people have been saying we need something new etc. Yet, whenever someone proposes spending marketing dollars on something new such as the “Miss USA Pageant,” “As the World Turns,” “The Great American Pie Show,” “Christmas lights,” etc. there are those who spring up with their reasons on why marketing dollars should not be spent on them.

Let’s be very clear, there is no statutory restriction on spending the proceeds of either of the two different tourism taxes used to market Branson to any specified distance from Branson, using the funds to work with for profit businesses, or promoting local events. Specifically, the law governing the expenditure of such funds by the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) simply states that the tax proceeds “shall be used by the board for marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism.” The city of Branson’s law governing the use of the tax proceeds states, “shall be used, upon appropriation by the municipality, for tourism marketing and promotional purposes.”

The terms “marketing” and “promotion” are very general terms and in application, particularly with the term “promotion,” are more an art than a science. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if those having the responsibility for marketing and promoting Branson believe that an event, such as the “Miss USA Pageant,” “As the World Turns,” “The Great American Pie Show,” a trout tournament, a BBQ Festival or softball tournament etc. or putting up Christmas lights, will “promote tourism,” it is a legitimate expenditure of those funds.

It’s one thing to say an expense is legal and another to ask if it makes marketing or promotional sense. To an Ole Seagull it means not one iota whether or not the “The Great American Pie Show” made a million dollars or lost $100,000. What’s important to him is will it and its associated promotion bring more people to Branson over the long run? To him the expenditure for Christmas lights helps promote the very Christmas our area is spending millions to market and by helping to enhance the experience of the people coming in response to that marketing will promote more of them coming back to Branson in the future.

In that regard, everyone, including an Ole Seagull has an opinion and is certainly free to express it. However, as we express those opinions let us be reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher” and the words of the world’s greatest philosopher, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

The simple truth is that from a pure economic point of view, governments spend and redistribute revenue and do not produce it. It is the citizens of government who produce the revenues that support the very governments that spend and redistribute what its citizens have earned. It is no different in the city of Branson.

A recent newspaper headline in this very paper, “City may spend $4 million in reserve funds” should act as a wakeup call, albeit a little late, to the residents and businesses of Branson. Why is it a “little late?”
The article quoted City Administrator Dean Kruithof as saying, “Most expenditures are from previous agreements and revenues are flat.” The article reported that the city’s sales tax revenues are flat and that the Tourism Tax funds are down 4.6 percent.

In most cities, in this economic environment, flat revenues might be all right. In Branson however, the combination of flat revenues and expenditures from prior agreements do not bode well for Branson taxpayers and Branson’s immediate financial situation.

The thing that must be remembered is that, in terms of running and operating the city of Branson and furnishing services to its citizens and businesses, gross tax receipts don’t mean much. It is the net amount of the sales tax revenue collected available to operate the city that is important.

Oh, things look flat from a gross collection point of view, but when “expenditures from prior agreements,” particularly the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) agreements used to finance “Branson Landing” and “Branson Hills” are factored in, the “flat” financial picture “wrinkles” pretty quick.

Let’s say that $1.00 in gross city sales taxes was collected from both Branson Hills and Branson Landing for a total of $2.00. Because of expenditures from previous agreements, in this case the TIF Agreements, the net the city actually gets to use for the operation of the city is $.50. Now some might say, “Come on Seagull, that’s ridiculous?” No, it is reality.

The city of Branson gets to keep only 50 percent of the sales tax revenues from Branson Hills and Zero percent of the sale tax revenues from Branson Landing for the next 15 to 20 years. The difference goes to pay off the investors who purchased the TIF Bonds used to pay the developers for the projects they built. The problem is exasperated if retail sales shift from non TIF areas into TIF areas.

“But Seagull doesn’t all those great jobs we were told were going to be generated from the millions of dollars in government subsidized TIF financing make up for it?” Why don’t you be the judge?
Take the actual TIF plan for the Branson Hills project that the administration in place prior to the 2007 elections approved. Find the actual number of jobs projected in that plan and divide it by the projected payroll in the plan. Is the average amount per job closer to the federal poverty level for a family of four or what most people would consider a “great job?”

And that’s just one of the previous agreements. Wouldn’t it be helpful to Branson’s citizens and businesses if the city of Branson could publish a simple list of the previous agreements that Administrator Kruithof is referring to, how much each is, when they started and when they expire?

