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.