Category: Editorials

What’s about 39 feet long, 13 feet high, bright yellow, and will more than likely bring thousands of people to Branson on Saturday May 9 and Sunday May 10? The answer is the “Wheel of Fortune’s “Wheelmobile.” It will be in Branson at the Welk Resort Theatre between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. on May 9 and 10 conducting “the preliminary screening process before the final Wheel of Fortune contestant auditions.”

During each day there will be three “Wheel of Fortune Shows” with participants chosen randomly based on color coded applications each person attending the show will fill out. As the cards are picked, the contestants’ will come up to the stage in groups of five where they will “play the game” by going through a short interview and playing a version of the “Wheel of Fortune Speed-Up Round.” All the contestants will win “Wheel of Fortune” prizes hats, t-shirts, etc.

Of course the prize most will be seeking will be an opportunity to appear on the actual “Wheel of Fortune” television show. The information on the event on the KY3 TV website about the event indicates that no actual contestants will be chosen while the Wheelmobile is in Branson. The Branson event will be used as one of the methods of choosing those who will take part in the final round of auditions.

The Branson area final auditions will take place “within a few months” of the Wheelmobiles final audition date. In addition, the show saves some of the final audition spots for people who did not make it up on stage at the actual Wheelmobile event. The information on the web site says that after all the Wheelmobile events have been conducted they “Will draw a number of names at random from all the applications received in the Branson area for these slots.” Anyone that is invited to the final auditions will receive a letter or email within a few weeks of the last Wheelmobile Event.

At the final auditions, the shows Contestant Coordinators will select the individuals who will actually appear on the show. The Wheel of Fortunes web site indicates that last year out of the million or more people requesting auditions only 600 made it onto the show. Further, the site points out that the people being auditioned and actually selected to be on the show are responsible for any expenses “incurred for accommodations, travel to and from the audition site, and to and from the taping in Los Angeles (or another city.)”

On April 8, a spokesperson for the Welk Resort Theatre said there is no charge to attend the shows and that no preregistration is necessary. Guests will be served on a first come first serve basis.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven.” Although perhaps not soon enough for some, the Ole Seagull’s “appointed time” as a columnist has come to an end.

He could write a lot of words about why, but in the final analysis it is simply because he thinks it is the right thing to do in terms of his current personal and business situation. Does that mean he will stop expressing his opinion?

Absolutely not! He will continue to submit his opinions, on a regular basis, as a “Letter to the Editor” under exactly the same conditions as any other reader of this paper could do.

Some might ask, “What’s the difference, they are both opinions?” In an Ole Seagull’s mind, the difference isn’t much and what difference there is relates not to “what” is being written, but in “who” wrote it. The same opinion, written by a “columnist” for the paper and written by a reader as a “Letter to the Editor” could result in different perceptions, connotations, and impacts.

That aside however, to an Ole Seagull, his job as an opinion columnist was to honestly express his opinion in the hopes that it would generate discussion within the community about that topic. His columns, as is the case of the vast majority of columns written by opinion columnists, are what they are, simply the opinion of the columnist, even as a “Letter to the Editor” is, but the opinion of the person writing the letter.

An opinion column, like a “Letter to the Editor,” is not a treatise intending to fairly cover both sides of an issue nor is it necessarily balanced, fair, or unbiased. It is hopefully, something the writer knows about, cares about, and feels passionately about, written in a manner that will be interesting to the reader. Is it necessarily something that most people will agree with? No, but in the vast majority of cases, it will be something that virtually everyone will either agree or disagree with based on their own understanding.

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, it has never been about the “columnist” or whether people agreed or disagreed with his columns. What mattered to him was that he had done his best to express honest opinions and make sure that the column contained the basis upon which those opinions were based so that they could be evaluated by the readers. Isn’t that the same standard that should be applied to “Letters to the Editor?”

Previously the Ole Seagull has pointed out that he has, on occasion, been questioned about what qualifications he possessed that qualified him to his write his opinions and why anyone should pay any attention to them. In order, he answered “only his life’s experience” and “they shouldn’t unless, one way or the other, they have evaluated those opinions and find them useful in their own decision making process.” It would be his opinion that those answers could apply to the value people should give to “Letters to the Editor.”

Some have asked if the Ole Seagulls writings will be posted on the internet any more. The answer is “Yes.” After this week, they will no longer be posted as editorials at www.BransonCourier.com or as posts on 1Branson.com, but they will be posted on the Ole Seagull’s website, www.TheOleSeagull.Com. In addition, The Ole Seagull, along with millions of others also “tweets” as "theoleseagull" on Twitter.Com.

For the opportunity, encouragement and help he has received over the years an Ole Seagull is eternally grateful and thankful. In terms of what he has written and how he has written it he will rely on the words Abraham Lincoln who said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Who could have known back in 1959 that when the Mabe family started performing their country music variety show called the “Baldknobbers,” in a small 50 seat basement room in the Branson Community Center, the show would still be going 50 years later? Who would have thought that not only would the Baldknobbers be around 50 years later, but that that there would be another 99 or so shows of every type and description also entertaining millions of Branson guests?

If, in 1959, someone had said, “50 years from now people will be coming from all over the world to see live music shows in Branson” they would have been laughed at. Well, no one’s laughing now.

Oh sure, the millions of visitors coming to Branson come to see more than shows. They come to see the natural wonder of the Ozark Mountains, play or fish in one of our three lakes, go to Silver Dollar City to one of Branson’s many other attractions, shop or participate in the myriad of activities and things there is to see and do in and around Branson. But, let there be no doubt about it, the very heart beat of Branson’s entertainment heart started with the first beat of music from the Baldknobbers show 50 years ago.

To an Ole Seagull, Branson’s entertainment heart is its music shows, particularly its family music shows and the values they represent. It is that heart that pumped the entertainment blood that enabled Branson to grow from one show entertaining a few fishermen a couple of nights a week in downtown Branson into the varied entertainment Mecca, entertaining about 7.5 million guests per year, it has become.

Oh sure a lot of things happened in conjunction with that first show, the completion of Table Rock Dam, the expending of Marvel Cave into what would become eventually become the international theme park award winner, Silver Dollar City, the Shepherd of the Hills Outdoor Drama and improvements to Highway 65. In 1967 the Presleys’ Country Jubilee opened its theatre on the now famous Branson Strip followed by the Baldknobbers as they moved out from their downtown location, the Foggy River Boys, and the Plummer Family. From there history speaks for itself.

Branson’s original country show style provided the foundation upon which the Branson show industry has grown. But today, as the live music show capital of the world celebrates 50 years of music shows those shows provide a breadth of entertainment that transcends any one genre or type of music.

The term “music show” covers just about every show in Branson where music is used either as a primary or peripheral element. Branson is celebrating 50 years of music shows because its shows have provided the type of entertainment and perceived value system that its audiences embrace and have become a unique part of the Branson entertainment brand that brings millions of people to Branson each year.

As those visitor come the see Branson they are offered a choice of shows offering everything from music, magic, comedy acrobatic, outdoor drama, pets, and variety shows most of which are still true to the initial family values and the heritage that started it all. Indeed, on just about a nightly basis throughout the season, one can still see, the “Baldknobbers,” “the show that started it all” and the “Presley’s Country Jubilee,” ‘the first show on the Branson Strip’” perform while having the choice of seeing one of the 98 other live shows available.

Some say Branson needs new entertainers, demographics, etc. An Ole Seagull believes that Branson needs to follow its “heart,” keep it healthy, promote and market it and the same thing that has happened over the last 50 years will continue to happen. It is an Ole Seagull’s prayer that Branson will always stay true to its shows and values because, he believes, that is the heart beat of Branson’s entertainment uniqueness and success.

At least five times this week the Ole Seagull has heard it said, “The airport can do whatever it wants to do because it’s private.” That’s true if the airport is truly private, but from its inception, to this point, that makes about as much sense as saying Dr. Jekyll is “Cinderella.”

The “private issue” reared its head when the airport recently announced that under its exclusive agreement with Branson Gray Line for certain ground transportation services at the airport, there would be a prohibition against all other providers of ground transportation picking up anyone at the airport. The net effect was if a group of 20 people had made arrangements through a tour company in Milwaukee to travel to Branson via AirTran they could not be picked up at the Branson Airport by the same company they had previously been using, unless it just happened to be Branson Gray Line.

Regardless of how that issue is ultimately worked out, the first flip answer people tended to give was, “That’s ok, it’s a private airport they can do what they want.” This evidently as opposed to virtually every other commercial airport in the united States which is owned and financed by a government entity and must comply with applicable laws pertaining to the disclosure of information, awarding of contracts, providing of services, etc.

May an Ole Seagull suggest that, at the very least, this is the first airport of its type in the country and there is no automatic precedent that can broadly and so blithely be applied to its operation? To him, it is obvious that “but for” the involvement of the city of Branson and its commitment to pay up to $60 million over a period of 30 years that Branson Airport LLC, the Delaware based corporation owning and operating the Branson Airport, might still be looking for the financing necessary to get the project off the ground.

An article published in the latter half of 2007 in 417 Magazine entitled, “Up in the Air” said, “In 2006, then-mayor Lou Shaffer signed a pay-for-performance agreement. For every inbound passenger, the City of Branson is to pay $8.24—an amount that was calculated using the projected tax revenue generated by each visitor. Annually, the amount cannot exceed $2 million, and the city is more or less locked into the agreement for 30 years. Taney County declined a similar deal.”

In an official city of Branson press release relating to the final issuing of the bonds for the financing of the “private” airport, Branson Airport LLC President and CEO Steve Peet said “We would like to thank both the city of Branson and Taney County for their efforts and cooperation over the last several years in getting us to this point. In particular, the city’s ‘pay for performance’ contract was a key ingredient in the successful financing.”

The official city release went on to quote, then Branson City Administrator Terry Dody as saying “The bond sale culminates about a five year process of combined efforts between the Branson Airport officials and city of Branson aldermen and staff to develop a financing package that would be appealing to the bond investors.” Dody continues, “It’s a compliment to this partnership and this project that the $113 million bonds were placed quickly and well over subscribed.”

An Ole Seagull has a tough time with the concept that the airport is “private” when the taxpayers of the city of Branson are obligated to pay up to $2 million per year to the “private” airport. Does the verbiage “combined efforts between the Branson Airport officials and city of Branson aldermen and staff to develop a financing package that would be appealing to the bond investors” sound “private” or more a “public private partnership?

Did a Jan. 25 online report in the St. Louis Post-DispatchMcClatchy-Tribune Regional News report that “the Branson Airport received a $332,000 air-service development grant from the Missouri Department of Transportation?” Is the Branson Airport receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in marketing assistance and preference from the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED)? Since its existence how much has the TCED spent to promote the low cost air fare at the Springfield/Branson Airport?

“But Seagull, the Branson Airport is a private airport.” Sure and Dr. Jekyll is “Cinderella.”

For reader perspective on the opinions expressed in his columns, the Ole Seagull would take this opportunity to inform his readers that he is working as an independent contractor for the Branson Tourism Center and Branson.Com writing internet content and coordinating the internet content of their different sites. He would also state that he is a long time member of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and has served on its Small Business Development Advisory Council since its inception. He was an owner of the website “Branson.Com” until it was “sold” in 1999. It was subsequently resold by that purchaser to its current owner, “Branson Tourism Center.”

Like a lot of people, the Ole Seagull is no more of an expert on pie shows than he is a marketing expert. But, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have an idea or two about pie shows or marketing. From a pie show perspective, how about limiting the type of pie a contestant can submit for the show to, the hard to find, Pineapple Cream Pie? Here’s a great marketing idea, how about using the internet to market Branson?

Now it’s not too hard to imagine that the organizers of the pie show might not share the Ole Seagull’s enthusiasm for Pineapple Cream Pie and would simply ignore the idea. However, what if someone pointed out that “The Great American Pie Show” was only one of over 40 events making up Ozark Mountain Spring?

What if that person suggested that during the final awards ceremony for the pie show it might be a good idea to encourage those who had attended the pie show to attend other Ozark Mountain Spring Events that are taking place concurrently with the pie show, such as “Kewpiesta,” “Hand in Hand Branson Honors Purple Heart Recipients,” “Area ’57 Cruise In & Drive-In Movie Night,” and the “Bonnie Brook Open House?”

Some might say, “But Seagull, you have gone from a pie show and Pineapple Cream Pie to promoting other things that are going on in Branson.” That’s absolutely true, but, at the end of the day, isn’t that supposed to be one of the primary purposes of spending taxpayer funds to hold the “Great American Pie Show” and bringing in a celebrity judge?

Speaking of marketing ideas, how about the idea of using the internet to market Branson? Again, some might be thinking, “Duh, Seagull, what do you think we are doing?” True, but timing is everything and it wasn’t always so.

“Way back,” when the Ole Seagull and his son Basil, recognized the marketing potential of the world wide web (WWW) of the internet, obtained the WWW URL “Branson.Com,” launched the first active, viable, and to date, longest continual running website devoted to sharing Branson with the world, “Branson.Com,” it was a “Duh” that meant the exact opposite of what it means today. Today it would mean “Duh” what do you mean use the internet? Unfortunately, back then it was “Duh, what is the internet?”

What’s interesting, and experienced by the Ole Seagull first hand, was that even after Branson.Com was featured on CNN shortly after its launch, just how far behind the internet power curve those having the responsibility for marketing their respective venues and the Branson area were. How many millions of dollars were spent by the city of Branson marketing Branson before the city had a website promoting Branson? What year was that?

What if there had been a “Great Branson Marketing Idea Show” back then, where tax payer funds were spent to get ideas and concepts for marketing Branson? Like the pie show, contestants would submit their ideas in writing to the initial judging panel who would select the 12 finalists.

The 12 finalist would then compete in Branson at the Branson Convention Center and be weaned down to a final three from which the winner would be chosen. Is there just the possibility that the new technology represented by the internet might have been integrated into the marketing of Branson years earlier?

“But Seagull, will there be a celebrity judge?” Great idea and all the finalists, judges, and attendees get a piece of Pineapple Cream Pie too.

Interestingly, last week’s column entitled “Mirror mirror on the wall, who brings Branson most of all?” evoked a response that was 100 wrong. There were those who disagreed with the column because they perceived the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB (CVB) was being attacked and there were those that agreed with the column because they perceived the CVB was being attacked. Both were wrong.

What the column did was debunk five common “myths” about how the proceeds of the two “tourism taxes” used to fund the marketing of Branson are used. Basically it said that the funds do not have to be spent through not-for-profit entities, used only for “out of area” marketing, or allocated to just one organization.

It went on to point out the reality, that over the entire history of spending the proceeds of the two tourism taxes, that no major contract for marketing etc., using those funds, has ever been granted to another entity except the CVB. Some were quick to point out that the actual control of the two taxes is in the hands of the Branson Board of Aldermen and Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District board. That is true, but doesn’t change the reality of the way the funds have been spent.

The column also pointed out that there was extreme flexibility as to how the marketing funds were spent regardless of the benefit a single business might gain from it. The example of the marketing funds being used to help market the privately owned Branson Airport because of all the new people it is expected to bring into Branson was used to illustrate the point.

As to an attack on the CVB, someone, the Ole Seagull or otherwise, pointing out the reality of what organization is actually getting the contracts is not an attack, it’s a fact. Some thought the Ole Seagull’s suggestion of identifying up to five businesses that have a proven track record for bringing the most new tourists to Branson through their marketing efforts and having them develop a marketing plan for Branson was an attack on the CVB.

How can any reasonable person infer an attack on the CVB by what was written? Is it an attack to state reality? How is it an attack to suggest that it might be a good idea to know exactly what businesses or entities are actually doing marketing that is bringing new people to Branson and take advantage of that expertise to develop a marketing plan for Branson?

Actually, by any measurement, it’s almost inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that the CVB wouldn’t be one of the top five businesses that has a proven track record for bringing the most new tourists to Branson through their marketing efforts. Some might say, “But the CVB isn’t in business, is not for profit and has no attendance to measure.”

To an Ole Seagull, any entity, call it “not for profit” or “for profit” being paid upwards of $1.4 million to market Branson is in “business.” Actual attendance, revenues, or sales taxes paid are a measurement how a particular business is currently doing but serves very little useful purpose in evaluating whether or not the marketing of a particular entity actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson.

The vast majority of the marketing done in Branson is intercept marketing, getting the visitors already in Branson into their show, attraction or establishment. Not that many businesses actually do marketing intended to bring significant numbers of new visitors to Branson. Obviously without those efforts there would be nothing for those using intercept marketing to intercept. In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the CVB is one of the few organizations whose marketing actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson.

The difference between the CVB and, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, almost any other entity whose marketing actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson, is that, for the most part, those entities invest their own money in promoting Branson. They are not guaranteed any amount, $1.4 million or otherwise, “theirs is but to do or die.”

One could get the impression that the queen, in the movie “Snow White,” was concerned about whether or not she was the fairest in the land because, just about every day, she asked her magic mirror, “Mirror, mirror on the wall who is fairest of them all.” Maybe, just maybe, those government officials with a responsibility and true concern for the marketing of Branson should be asking the magic mirror, “Mirror mirror on the wall, who brings Branson most of all.”

At the outset let’s get rid of some of the myths regarding the expenditure of marketing revenues generated by the City of Branson’s Tourism Tax (CBTT) and the Tourism Community Enhancement District Tax (TCEDT). Before citing the myths let’s look at the controlling state law to which any myth or local change should be compared.

The state law governing the expenditure of the CBTT funds for promotion or marketing simply states, “Twenty-five percent of the taxes collected shall be deposited into a ‘Tourism Promotion Account’ within the tourism tax trust fund and shall be used, upon appropriation by the municipality, for tourism marketing and promotional purposes.”

The state law governing the expenditure of the TCEDT funds states, “Ninety-eight percent of the revenues collected from the tax authorized by this section shall be used by the board for marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism, the administration thereof, and a reasonable reserve. The district shall enter into an agreement with an organization or organizations to conduct and administer functions such as public relations, sales, and marketing of tourism on behalf of the district to enhance the economic health of the district.”

Now let’s look at the myths:

Myth #1 “All marketing funds must be spent through not for profit entities.” Simply not true for either the CBTT or TCEDT.

Myth #2 “All funds must be spent on out of area marketing.” Simply not true for either CBTT or TCEDT.

Myth #3 “All the money has to go to one organization.” Simply not true. The CBTT funds “shall be used, upon appropriation by the municipality, for tourism marketing and promotional purposes.” The TCEDT funds “shall be used by the board for marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism, the administration thereof, and a reasonable reserve.” In both cases, there is no requirement that the funds be spent through any one entity.

Myth 4. “The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB has control over how both the CBTT and TCEDT marketing funds are spent.” Although the term “control” is relative, the reality is, over the entire history of spending both the CBTT and TCEDT funds, no major contract for marketing etc., using those funds, has ever been granted to another organization.

Myth #5. “No marketing funds can be spent for the benefit of any one theatre, attraction, business etc.” Simply not true. There is extreme latitude on how the money may be spent. As an example, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent for the benefit of the privately owned Branson Airport because of all the new people it is expected to bring into Branson.

Now that all the myths are gone let’s get back to the main question, “Mirror mirror on the wall who brings Branson most of all?” Let’s identify no more than the top five businesses that have a proven track record for bringing the most new tourists to Branson through their marketing efforts, put them into a room, and pay them to develop a marketing plan based on their expertise and experience. They should be free to develop the plan not restricted or influenced by myths or the way Branson has been marketed in the past.

As someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull once said, “Let’s think out of the box.” Maybe someday, in terms of its marketing, Branson will be able to say, “See, it happens.”

Some might ask, “What are the odds are of that happening?” An Ole Seagull would reply, “About the same as the queen wanting the mirror to reply that someone else was fairer than she.” But, it is an intriguing question that begs an answer, “Mirror mirror on the wall, who brings Branson most of all?

It’s not a rumor, no matter how BransonFest has done in the past, good bad or indifferent, it isn’t going to do anything this year because it is not going to be held. Rumor has it that this year, taking advantage of the “Ozark Mountain” brand that has proved so successful in the marketing of “Ozark Mountain Christmas,” Branson is going to have a multi month event called Ozark Mountain Spring.

Rumor has it that Ozark Mountain Spring will, for the most part, be a marketing tool to promote events that, much like the now defunct BransonFest, have been taking place for years during the March through May time frame during which Ozark Mountain Spring is scheduled to run. Rumor had it that selected new events, picked to help promote Ozark Mountain Spring and bring visitors to the event would be made part of the event. Why there was even a rumor that a pie show was going to be the major new event for Ozark Mountain Spring in 2009.

Hold on a minute, actually it was much more than a rumor. At the Annual Meeting of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TECD) on Sep. 30, 2008, Speaking on behalf of the Branson Tri Lakes CVB/TECD Marketing Committee (Committee), the Titanic’s Mary Kellogg said “Branson’s First Annual Great American Pie Show” would be held at the Branson Convention Center on Friday, April 24 and Saturday, April 25, 2009 as part of Ozark Mountain Spring.

Imagine how surprised the Ole Seagull was this week when he received a number of announcements from the Branson Lakes/Lakes Area Convention and Visitors Bureau announcing there would be an Ozark Mountain Spring Community Kick-Off on Friday, January 16, 2009 at 10 a.m. at the Branson Convention Center in the Taneycomo B meeting room. It’s not that the meeting was being announced or is being held that was surprising, it was the way it was announced.

The very first line of the announcement said, “You’ve heard the rumors… Now come and learn the facts!” There have been rumors about the pie show and its concept ever since it was announced at a TCED meeting weeks prior to its announcement at the TCED annual meeting on Sep.30, 2008.

Although certainly not all the rumors, there are three main rumors that the Ole Seagull has heard discussed. The first is that the estimated budget to promote the pie show could be upwards of $250,000. The second was that between $100,000 and $150,000 of that budget would be used to bring in a nationally known personality such as Al Roker, nationally known weatherman with NBC, to help create the possibility for getting large amounts of publicity from the local level to the national level in all media forms. The third is that the people who came up with this idea and support it are crazy.

The announcement clearly indicates that those managing Ozark Mountain Spring were aware of these and other rumors and chose to wait until now to address them. They could have put the “Facts” out months ago but chose not to. From a community involvement and influence perspective what good are the facts going to do now. Even as it makes no difference what benefit BransonFest was or was not to Branson because it will not be held this year; it makes no difference what benefit a pie show will be to Branson because it’s going to held this year.

Or is it? The CVB announcement saying “You’ve heard the rumors… Now come and learn the facts,” doesn’t even mention a pie show as one of the items that will be discussed. It says, “This is YOUR OPPORTUNITY [caps theirs] to learn about what’s happening Spring 2009 in Branson! Craft Shows-Car Shows-Culinary Demonstrations AND celebrating 50 years of Live Music Shows- there’s something for EVERYONE!” Well maybe not quite everyone, there is no mention of a pie show, “Great American” or otherwise.