We’ll be discussing a bit of this and that this week:

$425k for Branson Landing “bauble” & $0.00 for  Branson citizens water & sewer rates. – The citizens of Branson were promised that if they approved the city of Branson Tourism Tax it would keep their water and sewer rates low. The state law governing infrastructure expenditures that may be made from the taxes collected under that law authorize the expenditure of those tax funds for the operation of infrastructure such as sewer and water plants.

Instead what happens? A few years ago, the board of aldermen tells the citizens the deals off and that their sewer and water rates have to go up because the infrastructure account can’t afford it. Yet the board approves the expenditure of $425k being taken from that same fund each year to pay for a little “bauble” at Branson Landing that the budget calls the “Branson Landing Fountain & Grounds.”

Interesting, Branson’s citizens and businesses were told they had to have a 25 percent sewer and water rate increase because the infrastructure account couldn’t afford to subsidize the rates any more. Yet the aldermen vote to authorize $425k for the Branson Landing bauble from the same fund. There’s about as much chance that the sewer and water increases are going to stop at 25 percent as there is that the city of Branson will actually get to keep and use the sales taxes it collects from Branson Landing for the next 10-15 years.

Who Should be texting while driving? Commonsense says, “No one.” Although “nothing can be made fool proof because fools are so ingenious,” the Missouri Legislature could have passed a law prohibiting texting while driving by everyone. However, in their infinite wisdom,  they just passed a law prohibiting those under 21 from texting while driving. What’s the difference if there is a head on collision between a school bus and a car being driven at 65 miles per hour by an 18 year old who crossed the center line because they were distracted while texting and the same thing happening with an 85 year old driving the car and texting?

Why would Missouri’s governor endanger Missouri’s “tourism money tree?” The Ole Seagull has been told that the actual figures of the Missouri Department of Tourism indicate that for every dollar Missouri spends on tourism marketing the state gets $40 plus in revenue in return. Believing the source accurate, the Ole Seagull must then ask, “Why would Missouri’s Governor reduce the Tourism Budget from $23 million to $16 million?” His prayer is that the reduction is in areas other than marketing and, particularly, the co-op marketing program that helps market the Branson area.

When will Kimberling City pay its own way? The citizens of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District voted for and pay a one percent retail sales tax for tourism marketing on most of the retail items they buy. The citizens in Kimberling City and the vast majority of Stone County voted against a marketing tax and pay no marketing tax on most of the retail items they buy. Yet, ihundreds of thousands of dollars in money paid by Branson tax payers is channeled through to the Kimberling City Chamber of Commerce for their use via an agreement between the Branson CVB and the Table Rock Lake Chamber of Commerce. With Branson giving Kimberling City marketing money where is the incentive for them to take action to support themselves? Isn’t it time the Kimberling City area supports its own marketing?

In last week’s column entitled, “A Tiger or the East West Corridor a gamble is still a gamble,” the Ole Seagull described a meeting of the Taney County Commission that was going to be held for the sole purpose of deciding on whether or not to apply for a federal stimulus grant for $25 million. The grant, if received, would be used solely to build the East West Corridor Road.

He described the meeting as “an attempt to move the project forward by its supporters without any study showing that the project is actually a priority transportation need for Taney County.” He went on to say “He also believes it is an attempt to minimize the effectual involvement from those who might be opposed to the project until such a priority is determined.”

Although he still believes that to be true, the fact of the matter is that not one person attended the meeting to speak in opposition to applying for the grant. Many voices spoke in favor of not only applying for the grant but for building the road, grant or not grant, but one voice that had a lot of weight for the Ole Seagull was that of Frank Preston, Taney County’s Administrator for Roads and Bridges. He said that the East West Corridor road is critical structure for the development of Taney County.

Although the Ole Seagull originally spoke against the action without completion of a county transportation study prioritizing its transportation needs, he had to admit that he was evidently the only one who felt that way because everyone else was not only in favor of applying for the grant but presented compelling logical and emotional reasons for doing so. When it became clear that all that was being discussed was whether or not to gamble $50,000 in the hopes of getting $25 million to get a road built that the County Road and Bridge Administrator, whose judgment, the Ole Seagull trusts, says is critical it became a no brainer.
And a gamble it is. It is certainly not a sure bet like the results of the revote on the assessment at Point Royale will be, but it qualifies Taney County to play the “Wheel of Grant Game” and continue on to see if it can win the prize of $25 million. In a practical sense the $50,000 is an “application fee” that must be paid by Sep. 15.

