Opinion

A recent headline in this paper, “Financial reports show decreases across the board” got the Ole Seagull thinking about history, the present and the future. As he did so what came to mind is the old adage “The more things change the more they stay the same.” To illustrate his thoughts on these issues he is going to use the power of the “Seagulestion,” a rhetorical Seagull question that he thinks he knows the answer to, but is not as positive as he would like to be as to the answer.

The first paragraph of the story reports, “Monthly reports reflected a 9.3 percent decline in sales tax revenues for August as bond payments on the Branson Landing exceed revenues.” Hey that’s good news because it indicates the city is getting revenues from its investment in Branson Landing. Would someone from the city send out a press release explaining in plain English, that most of us could understand, a clear precise list and explanation of exactly what revenues are generated from the Branson Landing that the city is getting and can use for its day to day operations?”

In like manner, it would be helpful if the city of Branson could publish a list of the precise expenditures it makes on an annual basis regarding Branson Landing for both operations and bond and other debt retirement. Hey, while they are at it why don’t they come up with a simple one page report that the normal citizen can look at and determine how much more, or less, the city is paying than they are taking in from Branson Landing?

Other “Seagulestions” come to mind. How much of the city of Branson’s city retail sales taxes collected at Branson Landing can actually be used by the city for current city operational costs? What percentage of the city’s Tourism Tax, the one where 75% goes for infrastructure and its operation and maintenance and 25% for the marketing of Branson, collected at Branson Landing does the city actually get to use for those purposes?

Were the citizens of Branson ever told by a past City Administrator in a public meeting that the city would have no legal responsibility to pay anything on the TIF Bonds should revenues from the project not be sufficient to do so? But wait, weren’t the citizens of Branson all a glitter in the mid 90’s about how the Highroad should be built on an emergency basis to help eliminate the traffic in downtown Branson and on Highway 76?

Now here’s a couple “Seagulestions” for the ages, “Precisely how much has the building of the Highroad done for lowering the amount of traffic on Highway 76 or downtown Branson? Why would any business person, theatre, shop or restaurant owner on Highway 76, with a half of an ounce of brains, want less traffic on Highway 76 in the mid 1990s or now?

Maybe someone from the city, even though they were not the ones who put the city in its current situation, could explain why the article appears to be reporting that the city has an obligation to cover the shortfall on the bond payments and how we got from having no responsibility to pay anything on the TIF bonds to this point? On the other hand, at the end of the day it isn’t going to make a lot of difference, like the Highroad before it, those who have the power and influence will continue to do what they want when they want and the rest of us should just keep our mouths shut and be thankful. “Yup, the more things change the more they stay the same.”

To an Ole Seagull Branson Airport is only as important as the number of new visitors it brings to Branson or the services it provides to the residents of our area. He would also point out that the only value to his columns, if any, is the extent to which it causes people to think about the issues raised not whether or not his position is correct because, at the end of the day, his position is but that of a tired old man in the winter of his years.

Last week’s column contained a section entitled “WOW, do Branson Airport Visitors Spend More?” In its entirety it said, “Those attending the annual meeting of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District on Sep. 24 were given information by Branson Lakes/Lakes Area Convention and Visitors Bureau that the average spending “per party” was $919.34 for the 2009 reporting period up from $799.99 for the 2008 reporting period. That was good, but nothing compared to the report given by Jeff Bourke, Executive Director of the Branson Airport. A published report in this week’s Taney County Times on that report states “The Branson Airport has generated $92 million in visitor spending…” and that “At least 41 percent of the more than 10,000 people who have flown to Branson via the airport are first time visitors.” Using Ole Seagull math and assuming that it’s not much more than 10,000 people, that amounts to an incredible $9,200 per person or $18,400 for a “party” of two.”

It was meant to be a no brainer “tongue in cheek” piece. As is the case with most of the Ole Seagull’s columns, it was published on www.1Branson.com in the Ole Seagull’s forum. The comments there were varied, but most folks realized that the $92 million dollar figure was not accurate and got with the spirit of the occasion. Those comments ranged from Dalmation Dad’s comment “It’s obvious we need more planes and then more banks to hold all that new money” to the more dramatic comment of the every faithful Grizzly who said, “The guy got a decimal point moved and it rates a smack down from the Seagull. good thing I never made a mistake before.”

“What smack down?” The piece merely pointed out an exact quote from the Taney Country Times. What’s next accusing the Ole Seagull of a “smack down” if he asks, “How many tax payer marketing dollars have been spent to market the airport for each of the approximately 36 new visitors Branson gets per day from the airport?”

When the cancellation of Sun Country’s flights was announced KOLR TV reported, “KOLR10 News has learned that Sun Country Airlines will end its service to Dallas and Minneapolis on December 12. Branson Airport leaders say Sun Country was only here for seasonal service. They hope to renegotiate with the airline and bring the service back when the spring tourism season starts in April.”

Is it a “smack down” to ask, “Does Branson ‘season’ end on October 17” or “Exactly what service is Sun Country providing from Dallas to Branson between October 17 and December 12?” The reason the Ole Seagull asks is that he is looking at the Sun Country schedule at this very moment and doesn’t see any. Did he miss the public announcement to that effect?

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?