One could almost see how a rumor that “There is not going to be a “Branson Great American Pie Show” could start as the result of an official announcement like this. Oh be still my beating heart, no pie show or possibility of a pineapple cream pie in Branson. Won’t someone please tell an Ole Seagull that the omission of the pie show from the CVB announcement was a rumor of omission and that in fact it is going to be held?

By GARY J. GROMAN
a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

Branson as much as New York City, Chicago, Seattle Washington, Orlando already has an airport, it’s called the Springfield-Branson National Airport (SGF). Low price carriers aside for a moment, does anyone know how many first time visitors flew to Branson, MO through SGF over the last ten years? Probably not as many as would have if there had been a low cost carrier, but unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, quite a few nevertheless.

It’s probably true to say that the vast majority that fly into SGF have to rent a car, unless they are part of a bus tour, but it’s not because of the 40 minute drive to Branson from the airport it’s because there is no efficient public transportation in Branson and the fact that a car is needed to get around. Come to think of it, those flying into the new Branson Airport will be in the same situation. Unless they are on a bus tour they will have to rent a car for the same reason.

In each case, the airport will make the decisions about which vendors will be able to rent cars and provide bus, taxi, car rental, limo services from their respective airport or provide services within the airport proper. In the case of the Springfield Airport, because it is not a private, but a public airport operated with public dollars, one would think that the typical government procurement process with ample notifications would apply in obtaining vendors to provide those services and would be open to all businesses on an equal basis. Further, all final contracts would be subject to public scrutiny under the Sunshine Law.

Those same expectations would be unreasonable at the Branson Airport because it is a private airport. Just recently it was announced that Branson Gray Line will exclusively operate all taxi, shuttle, limousine, luxury coach, charter bus and ground transportation services at the Branson Airport. Did anyone notice any public notices about a bid process to provide all potential vendors an opportunity to bid on providing the services or was there discussion on why more than one vendor couldn’t provide such services? Oh, that’s right Branson Airport is a private entity and doesn’t have to comply with the Sunshine Law.

“But hold on Seagull, don’t they receive public tax dollars and if they do shouldn’t the entities giving them that money require some sort of compliance with basic procurement rules?” The truth is, at this point, although the airport has not received tax dollars directly, they have and will continue to receive the benefit of marketing dollars allegedly to market the availability of low coast air fares to Branson. That benefit is expected to be in the $100s of thousand dollar range.

In addition, once passengers start flying in on commercial air flights, the city of Branson, thanks to the commitment made by the previous administration in the spring of 2006, is obligated to pay $8.24 per passenger for the vast majority of the passengers arriving at the airport on such flights. There is a yearly cap of $2 million, the agreement is for 30 years and could be worth a total of $60 million over a period of 30 years. No such dollars have been spent so far because no passengers have flown in yet. Interestingly, there is no restriction on what the airport may use the money for.

Is it really a privately owned and operated airport when it is receiving up to $2 million in government funds directly and the direct benefit of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer financed marketing? Should the city revisit the contract in view of other information on how the airport will be raising revenue and operating? Wow, one can only wonder how much stress it would take off some local attractions like Silver Dollar City, Sight and Sound Theatre, or the hundreds of other shows, attractions and businesses if they got $8.24 cents for each person that came to Branson because of them.

The aftermath of the April 2008 rains and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) robotic and bureaucratic adherence to “The Plan” will impact the Branson area for years to come. Early last summer in a column entitled, “Corps fiddles The Plood while local officials and leaders dance to the tune.” The Ole Seagull asked the areas elected and unelected leaders two simple questions about what was being done to correct the situation and prevent it from happening in the future.

Those questions, were “Is there any official record anywhere that even one petitioned the Corps, on an emergency basis, for a temporary exception to lowering the Regulatory Stages at Newport until the Tri-Lakes levels, especially Bull Shoals, were back to safe levels? Did even one initiate official action with the Corps requesting a process be set in motion to evaluate changes to The Plan?”

What happened in the Branson area, particularly after the April rain event was not as the result of a “flood” it was as the result of a “plood.” Almost everyone knows what a flood is, “An overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry and usually caused by an act of God.” To describe what happened to Branson after April the Ole Seagull coined the word “plood” and defined it as “The overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry or the constant real threat of such flow, usually caused by ‘The Plan.’”

“The Plan,” simply stated, says releases from Beaver are dependent upon the elevation in Table Rock and Bull Shoals lakes; releases from Table Rock are dependent upon the elevation in Bull Shoals lake; and releases from Bull Shoals are dependent upon the “seasonal regulating stage” at Newport, AR, some 200 miles plus downstream from Branson.

The lower the seasonal regulating stage at Newport the less water can be released from Branson area lakes. That works out real well for the Newport area because the levels of the “seasonal regulating stage” were basically negotiated down from 25 feet to 12 feet over the years because of the political clout and influence of the agricultural interests of that area. There was apparently, no effective local governmental participation from the Branson Tri-Lakes area.

Well time has passed, July has turned into the end of December and an Ole Seagull would close his last column of the year by asking basically the same two questions of the same leaders “Is there any official record anywhere that even one of you petitioned the Corps, on an emergency basis, for a temporary exception to lowering the Regulatory Stages at Newport until the Tri-Lakes levels, especially Bull Shoals, were back to safe levels? Did even one of you initiate any official action with the Corps requesting a process be set in motion to evaluate changes to The Plan?”

Well maybe just a tad more. The Corp’s latest official Daily Reservoir Report for the White River System dated Dec. 24 shows the lake levels of Beaver and Table Rock at 1119.37 and 913.92 respectively. The same report shows those levels were 1113.4 and 910.5 respectively on Dec. 24, 2007.

Does that mean what an Ole Seagull thinks it means? Is Beaver Lake 5.97 feet higher than it was a year ago at this time and Table Rock 3.42 feet higher? What could that bode for our area if 2009 has the same amount, or more, of rain than it had in 2008?

Wait, is that the tune of “Auld Lang Syne” being sung on New Years Eve by our areas leaders? Yes, but listen to the lyrics they’re singing:

“Should high waters be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should high waters be forgot?
and days of Plooding fine.”

There’s no doubt about it, our nation is facing some serious challenges. On one hand there is terrorism and economic upheaval with governmental systems seemingly running awry throwing billions of dollars at problems that no one has yet defined. On the other hand, the average American loses their job, watches their pension and retirement fund dwindle away, as home values drop and health care costs rise out of control. Some might even have the impression that things are beyond control.

Some might say, “But Seagull, the government is spending billions and trillions to fix it, won’t that take care of it?” “Don’t believe it will.” In his 67 years of life it has been his general experience that the government produces nothing of economic value and simply redistributes the economic production of its citizens.

Unfortunately, in the current crises, a lot of America’s past manufacturing capacity is outside her boarders, her military, in terms of both personnel and equipment, is stressed and stretched just about as far as it can be, illegal immigration runs rampant, and, with unemployment and healthcare costs, among others, rising, its citizens have less economic production for the government to redistribute.

If an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull he’d bet that the very individuals who put the country in this mess made money while doing it and are making money now on the “bailout.” The thing that brought it all into focus for him was the case of financier Bernard Madoff, who is alleged to have bilked people and organizations out of over $50 billion dollars.

Madoff gets to go home to his fancy apartment under house arrest while the people he bilked billions from watch their life style and retirement funds disappear. Hum, come to think about it there are a lot of people these days, Madoff aside, who are watching their life styles change radically.

The frustrating thing is that no one seems to know what the problem is or what will solve it. One thing is becoming painfully obvious; it will not be solved without sacrifice and more financial pain for the average American who can do very little, on an individual basis, to affect the final outcome.

As we look to the challenges ahead, as individuals and a nation, perhaps the words Abraham Lincoln spoke at his first inauguration can give us some guidance and hope. Lincoln said, “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.”

When Lincoln said those words he was facing challenges that went to the very fiber of a young nation and whether or not it would remain a nation and slavery abolished. It took individual sacrifice of the greatest kind but, the price was paid, the issues decided and the nation was stronger because of it.

In the current crisis, an Ole Seagull can do nothing more than face each day with optimism, do the best he can to support himself, his family, and his community and have faith in “Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land.” His hope is reflected in the words in the Christmas carol, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,” that say, “God is not dead nor doth not sleep, the wrong will fail the right prevail.”

This column was originally written over 11 years ago and is modified and republished each year as an Ole Seagull’s testimony as to what Christmas means to him. The political correctness of “Merry Christmas” may change but the true meaning of CHRISTmas will never change.

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has trying to be “politically correct.” In recent years there has been a strong move to change the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But one wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would they?” Absolutely not, but most people are not offended by the use of the term “Merry Christmas.” Yet, it is important to the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special and to those who want to preserve the spirit, history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They both leave “Christ” out. So what? What does Christ have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, atheism and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion but, without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was Christ.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was Christ.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of Christmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”

If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, Christmas, in its truest sense, will be with us every day of the year, Merry Christmas folks, Merry Christmas.

An Ole Seagull, and the rest of the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry Christmas.

The question is, “What will do more to bring more people to Branson and get Branson the most public relations (PR) exposure for each dollar spent, a three day pie show with a nationally recognized celebrity or a free three day $150,000 minimum prize Texas Hold-em tournament? Recently, the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) Board was told that the area should be thinking “out of the box” to help jump start Branson’s Ozark Mountain Spring season.

The “out of the box” idea presented was the “Great American Pie Show” and the board conditionally authorized $150,000 for the event. Actually, the Ole Seagull believes, providing someone makes a great Pineapple Cream Pie, the pie show, while more out of the oven than the box, run the way this community would run the event, would enjoy success.

In the world of poker playing hands are rated. The higher rated hands beat the lower rated hands, four Aces beats three Kings, two pair beats one pair etc. Branson is getting ready to bet at least $150,000, which will probably be closer to $250,000 before all is said and done, on a hand holding the “Great American Pie Show.”

What if that hand were playing against a hand that held one of the largest non-alcohol, smoke free, and free Texas Hold-em Tournaments ever, with a minimum of $150,000 in prizes? The governing word here being “free,” no pay to play. Given the same level of funding, promotion, and community effort as the pie show, in terms of the potential number of people that the event could bring to Branson and the value of the PR Branson could get, which ranks higher, the pie show or the tournament?

Now let’s not get all emotional, hostile, and judgmental about the morals of gambling and how it will destroy our community. We’re only talking about one three day event. Besides, isn’t gambling used for charitable purposes by some organizations within the Branson community to further the good works and services performed by them? That brings two things to mind.

The first is, “Would these organizations use gambling as a method to raise funds if they thought gambling was morally wrong, after all, what kind of example would that set for the community?” The second is, “Why base a charitable event around gambling in the first place?” An Ole Seagull would respectfully answer, in order, by saying, “No” and “Because it’s a fun entertainment thing that people like to do and helps attract people to the event.”

One doesn’t have to go back too far to find just such an event, the “Skaggs Bash” held at the Branson Convention Center on Oct. 11. One of the ads for the event said, “Monte-Carlo is known for its food, casinos, and gambling, so you won’t be disappointed with the night’s events.” It went on to say, “A reception kicks off the night at 5:30 p.m., dinner follows at 6:30 p.m., and casino fun begins at 8.”

The tournament would be an annual event and open to anyone over 21 and would not cost any player one penny to play. The total number of players would be limited only by the size of the venue(s) and the rules and limits of the tournament. How many players could fit in the Branson Convention Center? Free registration would be available in advance, on the internet etc. If more registrations are received than there are seats available the players would be assigned seats through an appropriate random method, drawing etc.

Is the Ole Seagull saying forget the pie contest, absolutely not, he’s merely suggesting that there are other ideas out there that could help get Branson, not only the number of people and PR it wants and needs, but target a lower age demographic. Why can’t Branson eat pie and play poker too?

This week while talking with Branson Airport (BBG) officials they said that the bottom line for the success of the airport is getting “butts in the seats.” Come to think of it, paraphrased a bit to “butts through the door” or “butts to Branson” doesn’t that describe what is necessary for the success of just about every business in Branson?

Substitute the word “guest” for “butt” and that philosophy should surprise no one involved in marketing Branson. It is designed to bring guests to Branson. The more astute individual businesses market to do everything in their power to insure that when a guest comes to Branson they come into their business establishment. Why? Because, in a general sense, no guests through the door means no chance to earn revenue.

In terms of ownership, the Branson Airport is a privately owned entity and the only one of its kind in the country. In terms of Branson’s economy, and the “butts in the seats” necessary to drive that economy, can anyone tell an Ole Seagull what difference the ownership of the airport makes?

An Ole Seagull would suggest, “Not much.” Whether privately or publically owned, convenience of air travel to locals aside, the primary function of a commercial airport is to provide air service. At this stage in Branson’s economic development, the primary value of any airport to Branson’s tourist economy is how many guests that airport causes to come to Branson.

Perhaps, although not as important as the similarity of function between privately and publically owned airports, there is something else to consider. In the typical airport situation, from concept to the operation of its first commercial flight(s), how many millions of dollars are involved in planning, building, getting a carrier(s), initial operating costs etc.? If it’s owned by the public the public pays the majority of the costs if its private, private investors pay the costs. In the case of BBG those costs are in the area of $140 million.

To an Ole Seagull, it’s not a matter of whether or not Branson needs another airport. Quite frankly, what he believes Branson needs is competitive low cost fares that will maximize the use of air transportation to the benefit of Branson’s economy. Most will agree that has not happened up to now. The private entrepreneurs involved with BBG recognized that and saw an opportunity. Now, if things go according to schedule low cost commercial jet airliner service will start from BBG in early May of 2009.

At this point, whether privately or publically owned, BBG is in exactly the same position as any other destination airport. The majority of publically owned airports and the carriers serving those airports are marketed by the public entities owning them. That marketing is done with public funds. In terms of its basic function, why should that be any different with BBG?

Some will say, “Because it’s a for profit entity and no public funds should be used?” They are right, as far as saying it is a for profit entity, but so what? In terms of its basic air transportation function, hopefully BBG is doing what any other airport is doing. Shouldn’t Branson, as a community that markets everything from a pie contest to Ozark Mountain Christmas in an attempt to get guests to Branson, be as supportive of the Branson Airport to the extent that it does the same thing?

To an Ole Seagull it’s not a matter of marketing the airport. It’s more a matter of how that marketing is done. The unique business paradigm and the “for profit” nature of BBG present marketing challenges. With the proper oversight, there should be no problem ensuring that public funds are used to market only in a manner that provides the general public with the same basic information provided by the majority of publically owned destination airports in their marketing.

That same oversight should ensure that no public funds are used to promote the “for profit” aspect of the airport’s operation in any manner, either directly or indirectly. The responsibility for that oversight rests with the public entities providing the funding, the city of Branson and the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District, and their marketing contractor the Branson /Lakes Area CVB. The effectiveness of that oversight will determine the appropriateness of any public funding used to market the airport.

Common sense tells an Ole Seagull that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a day of “giving thanks.” Generally speaking, who among us says “thank you” to “no one?” When thanks is given it is for something and is “given” to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “Giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is rooted on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it and history itself. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor …”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nation’s history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

This annual Thanksgiving reprint is a wish from the Ole Seagull and the entire Groman family that you and yours will have a Blessed and Happy Thanksgiving.

Well not many, according to the city’s official web site. Let’s just say the “Demrep” family from Indianapolis, Indiana is visiting Branson for the first time, thanks to the Branson Airport, and was looking for a family style meal their first evening in town. They had heard about historic downtown Branson and wanted to eat there on their first night in town. As people are prone to do these days, they went to the internet and ended up on www.explorebranson.com and were really impressed when they saw the words “Official Website of Branson, Missouri.”

With anticipation they clicked on the “Dining” link and were taken to http://explorebranson.com/dining/. It has a nice general narrative about dining in the area and gives the guest the option of clicking on a list to view “All Dinning Listings” or to “Browse Locations.” This was the Demreps first trip to Branson, they had no idea about its different restaurants, they knew the location of where they wanted to eat, down town Branson, so they selected that option from under the “Browse Location” list.

To say the least they were surprised and not very impressed when only four items showed up for “Downtown Branson,” were McDonalds, Wendy’s, Pappa Johns, and the Candle Stick Inn Restaurant. John Demrep said to his wife Michelle, “Why Mother we have most of these same restaurants at home.” Michelle said, “But Father we don’t have Candlestick Inn. It sounds family like and is downtown. Let’s try it.”

They and their two children left their hotel on the western edge of Branson’s strip and started east on Highway 76 to the address shown on the website for the Candlestick Restaurant, 1316 W. Highway 76, Suite 199. When they got there, needless to say they didn’t find the Candlestick Restaurant at that location. When they called the phone number listed 417-335-3633, which they had dutifully written down from the website prior to leaving their motel, they were informed the phone had been disconnected.

Seeing as how they were on Highway 76 heading east and the traffic going west bound was heavy they just continued eastbound, and ran into downtown. As they drove around Branson’s beautifull, quaint and homey downtown they noticed a number of restaurants such as Clocker’s, Branson Café, the Farm House, Rocky’s, and the Bleu Olive. They decided on the Bleu Olive Mediterranean Grille & Bar and, as the story goes, had a great meal starting off with some of the best Asiago Cheese “Flambe” they had ever had.

“Wait a minute,” some who know where the Candlestick Inn is located might say, “Why is the address for Candlestick to a place on West Highway 76? Isn’t Candlestick’s great food, atmosphere, and beautiful view of Branson Landing and downtown Branson located off of East Highway 76 at 127 Taney Street high atop Mount Branson?” The answer of course is “Yes.”

Still others might ask, if the web site is owned by the city of Branson, leased to the Tourism Community Enhancement District (TECD), is being run for both under a contract with the Branson Lakes Area CVB financed by tourism tax dollars collected and remitted by all the restaurants downtown why aren’t all the restaurants in downtown listed? Who is responsible for looking out for the interests of all the small businesses collecting and remitting the tax to make sure they are adequately covered on the web site and other promotional activities paid for by city of Branson and TECD Tourism Taxes?

Some would suggest, “Isn’t it Branson’s elected officials and the TECD Board of Directors?” Other might ask, “Why aren’t the two associations representing the downtown businesses monitoring the situation and taking the appropriate steps to get things changed?”

The pathetic thing is that no one seems to care enough to monitor what is happening or do anything about it. Alexis de Tocqueville said that “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”

It is inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that the TCED board can spend $400,000 of tax payer money collected through the efforts of the businesses and people in the District to help promote the Table Rock Chamber of Commerce, which isn’t in the District, while businesses within the District are treated and ignored in this manner. And besides is Candlestick Inn really in downtown Branson or does a river flow through it?

By: Heather Klein, “Wife of SPC Klein”
Edited by: Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

This week’s column is a drastic departure from what most readers normally expect, in fact, except for this introduction it will not even be written by the Ole Seagull. Whether it is because he knows the people involved or feels that thousands of other soldier’s wives, mothers, grandparents, and loved ones hear the same comments and questions, the information, poignancy and emotion in the email from Heather Klein, the wife of SPC Kory Klein, currently serving with the U.S. Army Reserve in Iraq, needs to be shared and, except for some slight editing, is printed below as submitted.

“Heather’s Letter”

As a military wife I am asked many questions. While I do believe that most people do genuinely mean well, I would like to share how some of these comments and questions affect the person who is receiving them.

1. “I am against/for this war.”

Seriously this comment does not help or make any military wife feel better. Nobody likes war, nobody wants war and most of all; nobody wants their loved one in the middle of a combat zone. One’s political standing on the war aside, if you really want to offer a wife or loved one something, tell them that you are praying for their soldier. Those few words will go a very long way in giving that loved one a bit of peace.

2. “Do you worry about your spouse cheating? Is it hard to be faithful?”

I can’t tell you how insulting and hurtful this question is. I married a man who believes his word is the most important thing he has to give. I did not end up with a husband serving a year in Iraq because he goes back on his word; I ended up in such a position because he lives up to his word. Be here at home or in a war zone, my husband does not break his promises, I never doubt his fidelity here at home, I don’t doubt while he was in Iraq. I am not an idiot.

3. “I could not do it.”

If I had a dime for every time someone said this to a military wife, I wouldn’t need a retirement fund. I don’t want to live a year without my husband but I married a soldier and by doing so, I made the choice to do whatever it takes. I don’t feel like I do it either, but I do not have too many options at the time. He was called up; he went and I did what I had to do to manage on my own. We often discover that we can do a great deal more than we believe ourselves capable when it matters.

4. “Are you afraid your husband might hurt you now that he has killed other people?”

This is a question that is a bit watered down because I have actually had people use the term “murder” in this dialog. No question enrages me more than this one. First, you are assuming that every soldier has killed someone. This is not true. While every single service member carries a gun in Iraq and other combat zones not all actually have to shoot them. When they are actually fired it is for preservation of their own lives or the lives of others. The men and women of our military are well trained but they are not murderers instead they are the people that are trying to keep others from murdering innocent civilians. I have never feared my husband. He is a loving and protective man who would never hurt me in any way.

5. “Are you afraid for him?”

I can only believe that this is a question because someone does not know what else to say. Any military wife who is not afraid is lacking something very basic inside. A military wife is afraid twenty four hours a day. I quit watching the news as often as possible because it only fed my fears. I also don’t like to talk about my fears because it put my emotions a bit too close to the surface.

6. I know how you feel; my husband went away for a hunting trip a few weeks ago.

You have no idea how I feel. I wake up every morning and pray “Please God, just let him still be alive at the end of today.” I always felt that if I ask for more than one day, I was being selfish, so I ask for one day at time. I have lived this for ten months now and six to go, which is less than many military wives go through.

I spend most days not knowing for sure if my husband is safe or if he is hurt. Words such as “dead” have been removed my vocabulary because saying them might make them real. I didn’t do this for a weekend, I didn’t do it for a week, and I did this for going on almost a year now. I live with my stomach in a knot and at night as I sleep all my worst fears would play out in graphic detail in my dreams. Unless you have been there you have no idea how it feels to have your husband in a combat zone. Military wives are not made of steel and we are not much different from anyone else. We just have different circumstances.

7. “Are you mad at him for doing this to you?”

This question puzzles me. I have yet to meet a single military wife who is mad at her husband for doing “this” to her. I am still trying to figure out what my husband did to me. Yes, I had moments of anger and yes sometimes that anger was directed at him. The day the air conditioner broke and I couldn’t get it to start, I kicked the garage wall, cried and cussed at him. I was angry because he wasn’t here, I was angry because I didn’t know from day to day what was going to happen, I was just plain angry.

He, of course, did not hear a word of any of it because he is half way across the world. I never felt that this was something my husband did to me instead I see it as something he did for me, our children, grandchildren and anyone who wants to live in a free country. I am proud of him, I am proud of his service and I am honored to be the woman that not only carries his name but his heart.

As a military wife I have a lot to deal with. Yes, I am married to a soldier but just because I am a military wife does not give anyone the right to just blurt out whatever comes to their mind while I stand back and behave like the perfect and proper soldier’s wife. While I am the wife of a soldier, I am also human with feelings and I respond with emotion when you hit a raw nerve. Before saying something thoughtless to a military wife or anyone for that matter, consider that your words just might cause them pain.