That keeps Taney County in the game and in a position where it can evaluate its competition for the available grant funds and its chances for eventually getting the grant. The reason that evaluation is so important is that to get from the application to an actual decision on whether or not Taney County will get the grant will cost another $400 to $450,000. Whereas the $50,000 “application fee” to keep Taney County in the game for the $25 million was a no brainer the next step, the decision to gamble up to another $450,000 is not!

To an Ole Seagull, the decision to continue playing the “Wheel of Grant” game past Sep. 15 doesn’t depend on what was done by County Commission back in 1995, personalities, what the voters allegedly voted for in Feb. of this year, rhetoric about how much it is needed or even how great the odds are in favor of Taney County getting the grant. To him it will depend solely on the determination of the County’s Transportation Committee as to the priority of the East West Corridor compared to the rest of Taney County’s transportation needs.

It is a travesty that no recommendations have been forthcoming from the committee in terms of Taney County’s Transportation needs and priorities. No it’s a joke, a sad pathetic joke. If the people that are on the committee don’t feel a sense of urgency or are incapable of making a recommendation, for whatever reason, then they should either be replaced or the committee disbanded. Either way, the citizens of Taney County should know what priority the East West Corridor plays in Taney County’s transportation picture before another penny is spent.

There is some doubt as to whether or not Marie Antoinette, wife of France’s King Louis XVI actually said the words, “Let them eat cake.” There is however, no doubt that they have been attributed to her.

She allegedly made the statement after she had been told that the French people had no bread to eat. What has endured to the popular culture of today is more the context in which the words themselves were said. Until this week, in an Ole Seagull’s mind, Marie Antoinette and the statement attributed to her have stood alone in symbolizing arrogance, lack of compassion, deficient public relational skills, and the disrespectfulness of those ruling, governing or managing for the people they serve.

However, this week, two statements, one national and the other local, might just challenge Antoinette and her statement for that roll. The first is a statement by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley quoted in the “Verbatim” section of the July 20 edition of Time Magazine when he responded to a question about health insurance from a person at a town hall meeting in Waukon, Iowa on July 6.

When asked, “How come I can’t have the same thing you have?” Grassley responded, “You can. Go to work for the Federal Government.” Grassley’s arrogance and apparent lack of compassion for the health insurance needs of non federal employees is exceeded only by his demonstrated lack of public relations skills and respect for those he is serving.

Who does Grassley think pays the bills for subsidizing the health insurance that he and all federal employees enjoy? Could not the argument be made that the non government workers paying the taxes used to pay those bills, in a very real sense, “work for the Federal government?”

Last weekend, according to published reports, residents to the gated community of Pointe Royale discovered that their community was that no longer secure because gate security personnel had been laid off and other amenities, including the closing of the indoor pool, had been eliminated. The actions were taken over the weekend immediately after the residents voted not to approve an additional assessment to make up for a shortfall in golfing revenues.

The results of the election were close and show that the Pointe Royale community is divided just about down the middle. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, based on his knowledge of the situation, the vote was not so much against the assessment. It was more about the manner in which the issue was presented and the arrogance, apparent lack of concern for those who don’t golf, but do pay assessments, and the lack of respect shown to residents by some members of the current board and its General Manager, Terry Dody.

That attitude was illustrated by the actions that were taken over the weekend immediately after the vote and the reported reply by Dody when asked about that action. Dody said, “They should have voted ‘Yes,’” No discussion about what other things could have been done after the vote to help resolve the situation in a way that could unite the community. Instead, for whatever reason, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, what the board and Dody did was take the arrogant, uncompassionate, and disrespectful actions they took to force a revote and get the result they want.

“Hey Seagull, do you think Dody will be able to do for Pointe Royale what he did for the city of Branson?” In an Ole Segull’s, opinion, he has already done it. To him, Dody’s response regarding the actions taken in response to the vote, “They should have voted ‘Yes’” says it all.

As one observes the antics of what is currently going on in Taney County government they have to pinch themselves to make sure they are not watching “Peter Pan” in Never Neverland or “Yakov’s Moscow Circus.” At least that would be entertaining and all it costs is the price of a ticket.

Whether it’s the current property tax assessment fiasco, or the 23 million dollar proposed east west corridor road that only goes “half way to somewhere,” the leaders of Taney County have handled it in a manner than reminds someone of what would happen if four wild elephants ran amok in historic downtown Branson’s “Dick’s 5 & 10 Store” for about 30 minutes. It wouldn’t be pretty, but then the real estate tax assessment situation and the handling of the proposed $23 million east west corridor road aren’t pretty either.