For those who might have missed it, there’s a good chance the country is going through one of the worst financial crises of its history. Unfortunately, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, most of our Federal leaders, both elected and non-elected, are like a lot of us and don’t have a clue as to what is going on. Yet, those same leaders are spending hundreds of billions of our tax dollars pretending to fix a problem that has yet to be defined.

The city of Branson is currently going through some budget challenges but at least, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the problem is fairly simple to understand. Simply put, the city is spending more than it is taking in.

The fix is simple spend less than is coming in. But that’s where things start getting complicated because there are basically two ways for that to happen reduce expenses or increase revenues. City staff, the mayor, and the board of aldermen and the city’s Budget and Finance Committee have been working diligently to try to reduce operating expenditures for the 2009 budget. Unfortunately, the result is anticipated General Fund Revenues of $15,440,350 versus Expenditures of $16,787,967 for an anticipated 2009 operating deficit of about $1,347,617.

In fact, even in the face of the “budget caution light” the budgeted General Fund expenses of $16,787.967 for 2009 exceed the projected 2008 expenses from that same fund of $16,149,452 by about $599,000 or four percent. That does not say too much about the effectiveness of using expenses reduction as an efficient tool to reduce Branson’s deficit.

The situation becomes a tad more complicated when one considers debt service, hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to private developers by the city for things like common area maintenance, the operational loss involved with the city’s convention center and the capital improvement expenses needed for roads, sewer, water, fire and police equipment and facilities, etc.

By now it is probably dawning on most readers that the most probably answer will involve, as it did at the federal level, a bailout based on the backs of its citizens and businesses. Some might ask, “Why is it a bailout?”

To that an Ole Seagull would say, as was the case at the federal level, the budget situation in Branson was created by the decisions that its elected and unelected leaders made. What’s particularly sad in the local case is that the decisions were intentionally made whereas as at the federal level they, more often than not, were made by omission or failure to act.

Two examples illustrate the point. The first is hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to maintain common areas of a private developer’s development. The second is the city not only building and financing a commercial laundry as part of its convention center in its zeal to make sure a hotel was built in association with it, but, if the information presented at a recent Budget and Finance Committee is accurate, entering into a contract whereby hundreds of thousands of pounds of laundry are being processed for two local area hotels for about $.22 per pound instead of the going rate of about $.50 per pound.

How will the bailout be on the backs of its citizens? Water and sewer rates were already on the way to new heights. The 2009 budget contains $50,000 for a sewer and water rate study. Anyone want to bet whether they will be paying more or less for sewer and water in the not too distant future? Can anyone envision their personal property real estate taxes going up? Is it unreasonable to expect that user fees will continue to rise? How about impact fees on developers?

Oh and let’s not forget about cutting back on infrastructure improvements such as Fall Creek (Epps) Road even though the voters that voted for the city Transportation Tax were promised it would be completed. Would one be making a bad bet if they bet it would be the individual residential and business taxpayer that will bear the brunt of getting rid of Branson’s budget deficit? An Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.

Even with Branson’s “caution light” on and city revenues estimated to be going down about 4 percent in 2009, the city’s operating expenses are budgeted to go up about 4 percent from last year. The budget presented to the Budget and Finance Committee at its Oct. 15 meeting for 2009 showed Budgeted Revenues of $15,440,350 and Budgeted Expenditures of $16, 787,967 as compared to Revenues of $16,149,452 and Expenditures of $16,188,545 in 2008.

At the meeting, Branson City Administrator Dean Kruithof said, “The only concern I have right now with the budget is that our revenues are still under expenditures.” In using the revenue and expense figures mentioned above for 2009 he said, “That’s deficit spending.”

Kruithof went on to explain a bright spot in Branson’s budgetary process as he said Branson’s Fund Balance is at about $6,074,000” or about 20 percent. He explained that the GFOA (Governmental Finance Officers Association) recommends a 13 percent Fund Balance and that Branson’s anticipated Balance at the end of 2009 will be over 20 percent. “Under normal circumstances, He continued, “If a city has a fund balance of 20 percent they would be doing cartwheels.” He shared the example of Ft. Smith, AR, from where he just came, having a Fund Balance of 5 percent.

Kruithof stated that in terms of reserves Branson is where it needs to be for 2009 but he is concerned about what happens in future years if the current down trend in the Fund Balance is not reversed. That trend shows an actual Fund Balance of $12,850,529 in 2007, a projected Fund Balance of $8,921,643 in 2008 and an estimated Fund Balance of $6,074,027 for 2009. He said, “We can’t continue to do that because eventually you are going to have zero, eventually you are going to get into the situation where the Fund Balances are not being met.”

Branson Mayor Raeanne Presley asked Kruithof to explain what a “Fund Balance” was. He responded, “The Fund Balance is the very bottom number in which you look at your total available funds for the fiscal year, your total expenditures and basically what’s left over.” It is the balance carried forward to the next year which becomes the lead element in the total funds available for a given account the next year.

The actual 2009 Annual Budget, as it has been developed so far shows that the $24,361,994 total available funds for the General Fund is comprised of the 2007 Fund Balance of $8,921,643and $15,440,350 of anticipated revenue during the year. If the Fund Balance was “zero” the total available funds for the General Funds would have been only $15,440,350 with no reserve left to make up the approximately $1.4 million in deficit spending it will take to operate the city in 2009.

Furnished Courtesy of the Branson Daily Independent.www.bransoncourier.com/view_article.php

In the movie “Forrest Gump” one of the truest sayings of all time was uttered while Forrest was on his three and a half year run. A guy had joined Forrest and was running after him saying, “Hey man! Hey listen, I was wondering if you might help me. I’m in the bumper sticker business and I’ve been trying to think of a good slogan, – WOAH! Man, you just ran through a big pile of dog *hit!” Forest replied, “It happens.” The Bumper Sticker Guy asks “What, *hit?” and Forrest said, “Sometimes.” According to the movie, as an acknowledgement of this universal truth the “*hit Happens” bumper sticker was born.

In terms of Branson and most other places, Forrest probably underestimated the situation when he said, “Sometimes” because, under normal circumstances, “It Happens” in just about every house, apartment, condo, hotel unit, and many other places in the Branson area tens of thousands of time a day. In fact, when coupled with the relief of bodily wastes in their liquid form, “It Happens” hundreds of thousands of times a day and with most such happenings there is an accompanying flush of a toilet causing the release of millions of gallons of sewage into the area’s sewage processing systems.

To a large extent, within the Cities of Branson and Hollister and those areas served by the Taney County Regional Sewer District, when “It happens” the patrons being served by those entities have the assurance of knowing when “It happens” all they have to do is flush and its gone.

With the flush, if all goes well, “It” and its accompanying sewage passes through the pipes of the place where “It” happened. Eventually, usually at the property line, “It” flows into a public sewage collection system for transportation to the nearest sewage treatment plant where “It” is treated to the point where it can be safely released into the environment.

As most patrons on publically funded sewer systems are finding out, even as there is “No free lunch” there is “No free flush.” The city of Branson is in the third year of a five year plan that has already raised sewer rates 45 percent and will raise them an additional 30 percent over the next two years. The city of Hollister is currently in the process of raising its sewer rates about six percent on it residential and business patrons, and the Taney County Regional Sewer District just voted to accept a 58 percent increase per 1000 gallons of sewage treated through Hollister’s treatment plant which will be reflected in the bills of their patrons in the near future.

Now here’s the bad news, that’s not the end of it, in fact there is no end of rate increases in sight for the immediate future. Why? “It happens” and when “It happens,” it costs money to process “It” and those costs are constantly escalating. Unfortunately, for too long and for whatever reasons, sewer patrons have been receiving artificially low rates that did not reflect or cover the actual operational costs of processing their sewage. The artificially low rates were made possible only because of subsidization from other budget areas such as the general fund, tourism taxes, capital improvements, and other funds.

To the best of an Ole Seagull’s knowledge, there is not one public sewage entity, even with the proposed rate increases, that will not have a significant operational deficit during the coming year. If systems can’t even raise enough to pay for their current operations how will they support the capital improvement costs necessary to simply maintain the basic infrastructure of the current systems, replace old sewer lines and build new plants, etc?

An Ole Seagull couldn’t possibly know but this he believes, elected leaders at all levels should have the honesty, courage, and fortitude to do what should have been done years ago, tell people, “It happens,” here’s what it costs to get rid of “It” and here’s what you pay to get rid of yours” It’s the “pay as you flush” variation of the “pay as you go” concept.

Lately it seems from the national to local level, people are being bombarded by numbers that impact on their daily lives, their community, and, possibly, on the very future of their nation. Some of those numbers, particularly the national economic bailout numbers of $700 billion are simply mind boggling, others like the local budget and tourism statistics are understandable by most people with a little effort, and that this year’s Adoration Celebration with be the 60th presentation of the event is almost a no brainer.

At the national level whether it’s a billion here or a billion there doesn’t make any difference. A person can drive themselves crazy trying to understand it all and getting frustrated over something most believe they are powerless to change. At the end of the day, all most people have to know about economic numbers at the federal level is that if they are making any money, have saved any money, or have the hopes of making or saving any money it is that money that will be used to pay the billions the government will spend or redistribute

At least the current budget situation in Branson tones the numbers down from billions to tens of millions. Even there however, the numbers used to establish and manage the city of Branson’s budget are huge and dependent on the input and analysis of a lot of data. In fact, recent events indicate that until recent days, the information and data necessary to evaluate and effectively manage the city’s budget flowed from a broken financial system. As a result, just this week, the Branson Board of Aldermen passed a resolution authorizing the continuation of necessary and essential expenditures to operate the city of Branson through Nov. 3 because they could not complete the Fiscal 2008-2009 budget on time.

As compared to the billions at the national level and the tens of millions involved with the city budget, the smaller numbers usually associated with the percentages used in evaluating the tourism industry seem more understandable. Most people understand if the overall visitation to Branson is down 5.1 percent or the number of inquiries for information on visiting Branson is down 27.6 percent for the first six months of 2008, as compared to the same period in 2007, that is not a good thing.

It is when the numbers get down the 1 to 60 range involving how many years the Adoration Celebration has been taking place within our community that the Ole Seagull feels like he just might have a bare grasp on the situation. Although, in most people’s hearts the reason for the celebration, the adoration of Christ, is more important than the number of times the celebration has been held, depending on how one calculates the numbers, the 2009 Adoration Celebration is a milestone 60th year.

To the best of what an Ole Seagull can find out, the first Adoration Celebration took place in December of 1949. Based on that there are some who would say this is the 59th Adoration Celebration and others who would say it’s the 60th. The good news is that most would say, regardless of what number celebration it is, the Adoration Celebration is a tradition that celebrates the very core of what makes our community so special.

That said and for what it matters, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it is the 59th Anniversary of the first Adoration Celebration computed, as most anniversaries are, by subtracting the current year from the date the event being celebrated first occurred, 2008 from 1949 with the resultant 59 years. Whether it’s years, months, days or hours the specific period for the anniversary being celebrated must past first. The first anniversary of the Adoration Celebration was the 1950 celebration which was actually its 2nd presentation.

Using that same logic, doesn’t that makes 2008 the 60th presentation of the community’s Adoration Celebration? Some might ask, “Isn’t it simpler than that, if 2006 was the 58th and 2007 was the 59th doesn’t that make 2008 the 60th?” An Ole Seagull would answer, “Yes” and take the opportunity to express his prayer of thanks to his God for a community that chose to set time aside, those many years ago, to honor the source of its character and heritage and the hope for the eternal salvation of its people, Jesus Christ.

Can anyone tell an Ole Seagull how the terms “promotion” and “tourism,” as used in the legislation authorizing the spending of tourism tax dollars for marketing, can be so broadly interpreted in Hollister and so restrictively interpreted in Branson? In Hollister the terms have been interpreted broadly enough to authorize the expenditure of tourism tax revenues to build sewer and water infrastructure.

Yet, at a meeting of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TECD), conducted on Sep. 18, they were interpreted so restrictively that an expense for banners promoting a new local event might not be appropriate because, among other things, the banners were to be displayed locally and were not considered “destination marketing.” Which interpretation is right?

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, as most people commonly understand the use of the terms “promotion” and “tourism, the simple straight answer is, “Neither.” Hollister appears to be have gone beyond the scope of the “promotion” and “tourism” authorized in the legislation while, in practical terms, the TCED’s potentially extremely restrictive interpretation could prevent the use of tourism marketing funds for expenses where they are authorized. Some might ask, “Can’t the TCED be more restrictive than the law authorizes?” The answer is “Yes,” but why would they want to be?

Branson’s future does not lie in “buildings or things.” It lies in the effectiveness of how Branson is marketed. If Branson is marketed effectively the “buildings and things” will come naturally as a result. On the other hand “buildings and things,” without effective marketing, will naturally produce very little that is of benefit to either their owners or the community.

The Ole Seagull is getting on up in age and doesn’t get excited too often but this week, while attending a meeting of the TCED, was one of those times. The reason for the excitement was an idea presented to the board during a presentation by the Titanic’s Mary Kellogg on behalf of the CVB/District Marketing Committee.

The idea relates to an expansion on the “Ozark Mountain” brand from “Ozark Mountain Christmas” into “Ozark Mountain Spring” and encompasses the time span starting with the NAIA Division II Basketball Tournament in March until Memorial Day. It will tie all the events happening during that time frame into the brand, and will involve one or more new events of national significance designed, over time, to bring tens of thousands of people to Branson.

The idea is exciting on two fronts. One is the opportunity to have tens of thousands of people coming to the Ozarks during the normally slack Spring period. The second is the opportunity to market the area to those people while they are here in the area in an effort to get them to stay longer, spend more money while they are here, and to return for one of the other events that are part of Ozark Mountain Spring or later in the year for another festival, show, or activity, etc.

Although the TCED Board endorsed the concept and indicated a conditional willingness to support the effort with up to $150,000, the term “destination marketing” kept coming up as the board went over some of the individual items on the event’s tentative budget. On more than one occasion one of the board members used the term “destination marketing” as the gauge of whether or not an expense would be authorized using TCED Funds. A person listening could have got the impression that any local marketing expenses for banners, advertising expenses, etc. from TCED funds would not be appropriate and that the term “destination marketing” meant expenses for marketing outside of the Branson area. Oh, please say it isn’t so!

The specific wording authorizing the expenditure of the tourism tax collected by TCED specifically states it “shall be used by the board for marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism, the administration thereof, and a reasonable reserve.” The enabling legislation contains no definition of the term “marketing,” “advertising,” “promotion,” or “tourism.” More importantly, the term “destination marketing” does not appear anywhere in the legislation.

Does it take a legal Solomon to read the enabling legislation and say, there is no such limitation except, obviously in the minds of those TCED board members who would attempt to impose such a limitation? Can anyone explain to an Ole Seagull why marketing to our visitors while they are in Branson, in an effort to enhance their Branson experience and encourage them to come back is not as important as the marketing done to get them to come to Branson in the first place? …He didn’t think so.

On Sep. 12, in a post to a thread on a web site the Ole Seagull is actively involved with, 1Branson.com, ex Branson alderman Jack Purvis asked, “Why is the present financial mess the fault of the past administration?” In addition, among other things he said, “The truth is this administration has looked under every rock and spent thousands on audits without one sherd of wrongdoing being found. Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true.”

In terms of the current financial situation facing the city does it make any difference what administration is responsible? Isn’t the important thing what is being done to fix the problem? Who would even ask such a question at this juncture?” An Ole Seagull would answer, in order, “Maybe from an historical perspective,” “Yes,” and “ex city alderman Jack Purvis.”

But seeing as how Purvis asked, the Ole Seagull’s answer would be, assuming the past administration Purvis is referring to is the senior non elected official and elected officials that were in office until the April 2007 election, “It is what it is.” For at least four years prior to the new administration being elected in April of 2007, the previous administration had the responsibility for the systems, policies, procedures and, most important of all, the decisions it made. If the information that has been made available to the public recently is accurate, and the Ole Seagull believes it is, it appears some of those decisions and an accompanying “system breakdown” are major contributing factors to the current budget challenges the city is facing.

Purvis is 100 percent correct, be it an Ole Seagull or ex Branson alderman, “Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true.” The Ole Seagull has attended a lot of public meetings and not once has he either heard or had reason to believe that what was being done was being done to uncover wrongdoing. From day one, his impression has been that what was being done was being done to try to get the information needed to effectively perform the oversight and management functions of the offices the public had elected them to.

An Ole Seagull would equate the effort required to get some of that that information to the peeling of an onion, a layer by layer process, and this was an onion with over four years of layers. In the critical area of finances particularly, it has taken time, effort, money and outside assistance to peel back the layers.

What did the peeling back of the onion’s financial layer indicate? Could the information presented at the special Saturday combined meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen and all three of Branson’s standing committees, Personnel, Capital Improvement, and Budget and Finance held at the Branson Rec Plex Sep. 7 provide an answer?

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, “Yes.” To him, of all the reasons Branson City Administrator Dean Kruithof named as contributing factors to Branson’s current budget challenges at that meeting, the one that was the most telling was entitled, “Breakdown of Financial System.” In describing the breakdown of the financial system he said there was a lack of effective contract management, no reconciliation to budget, no project accounting, the city has entered into some extremely sophisticated agreements such as the TIF agreements and the city has an obsolete financial system.

In his post Purvis also asked “Those who wanted a change in administration have the change in personalities they wanted, BUT did they get what they were looking for in management ability?” He immediately followed that statement with the statement “It is what it is.”

As a long term resident of the area and new resident of Branson, an Ole Seagull would answer the question, “Absolutely.” He believes with every fiber of his body that but for the choices the voters of Branson made, starting with the April 2007 elections, that the city of Branson would still be making its financial decisions based on a broken financial system and under what he believes were the repressive and closed management style of the previous administration.

Purvis is correct, the new administration “Is what it is” and, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the old administration, “Was what it was.”

Related information:

Branson revenue stable but financial system breakdown strains budget

Branson city hall and fire station used as collateral on Branson Landing Loan

In the wonder of creation God gave us ears to hear, eyes to see, a mouth to speak and a mind to reason with. Yet here, on this glorious Sep. 7 morning, in spite of all the indications He has given, record rains, record discharges from area dams, the highest lake levels in history, and the negative economic impact of the much higher than normal lakes levels it appears, at least from a public perspective, that our community leaders either don’t care or they don’t know enough to ask “Huh?”

It’s truly amazing. From a perspective point of view regarding this year’s historic lake levels, if Noah had been acting with the same speed and apparent concern displayed by the majority of our communities leaders, both elected and non elected, he would have been asking himself, “Huh, does God really want me to build an ark?” as the first drops of the 40 days of rain to follow fell. Unfortunately, by that time it would have been too late.

Incredulously, after all the warning signs and the actual impact upon our community of this year’s historic high water there is no public record of any effort by any community leader, organization, governmental or otherwise, to take the lead in organizing an effort to mitigate or prevent a reoccurrence of the flooding and high lake levels that impacted the Branson area this year. It’s almost like no one even knows or cares enough about the situation to even ask, “Huh?”

It seems as if everyone is waiting for some supreme power to do something. Unfortunately, everyone is waiting on the wrong supreme power, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) while the real supreme power, God, has provided, it would seem, an adequate warning of what could happen if things are not changed.

The ludicrous part is not the rain itself. That was an act of God. The problems caused by the extremely high water levels for such a long period of time were, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, caused by the Corps and what they did, or didn’t do to manage the water after it fell.

When the Ole Seagull is talking about the Corps he is talking about an organizational philosophy that resulted in an almost rote following of a plan of water management that has been substantially modified from the original plan implemented in 1952 to the potential detriment of the Branson area. A plan, which, an Ole Seagull would bet, was based on intensive study at the time, considered fair, and provided a margin of safety, both in terms of personal safety and economic benefit, to all it covered, including the Branson area.

Unfortunately, the plan as it exists today is not the original plan. It is a plan that, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, is based on political clout exercised for the maximum benefit of the agricultural interests down stream. A clout that has controlled the plans evolution into its current state while the Branson area didn’t even know enough about what was going on to say, “Huh?”

The net result of the application of the plan is Beaver Lake is at approximately 1127.51 feet of elevation, about 14 feet higher than it was at this time last year when its level was 1113.5 feet; Table Rock Lake is at approximately 919.49, about 7 feet higher than it was at this time last year when it’s level was 912.4; and Bull Shoals Lake is at approximately 680.13, about 30 feet higher than it was last year when it’s level was 651.8.

What happened between this time last year and the end of June this year is a matter of record. Unfortunately so is the inactivity of our community’s leaders to formally and publically institute actions to prevent or mitigate a reoccurrence. How sad it would be to end up in the same or a worse situation in the future all because our area’s leaders stood by and said, “Huh?” instead of taking a leadership role in trying to prevent such a situation from arising in the future.

“But Seagull, it’s the Corps we’re fighting, we can’t win against them.” The agricultural interests in Arkansas sure did and one thing is for sure, very few have won a fight by standing outside the fray asking, “Huh?”

By Gary J. Groman. a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

Is it possible Branson, a city with its “financial caution light” on, will make a decision to potentially save $700,000 in the near term that will net an immediate $300,000 loss and cost millions more in the future? In the strange but true world of Branson finance and development anything is possible.

From a perspective point of view, the Ole Seagull would point out he is a fan of Branson Landing, wants to see the Branson Convention Center succeed, and is ambivalent toward the Branson Regional Airport. At the end of the day however, none of that changes the reality of what he believes the situation to be.

While developers seem to get millions of city tax dollars for their projects it appears there are very few crumbs left for improvements helping the average resident and business or to simply make things easier for our guests. The answers to the following questions illustrate the point.

Are the taxpayers of Branson paying over $400 thousand each year toward the maintenance of the fountain and certain “common areas in Branson Landing?” How much did the city pay for the building of the fountain at Branson Landing?

Did the city of Branson actually spend over $600 thousand to build, what may be a one of a kind private laundry in its convention center? What was the total cost to build it? How many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars are the taxpayers of Branson paying each year operating that laundry to provide, among other things, subsidized and bargain basement laundry prices for two private hotels?

How much per passenger has the city of Branson pledged to pay for certain passengers disembarking from the “Branson Regional Airport?” What exactly is the criterion that triggers the payment?

There is something in common with each of the above mentioned expenses. In fact there is more than one thing in common. Each inures to the benefit of a private developer, involves the expense of taxpayer funds and is used to directly support the operation of a private development.

In addition, are the residents and businesses of Branson paying over $1 million plus per year to subsidize the operating losses at the convention center? Is that expense expected to run into perpetuity?

There are some who would say, “But the peripheral benefits to the city are huge.” To that may an Ole Seagull suggest, “If it was that simple we wouldn’t be in the financial pickle we’re in.” All this is done allegedly to bring more tourists to town and yet, what does the city do when it has the opportunity to complete a major north south road to make it easier for tourist and local alike to travel within Branson?

Amazingly, indicate there’s not enough money to do it. The Fall Creek Road extension to State Highway 248 has been in the planning stages and under actual construction for years. It’s already had millions of dollars in city and state funding invested in it, will provide a crown jewel in Branson’s road system, a major north south route on the eastern edge of the strip and, in all likely-hood will cost millions more to complete at some future date. The actual bid on the final phase of the project was $4.5 million, $2.5 million less than the highest estimate and $1 million less than the city’s best estimate.

An Ole Seagull finds it interesting that while indicating it doesn’t have the difference between the $3.8 million budgeted for the project and $4.5 million bid, about $700,000, the city found $1 million plus dollars, to improve the intersection of the new realigned Forsythe and Roark Valley Roads which, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, inures to the primary benefit of yet another developer.

At the time of that decision, the Fall Creek Road extension project had been in the planning and construction stages for how long? The comparative study on which road would provide the most benefit to the community, Branson’s guests, and do the most to relieve traffic congestion was conducted when and indicated what?

Is it possible the city is being “Penny wise and dollar foolish?” Might not a reasonable person wonder “Of all the projects being considered for cutbacks, how many are going to, in a very real sense, immediately pay the city back about 30 percent for each additional dollar spent over the budgeted amount and, has the potential to save a lot more than that? An Ole Seagull would suggest not many.

It must have been a dream because there can’t be involuntary servitude in Branson. Yet it seemed so real, this conversation the Ole Seagull had with a man who stopped him on the street and asked, “What are you going to do to stop indentured servitude labor in Branson?”

In surprise the Ole Seagull responded, “What indentured servitude labor?” The man replied, “The kind where foreign workers are brought over under temporary Visas and forced to work under indentured servitude like conditions.”

The man explained the labor shortage in Branson has caused a lot of Branson’s businesses, particularly seasonal businesses like motels, hotels, and restaurants to seek foreign workers on a temporary basis. Generally, the foreign workers come into the country for a specific period of time with a legally issued passport simply to work. They are not seeking to immigrate to this country and leave at the end of the prescribed time.

Citing the H-2B Temporary Worker Program as an example, the Ole Seagull said, “That’s nothing new and it has been going on for years.” The man replied, “Exactly, that’s the problem.” Confused, the Ole Seagull asked, “What problem? The program has been in place for years and seems to work well.”

Under the program businesses, after following a procedure showing local labor is not available to fill certain positions, go through the state and Home Land Security to try to get the jobs filled out of the 66,000 cap on the visas that are granted each year for the program. It’s like a lottery, a business can do everything right and still not get any workers because the cap has been reached.

The Ole Seagull went on to explain, “Once a business does get an H-2B worker however, they can return under the H-2R Temporary Return Worker Program that permits workers who had previously come into the country under the H-2B to return in subsequent years. He also pointed out the workers were brought into the country under the sponsorship of individual businesses who, although they received remuneration for room and transportation, were individually responsible for the treatment of their H-2B workers. He also stressed this was the first he had heard the words “involuntary servitude” mentioned in connection with the program.

The man shook his head sadly and said, “That was then, this is now.” He went on to explain that congress has let the H-2R Temporary Return Worker Program expire last fall. Local employers do not have access to any return workers under the program and can only get H-2 workers under the H-2B program and from the 66,000 positions authorized annually.

He went on to say the failure to renew the H-2R program has generated intense competition for the 66,000 H-2B visas with most local employers losing out to huge agencies who bring the workers in under their sponsorship and “sublease” them to the local employers. Unlike in the past where the specific local employer sponsored their workers and was responsible for them, the specific employers must obtain the worker through an agency who actually has the control over the housing and other conditions of employment. There according to the man is the potential for involuntary servitude.

The H-2B workers are contracted out to the local employers for say $11.00 per hour but paid by the agency. Although they are supposed to get a certain wage mandated by federal law for the position, according to the man, a lot of them are actually getting less than that rate because of housing and other charges they must pay. He went on to say the housing situation is disgraceful in some cases with the workers being charged more than the housing is worth and, in total, the whole situation amounts to involuntary servitude.

The Ole Seagull asked, “Can I talk to one of the workers?” He said, “They are afraid to talk because of the fear they will lose their job with the agency.” Even as he was thinking, “Well then conditions can’t be that bad,” the door slammed upstairs and woke the Ole Seagull up from his nap. Wow, thank the Lord it was but a dream and nothing like that can happen in Branson.

The city of Branson is currently undergoing some budgeting challenges. One of the primary sources of revenue for the city is its retail sales tax. A dollar of city retail sales tax revenue generated in Branson Landing is a dollar of sales tax revenue in terms of pretty reports and colored graphs. It is included in the actual report of sales tax receipts received whether, as last year, records were broken or this year, where things are flat.

Sounds good so far except for one little thing, well maybe it’s not such a little thing after all. For all practical purposes, not one dollar of that retail sales tax revenue can be used by the city to meet its financial challenges or used for anything except to pay off the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) bonds used to finance the Branson Landing Project. Not one dollar will be spent to build or repair a road, pay the cost of any salaries or raises for city employees, give citizens relief on their tax bills, build new water and sewer plants, maintain the level of the city’s park and recreation programs or for any other operational expenses the city may have.

Some might say, “But Seagull, you’re wrong because the TIF is only 50 percent of the city’s retail sales tax. That leaves 50 percent of the sales tax receipts to be used by the city to meet its operational needs and provide services for its citizens.” The reality of the situation is the previous administration obligated 100 percent of the city’s retail sales tax revenues from the Branson Landing Project to pay off the TIF Bonds.

Oh, and it gets better, the city can’t even use a dollar of the city retail sales tax revenues collected at Branson Landing to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Branson Landing operational and maintenance costs for the fountain and other areas the city is obligated to pay under its contracts with Branson Landing. The question might come up, “Why did they do something appearing to be that stupid?”

When analyzing the situation the words of Forest Gump come to mind, “Stupid is as stupid does.” Some, including the Ole Seagull, believe it was done so that State Tax Increment Financing (STIF) could be obtained from the state of Missouri and without the STIF there would have been no convention center.

A few readers might ask, “Is that the convention center forecast to lose over $1 million dollars per normal year of operation? The convention center running a commercial laundry for the primary benefit of two hotels the city doesn’t own? The convention center that didn’t open until after Branson Landing had already opened and proved itself a great success without it? That’s the one!

A few might ask, “Can the revenue from the city’s retail sales tax collected in Branson Landing be used to pay off the yearly operational deficit of the convention center and, if not, where does the money to do so come from? No, it must be used to pay off the TIF bonds. The revenues for the operational deficit at the convention center comes from the same place the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Branson Landing operational and maintenance costs for the fountain and other areas comes from, other tax sources and fees etc. charged by the city of Branson to its citizens, businesses and guests.

The city’s current financial reports show that while the collection of the city sales tax is trending up in Branson Landing and Branson Hills they are starting to trend down in the other retail areas of the city. Should those trends continue it will exasperate Branson’s current financial challenges and Branson’s financial caution light might just change to “Red.”

Dedication: As another school years begins this column, with minor editorial changes, is republished and respectfully dedicated to our to our areas Teachers as a thank you, an encouragement, and a goal. May it remind us all of how valuable our Teachers are to our children, community and the future of our nation.

In terms of a “profession,” America’s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, and other leaders. Her future lies in the hands of the professionals who will be teaching those who will become the future Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants and other leaders, America’s Teachers.

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word. Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children for the rest of their tomorrows. There’s not much that is more noble or important than that, not much at all.

In a recent column entitled “Branson Liquor Czar to hunt mice with elephant gun?” the Ole Seagull wrote, “It’s not a matter of whether or not Branson can or should enact new Liquor Control Ordinances (LCOs), it can and should; it’s a matter of scope and efficiency.” The challenge is to limit and channel the scope of any new LCOs to that necessary for the efficient resolution of the problems that need to be addressed.

The column shared the Ole Seagull’s recollection of the major publically stated problems involving the sale and serving of intoxicating liquor in the Branson area. They were, in the relative order he first became aware of them, limiting the number of package sales licenses issued by the city, the encroachment of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditional family friendly theatres and entertainment venues, the consumption of intoxicating liquor in areas open to the public that are away from the premises licensed to serve or sell them, and underage drinking.

Could there be other problems? Probably so, but how much more effective and efficient would it have been if, in presenting the new ordinance to the community and board of aldermen for approval, the Branson Liquor Task Force Committee (Committee) had presented a prioritized list of the problems the new LCOs were intended to solve accompanied by the specific portion of the new LCOs intended to resolve the specific problem.

As an example, let’s assume, based on the incident that provided the most recent motivation to amend Branson’s LCO’s, the number one problem had been determined to be the consumption of alcoholic beverages in areas open to the public away from the premises licensed to serve or sell them. The list would have had that problem listed with one or more proposed solutions one of which might have been a one paragraph fix added to Section 10-3 of the city’s current LCOs.

Each problem could have been handled in a similar manner. Instead, what does the public and the board of aldermen get? A 45 plus page document to wade through and decipher, with no table of contents or index. To an Ole Seagull the document itself has itself become the center of focus rather than defining and prioritizing the actual problems the community has with intoxicating liquor and coming up with solutions responsive to those problems.

Another of the publically stated problems is underage drinking. Sections 10-2 and 10-8 of the City’s current LCOs appear to address that problem and not only currently prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to minors but prohibit minors from falsely representing that they are over the age of 21. Could not a little tweaking of the existing LCOs have solved any underage issues remaining? To the extent laws will solve the underage drinking problem Branson already had the laws, it just wasn’t enforcing them. Why change something that hasn’t even been enforced.

The encroachment of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditional family friendly theatres and entertainment venues was more a political than legal issue. Although pointed out as a potential problem years ago, there was no effective opposition to the transition, the issue is not addressed either in the city’s current LCOs or the proposed LCOs and is for all practical purposes a non issue.

The issue of the number of package sales licenses issued by the city is, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, also a political question rather than one of safety or morals. If something is unsafe or immoral it’s just as unsafe or immoral if that thing is permitted in establishments 100 feet apart or 2,500 feet apart. The current issue is addressed in the City’s current LCOs starting in Sections 10-31 and 10-38 and in Section 10-2 and Article IX of the proposed LCOs.

At the end of the day, as the Ole Seagull compares what is already in the city’s current LCOs to the publically expressed problems involving the consumption of intoxicating liquor and the document that was presented he wonders why whatever changes are necessary can’t be done within the City’s existing LCOs? That wonderment would be less if there was a list containing the intoxicating liquor problems within the community the Committee had defined prior to writing its 45 page “treatise.”

Reprinted with permission of the Tri-Lakes Tribune, a free newspaper published and distributed three times weekly, Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Please call 417-336-NEWS (6397) for classified and display advertising opportunities.

Earlier this week it was reported that the last phase of the Branson Fall Creek Road extension to the north is in jeopardy for lack of funding. A reasonable person might ask, “How can that happen? To an Ole Seagull, the answer is simple, “Because city staff and the city’s elected leaders let it happen.”

Some might ask “Why?” Hasn’t the Fall Creek road extension north to its intersection with Roark Valley Road and James F. Epps Road and its continuation on to its intersection with Highway 248 been one of the crown jewels in Branson’s transportation plans for the last few years? Wasn’t it supposed to provide one of the main intercity north south routes to give relief to 76 etc.? The answer s to the last two questions would be “Yes.”

The answer to the “Why” question is both simple and complex. The obvious and simple answer to the “Why” it happened, based on the Ole Seagull’s personal observations, and the financial consultants the city has hired, would be that the city staff and its elected officials do not have adequate access to the financial information in the format it needs to make the decisions they must make in a timely and, more important, efficient manner.

It’s not a matter of not having the information in the system, it’s a matter of getting it into a format that the decision makers can use to make the decisions they must make to effectively manage the financial condition of the programs they manage and the city. The “how” the city got into the position it is in goes far beyond the scope of this column.

A reasonable person might say, “Well that’s all real nice Seagull, but hasn’t the city already spent about $3 million on the Fall Creek Road extension so far?” The Ole Seagull would answer, “Yes.”

The anticipated follow up question would be, “What has Branson received for the $3 million it has invested in the Fall Creek Road Project?” An Ole Seagull would reply, “A stop light, an almost one of a kind inefficient zigzag approach to the intersection and the commitment of city government it would give Branson another major north south route with connectivity to Highway 248 to the north.

Why some might even ask, “Wasn’t the low bid of $4.5 million, received from a reputable low bidder, about a million dollars lower than the conservative estimate of $5.5 million and the high estimate of over $7 million prior to the bid openings?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!”

A reasonable person might ask, “With a deal like that how can they not complete the project?” The city’s current answer is simple, “There is only $3.8 million in the budget which is $700,000 short of what is needed.” Someone more astute than an Ole Seagull might reply, “If they can come up with $1.6 million for the Forsythe Street diabolical, which wasn’t even on the financial calendar two years ago, why can’t they come up with what is needed to finish a major project that has been in progress for years?

An Ole Seagull really can’t effectively reply to that because he hasn’t seen the comparative studies showing the relative benefits of the city spending $1.6 million on a road that was supposed to be free to the city and why that expenditure should take precedence over a project of the magnitude of Fall Creek Road where $3 million dollars had already been expended. Exactly what traffic studies and reports did the alderman study prior to jumping off in that direction?

The city has about 60 days to decide whether or not to accept the bid to complete the Fall Creek Road Project. To an Ole Seagull, it is a matter of honor and commitment. In his mind, the pathetic zigzag intersection at the current intersection of Fall Creek Road and Highway 76, and whether it stays or goes as part of the overall completion of the project, is a monument to that honor and commitment. “But Seagull, what if they just correct the zigzag.” That too speaks to that honor and commitment.

[Seagull’s Note: From a potential conflict of interest point of view the Ole seagull would point out that he is planning to move into a condo located off Fall Creek Road next week. Regardless of that, this column would have been written this week exactly as written.]

By Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

There’s a general saying that has been around for a long time, “You don’t hunt mice and elephants with the same gun.” Unfortunately, it appears the city of Branson’s proposed new liquor control Ordinances (LCOs) is taking an elephant gun approach to solving a mouse sized problem. It’s not a matter of whether or not Branson can or should enact new LCOs, it can and should; it’s a matter of scope and efficiency.

The major, publically stated, problems involving the sale and serving of alcohol in Branson involve the encroachment of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditional family friendly theatres and entertainment venues, underage drinking, consumption of alcoholic beverages in areas open to the public that are away from the premises licensed to serve or sell them, and limiting the number of package sales licenses issued by the city. Can anyone share with the Ole Seagull how the creation and funding of the new post of “Liquor Czar,” whoops, sorry, the Ole Seagull means “Director of Liquor Control, (Director) and their accompanying paperwork empire will have a real impact on solving those problems?

Although there are those who object to any increase in government regulations over their businesses, the major area of controversy and objection with the new LCOs being proposed by the city appears to involve the Director. Although there is some concern with costs that may be associated with the position, most of the concern seems to focus on how that person is designated and the broad sweeping scope of their powers.

The definition of “Director” in the LCOs states, “Unless otherwise described means the Director of Liquor Control as designated by the mayor or board of aldermen as well as any person designated by the director to act on his or her behalf.” Can anyone name one other instance where the mayor has the authority to designate a city employee? This isn’t an appointment to a park or zoning board. It is the designation of a person to whom the LCOs gives a lot of authority with the potential to establish their own little kingdom within the government of the city of Branson and impact directly on the operation of a lot of Branson’s businesses.

How much effort would it have taken to change the wording to read, “Unless otherwise described means the Director of Liquor Control as well as any person designated by the director to act on his or her behalf” and eliminate potential problems in this area? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, not much and that illustrates the problem. If the board won’t correct an obvious defect like this what chance is there that it will respond to some of the other concerns involving the Director?

Can anyone tell an Ole Seagull how the LCO’s six and a half pages of Article III, entitled “Applications,” do that much more, if anything, to solve the major publically stated problems involving the sale and serving of alcohol in Branson than do the state’s current licensing requirements? And giving the Director the authority to require businesses to file a report of “Any loan made to the licensee of money, or credit relating directly or indirectly to the licensed business” helps solve those problems how?

What makes it ludicrous is that the very first sentence of Article IV states, “The director is authorized to issue a license, as described in this article, to persons qualified by the state division of alcohol and tobacco control,…” Wait, does that mean the city can’t issue a license unless the state issues one first? Yes. Does the state have requirements that have to be met to get a license? Yes. Has it been alleged any of the major publically stated problems involving the sale and serving of alcohol in Branson have been caused by efficiencies in the state licensing process? No.

The duplication of paperwork submitted to the state and additional licensing requirements required by the LCOs will help solve the major publically stated problems involving the sale and serving of alcohol in Branson how? Again, it’s not a matter of whether or not Branson can or should enact new LCOs, it can and should; it’s a matter of scope and efficiency. For what it matters, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the proposed LCOs go so far beyond the scope of what is necessary that they obscure the basic problems the process was started to solve.

In terms of availability and volume, the internet is a wonderful source of news and information. The world of blogging and internet message boards, where anyone can post what they want when they want, present the sometimes daunting challenge of separating the wheat from the chaff. The posting of just one post from one blogger this week, about the city of Branson’s proposed new regulations, illustrates that challenge.

On July 8 a blogger said, “Branson Mayor Raeanne Presley and the Chamber of Branson’s Merry Politicians will introduce an amendment to Branson’s Charter relating to alcohol.” If the blogger was talking about the meeting held on July 8 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the city of Branson’s council chambers and the official posted agenda for the meeting was accurate, it was a meeting of the Branson Liquor Task Force Committee (the Committee) for the purpose of the “Discussion of proposed changes to the liquor ordinances.”

Obviously the Ole Seagull has no idea of what the blogger was referring to by the term “Branson’s Merry Politicians.” He does know the Committee was composed of at least Branson Mayor Raeanne Presley, Alderwoman Sandra Williams, past Alderman Jack Purvis, Captain Ron Key, Salvation Army, Chris Lucchi, MG Hospitality – American Bandstand, Steve Scherer, Grand Hospitality, and Chris Vinton, Weiss Commercial Reality.

The proposed ordinance, based on the recommendations and desires of the Committee, was drafted by Attorney, Richard Bryant from Kansas City, who was retained by the city to work with the Committee and provide specialized legal knowledge and expertise in the area of liquor control law. During the meeting, while introducing the amendment to the community, through an overview of the ordinance, Bryant said, “The underlying goal was to give the city the ability to effectively regulate liquor.” Interestingly, contrary to what citizens had previously been told, he pointed out that the city has the right to regulate how liquor is sold and consumed within its city limits.

The blog goes on to state, “The 100 something page document…” Both copies of the draft ordinance, available at the meeting and a copy on the city of Branson’s web site, show, including the signature page, the document is only 49 pages long.

The blogger says the document “covers everything from how nipples of nude dancers can be displayed…” Actually Section 10-55 of the proposed change doesn’t contain the word “nipple” or anything else that a reasonable person could construe to say how the “nipples of nude dancers can be displayed.” In addition, subsection 10-55(b) contains verbiage virtually eliminating “nude dancers” from the equation.

The blog goes on to state that the ordinance regulates “how late underage citizens can spend in establishments serving alcohol.” Section 10-71 entitled “Sales-by-drink premises; minors on premises” contains no restriction on how late any person, under age, citizen or otherwise, can be on the premises of establishments covered by that section if that person is accompanied by a parent or lawful guardian, the premises is an establishment such as a golf course, bowling alley, or a theatre, or the person is providing or assisting in providing entertainment upon the licensed premises. The only restriction in the section is a person under 21 may not be in one of the covered sales-by-drink premises after 12:00 midnight unless accompanied by a parent or lawful guardian.

The blog nears conclusion by stating “The amended liquor ordinance came as a result of Chicago Hot Dogs selling Beer at the Branson Landing.” May an Ole Seagull suggest the Chicago Hot Dog incident might be what triggered public reaction this time, but the proposed ordinance is the result of factors transcending the Chicago Hot Dog situation.

If an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull he’d bet the ordinance is the result of situations going back years. One that comes to mind was when citizens complained to their elected and unelected leaders, in the previous administration, about the incursion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson family friendly theatres and the city’s senior unelected leadership told them nothing could be done because the state regulated alcohol. If nothing else, the proposed ordinance and its development process prove the fallacy of that logic.

Blogs and bloggers are like an Ole Seagull and his column. Readers should recognize them for what they are, the opinions of the writer, and give those opinions only the credibility that their common sense, intellect, experience and knowledge deems appropriate.

Ok, so last weeks ending to the column entitled, “Corps fiddles ‘The Plood’ while local officials and leaders dance to the tune,” was a little strong, true in terms of results but strong. In talking about the actions Branson areas leaders and officials had taken regarding obtaining relief from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the abnormally high lake levels that have persisted since the Spring, the Ole Seagull asked, “Is there any official record anywhere that even one petitioned the Corps, on an emergency basis, for a temporary exception to lowering the Regulatory Stages at Newport until the Tri-Lakes levels, especially Bull Shoals, were back to safe levels? Did even one initiate official action with the Corps requesting a process be set in motion to evaluate changes to The Plan?”

Basically, those were rhetorical questions, the answers of which the Ole Seagull was relatively certain. Things would have been alright if he had stopped there but, alas, he didn’t and went on to say, “At least Nero fiddled while Rome burned. In the opinion of an Ole Seagull our areas leaders and officials are doing nothing, absolutely nothing while the very real danger of plooding casts its cloud over the Tri-Lakes area.”

“Nothing” was a bad choice of wording because of course they did something, they “talked.”As was pointed out to the Ole Seagull this week, on more than one occasion, there has been a lot of talk with the Corps and others. Just for the record, to an Ole Seagull, in terms of the seriousness of the situation, “talk without official action is nothing.”

On May 29 the Ole Seagull went to a meeting sponsored by the US Army Corps of Engineers where the speakers were personnel from its Reservoir Control Branch in Little Rock, AR. They shared information on the regulatory plan they are using to manage the Branson Tri-Lakes area lakes and said that the plan is working. Well, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, if this is an example of the Plan working the Ole Seagull sure doesn’t want to see what happens when it fails and, dear reader, if the levels of Branson Tri-Lakes areas lakes are not drastically reduced, we all just might get a chance to see what happens when it does.

From April until now, the Plan and its dependence on the regulatory stage at Newport AR., has restricted the amounts of water that can be released from the Tri-Lakes area lakes. It hasn’t been the Plan that has saved us it has been the hand of God. It is His hand that has directed the rains away from the Tri-Lakes area, caused the leafing that slows the fall of the rain, given us at least a few days for the ground to dry some before the next rain, etc..