In the 23 years that the Ole Seagull has lived in Taney County he has heard, on more than one occasion, the alleged dissatisfaction of eastern Taney County with what Branson and western Taney County is allegedly getting. During the last two election tax proposals it was almost like Branson and western Taney County owed eastern Taney County and should pay up by approving the requested tax increases. At the very least there has been and is a feeling of east versus west, but wait, “Don’t worry, Be Happy,” divide Taney County into two counties and happiness will rein.

The sound of the name “Branson County” has a nice ring to it and is even reminiscent of the name that would generate just about 100 percent of the new county’s revenues and, today generates an estimated 75 percent of Taney County’s existing revenues. Now before you laugh and write the Ole Seagull off ask yourself two questions.

The first is, “What do eastern Taney County and western Taney County have in common in terms of major industry and revenue generation? The second and more telling question is, “On average, over the last 20 years, how many dollars per year has the Taney County government committed to the specific tourism marketing of ‘Branson,’ the acknowledged generator of an estimated 75 percent of all its revenues? The Ole Seagull would suggest that the answer to the first and second questions would both be the same, “Not much.”

The good news for eastern Taney County and Branson is that there is a solution that might work out to the benefit of everyone if we can just work together to get it done. That potential solution is Missouri Revised Statue 47.310.1 relating to the procedure for dividing counties. To get the ball rolling it only takes a petition of “not less than one hundred voters of such county, duly entered of record, and setting out fully the proposed change, the reason and object thereof, and the boundaries of such county if the change were made.”

Although the process starts relatively simply, the Taney County Commission would have to decide whether or not to put it on the ballot and if approved by the voters, it would then go to the state legislature for their action. To say the least it wouldn’t be a slam dunk and would take a lot of work and planning.

But with the eventual outcome being that both eastern Taney County and the new Branson County would be able to control their own finances and destiny why not try? Let’s all hold hands and go skipping down the “yellow brick road” toward creating the new Branson County singing our, unifying and at the same time dividing, theme song, “Don’t worry, Be Happy.”

At a recent Branson Board of Aldermen Work Session, two local businessmen, Dan Ruda and Larry Schmidt, made a proposal to install a two level, fully restored antique carousel at the main entrance of Branson Landing (Landing) in the Town Square. Among others, two of the rationale given for the carousel is they think the Landing needs a family attraction and that it might increase the time families would spend at the Landing.

An Abraham Lincoln quote comes to mind, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” The Ole Seagull’s initial reaction to the specific proposal is, “This is nuts!”

At the outset, well almost the outset, an Ole Seagull would point out that he has a sincere appreciation for the Landing, the way it is operated, and what it does for Branson. But, as he has said from the very beginning, the Landing is not Branson; it is here because of Branson. Were it not for the millions of visitors who were already coming to Branson there would have been no Branson Landing in the first place.

That’s the Branson that built Branson, without the direct investment of taxpayer money, the one that has to compete against developments like Branson Landing, built and partially maintained with tax payer money. Ironically, although the city has probably spent millions and is on the hook for a hundred million plus dollars or more, even in these tight times, it not only doesn’t receive city sales tax revenue from the Landing, but has to pay over $400,000 per year for the maintenance of the fountains and common areas.
It’s almost like the Landing is more important to the future of Branson than the very shows, attractions, and businesses that built Branson. Wasn’t one of the big initial selling points of the Landing the new demographic it would bring and the hundreds of thousands of new visitors?

As Branson Landing was being planned and built, the trite little saying, “A rising tide raises all ships” was bantered about. Unless things have changed over the last few months Branson Landings retail sales are doing just fine and were trending up. Are the rest of Branson’s “ships” rising on the tide? Regardless of that answer, is increasing of the time families spend at Branson Landing going to help raise those same ships from their current levels?

The city of Branson has precious little control over Branson Landing. When it leased it to HCW for the next nine or so decades it was left with very little control over what happens there except, if current news reports are right, what happens on the Town Square. Why would the city want to establish the precedent of letting private businesses encroach, even more than they have in the past, on the one area they might have any direct control over, the Town Square?

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the Town Square was specifically designed to be as it is for a reason. One of those reasons wasn’t so that a carousel or other revue producing entity could occupy large chunks of it. If the city grabs the carousel’s brass ring what’s next, camel rides around the square?