He has given the Tri-Lakes area plenty of time to take action to get the levels of its lakes down and yet, even at this late date, a comparison of the actual current lake levels to their historic 5 Year Seasonal Conservation Pool averages should cause concern for what would happen if the lake levels are not lowered drastically. How much do they have to be lowered? The July 3 Daily Reservoir Report of the Corps indicates that Beaver lake is 7.0 feet above its Seasonal Conservation Pool of 1121.4 feet, Table Rock over 10.5 feet above its 917 seasonal pool, and, startlingly, Bull Shoals is 35.6 feet above its seasonal pool of 656.4.

May an Ole Seagull suggest that the math on how many feet the Tri-Lakes area Lakes have dropped since April 25 as compared to how many feet they have to drop to get to their Conservation Pool levels would prove interesting if not alarming. Another interesting figure would be how much rain will it take to get to the top of the Flood Pools? Why does anyone care? Could it be because at that point, there might as well not be any dam and any water that comes into a lake at that point is passed through downstream?

Call the Ole Seagull foolish but he fears for what can happen if the lake level situation is not addressed immediately as to what can be done to get more water out of the areas lakes faster. At a minimum that should involve an official request to prevent the lowering of the regulatory stage at Newport to 12 feet from its current 14 feet until all the Tri-Lakes area lakes are at their Seasonal Conservation Pool averages. That request should involve the commitment of the resources to see it through to the highest levels with the best professional advice and personnel available regardless of the road blocks that the Corps puts up.

Unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, the same Corps whose own records are replete with lowering the regulatory standards from a safe and efficient minimum of 18 feet to 12 feet over the years will do little to help relieve the situation. How ironic is it? The very organization creating the problem by compromising its own flood control standard for the benefit of agricultural interest downstream will not only not help get relief for the Branson Tri-Lakes area, but will probably fight it? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it’s probably not as ironic as it is sad. Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick….

Related Link: Corps Plan creates Branson’s high lake levels (News Article)

This week the Ole Seagull had the opportunity to go through Branson’s exciting and educational “Titanic-Worlds Largest Museum Attraction.” He also had the opportunity to interview Robert Stack, the author of “The Millvina Dean Story,” the story of the oldest living survivor of the Titanic disaster. As he read the book and toured the museum one thing jumped out at him, “The cumulative beliefs, actions, passion, enthusiasm, hopes, and dreams of today are the foundation of tomorrow, if it comes, and our legacy if it doesn’t.”

At 11:30 p.m. on that fateful April 14, 1912 night, the vast majority of the 2,224 persons aboard the mighty unsinkable Titanic hoped, dreamed and planned for tomorrow. By 2:20 a.m. on April 15, 1912, as the huge leviathan, breached by an iceberg strike, slipped beneath the Atlantic to her watery grave, the hopes, dreams, plans, and tomorrows of 1,513 souls, passengers and crew, went with her and their legacy was sealed.

One can only wonder what they would have done differently a year, month, week, or day before had they known that there would be no tomorrows for them after the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. As the Ole Seagull was thinking about that it hit him, “What if there is no tomorrow for you, what if you have written your last column, what is your legacy?”

Two thoughts came to mind. One was, “It is what it is.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion at the “end of the day” our legacy is the sum total of how our lives have impacted on the lives of others, either positively or negatively. That is done one day, one person, and one learning experience at a time and “was what it was” for those who perished on the Titanic even as “it is what it is” if the Ole Seagull has written his last column.

Today is the time to make the changes for a better tomorrow because, as the Titanic so dramatically illustrated, tomorrow might not be available. On the other hand, if one is blessed with many more tomorrows think of how much better they could be because of the changes made today.

The other thought that came to mind was, “Thank You Lord.” Actually, it was a constant stream of “Thank You Lords.” From a column perspective, it was Thank You Lord for the opportunity to serve my community as columnist, for letting me serve under a constant stream of editors and publishers who gave me the freedom to publish my thoughts and opinions without external pressure, for the readers who, although certainly not agreeing with everything I wrote, were kind enough to read the column.

From a non-column perspective, an Ole Seagull would say “Thank You Lord” for the family, community and country that He blessed me with, the opportunity to hope and dream and enough tomorrows and a wife that enabled a lot of those dreams to become a reality. But, most of all he would say Thank You Lord because He has never given up on me and, one “today” at a time, even with a lot of steps backward, He has made me a better person for the tomorrows that He has blessed me with.

Obviously, because this column is being written the Ole Seagull’s tomorrows haven’t ended and he hasn’t written his last column, or has he? One of the lessons of the Titanic is that no one is guaranteed tomorrow. If an Ole Seagull knew that there would no more tomorrows for him and had a last few seconds to express his final thoughts, his prayer would be that they would be the same thoughts he thinks almost every night as his head hits the pillow, “Thank You Lord, thank You.”

The Branson most tourists know is not flooded now nor has it been. Even when some of the lower lying, mostly non tourist areas were flooded as the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) opened the spillway gates in April, the flooding was limited to a very few low lying areas and didn’t impact the vast majority of tourists coming to Branson.

Most people know what a “flood” is, but only a few have heard about a “plood.” Comparatively speaking they are close with an important exception. A “flood” is, “An overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry and usually caused by an act of God.” On the other hand a “plood” is defined as “The overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry, or the constant real threat of such flow, usually caused by the development and administrtion of "The Plan” by the Corps.

Now some might ask if it takes God to cause a flood what is “The Plan” causing a plood? It’s something the vast majority of property owners and business owners had no idea existed until after the floods of April when the levels of Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals Lakes (Tri-Lakes) were kept at record and dangerously high levels. People noticed days when very little water was being evacuated from the lakes and began asking why.

As the answers began to emerge, it appears, for the first time, the Tri-Lakes general public became aware of The Plan as the Branson Tri-Lakes Community began to pay the price for not becoming more fully aware of it and its potential impacts sooner. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective The Plan was set up by the Corps for the economic benefit of agricultural interests hundreds of miles downriver from the Tri-Lakes dams and most assuredly has more to do with the economics, politics, and exercise of influence than with flood control, power generation, common sense, or fairness.

In a nut shell, The Plan reduces the amount of water that can be released from the Tri-Lakes dams by limiting such releases to the level of a river gage located in Newport, AR. That level is called the “Regulatory Stage.” The lower the Regulatory Stage the less water can be discharged from the Tri-Lakes dams.

Under The Plan the Regulatory Stage is 21 feet from Dec. 1 through April 14. At that level it appears no homes or businesses are in danger of flooding. On April 15 the level automatically drops from 21 feet to 14 feet unless the Tri-Lakes and Norfolk lakes storage capacity exceeds 50 percent full in which case it drops to only 18 feet. Now what’s wrong with this picture?

The storage capacity could be filled to 51 percent of capacity or, as it was on April 15 of this year in excess of 95 percent capacity and the amount of water that can be released from the Tri-Lakes Dams is automatically reduced without regard as to the difference. That’s nuts!

Oh it gets worse, on May 15 the level automatically dropped to 14 feet even though the Tri-Lakes, especially Bull Shoals are still at record levels for this time of year. Is it even common sense to have a plan limiting the amount of water that can be discharged from the Tri-Lakes dams during the very time of the year the area having the control reservoirs usually has its rainy season? Yet, as the Corps fiddled “The Plood” the community’s elected and non elected leaders and paid officials did little more than hum along and dance to the tune.

Is there any official record anywhere that even one petitioned the Corps, on an emergency basis, for a temporary exception to lowering the Regulatory Stages at Newport until the Tri-Lakes levels, especially Bull Shoals, were back to safe levels? Did even one initiate official action with the Corps requesting a process be set in motion to evaluate changes to The Plan? At least Nero fiddled while Rome burned. In the opinion of an Ole Seagull Branson area leaders and officials are doing nothing, absolutely nothing while the very real danger of "plooding" casts its cloud over the Tri-Lakes area.

Board “solicited” to make the simple complex but why?
By Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

In the world of “no brainers,” whether one uses Webster’s definition of “to approach with a request or plea” or some other definition just about everyone knows when they have been “solicited.” Left alone it’s a relatively simple determination, but left up to the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board) it gets a little more complex.

A couple is walking down a public sidewalk in beautiful historic downtown Branson. As they walk by the door of an establishment a person standing in the doorway says, “Hey how are you doing, come on in we have some free show tickets for you.” They have been solicited. Whether or not they go into the establishment or whether or not there are actually free tickets inside the store for them has nothing to do with the fact that they were solicited.

The couple refuses and walks on down the street a few feet and are stopped by another person who says, “Hey, if you’ll come with me and agree to attend an exciting courteous 90 minute vacation club presentation we’ll give you a $100 gift card.” They have been solicited whether or not they chose to attend the presentation or whether or not they actually get the $100 gift card for doing so.

The couple refuses and continues down the street until they are stopped by someone who hands them a coupon for one of the downtown unique and fine restaurants saying, “If you go to this restaurant, order the special, and present this coupon you’ll get 10 percent off the entire meal.” Although the couple accepts the coupon, they have been solicited. It has nothing to do with whether or not they use the coupon or actually get 10 percent off their entire meal.

They cross the street and start down the sidewalk toward the restaurant for which they have the coupon. On their way they pass a small shop with a person standing in the doorway. As they walk by the person says, “Great day isn’t it, why don’t you come in and see our selection of premium “troass” lures and not one of them is over a $1.00.” They have been solicited whether or not they go in and look at the “troass” lures.

Currently, the Branson Municipal Code (BMC), in Section 26-67, entitled, “Unlawful Solicitations,” makes it unlawful “to solicit when either the solicitor or the person being solicited is located on public property.” Another provision of the same section goes into even more detail and makes it a specific violation of that section to solicit when either the solicitor or the person being solicited is located on public property and “Within ten feet of the doorway to any business.”

Each case set forth above appears to be a violation of Branson’s current solicitation ordinance. Somehow, somewhere, someone has come up with the concept that the current ordinance can’t be enforced. Why can’t it be enforced?

Shouldn’t that question have been asked and answered before the Board let the issue get to the point of announcing a solution that was incapable of addressing the problem and had to be withdrawn for further study. An Ole Seagull cannot help but wonder, with all the challenges facing the city currently, why the board is wasting its time making the simple more complex.

Wouldn’t normal prudent business practices dictate that the Board request the police department to submit a written report substantiating why they cannot enforce the current solicitation ordinance? At the very least shouldn’t there be a logical cohesive rationale submitted for any suggested change to the ordinance establishing why it is needed and would be more enforceable that the current ordinance?

An Ole Seagull just has to believe that the problem isn’t enforcing the solicitation aspects of the current ordinance but relates more to being able to enforce it against just certain businesses such as time shares and vacation clubs. He knows it’s popular to be down on those businesses, particularly the way one or two of them are operating in the downtown area, but the discussion and actions of the Board on the record so far regarding this situation evidences, in an Ole Seagull’s mind, clear pattern of discrimination against those businesses.

The sad thing is that the current ordinance is more than sufficient to address any solicitation problems on public property in Branson and does so in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. All that has to be done is fairly enforce it against all who violate it. It’s just that simple!

Recently “Mellie,” a local Branson resident and long time poster to www.1Branson.com, an internet site the Ole Seagull is associated with, made a post that expresses a concern that a lot of people and businesses in the Branson Tri-Lakes area have. She said, “I am worried about our economy, in Branson.”

In her post Mellie said, “As one who relies on the public’s financial situation for my paycheck, [Mellie works as a server in Branson’s food service industry] I am going to say this: In the past 3-months, my income has dropped to 1/4 of what I was making, three months ago. As I see it, one of the following three scenarios is taking place…I’m just not sure which one.

1. A majority of people who previously frequented Branson, have decided that the price of fuel and the cost of living in general, are too high, and they can’t afford to come to Branson, this year.

2. A majority of people who previously frequented Branson, several times every year (maybe for a weekend, here and there), have decided that with the price of fuel and the cost of living in general, they will not come to Branson so often…they will save it up and come to Branson for one 2-week vacation (or 1-week, whatever the case may be). If this scenario is correct (and I pray it is), then I’m assuming that business will pick-up as soon as school is out for the year. If people are still planning one long vacation in Branson they will not do so until after school is out.

3. The same number of people are coming to Branson, as always have, but they are having to ‘ration the money’. The motels are not an option. They have to pay for motels and they have to pay for entertainment. Those are pretty much ‘fixed costs’. They are choosing to cut their spending, with meals. In other words, they have to pay for lodging and entertainment, but they don’t have to spend as much, to eat. That is a ‘flexible’ expenditure. I am worried…literally. What is your opinion, on this?”

An Ole Seagull would suggest that the economy of Branson has been impacted by a combination of all three “and then some.” The “and then some” includes but is not limited to the exponential increase in the effects of what Mellie pointed out by the weather, the flooding of Table Rock Lake, and the persistent perception that “Branson” is flooded.

Another poster Grizzly, summed it up pretty well when he said, “We are almost in a ‘perfect storm’. Gas prices are skyrocketting, our 300 mile radii market had kids in school very late this year (some still in school today), raising unemployment everywhere except here, horrible stock market, an election year, and misleading reports of flood problems.”

To that, an Ole Seagull would suggest that the double digit increase in basic food prices, utilities, and just about everything else certainly doesn’t help the situation. Come to think of it, it’s the same for potential visitors as it is for those of us living here, things are tight, priorities have to be established, and choices made.

There’s not a lot that can be done in terms of the economy, weather, the condition of Table Rock Lake, the price of oil, the value of the dollar, etc. Yet, at the end of the day, an Ole Seagull believes that the hope for the future economic success of Branson is in its own hands.

If we, as individuals, businesses, and as a community keep up our marketing efforts and insure that every person and family that comes to Branson has an experience that makes them glad they came and anxious to return, Branson will not only weather the current economic storm but will be well positioned to sail into a brighter economic future as the storm abates.

Although no exact amount is known, the general belief in the Branson Tri-Lakes area is that the current flooding in Table Rock Lake and the flooding that took place earlier this spring is having a significant economic impact on the Branson area at a time when it is also being battered by other economic factors. Unfortunately, the adverse economic effects of the floods will not automatically abate in proportion to the recession of the water levels of Table Rock Lake.

The good news is, as the waters recede, most marina operators will be able to get back to at least a semblance of their normal operational mode. The bad news is that the same thing will not happen in other areas, such as Moonshine Beach, without a lot of additional work and expense. During a recent interview with Greg Oller, US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Lake Manager for Table Rock Lake, he said that the wave, wind, and under water hydrology have caused a lot of damage to infrastructure that will not be able to be fully evaluated until the water levels recede.

At an informational meeting held at the Dewey Short Visitor Center on May 29, James D. Sandburg, Corps Operations Manager for Table Rock Lake, pointed out that just the sheer volume involved with the simple cleanup of camp grounds and other areas that have been impacted by the flooding is at a scale that has not been seen before. He shared that Moonshine Beach has received extensive damage. Although it is still underwater and a specific final damage cost cannot be determined, he estimates it will be at least $500,000.

When the question was asked if funding and resources would be available from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the repair and restoration of Moonshine Beach and other Table Rock Lake areas impacted by the floods, representatives from the Corps Little Rock Office could not speak in terms of specific amounts for specific projects. They said that the Corps would do all that it could with the resources available but reminded those present that the Corps is half way through their current fiscal year. They said that although they have applied for supplemental funds to assist in flood damage remediation that those funds, if received, have to cover damage throughout the entire Little Rock District.

In any event, one thing should be obvious to everyone. As Table Rock Lake’s water recedes the lake will not automatically heal itself and return to providing the full recreational experience and economic benefit for the area it did before the flooding. Even more obvious should be the fact that it’s not simply a Corps problem; it’s a community problem that needs to be solved as efficiently and quickly as possible.

May an Ole Seagull suggest this will require the type of private public co-ordination and partnership that the city of Hollister has used so well to accomplish so much? The partnership and planning should start immediately in terms of prioritizing and evaluating the available funding and resources available to be used on a prioritized project basis. This should evolve into a definite action plan that will become effective, on a project by project basis, as Table Rock Lake’s waters recede to the level planned for that project.

The only question is if there is a stakeholder group, the Corps, a city, county, or Chamber of Commerce that is willing to accept the leadership role that is required and make the commitment necessary not only to unite all the stakeholders in a common effort to solve the problem but see it through to the end? Well, maybe there’s another question. If a group steps forward to lead, will the rest of the stakeholders and community follow that leadership and make the commitment necessary to get the job done? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, if the answer to both of those questions is not “Yes,” then shame on us.

In an April news article, the Ole Seagull wrote that the torrential rains during the night hours of April 9 into the early morning hours of April 10 wasn’t the start of our area’s flooding problems nor would those problems end after the spillway gates on Table Rock Lake were closed as planned later the next week. The spillway gates were closed and, as was the case prior to the rains of April 9, the releases from the Table Rock Dam have been controlled by “The Plan.”

What is the net effect of The Plan on the current situation in the Branson area? Today, over a month and a half later, the level of Table Rock Lake is about one foot below the top of its flood pool posing the very real risk of flooding, to the residents and businesses located below the dam and is actual flooding Table Rock Lake to the point that is impacting not only on the businesses located on the lake but on the economy of the whole area. Unfortunately, from an economic perspective, all this is occurring at a critical time in the areas economic cycle. Why, because of The Plan.

Just about everyone understands what a flood is, “An overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry and usually caused by an act of God.” Probably no one, at this point, knows what a “Plood” is and for good reason. It is a term that the Ole Seagull just coined and defines as “The overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry or the constant real threat of such flow, usually caused by The Plan.

The obvious question is, what’s “The Plan?” It’s official name is the “White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, Water Control Master Manual dated March 1985 and revised December 1998.” In an email response for information made by the Ole Seagull on May 12, P.J. Spaul, Public Affairs Officer, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, summed up the effect of the plan on the Branson Tri-Lakes Area by saying, “The plan, simply stated, says releases from Beaver are dependent upon the elevation in Table Rock and Bull Shoals lakes; releases from Table Rock are dependent upon the elevation in Bull Shoals lake; and releases from Bull Shoals and Norfork are dependent upon the “seasonal regulating stage” at Newport, AR.”

To an Ole Seagull that says the water released from Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals Dams all depend on “the seasonal regulating stage” at Newport, AR some 200 mile plus south west of Branson. That works out real well for the Newport area because the levels of the “seasonal regulating stage” were basically negotiated a decade or longer ago with, apparently, no effective local governmental participation from the Branson Tri-Lakes area.

The actual result, as of the morning of May 23, under The Plan, is that Newport’s level is 14.19 feet or just about 6.9 feet below its flood stage and about 18 feet below its April 13 crest of 33.2 feet. Table Rock Lake on the other hand is at 929.9, about 1.1 feet below the top of its flood pool and 3.4 feet below its April crest of 933.3 feet. Even as the Plooding has kept the lakes in the Tri-Lakes area at record levels it appears that The Plan has permitted the levels at Newport to continue to drop disproportionately.

One could actually get the impression that, at this point, the seasonal regulating stages have more to do with agriculture and planting for a specific area rather than flooding within the whole White River System. Interestingly, under The Plan, even though the actual levels at Newport have dropped dramatically over the last few weeks, so too have the seasonal regulating stages of The Plan thus further limiting the amount of water that can be discharged from our areas lakes.

For what it matters, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, at this point it’s not about flooding Newport, it’s about economics, agricultural interest, and political clout. They had the clout to get what they wanted into The Plan while the Tri-Lakes area, for whatever reason, didn’t. The events of this year would seem to indicate that the Plood our area is currently facing is the result of a Plan that is over 23 years old and hasn’t been updated for ten years.

Would it not be a good idea for at least the officials of the cities of Branson and Hollister, Kimberling City, Taney and Stone County Commissioners, along with local Chamber of Commerce’s, to demand that The Plan be reevaluated again as soon as possible? Hopefully such a reevaluation will result in a more fair, equitable, and effective result for the Tri-Lakes area than the current plan does.

Think of the enjoyable experience tourists in downtown Branson could have if only every shop owner in downtown had people out on the public sidewalks trying to persuade those visitors to come into their establishment. One can just picture joy on their faces as business after business accosts them on the public sidewalk and tries to persuade them to come into their shop or establishment.

Now the more astute reader will probably say that the looks on the faces of downtown Branson’s tourists, should such activity be permitted, would probably not be one of joy, but one of aggravation and annoyance. Why? Because most people do not like to be involuntarily interrupted while walking on a public sidewalk even incidentally, let alone by every business in town.

Indeed, the Branson Municipal Code (BMC) acknowledges that fact and has a specific provision to prevent that very thing from happening. Section 26-67 of the BMC, entitled, “Unlawful Solicitations,” makes it unlawful “to solicit when either the solicitor or the person being solicited is located on public property.” But wait, it gets even better, just in case anyone has a problem understanding that simple concept, another provision of the same section goes into even more detail and makes it a specific violation of that section to solicit when either the solicitor or the person being solicited is located on public property and “Within ten feet of the doorway to any business.”

Recently, Paul D. Link, Branson’s City Attorney, said, “There has been some downtown businesses that have issued some complaints recently about some vacation club sales and time shares, that kind of business, getting a lot of locations in downtown Branson and soliciting people on the sidewalk.”

At the same meeting Sergeant Sean Barnwell, in talking about the what Branson Police have experienced while trying to enforce Branson’s solicitation ordinance said, “We have yet to have any high pressure sales.” He went on to say, “About the only thing that has been brought up is this offer of free tickets which is an issue because we’re trying to determine whether or not, let me back down. It’s been my experience talking with the prior city attorney that the offer of something free on the sidewalk isn’t regulated by ordinance and is allowed.”

Sergeant Barnwell continued by pointing out that what they are actually doing is offering free show tickets to a show hoping to get these people into their businesses to actually try to sell them on taking a tour. In an Ole Seagull’s mind one thing seems certain, free tickets or not, it is solicitation and it is being done on the public sidewalks.

The solution presented at the meeting related to a change in the ordinance to address the free ticket issue by adding a definition of “solicit” to the ordinance. The definition would read, “Means to initiate contact with a member of the public by the offer of any free or discounted goods or services in exchange for any action on the part of that member of the general public.”

May an Ole Seagull suggest that, outside of the fact that the restrictive definition of “solicit,” when incorporated by reference elsewhere would just about neuter the solicitation ordinance, no ordinance change is needed. All that is needed is vigorous enforcement of the existing ordinance.

It’s not whether or not free tickets are offered or even what is offered and actually delivered. It is whether or not a person was solicited on public property and it is very clear that they were. It makes no difference whether that solicitation is for the sale of vacuum cleaners, free tickets to a show, or free peanut butter if the person orders the ham steak breakfast at Clockers. If the solicitation takes place on the public sidewalk it is a violation of the current ordinance.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the only thing wrong with the current ordinance is that it’s not being enforced. He truly believes that if it is vigorously and equally enforced against anyone that solicits on the public sidewalks, be it for vacuum cleaners, time share and vacation clubs, free tickets, etc that the problem will be solved in short order. Absent that all the ordinance changes in the world aren’t going to make a difference.

Branson is facing a lot of challenges this year from floods to the potential effect of gas prices and other economic factors impacting on the number of visitors coming to Branson. These, and most of the other challenges that come our way, are a matter of “things” that we, as a community endeavor to handle on a daily basis.

Yet, on Thursday of this week, our community handled a challenge of the “heart,” as many of our phones rang to tell us that there had been an accident involving two Branson School busses and that children were being taken to the hospital in ambulances. As a Grandfather who received one of those calls, the Ole Seagull cannot describe the stark fear he felt when he got the call.

The relief he felt when he walked into the emergency room at Skaggs and found his grandson sitting up in the bed with just a neck brace on and talking was indescribable. It was a relief that grew exponentially as it became apparent that there appeared to be no major injuries to the many children and school staff who were on the buses involved.

From the time he arrived at the emergency room check in desk, until the time he walked out with his Grandson about two hours later, the Ole Seagull was again struck by just how fortunate he is to live in the community that he does. From the moment the accident happened there was a system in place that responded in a caring efficient way to protect the lives and health of those involved.

In talking with his grandson, even at the scene there was someone holding his head and preventing him from moving it as he was transferred to a board and placed on an ambulance for transport to the hospital. The efficiency with which Skaggs responded to just the administrative aspects involved with the large unexpected influx of patients, along with concerned parents and grandparents calling and coming in, was amazing.

Even as the Ole Seagull walked into the room where his Grandson was, there was a member of the Branson School District Administrative staff talking with him. On more than one occasion members of the district staff came in to inquire and offer help. It meant a lot to an Ole Seagull as he is sure it did to most of the others involved. Also not to be ignored is the speed with which information was disseminated to the public by the school district through Home Town Radio, KRZK, as it developed.

The speed and efficiency of the emergency responders who responded was commendable. The on the scene management resulted in those needing medical aide being quickly and efficiently transported to Skaggs. The system in place at Skaggs handled the large influx of patients that overflowed their emergency room and went out into the hallways not only in terms of administration but in terms of the quality of the medical care given.

During the whole incident, from the emergency responder that came to get additional information to the clerk that checked us out, to the school officials and medical personnel, the Ole Seagull observed everyone involved treating all those impacted by the accident in an extremely professional, efficient, and caring manner. For that, An Ole Seagull would simple say thank you; our community is blessed to have you acting on our behalf.

Yet, above all, an Ole Seagull would thank his God that, on Thursday afternoon, He held those on the buses involved in the palm of his hand and delivered them safely back to us. How different it could have been. Particularly on this Mothers Day it just seems so appropriate to say, “Thank you Lord, thank you.”

Ever since he took office in April of 2007, Alderman Stephen Marshall has been accused of a conflict of interest every time he mentions or questions the operations of the Branson Convention Center. The alleged conflict arises because of his employment as the General Manager of the Chateau on the Lake, a resort and convention center complex owned by John Q. Hammonds.

Recently, an anonymous poster to a web site the Ole Seagull posts to, www.1Branson.com , brought the issue up again. Among other things, the anonymous poster, calling themselves BransonMoTiger, posted that at the April 22 work session of the Branson Board of Aldermen “The city attorney and Mr. Marshall had a discussion about the concerns raised about whether he has conflicts of interest and the city attorney pointed out that when an alderman has a conflict which would create the appearance of impropriety, then it would be appropriate for him or her to recuse from voting. Specifically, the city attorney and Mr. Marshall talked about his involvement on the Board related to Hilton, who is his employer’s competitor in the convention business.”

In fact, as reported in this newspaper earlier this week, the discussion came up as part of a discussion of the broader topic of the city developing a more current set of ethic and conflict of interest guidelines for city officials and employees. Specifically, during those discussions, Marshall pointed out the fact that some people in the community are saying that when it comes to the convention center that he is in a conflict of interest position and asked, “What conflict of interest?” City Attorney Paul D. Link replied, “Stephen, I don’t know that there is a direct financial conflict. I think what they are arguing there is more of that secondary thing I talked about.”

Conflict of interest can be defined as “A term used to describe the situation in which a public official who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.” In terms of the definition of what a conflict of interest is, the Ole Seagull just has to believe that the most reasonable interpretation of what Link said was there is no conflict of interest in Marshall’s situation.

As Link continued, he explained the “secondary thing” he had talked about, the perception of conflict of interest. He said, “Some people have a perceived conflict. I’m not saying that there is one or there isn’t one. I think that the argument that I’ve heard is that they view you as if you say anything negative about the convention center or the Hilton Hotel that you are basically trying to rundown your competition because they are the chief competition in this area for your hotel.”

Attempts to create the illusion and manifestations of BransonMoTiger, to the contrary, Link, in his conversation with Marshall never said anything that could be remotely construed to say that he advised Marshall to recuse himself because of any conflict of interest actual, perceived, or otherwise. Incredibly, what Link did do was cite third party mutterings about a perceived conflict of interest all the while saying “I’m not saying that there is one or there isn’t one.”

An Ole Seagull is perplexed why any attorney, let alone one who has just been asked “What conflict of interest?,” would regurgitate the inane mutterings he did without pointing out that they are unsupported conclusions that fall far short of meeting the legal definition of a conflict of interest. For what it’s worth, in all the meetings he has attended, the Ole Seagull has never heard Marshall ask a question about the operation of the Branson Convention Center that was not consistent with his obligations and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the city of Branson. Has anyone else heard differently?

The list of challenges facing Branson as the 2008 tourist season starts, includes gas prices, rising prices for food and just about everything else, the general economy and its impact on the willingness of people to travel, localized flooding, etc. Yet, there is another challenge that is equally as important, the challenge of having a workforce that insures that visitors to Branson have an experience that will bring them back again.

Branson spends millions of dollars on marketing to bring people to Branson and entrepreneurs spend millions of dollars building lodging, restaurants, theatres, attractions, shopping and other facilities to meet the needs of those visitors while they are in Branson. In addition, the Branson area has a variety of outdoor activities from fly fishing to golf that should be the envy of any of her competitors. Yet at the end of the day, what will determine the ultimate success of Branson is the interface between the visitor and Branson’s workforce.

The first, and most obvious situation, is the actual one on one personal contact between a member of the Branson workforce and a visitor as that person provides a service directly to the visitor. That personal contact may come through serving a meal, checking someone in at a hotel, guiding on a fishing trip, ushering at a show, taking tickets at an attraction or anyone of a myriad of other activities where the experience the Branson visitor is going to have is directly related to a personal interaction with a member of Branson’s workforce.

The second and not so obvious situation is where there is no direct personal contact between a member of Branson’s workforce and visitors because the service provided is done so behind the scenes and generally requires no direct contact with visitors. These situations would involve cooks, food prep personnel, dishwashers, grounds keepers, maintenance personnel, and the many other services that generally do not involve personal interaction between the person providing the service and the visitor.

As an example, a Branson visitor and their family decide to eat at one of Branson’s fine restaurants. From the time they walk through the door until the time they leave, the experience they will have is not in the direct hands of the investors or owners, who may have spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars building the facility and a bundle more for its daily operating costs, it’s in the hands of Branson’s workforce.

From the greeter to the cashier taking the payment, the experience that the visitor has will, by direct or indirect contact, be influenced, either positively or negatively, by a member of Branson’s workforce. A cheerful competent server who is able to communicate with the visitor will more than likely generate a more pleasurable experience than one who is grouchy, not competent, or can’t communicate effectively with the visitor. If the visitor looks at their utensils and finds them dirty that sets the stage for an experience that would be different than if they were clean.

The adequacy of Branson’s workforce starts with having enough people to provide the level of services that Branson’s guests expect and will make them want to return. It’s not just a numbers game. The key words are “the level of services that Branson’s guests expect.”

If that doesn’t happen, for whatever reason, not a large enough workforce to provide the services, inadequate employee selection, training, or supervision etc., the millions spent on marketing and things for visitors to do when they get to Branson will have been spent in vain. At the end of the day, for most people, it is the quality and performance or Branson’s workforce that will determine the experience they have and whether or not they will return to Branson.

Just about every day, families separate each morning to go their separate ways for the day, to school, play, work or to do a myriad of other things and activities that occupy our day. The constant, so often taken for granted, is the presumption that, at the end of the day, the family will again come together. How different those morning separations would be if the family knew that one of them wasn’t going to return that night.

On August 3, 2004, James Turner, left his family and went to his job with the city of Branson’s Public Works Department. Although he had no way of knowing and no control over the events that were to unfold that day; he would not be returning to his family that night, or on any night.

On that same day Richard Toeneboehn left his family and went about his daily activities. Although he had no way of knowing it, his path would cross with that of James Turner later that day under circumstances over which he had complete control.

Unfortunately, because of the way he exercised that control, James Turner would not be returning to his family that night and both Toeneboehn and the workers working with Turner at the time will, more than likely, have the horrible results of Toeneboehn’s failure to do a simple thing forever inscribed in their memory. That simple thing was to slow down in a marked work zone or when there are workers, emergency responders, or police officers in plain view working at the side of the road.

The words used by Larry Vangilder, Director of Public Works for the city of Branson, at Toenebohen’s sentencing hearing, after he pled guilty to the Class D Felony of Involuntary Manslaughter in the 2nd Degree, provide a vivid account of what happened. Vangilder said, “On August 3, 2004, James Turner, one of our employees, and his fellow workers, some of whom are here today, were safely and responsibly fulfilling the duties of their jobs by weed eating on Gretna Road in the City of Branson. Work zone signage was in place. All workers, including James Turner, were wearing safety vests and personal protective equipment.”

Vangilder continues, “Without any warning, a car driven by the defendant [Toeneboehn] left the driving lanes of Gretna Road and tragically struck James, who was over 10 feet behind the curb. The impact threw him 40 feet through the air. As a result, James Turner died that day of his injuries and was taken from his family forever.” He also expressed his opinion that, “The manner in which Richard Toeneboehn was driving was clearly reckless, thoughtless and totally oblivious of our workers in a clearly marked work zone.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, based on the facts as stated above, it is inconceivable to him that James Turner would not still be with us but for the reckless actions of Toeneboehn and his failure to simply slow down while going through a work zone. One can only wonder what a difference there would be in the lives of the Turner family, the workers present at the time of the incident, Toeneboehn and his family if he had.

Please, slow down while going through work zones or whenever workers, emergency response personnel or law enforcement officers are visible on the side of the road.

Most of those who take the time to read an opinion column in a newspaper, this one or otherwise, are not the type of “Baa, Baa” people who will blindly follow the opinion of the columnist like a sheep. Rather, among other things, most will evaluate what they are reading and, based on their own life’s experiences and interests, decide if it’s an issue they are interested in and what, if any, credence they wish to give the opinion.

To an Ole Seagull, the job of the opinion columnist is to honestly express his opinion in the hopes that it will generate discussion within the community about that topic. His columns, as is the case of the vast majority of columns written by opinion columnists, are what they are, simply the opinion of the columnist

An opinion column is not a treatise intending to fairly cover both sides of an issue nor is it necessarily balanced, fair, or unbiased. It is hopefully, a column about a topic the columnist cares, knows, and feels passionately about, written in a manner that will be interesting to the reader. Is it necessarily something that most people will agree with? No, but in the vast majority of cases, it will be something that virtually everyone will either agree or disagree with and for good reason to them.

Those reasons might be based on the readers belief that “He’s wrong,” “He’s biased,” “He didn’t include these facts which would have resulted in a different answer,” “He always writes about this topic,” “He didn’t tell the whole story,” or “This just isn’t fair,” etc. And, depending on the situation they could be right. Why, because, at the end of the day an opinion column is but the opinion of the columnist, nothing more, nothing less.

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, whether people agree or disagree with his columns is not really important. What is important is that he has done his best to express honest opinions and make sure that the column contains the basis upon which those opinions are based so that they may be evaluated by the readers for whatever purpose.

Previously the Ole Seagull has pointed out that he has, on occasion, been questioned about what qualifications he possesses that qualify him to his write his opinions and why anyone should pay any attention to them. In order, the answers are “only his life’s experience” and “they shouldn’t unless, one way or the other, they have evaluated those opinions and find them useful in their own decision making process.”

Even if he could spew forth a list of qualifications, in the final analysis it would be a useless act and a waste of time. Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

The answer to the question, “When does $140, 732 actually equal ($87, 268) and 50 percent of $100 equal zero is, “When reality is applied to the Branson Landing TIF.” This issue came up in the excellently moderated political debate on KOMC, 100.1 FM between the candidates for Alderman in Ward 3, Jack Purvis and Chris Bohinc. For the record, this is not an endorsement of either candidate; it is a discussion of what was said regarding the Branson Landing TIF during that debate.

For those who will say, “But you only quote Purvis and not Bohinc, the Ole Seagull will simply say, “In terms of the topic of this column, you are absolutely right.” During the debate Bohinc readily admitted that she was just beginning to learn about TIFs and said nothing that would materially contribute to this column. Purvis, on the other hand not only proclaimed his experience and specifically mentioned the hundreds of hours he has spent studying the Branson Landing, but made the very statements about TIFs that are the basis of this column.

When the moderator asked a question about Branson’s current use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in Branson, Purvis expressed his opinion about a recent educational session on TIFs presented by the Branson School District (District) at the Branson High School. He said, “We recently had an expert, that came to town and went out to the high school. He was here to try to enlighten us on TIFs.” Purvis went on to say, “He talked all around the subject” and “the whole discussion was in relationship to the schools.”

During the debate while discussing the presentation, Purvis said, “When I asked how much income is generated in the Branson TIF District the expert did not know. I’m no expert but the information is a matter of public record from the Taney County Collectors office. The school revenues at the Landing development, before the TIF to the school was $56, 630.” He went on to point out, “After the Branson Landing development the revenue to the school was $140,732, up 242 percent.”

And what a picture book story it would be if the reality of the situation ended there, but it doesn’t. Purvis also said that Branson Landing created 1500 new jobs. As a general rule, jobs attract people who generally have families. Is it unreasonable to believe that some of those families are going to have children that require an education? Currently, in the District, it requires about $5,700 in local funding each year for each child to provide that education.

If we assume that only 40 new children came into the Branson schools as the result of Branson Landing that would cost the District $228,000 per year. According to Purvis, the District would get $140,732 for a shortfall of $87, 268 per year. Over a period of ten years that would be a shortfall of $872,680. Where does the additional money to make up the shortfall caused by the TIF development come from? The real estate taxes paid by the owners of the residential and commercial property not covered by the Branson Landing, or some other, TIF.

When it comes to the sales tax aspect of the Branson Landing TIF, Purvis said that only 50 percent of the sales tax revenues goes to pay off the TIF and that “The rest of the 50 percent goes back to the city of Branson.” Well, that’s sure the way the state statute envisioned it and the way it works at Branson Hills and a lot of other TIFs, but it’s not the way it works with the Branson Landing TIF. According to information received from the city of Branson, 100 percent of the city-imposed sales taxes collected at Branson Landing are assigned to pay back the TIF bonds.

Some might ask, “Hey wait a minute, does that mean that the city is getting nothing in sales tax revenues from Branson Landing for the tens of millions it has invested in Branson Landing?” Surely they mean it as a rhetorical question, don’t they?

Ironically, even as Branson is seemingly trying to evolve away from the history, heritage, and the type of entertainment that attracts millions to it every year, at least one other “Branson wannabee” appears interested in emulating that very thing. Well sort of.

The good folks in Houston County, Alabama are in the process of investing hundreds of millions of dollars to launch a new 776 acre country entertainment Mecca allegedly based on the same country entertainment and business paradigm that has made Branson so successful. An article entitled, “Country music resort similar to Branson, Mo. planned for county” by Lance Griffin, appearing in the Dothan Eagle on Feb. 25, reports that the Houston County Commission has signed an agreement with Ronnie Gilley Properties, LLC for the development of Country Crossing, a project that will become a national tourist destination.

According to the agreement the project is intended “to consist of all the attractions and venues found in destinations like Branson, Missouri.” The article goes on to report that one of the principals in the project said that the only comparison that can be made to Country Crossing is Branson, Missouri because of the great demand for a family oriented venue. That same person said, “Branson has flourished despite its extremely remote location.”

The article further reports Country Crossing’s Developer Ronnie Gilley as saying that he believes Country Crossing could surpass the ‘star power’ of Branson, Mo and that it is a well-created myth that top-level country music artists perform in Branson.” What’s this “myth” stuff? The article states that country music artist George Jones introduced the proposed project as “The most important new entertainment development resort in the country.”

Is it a myth or has that same George Jones appeared at the Grand Palace in Branson, Missouri in the not too distant past? Have not some of the other artists mentioned in association with the project also appeared in Branson at the Grand Palace and other venues? With seven million visitors a year coming to Branson, Jones filled how many out of the 4,000 seats in the Grand Place?

That aside however, the project is moving forward. In fact, at 6:33 p.m. on March 13, the web site of the Dothan Eagle reported, “About 776 acres of land just off Highway 231 South near West Smithville Road and State Highway 109 will be the site of the proposed Country Crossing development. Developer Ronnie Gilley confirmed the deal to the Dothan Eagle at 5:30 p.m. Thursday after the final contract was signed.” Gilley indicated that he hopes that construction can start within 90 days.

Is the project competition for Branson? In the general sense that any other destination is “Yes” but in terms of direct competition “Not a chance.” Why? Branson’s family entertainment industry has been developing for over a century and thanks to pioneers like the Snadon, Mabe, Pressley, and Herschend families, to mention just a few, it is more than a trite label or marketing ploy, it is part of our very spirit and who we are.

Just before the Houston County Commission made the agreement for the project, it introduced and unanimously passed new regulations for charitable bingo in Houston County. Under the new regulations electronic bingo would be allowed in Houston County only under certain requirements, including at least $2 million in liability insurance, on-site security, and the inclusion of other entertainment related developments such as restaurants, hotels, dinner theaters and a venue seating no less than 3,144 for entertainment purposes. For all practical purposes the “electronic bingo machines” are very similar to slot machines in both looks and results.

To an Ole Seagull that says volumes about just how committed the county and the project are to family entertainment and what the project is really intended to be. It might end up being a Bingo for them with gambling and entertainment but, from its very inception, that is what it will be and that’s not what brings millions of visitors to Branson. At least for now, Branson is still that special place with that special spirit that can’t be built or developed but can be lost if those to whom the gift is given don’t cherish and protect it.

As he left a recent meeting at city hall, the Ole Seagull noticed a brochure advertising an Easter Brunch at the city’s convention center sitting on the conference table. It kind of set his mind a twittering about column ideas, most of which will probably find their way into future columns but one of which, he’d like to share this week.

January is probably not one of the biggest economic months for most of Branson’s businesses. It’s not for lack of trying or even things to do as a lot of the theatres, attractions, and restaurants stay open and participate in Hot Winter Fun. Although, obviously an Ole Seagull does not know the real reason people don’t throng to Branson in the winter months he has to believe it has to do with two major factors, the perception of the public, which is not entirely unfounded, that a lot major shows are closed and the primary reason, weather.

There’s not too much that can be done about the shows that, for individual reasons, are closed during the period. Some might even say, “But Seagull there’s not too much we can do about the weather either,” and they’d be right. Yet, when one thinks of swimming in the winter is the first place that comes to mind Wisconsin Dells, in Wisconsin? Probably not, yet, through the pioneering vision, use and promotion of indoor water parks, thousands of people are swimming at the Wisconsin Dells just about every day all winter long.

If Wisconsin Dells can do it for water parks all winter long, why can’t Branson have a city wide event for three to six days over one or two weekends in the middle of January to extend its season and promote itself and its convention center at the same time? Branson has the perfect indoor venue to serve as the focal point for it, the Branson Convention Center, and a number of other major indoor venues that could be used to supplement the event, as appropriate.

In an Ole Seagull’s mind he envisions a “city wide” free event running from 9:00 a.m. to about 4:00 p.m. daily. Except for concessions, and other things such as when a participant chooses to purchase something from a vendor or during an event such as an auction etc., all the Festival events listed on the schedule would be free.

The main focal point for the event would be the Branson Convention Center which would have its exhibition hall and ball room divided, as necessary, to provide the different venues for the activities taking place. Those activities would be calculated to entertain and encourage attendees to shop, eat, and be entertained elsewhere after the 4:00 p.m. closing time of the Festival. For example one area could be a free bingo game where donated prizes and discount coupons are the prizes. Another could be an actual auction where merchandise of Branson Merchants or show tickets, etc. is auctioned off. Other areas could include but are certainly not limited to inflatable kid’s rides, a children’s craft area, craft exhibit area, and an entertainment area that would provide constant entertainment. Hopefully entertainers from some of the shows and attractions open during Hot Winter Fun would appear to entertain and promote their own show or activity.

Simultaneously, at venues located away from the convention center there could be other free events such as an ice carving competition at the Titanic or similar sponsored events, “A Taste of Branson,” a back stage tour of a theatre, etc. The actual events would be free and would be listed in a schedule of events similar to that used for the Veterans Home Coming pull out.

The money spent promoting the Festival will do much more than promote the event. It will be promoting the convention center, Branson, Hot Winter Fun, etc. Now there will be those who say, “I always knew that old bird was nuts, it won’t work.” And they just might be right, but is there not just the possibility that it might not only do as much to market the convention center as a New Years Eve Party or an Easter Brunch but might also help to market Branson and bring some business to the businesses that stay open during the winter in an effort to extend Branson’s season?

It didn’t take long for accusations of conflict of interest being hurled at newly elected Alderman Stephen Marshall after Branson’s April 2007 election, not long at all. In a column published April 22, 2007 the Ole Seagull said, “This week’s column is a response to an anonymous post, by someone calling themselves “Grizzly,” addressed to the Ole Seagull, in an on line forum he posts on www.1Branson.com. The post is entitled ‘City aldermen Code of Ethics ???’ Its topic is so very timely and pertinent to the events starting to develop within our community that the Ole Seagull wanted to share it with the whole community through the printed medium before posting it on line to a relatively small segment of that community.”

Why is what happened almost a year ago germane today? In a discussion of the Ole Seagull’s Feb. 24 column entitled, “Though April elections may come your way, they bring the TIFs which bloom in May” taking place in the Ole Seagull’s Forum on www.1Branson.com, a poster identified as “lilley” said, “I sought after this forum after reading about and receiving a letter from Marc Williams running for city alderman ward 3. I wanted to see if I was the only one who thought this was a huge conflict of interest, electing a partner of a firm who is doing business with the city… “doing business with” is a huge understatement by the way. I’m sure he’s a great guy and would be a fine alderman… in another town… but not in Branson where HCW is such a prominent force in business dealings within Branson.”

Even that alone is not enough to bring up potential conflict of interest again except for the fact that the very first reply was from Grizzly responding, “HCW rents land from the City of Branson. The lease is long term and already signed sealed and delivered. …As far as I know all business HCW has had with the City is completed. Hilton (the company, not the franchisee) has a contract with the City to manage the convention center. Now that everything is built, HCW really is nothing more than a tenant.” Grizzly, in referring to Williams, goes on to say, “If his interests are anything, they are less conflicting than some existing council members.”

In responding to another poster’s comments about Marshall’s potential conflict of interest Grizzly adds, “And let us not mention the future Hotel/convention center his company is building at Lake of the Ozarks as a moderately potential competitor to our convention center.” Isn’t it interesting, even after almost a year without one iota of evidence indicating anything except Marshall using his expertise to do exactly what he was elected to do, Grizzly and a few others keep playing the potential conflict of interest card in Marshall’s case while choosing to ignore it in the case of Williams and, in some cases themselves?

Is there a current alderman who has publically suggested the possibility of Marshall being in a potential conflict of interest situation while at the same time failing to recuse themselves on votes where millions of dollars in city funds actually went to the very department in an organization where a close family member worked? If so isn’t that at least the appearance of the conflict of interest and the height of hypocrisy for that alderman to suggest it in Marshall’s case?

To an Ole Seagull, for Grizzly, or anyone else for that matter, to say, “Now that everything is built, HCW really is nothing more than a tenant” and “If his [Williams] interests are anything, they are less conflicting than some existing council members,” is at best uniformed. For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would suggest that, in fact, the opposite appears to be true.

Is there another company that has the same manager for its two hotels that the city has for its convention center? Do not some of the different agreements that the city has with the manager of its convention center tie back to the apportionment of expenses to the HCW owned hotels? Are there active agreements between the city and HCW pertaining to expenses etc. for the operation and maintenance of the fountain and other privately owned areas of Branson Landing?

Is there the possibility that even as this is being written that the city is in negotiation with HCW to purchase some land for the rec-plex expansion for a price of between $1 and 2.2 million? Are there other agreements that the city and HCW are involved in? Does Williams as a principal in HCW, indeed the “W” in HCW have a fiduciary duty to it?

In his Feb. 24 editorial entitled, “Though April elections may come your way, they bring the TIFs which bloom in May,” available on line under “Editorials” at www.bransoncourier.com, the Ole Seagull suggested that who one votes for can influence the use and growth of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) within our community. In that column, without casting any disrespect on Branson Landing, which he thinks is a great addition to Branson, he asked, “What would have done the most to bring more people to Branson, $100 million spent on marketing all that Branson is and has or $100 million to develop Branson Landing?”

On the website www.1branson.com, in the Ole Seagull’s Forum, where a capsule of the column and link to it were posted, Branson Alderman Jack Purvis responded to the column by, among other things saying, “Let me see if I understand this right. We don’t want any TIFs,NIDs, or CIDs and we have an historic economic slump in Jan, and Feb., but we want investors in Branson. Let’s get these same investors to build our bridge. Seriously…ideas please.”

The Ole Seagull doesn’t know about the bridge investment aspect, but here’s a “serious idea.” How about people investing in Branson the old fashioned way, with their “own” money, the same way everyone did, prior to the “TIFamania” coming to Branson? How many TIF dollars did it take to build the Titanic or the Sight and Sound Theatre? How many TIF dollars did it take to get Wal-Mart at its original location on Highway 76 or to move to its current Branson Mall location? How many TIF dollars did Country Mart, K-Mart, Grand Country, etc. get?

Was it a TIF that built Branson or was it individual investment, and entrepreneurship? Would a TIF even have been relevant in Branson but for the millions of visitors who were already coming to Branson? Can a reasonable person believe that the Branson Landing would have gotten off the ground without the financial foundation provided by those millions of visitors?

Purvis went on to ask, “What happened to the votes of Marshall, McDowel,and Williams on the council? It takes a majority to pass anything and 3 is not a majority of 6.” The Ole Seagull would point out that the reason that Marshall, McDowell and Williams weren’t mentioned in the editorial was because they are not on the ballot for the election in April. The reason Stan Barker, Jack Purvis, Cris Bohinc, Rick Davis, and Marc Williams were mentioned is because they are on the ballot for the April election.

He then warns readers, “Don’t assume that just because Gary says it, that I WILL vote for every TIF to come along. Remember, Gary writes an OPINION column.” The Ole Seagull echoes Purvis’ words in regard to the fact that his Sunday column is an opinion column and would also point out that’s the reason it appears on a page that is labeled in huge letters “Opinion.” Further he would suggest that the editorial never said that Purvis, or anyone else for that matter, would vote for a TIF period, let alone “every TIF.” However, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, based on his voting record up to this point, a reasonable person might get the impression that Purvis never met a TIF he didn’t like, or was that Will Rogers?

In a recent column concerning the Branson Convention Center web site, the Ole Seagull wrote, ‘“Oh hush my beating heart,’ is it even possible that HCW is the registered owner of the Branson Convention Center web site that the city is spending thousands of dollars in taxpayer money promoting?” The question, when asked, was rhetorical and the answer then, and as of 6:16 a.m. Feb. 29, was a resounding “Yes.”

In his very next column entitled, “Gut feeling – Relax, Hilton is doing a great job with the convention center!” he wrote, “For the record, in the Ole Seagull’s gut and heart, he feels and believes that Hilton is doing an excellent job in operating and marketing the Branson Convention Center. Does he have hard data on bookings etc. to back that up? No, that’s why it’s a gut feeling.”

Subsequent reports by Hilton to the Branson Board of Aldermen, as well as a recent independent review of the convention center operations by an asset management firm hired by the city have removed the “gut feeling” from the equation. They have conclusively established that the convention center is exceeding expectations and is being run and managed efficiently and professionally.

Does that mean that no one should be concerned about the convention centers web site? Absolutely not, although the total operation is going well that doesn’t mean that there’s not a glitch here and there. One of those glitches that presents a current apparent conflict of interest situation and could cause problems in the future, if not corrected immediately, is the fact that the convention centers web site www.bransonconvention.com is owned by, and registered to, HCW Development Company (HCW); LLC. 3027 West Highway 76, in Branson.

The question some might ask is why isn’t the internet address of Branson’s Convention Center www.Bransonconventioncenter.com? The obvious and simple answer is, “Because someone else got the name first.” Still others might ask, “Why is the city spending tens of thousands of dollars promoting a web site it doesn’t own? One that has a clear bias toward the promotion of HCW’s Branson Landing as compared to all the other businesses in Branson?” To both, an Ole Seagull would have to answer, “Got me stumped.”

Simply put, in today’s marketing environment, a major segment of most marketing plans is the establishment of an internet web site. Although traffic to the city’s convention center site is not as important as it might be were the site being used to market another product, the fact remains that as of right now, each dollar spent to advertise www.bransonconvention.com is being spent to advertise a site the city doesn’t own.

Even worse, is the fact that HCW’s Branson Landing is being promoted on the site in a manner that is disproportionate to the manner in which Branson’s many other businesses and attractions are promoted. For example, when one selects “Attractions” from the submenu under the main menu topic of “Experience Branson” they see two pictures, one of Branson Landing’s fire and light show and the other of its trolley. Could anything possibly say “Branson Attraction” more than a picture of the Branson Landing Trolley? Why is there a separate submenu item for HCW’s “Branson Landing” and none for Historic Downtown Branson, or other shopping areas or districts within Branson?

To an Ole Seagull, because of the relationship the city of Branson has had with HCW in the development of Branson Landing, this creates the appearance of an apparent conflict of interest. Even while acknowledging HCW’s generosity in hosting the site; is it inappropriate to recommend that it is time for the city to obtain and advertise its own convention center web site and take immediate steps to eliminate the obvious bias towards Branson Landing currently on the site? For what it matters, an Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.

Alright, so the lyrics of the yet to be written song “April TIFs” are a little different from the old classic “April Showers.” In that song the April rains bring “the flowers that bloom in May.” Unfortunately while the April rains might “bring flowers that bloom in May” Branson’s April election may bring the TIFs that bloom in May.

It’s really pretty simple. There are three alderman seats up for grabs in Branson’s April election. It is the vote of the Branson Board of Aldermen that determines whether or not developers may use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for redevelopment projects within Branson. Is it just possible that at least two developers are, stomping in the wings, waiting to see how the board composition changes as the result of the April election before submitting their TIF applications?

Branson’s April election may very well determine whether there will be a rash of TIF applications coming in May. As they sally forth seeking tax payer dollars to fund their projects, the developers will be driveling about the thousands of year round jobs their projects will create and the revenues they will bring in. Of the thousands of jobs created at Branson Hills and Branson Landing, how many of them ever held the promise of paying enough so that a person, working 40 hours a week, could support a spouse and two children?

Oh, there is no doubt that revenues are being generated within the TIF districts but that revenue is being generated by people. The same people that the developers, and others feeding at the TIF trough of government financed development, need to make their tax payer financed and supported projects financially viable. Can any reasonable person really believe that, even with the TIF, the Branson Landing project could have gotten acceptable financing without the millions of visitors coming to Branson annually? Is it unreasonable to ask, “What would have done the most to bring more people to Branson, $100 million spent on marketing all that Branson is and has or $100 million to develop Branson Landing?

But, enough of this frivolity, whether one loves TIF or hates them, the April aldermanic election has the potential to swing the TIF pendulum one way or the other. Those favoring TIFs have to be salivating over the fact that the incumbent alderman in Ward 1, Stan Barker is running unopposed, that incumbent Ward 2 Alderman Jack Purvis is running for reelection and that Marc Williams, the “W” in HCW is running for the seat left vacant by the decision of Alderman Dick Gass not to run.

Those not favoring TIFs can only hope that the candidacy of Cris Bohinc against Purvis in Ward 2 and Dr. Rick Davis against Williams will provide voters with a choice. Some might ask, “But Seagull why would TIF developers be salivating over the possibility of Purvis and Williams being elected more than Bohinc and Davis?” The answer would be, “History.”

The word “stupid” is meant in the same context as it was used in a headline on the cover of the Jan 21, issue of Time Magazine proclaiming “It’s the Voters, Stupid.” A “sub-headline” went on to proclaim “Forget the experts, forget the polls, forget the T.V. ads. How the American people defied the odds, upended expectations and gave us a real race.”

As applies to Branson, a paraphrase of the Time cover could be, “It’s the Marketing, Stupid.” An appropriate sub headline could be, “For get the TIFs, forget the auditor’s outlooks, forget the developers hype. How Branson keeps on marketing, exceeding visitor expectations, and gives America an entertainment experience available no where else.”

A conclusion contained in the “Economic Outlook” of the city of Branson’s recent Independent Auditors Report said, “In the years prior to the Branson Landing opening, the City of Branson has experienced very limited growth.” Oh really, for a little town in the Ozark Mountains some might say that prior to the opening of Branson Landing, partially near the end of May 2006, that Branson had experienced phenomenal growth.

Why some might even say that “but for” the millions of visitors already coming to Branson that Branson Landing might never have been built. Some might even say that tourism and the number of people coming to Branson was already on the rise before Branson Landing even opened. Come to think of it someone did.

At the Aug. 30, 2006 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB gave its marketing report for the period ending Jun. 30, 2006. As compared to a similar time frame in 2005, the report indicates that the total number of visitations to Branson was up 6.5 percent, first time visitors were up by 13.7 percent, the average spending per visitor was up 11.3 percent, the average length of stay up 16.7 percent, and the number of families visiting Branson was up by 17.9 percent.

That same “Economic Outlook” went on to say, “FY 2007 tourism tax collections compared to FY 2006 are up between seven and ten percent in all areas except theatres. All of this activity has been spurred by the development of the Branson Landing and Branson Hills Projects.” WOW, when was the last time you planned a vacation to a destination based on the fact that it had a Target, or a Home Depot or, even, as nice as it is, a shopping mall like Branson Landing. One can just imagine the excitement within the family as they are told that the highlight of their vacation will be the fire and light show at Branson Landing and a two for one hammer sale at Home Depot.

The audit report goes on to attribute the revenue increases to “a result of the many changes and activities the city has entered into, including the city’s successful use of tax increment financing.” Specifically, the report cites the main components of the revenue growth as coming from “increases in sales taxes, increases in utility revenues, and new revenues from tax increment districts.”

Interestingly, and more importantly from a “tell” perspective, the audit report does not contain even a mention of the increased marketing of the Branson area as a potential causal factor in the revenue increases. In terms of revenue, it doesn’t make any difference how something is built, TIF or no TIF, what is important is the revenues that are generated. In Branson’s entertainment retail environment the generation of revenue has a direct relationship to the numbers of people coming to Branson.

Every business person in Branson, excluding perhaps, those located in Branson Landing and Branson Hills, should ask themselves this question, “What will bring more people into my business, the millions of dollars being spent to pay off the city debt on Branson Landing and Branson Hills or the same millions spent on the marketing in an effort to bring more visitors to Branson?” The baseless conclusions of the audit report aside, in terms of ascribing a reason to Branson’s recent revenue increases, an Ole Seagull would suggest that the answer, for most business in Branson is obvious.

By: Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

In the game of Tourism Poker, it appears that the “Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce (TRLACC) wants to win $200,000 from the Missouri Division of Tourism without having the ante or the money to play the hand. Instead, they would have the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) provide $400,000 to fund their game with the Missouri Division of Tourism.

As is the case with any game, it is important to have the terminology straight. What is now called the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce (TRLACC) was, until recently, commonly referred to as the Kimberling City Chamber of Commerce. A Google Search on Feb. 8 for the terms “Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce” came up with a top listing of “Table Rock Lake Chamber of Commerce (Kimberling City Area)” with link to the TRACC website which shows its address as “14226 State Hwy 13
Kimberling City, MO 65686.”

The Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) is a “body corporate and politic of the state,” established by law, and covers a specified area that was required to be described “by metes and bounds, streets or other sufficiently specific description” when the TCED was established by the Taney County Commission. The official map of the TCED indicates that the vast majority of Stone Country, including Kimberling City, Branson West, Cape Fair, Talking Rocks, etc. is not within the TCED.

After the TCED was set up, and two elections later, the voters within the TCED anted up with a retail tourism tax on themselves. Specifically, they voted to impose a one percent retail sales tax on themselves for the “the purpose of promoting tourism in the district.” Oh, has it been mentioned that the vast majority of Stone Country, including Kimberling City, Branson West, Cape Fair, Talking Rocks, etc. is not within the TCED?

At this point it’s probably appropriate to mention that, unlike what Taney County did, neither Stone County nor Kimberling City, although they could have, even attempted to establish a Tourism Community Enhancement District. Even worse, the Stone County Commission stood idly by and did nothing while the Taney County Commission established a TCED and encroached into a small area of Stone County including Indian Point and Silver Dollar City.

Businesses within the TCED have been collecting and remitting the TCED Tourism tax for about two years and residents, and others, shopping within the TECD, have been paying it for a like period. The TCED Board has entered into an agreement with the Branson Lakes Area Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) to conduct and administer functions such as public relations, sales, and marketing of tourism on behalf of the district. The statute authorizing the TCED requires that “Such marketing, advertising, and promotional activities shall be developed into a comprehensive marketing plan, for the benefit of the district.”

Now along comes the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce (TRLACC) and the the residents and businesses it represents, who have chosen not to pay for their own tourism marketing, in an effort to, you guessed it, get free money from the Missouri Division of Tourism without having to ante up. Instead, they are proposing that the Board of the TCED ante up the $400,000.00 they need so that they can get the $200,000 in free money from the state which they will then give back to the TCED.

Some might say, “The money might be free to TRLACC because they are not the ones paying the ante but it’s certainly not free to the TCED, it will cost them $200,000.” Others might ask, “How much media and advertising can be brought for $400,000 to promote tourism within the TCED.” Still others might ask, “How effective and comprehensive is a marketing plan that has the flexibility to be gerrymandered in a manner that would permit something like this to happen in the manner that it is?

Why some might even say, “Surely the TCED board wouldn’t even consider something like this?” Oh, they’re more than considering it.

At their last meeting the board passed a motion directing the Board’s president to “write a letter to the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce that the board is interested in encouraging the Branson CVB to subcontract with the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce to obtain the $200,000 funding through the Missouri Department of Tourism.” For that to happen, $400,000 of TCED marketing funds that are supposed to be used to promote tourism in the district will be funneled to the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce through the Branson Lakes Area CVB.

See related news article entitled: "$200,000 in Branson tourism tax funds might be used to market Stone County"

One of the foundational documents used to support the building of the convention center in downtown Branson estimated that the convention center would have an annual net operating deficit of ($530,000) per year in a stabilized year of operation. The document, a study entitled, “Feasibility Analysis of the Proposed Branson Downtown Exhibition and Convention Center Study,” (CS&L Study) was received by the city of Branson during Feb. 2003.

The CS& L study was used as one of the primary documents in supporting the building of the convention center downtown and, it appears, is being used as a benchmark in determining how successfully the convention center is being operated. As recently as Jan. 28, the study’s estimate of 177 Event Days for a stabilized year of operation was cited as a benchmark in evaluating the Event Days scheduled for 2008, 198 so far.

As the study used the term, a “stabilized year” is assumed to be the normal operation of the facility that would occur by the fifth year of operation. It acknowledges the time it takes to ramp up a convention center operation and generate the stream of bookings and Event Days necessary to generate a reliable revenue stream. But what is an Event Day and why is it important?

Based on conversations with various people, the term “Event Day” means different things to different people and different things to the same person depending on the day. Based on those conversations, and for purposes of this column, an Event Day is considered a day that one party is paying to hold an event in the convention center.

Let’s look at two illustrations. The first, “Prayem,” is a group of 11 people coming to the convention center early this Tuesday morning for fellowship and prayer. While there, they will have a continental breakfast. That is one Event Day. The second, “Holdem,” an association of 4,000 card players, is coming to the convention center for three days of fellowship and card playing starting Wednesday of this week. During each of those three days it will have a continental breakfast, beverage and break service, and a buffet lunch. Wednesday will be an Event Day as will Thursday and Friday. The Holdem group will account for three Event Days.

Outside of being a tool some statistician can use to try to make something look the way they want it to or to show that there is some activity going on at the convention center can anyone explain to an Ole Seagull of what importance an Event Day is in determining the successful operation of the convention center without attaching a qualitative standard to it?

Surely the Ole Seagull’s not the only one who, from an operational success standpoint, sees a difference in the two Event Days mentioned above. Does it take a Solomon to see that 365 Event Days of Prayem probably wouldn’t result in as much benefit to the convention center’s bottom line, or Branson as a whole, as 365 Event Days of Holdem would?

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective all Event Days are not created equal and it is the quality of the Event Day, as well as the their quantity, that will determine the success of the convention center both in terms of its own financial success and its overall benefit to Branson. Event Days aside, is there just the possibility that, based on the way things appear to be going, that the convention center just might prove the CS & L Study wrong and make an operating profit during, or prior to, its first year of stabilized operation? For what it matters, an Ole Seagull wouldn’t bet against it.

For the record, in the Ole Seagull’s gut and heart, he feels and believes that Hilton is doing an excellent job in operating and marketing the Branson Convention Center. Does he have hard data on bookings etc. to back that up? No, that’s why it’s a gut feeling, yet, it is an easy belief for him because he personally trusts and admires Mark Hartman, the General Manager for Hiltons Branson and believes him to be the consummate hospitality professional, an excellent manager, an honorable man, and a genuinely good person. Specifics aside, if Hartman says the convention center bookings are going well the Ole Seagull trusts that they are.

The Ole Seagull has personally witnessed the efficiency of the opening of not only two Hilton Hotels but the grand opening of the Branson Convention Center in the professional, yet elegant and classy, manner that one associates with the Hilton brand. Too he would be remise if he did not point out his belief that Hartman and Hilton have hired professionals at all levels, from Chefs to convention center marketing and sales personnel, to insure that the Hilton reputation for hospitality and professionalism, within the hospitality and meeting industry, is manifested and evident in the daily operation of the Branson Convention Center.

No where is that more evident than in the person of Bill Tirone, Director of Sales & Marketing for Hiltons of Branson who, through Hilton’s contractual relationship with the city of Branson to operate and market its convention center, is heading the sales effort for the new convention center. In the personal dealings that the Ole Seagull has had with Tirone he has been impressed with his professionalism and enthusiasm but then he’s not the only one.

Vienna Bowling, Director of Meeting and Convention Sales for the Branson Lakes Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) has the job of trying to bring as many conventions and meetings to Branson as possible. In the process of matching the varying financial and other requirements of meeting planners with a Branson facility that meets their needs Bowling deals, on a daily basis, with not only the Branson Convention Center but many of the other meeting and convention facilities throughout the Branson area.

One does not have to talk with Bowling too long about the marketing effort for the Branson Convention Center to realize that she is very impressed with the way things are going. She pointed out that Tirone serves as the Chairman for the CVB’s Meetings and Conventions subcommittee and said, “I often receive favorable feedback about the Hilton staff and how professional they are, from meeting planners who are considering Branson.” Bowling has extensive experience in the convention and meetings aspect of the hospitality industry and served in a similar capacity at the Chateau on the Lake prior to taking her current position with the CVB.

Some might ask, “Well Seagull that’s wonderful but how does it help explain the news article you started off with by saying that the city of Branson and the Hilton Hotels Corporation have something in common, neither one has managed a municipally owned convention center before or the criticism of the city’s convention center web site contained in your column of last week?” It doesn’t, what is, is, but so what?

Does the fact that Hilton has not “technically” managed such a facility mean that they do not have the requisite skills, experience, and professionalism to do so? As a community, Branson better hope not because, according to Glen Malone, the Chief Operating Officer of Senate Hospitality Group, the organization the city is hiring to provide additional information and oversight on the operation of its convention center, Senate has never provided such services on a stand alone convention facility.

That aside, is there another organization in the Branson area that handles and books as many conventions and meetings nationwide, world wide for that matter, or has the experience in the meeting, functions, and hospitality areas that Hilton has? Does not the quality personal experience that the vast majority of those attending events in the Branson Convention Center have had testify as to the professionalism, enthusiasm, and commitment of the staff and organization managing and operating it?

For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would answer in order, “No” and “Yes” and simply say thank you to Hartman, Tirone, and the rest of the Hilton staff for getting our convention center off to such a great start.

The question is simple, “Is the city of Branson’s convention center web site, paid for with tax payer funds designated for the marketing of its convention center, being used to market Branson Landing and the Hilton Convention Center Hotel, both of which are privately owned?” The apparent simple answer appears to be, “Yes.”

As of the morning of Jan. 11, 2008, when one goes to the home page of the web site for Branson’s convention center, www.bransonconvention.com, they are greeted by a large static picture of the Hilton Hotel with not even a glimpse of Branson’s convention center in sight. If a picture is worth a thousand words, and first impressions count the most, why is the only picture on the page that of the Hilton Hotel rather than Branson’s convention center?

Contrast the home page of Branson’s convention center with that of the St. Charles Convention Center at http://www.stcharlesconventioncenter.com. Now isn’t that a refreshing thought, a picture of the convention center that the web site is promoting rather than a picture of a hotel owned by the company being paid to manage and promote the convention center that the site is promoting.

There is a slide show available from the home page of the Branson convention center site through a link entitled “Take A Tour” located near the middle of the page When that link is selected there is an eight picture slide show of which six, possibly seven of the slides, appear to highlight Hilton Hotel features rather than the features of Branson’s convention center. Contrast that with the home page of the St. Charles Convention Center where they have incorporated the apparently novel idea, at least as to those who built the Branson convention center web site, of using a seven picture slide show to promote the features of the convention center itself rather than a hotel associated with it.

The firm managing and promoting the St. Charles Convention Center, Global Spectrum manages how many convention center facilities and arenas? The firm managing and promoting the Branson Convention Center, Hilton, manages how many convention center facilities?

When one selects the “Experience Branson” menu item from the upper left hand corner of the home page they are taken to a page that has two static pictures of Branson Landing. It should be noted that Branson Landing is a private development owned by HCW Development Company, LLC.

As one selects from each of the menu items under that selection, “Hotels,” “Entertainment,” “Attractions,” “Branson Landing,” “Dining,” or “Area Map,” they are taken to a page that features two static pictures featuring either the Hilton Hotel or Branson Landing. If the link to “Entertainment” was selected the pictures at the top of the page are a shot of people walking in Branson Landing and one of a clown tying balloon animals at Branson Landing. Click on the link to “Attractions” and see pictures of Branson Landing’s fire and light show and its trolley. Could anything possibly say “Branson attraction” more than a picture of the Branson Landing Trolley?

It’s interesting to note that there is a separate menu item for Branson Landing. Again, Branson Landing is a private development owned by HCW not the city of Branson and is no more a part of the convention center than are the businesses located in historic downtown or elsewhere in Branson. Indeed, the unique shopping experience that can be found no where else in American except in historic downtown Branson is just as close to the convention center as Branson Landing yet, is there any specific link to its site or, for that matter, the site of any of the many other shopping destinations in Branson?

Is this the appropriate time to point out that Hilton has a contract with HCW, the company that owns Branson Landing and both the of the Hilton Hotels, one at Branson Landing and one at the convention center, to promote and manage those hotels for HCW? Isn’t that the same Hilton that has a separate contract to manage and promote the Branson Convention Center for the city of Branson?

Ok so it’s a rhetorical question but the point remains, as to the facts involved with the web site, could a reasonable person think there was at least the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest? “Oh hush my beating heart,” is it even possible that HCW is the registered owner of the Branson Convention Center web site that the city is spending thousands of dollars in taxpayer money promoting? Please say it isn’t so.

In terms of the local Branson news stories for 2007 that will have the most lasting impact on Branson, now and in the future, the April election for mayor and aldermen just has to be right up there. Overnight, it literally eliminated the arrogant manner in which some of the people and businesses dealing with the city of Branson were treated by certain senior staff members and the elected officials of the city of Branson.

The election was stunning, not only in the fact that a long term mayor and alderman were defeated but, in the margin of that defeat. After the election, there was a new mayor, and three new aldermen, all of whom ran on a platform of change.

The character and need for that change was summed up by, then mayoral candidate now mayor, Raeanne Presley. She pledged that if elected, the “attitude at city hall that boarders on arrogance” would change. Then candidate for alderman, now alderman, Bob McDowell said that the leadership of city government had to earn back “the benefit of the doubt position” from the community. Although the voters could not vote against the senior unelected staff within the city of Branson’s government that a lot perceived as being responsible for the situation, they could vote against those elected leaders that permitted and enabled it and, vote they did.

Almost immediately, it became obvious that the newly elected mayor and aldermen were not only not going to be rubber stamps for certain senior staff but were going to be actively involved in trying to earn back the benefit of the doubt position from the public. Symbolically, one of the first major acts of the new administration was to reverse the unpopular, ill advised, deceitful, and arrogant actions condoned by the previous administration in pursuing some mythical legal right that the city of Branson owned the generic term “Branson.” Ironically, the three remaining board members from the previous administration, who did not have to run for re-election in April of 2007, Jack Purvis, Dick Gass, and Stan Barker, evidently had an epiphany and voted to reverse the position that they had taken just a few short months prior to the election.

The new administration set about the job of putting procedures and policies in place that would make the workings of government more accessible to the public. This included but was not limited to the recording and on line availability of board of aldermen and work session meetings, putting the detail back into the written minutes of the meetings that the previous administration had removed, and the revamping of the public comment portion of the board of aldermen’s meeting to insure that the public was not interrupted by senior staff while they are speaking. In addition, the public comment portion of the meeting has been moved back to the front of the meeting rather than leaving it where the previous administration had moved it, to the very last item of the meeting.

Among other things, the newly elected board and mayor, have taken a more proactive role in establishing the meeting agenda. Rather than having it determined and virtually presented to them by senior staff, sometimes in packets received over the weekend, just before a scheduled Monday meeting, they established a policy of meeting the Tuesday before each scheduled Monday meeting to discuss the agenda and potential future agenda items. They also modified the agenda schedule to permit more time for them, and the public, to receive and review materials prior to their schedule board meetings. In addition, citizen members were added to the three major committees that advise the board, the Budget/Finance, Personnel, and Capital Improvements Committees to provide added expertise and perspective to the information that the board receives to use in its decision making process.

In what some consider a direct result of the election, a July 31press release from the city of Branson announced, “the departure of Terry Dody, ten year employee and city administrator” pursuant to a separation agreement approved by the Branson Board of Alderman on July 30. The separation agreement specifically stated that “It is the mutual desire of Dody and the city to now end Dody’s employment with the city.” The city is currently in the process of finding a new city administrator.

As the year 2007 comes to an end, it appears that process of regaining the benefit of the doubt position from the community is well under way. For that an Ole Seagull sincerely says, “Thank you.”

This column was originally written over 10 years ago and is modified and republished each year as an Ole Seagull’s testimony as to what Christmas means to him. The political correctness of “Merry Christmas” may change but the true meaning of CHRISTmas will never change.

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has being “politically correct.” In recent years their has been a move to change the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But Seagull, you wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would you?” Absolutely not, but most people are not offended by the use of the term “Merry Christmas,” which means so much to the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special. Those who want to preserve the history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They leave “Christ” out. So what? What does Christ have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion but, without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was Christ.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was Christ.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of Christmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”

If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, Christmas, in its truest sense, will be with us everyday of the year, Merry Christmas folks, Merry Christmas.

An Ole Seagull, and the rest of the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry Christmas.

The Dec. 12 editorial in the Springfield News Leader entitled “War on Christmas?” expressed “the view of the News-Leader Editorial Board.” The Editorial Board informed readers of the boards opinion that “Branson aldermen need not fight the War on Christmas” because the “city’s Christmas spirit is obvious and the ‘war’ is fake.”

The basis for the editorial appears to be the action that the Branson Board of Aldermen took on a resolution entitled “The Support of the Board of Aldermen of the city of Branson to the celebration of Christmas in Branson as part of Ozark Mountain Christmas” presented at its Dec. 10 meeting. The resolution was sponsored and presented by Branson Alderman Stephen Marshall.

The editorial, after a back handed slap at Branson’s Aldermen, said, “Things must be quiet down in Branson when the town leaders decide to waste time fighting another phantom battle in the War on Christmas. If there’s one place in Missouri — make that the world — in which the so-called War on Christmas was long ago won handily by the pro-Christ bunch, it’s got to be Branson.”

Verbiage such as “phantom battle in the War on Christmas” and “pro-Christ bunch” show a sensitivity on the part of the News-Leader’s Editorial Board that is exceeded only by its arrogance and apparent lack of knowledge as to why the Branson Board of Aldermen invested their time in addressing this issue. Let’s look at the actual resolution itself. It contained three simple operable provisions:

Section 1 reads, “The Board of Aldermen hereby states its support of the celebration of
Ozark Mountain Christmas.”

Section 2 reads, “In furtherance of that support, the Board hereby urges Branson businesses to try to keep the word and spirit of ‘Christmas’ in Christmas and to foster the history and heritage of the traditional American Christmas in Branson, Missouri.”

Section 3 reads, “The Board of Aldermen also hereby encourages all businesses and residents of Branson to show their support by the displaying of Christmas decorations during Branson’s Ozark Mountain Christmas to ensure that all visitors experience the old fashion Christmas they imagined.”

At the Dec. 10 meeting, in discussing the resolution, as he has done on other occasions, Marshall said, “The whole intent of this resolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion, nothing zero zip” and went on to say, “It’s to do with Ozark Mountain Christmas.”

Exactly what part of the resolution, or Marshall’s stated rationale for presenting the resolution, supports the Editorial Boards “war” theme, phantom or otherwise? To a lot of businesses in Branson, Ozark Mountain Christmas is critical. Opinion of the Editorial Board aside, the resolution, to an Ole Seagull appears to be a simple straight forward statement of support for an event that is an important and integral economic and cultural part of our community.

The editorial arrogantly asks the question, “Have the aldermen spent any time in their own city lately?” Did not their reporter at the meeting or their review of the recording of the meeting give them a clue in that regard when Marshall said, “All one has to do is drive down the strip and see if you really get a sense of Ozark Mountain Christmas. Some theatres have done a great job in decorating and there are others that have done nothing. There are stores that have done zippo.”

Marshall went on to point out that there are other cities out there vying for the same tourists and business that Branson is “and there are other towns that do an incredible job of decorating for whatever they call their Christmas season. We ended up number two because of Silver Dollar City, not because they drove down the strip and saw a bunch of stuff to do with Ozark Mountain Christmas.”

Interestingly, the mind set and bias of the Editorial Board appears to show through when they made a Freudian slip while asking the question “Have you been to Silver Dollar City lately to see the lights?” Oh sure, one will see one of the best display of lights and Christmas festiveness available anywhere but more importantly, they will experience the true meaning and celebration of Ozark Mountain Christmas.

May an Ole Seagull suggest that the sole purpose of the resolution was to spread some of the same Christmas spirit, effort, and vibrancy evidenced within Silver Dollar City to other areas of Branson where a lot of times, at best, visitors see a neutered politically correct version of Christmas and, at worst, see nothing reminding them of Christmas. The only thing “fake” appears to be the “war” premise of the Editorial and that the Editorial Board actually had a clue about why the resolution was presented to the board for consideration.

The “Christmas Resolution” that the city of Branson’s Board of Aldermen (the board) is voting on Dec. 10 is not an establishment clause or freedom of religion issue. From a pure legal, logic, and governmental function perspective it is a simple resolution of the board stating their support of Ozark Mountain Christmas and encouraging Branson businesses and residents to take actions that will support it.

Some might ask, “Why do we need a resolution?” An Ole Seagull would respond, “For the same reason the board felt there was a need for another resolution stating the city’s opposition to the expansion of gambling; to provide leadership, without the force of law requiring someone to either do or not do something, on an issue that the board believes is important to the community.”

The operable portions of the resolution are straight forward and simple. From a potential conflict of interest point of view the Ole Seagull would point out that he was personally involved with the drafting of the first two sections of the resolution and fully supports its passage by the board.

Section 1 simply states, “The Board of Aldermen hereby states its support of the celebration of Ozark Mountain Christmas.” That is a simple straight forward statement of support for an event that is an important and integral part of our community. Does the fact that the word “Christmas” happens to be a part of the name of that event make it an establishment clause issue?

May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer to that question is contained in a simple announcement from a government office stating, “Please Note: In addition to being closed on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, the Court will be closed on Monday, December 24 and Monday, December 31.” The court being mentioned is the U.S. Supreme Court and the announcement quoted is directly from its website and can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/holiday_closures.html.

It’s interesting to note that the U.S. Supreme Court could have done the politically popular thing, left out the words “Christmas Day” and merely said, that it would be closed on “December 25.” One thing is for certain though, the use of the term “Christmas” in this context certainly illustrates that the use of the word “Christmas” to describe an event is not a violation of the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution.

The second section of the resolution states, “In furtherance of that support, the Board hereby urges Branson businesses to try to keep the word and spirit of “Christmas” in Christmas and to foster the history and heritage of the traditional American Christmas in Branson, Missouri.” How is the simple urging of the board to the very businesses benefiting from Ozark Mountain Christmas to keep the word Christmas and the spirit of Christmas in Christmas a violation of the establishment clause?

Even the U.S. Supreme Court kept the word “Christmas” in “Christmas Day.” The spirit of Christmas and the history and heritage that makes up the traditional American Christmas is decided within the individual hearts and minds of those celebrating it and is based on their life’s experience and beliefs. Christmas and the traditional American Christmas is not a religion. It’s a state of mind that varies from individual to individual and may or may not have a religious significance to any particular individual celebrating it.

In terms of logic and pure legality, as to the resolution itself and its applicability to Ozark Mountain Christmas, to an Ole Seagull, the resolution is more about “truth in advertising” than religion. The fact that Christmas itself has a spiritual significance to him personally and represents the celebration of the birth of his Savior, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God has no more bearing on the resolution being an establishment clause issue than does the fact that Christmas means no more to some people than a chance to make money from those who come to Branson to celebrate Ozark Mountain Christmas.

Does Branson spend millions of dollars marketing Ozark Mountain Hanukah, Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa, Ozark Mountain Holidays, or some other form of a neutered politically correct version of Christmas? If it does it’s one of the best kept secrets around. On the other hand, what would the answer be if the question had been, “Does Branson spend millions of dollars marketing Ozark Mountain Christmas? OK so it’s a rhetorical question.

Branson spends millions of dollars marketing the Ozark Mountain Christmas experience and inviting visitors to come and celebrate Christmas in the Ozarks. Yet, as visitors drive up and down our streets are they more than likely to see “Merry Christmas,” the words “Happy Holidays” or some other form of a neutered politically correct version of Christmas prominently displayed on the outside and inside of our businesses, public buildings, and infrastructure? As Branson’s visitors interact with the personnel working in Branson’s entertainment, retail, lodging, food service, and government are they more likely to be wished “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays,” or nothing?

As they drive by the city of Branson’s city hall will they see the welcoming words “Merry Christmas” in huge letters across the face of the building or anywhere on the building or grounds? Will they see the word “Christmas” displayed in any public area inside the building? Does the city of Branson use its huge water towers to proclaim the words “Merry Christmas” to those coming to Ozark Mountain Christmas?

To some the term Christmas is a special season where the celebration of the birth of Christ is given special emphasis. To others it is but a commercial type of thing where the birth of Christ is only important in terms of being used to generate revenue. To still others it means something in between, and to some, it actually means nothing. What’s important to an Ole Seagull personally, and, he hopes to the community, is that the reason for the season, “Christmas,” is celebrated and preserved as its own holiday and not lost in a myriad of other holidays or hidden in a closet filled with “commercialism” and “political correctness.”

It is not a matter of the separation of church and state. In fact, Section 6103 of Title 5 of the United States Code establishes the official name of the federal holiday celebrated on Dec.25 as “Christmas Day.” Whether or not the name of that holiday, “Christmas,” has a religious significance is a personal matter depending on what is in the hearts of those saying and hearing it.

The name of the celebration Branson markets to the world is Ozark Mountain Christmas. With every other festival or celebration, residents, businesses, and employees are encouraged to get with the spirit of the occasion being promoted. What better way to express the reality and spirit of Ozark Mountain Christmas to those who come than by saying “Merry Christmas” and providing them with a total Christmas experience that is unrivaled anywhere else in the country.

What about those that don’t celebrate Christmas? What about them? Is it inappropriate to suggest that an area celebrating Ozark Mountain Christmas should be focused on the vast majority of people who celebrate Christmas? In terms of the reality of today’s environment, with its increasing attacks on the tradition of Christmas in America, which is less likely to offend them, someone wishing them “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays?” Being surrounded by things specifically proclaiming Christmas or other things that tend to neuter Christmas in political correctness?

Would it be inappropriate to ask the city governments of the city of Branson and Hollister, the village of Indian Point, and the Taney County Commission to establish a policy of trying to keep Christmas in Christmas? As a starting point, such a policy could encourage the use of the term Merry Christmas in lieu of Happy Holidays or other things that tend to neuter Christmas in the name of political correctness, in connection with their involvement with Ozark Mountain Christmas or other situations where it is their intent to specifically express Christmas wishes or greetings to those celebrating the holiday of Christmas.

It appears that such a policy would be consistent with not only the legal name of the holiday of Christmas but the name of the celebration that we promise the world, “Ozark Mountain Christmas.” Can any reasonable person take offense if a community simply stands up and says, “We celebrate the holiday of Christmas, its promise and spirit and would love to have you come and share them with us?” If we will not publicly, proudly and boldly celebrate Christmas in Branson during the celebration of Ozark Mountain Christmas, then, where and when?

Common sense tells an Ole Seagull that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a day of “giving thanks.” Generally speaking, who among us says “thank you” to “no one?” Generally, when thanks is given it is for something and is “given” to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “Giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is rooted on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it and history itself. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

By Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

The seconds, minutes, days, weeks, and months available to avoid the shutdown of the Lake Taneycomo Bridge for about a year are sifting through the hourglass. If it were an egg being timed the last second dropping into the bottom of the hourglass would indicate that the egg was done. With the timing of the closing of the bridge, the last second dropping through means that the Branson community lives with the results of what its efforts have accomplished as that last second hits the bottom of the hourglass.

The good news, the really good news, is that the time passing through the hour glass while the “steering committee,” those who had the political clout to tie the community’s need for a solution to the bridge problem to their own desire for a tax for other purposes, was not wasted. While the steering committee gambled away the initial opportunity for a retail sales tax that could have been used to help solve the bridge problems, others were working to develop potential solutions for the problems including resource dependent alternatives to closing the bridge.

For the most part, those potential solutions and alternatives were, and are, being developed by a Value Engineering Study currently being conducted by the Missouri Department of Transportation [MoDOT] in conjunction with local officials. The study team initially met on Sep. 10 and is in the process of releasing its final recommendations.

Those with the political clout to get their agenda on the ballot had their steering committee. As the seconds continue to drop through the hour glass how about a “steering committee,” for the rest of us, one that has the professionalism and ability to steer the community in the right direction in a timely and efficient manner. That committee would be made up of Taney County Road and Bridge Administrator, Frank Preston, Branson City Engineer, David Miller, or his representative, Hollister City Administrator, Rick Ziegenfuss, and MoDOT’s District 8 Transportation Project Manager, Chad E. Zickefoose. Ziegenfuss, although not an engineer, represented the area as a member of the Value Engineering Study and adds a tempering dimension.

The committees charge would be simple, “Get-R-Done.” The end result would be a list, without regard to cost, containing, in order of preference, no more than three of the most practical, efficient, and value based solutions to the problems posed by the bridge. The decisions involving the list would be based on their professional experience and knowledge, all of the information currently available, including the results of the MoDOT Value Engineering Study, and the assumption that without a decision the bridge will be closed by the end of 2008 for MoDOT to implement their solution.

The committee would have until no later than Jan. 7 to develop the list and present it, along with appropriate staff studies, documentation, etc. to their respective elected leaders for consideration. During that period and until Jan. 23, 2008, each of the elective bodies would hold a public hearing on the list and the three options. On Jan. 23, 2008, at a joint meeting of the Taney County Commission, Branson Board of Aldermen, and the Hollister Board of Aldermen, one option would be selected.

The community could then focus its efforts into turning that option into a reality which, if history is any judge, will be achieved. One thing is certain however, the seconds, minutes, days, weeks, and months continue to sift through the hourglass. The community is either going to “Get-R-Done” before that last second sifts through or MoDOT is going to close the bridge and “Get-R-Done,” as best as they can.

Related links:

Taneycomo bridge problems could cause Fall 2008 closure (News)

Cost of alternatives to Branson’s Taneycomo bridge closing range from $13 to 36.8 million (News)

Business 65 Taneycomo Bridge safe but functionally obsolete and structurally deficient (News)

MoDOT study to determine if, and how long, Branson’s Taneycomo Bridge will be closed (News)

Is there Highroad "Deja vu" involved with the closing of Branson’s Taneycomo Bridge?" (Column)

School districts throughout the state are spending tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of actual tax payer dollars, to educate the additional students created by the abnormal growth in their student populations caused by the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). At the same time, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of actual tax payer dollars, that would normally go to educate those students, are being diverted from the schools affected to make sure that the developers who created the abnormal growth causing the increased student populations get, not only their investment back, but a nice profit. It’s nuts, just plain nuts!

In running the city of Branson, its biggest source of revenue is sales tax receipts. In general terms, the current year’s figures released by the city of Branson indicate that its two latest TIFs, Branson Landing, and Branson Hills, generated over a hundred million dollars in retail sales and millions of dollars in sales tax collections during the year. The TIF only captured 50 percent of the sales tax collected within the TIF District. This leaves 50 percent of the sales tax collected for the city’s use in providing the services necessary to service that growth.

In running the Branson School District, its biggest source of revenue is real estate taxes. In general terms, the current year’s figures released by the Branson School District, indicate that Branson’s two latest TIFs, Branson Landing and Branson Hills, generated tens of millions of dollars in assessed value and hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate taxes during the year. The TIF captured 100 percent of the real estate tax collected within the TIF District. This leaves ZERO percent of the real estate taxes collected for the Branson School District’s use in providing the services necessary to service that growth.

Although the Branson TIFs are used as an example and, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the Branson Hills TIF could be used as the poster child for TIF abuse, it’s not about Branson Landing or Branson Hills, the city of Branson or the city of Kishnif. It’s about the inherent unfairness and lack of logic in the way that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) deprives local school districts of the funds needed to service the educational needs created by the very growth that the TIFs are being used to create and finance.

In referring to the revenue lost to school districts, through the TIF capture of real estate taxes, there are some who say, “How can they lose money they never had.” That might be a halfway valid statement if everything was revenue neutral but it’s not. The artificially induced growth, caused by the use of the government sponsored and supported TIFs, results in the abnormal growth of student populations within the school districts affected.

The math is easy, if it costs a school district $x per student simply multiple that cost per student times the number of estimated additional students that the abnormal growth caused by the TIFs created. As an example, The Branson Hills TIF plan projected 1,250 permanent jobs with an annual payroll of $19.2 million or about $15,360 annual salary per year. What is the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a family of two adults and two children?

But wait, the Ole Seagull digresses. There has been no specific study done analyzing the abnormal growth within the Branson School District because of the Branson Hills and Branson Landing TIFs. However, most reasonable people would agree that the thousands of jobs generated by those TIFs are going to add some additional children to the district above and beyond those that would have been added without the TIF impact. It takes about $5,598 in local revenues to educate each child for one year. If 100 additional children per year are added the additional cost would be $559,800, 200 additional would be $1,119,600, etc.

The precise number of additional students is not as important as the result. Whatever the number of additional students, the Branson School District, and other similarly affected school districts, must service the educational needs of the additional students at the very same time that 100 percent of their primary source revenue for meeting those needs, real estate taxes, is captured to pay the very TIF causing that need. It’s nuts, just plain nuts.

By Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull

This piece is respectfully dedicated to America’s Veterans and active duty military with thanks and gratitude for their service and sacrifice.

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that the people of the nations involved bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. Even in today’s world of terrorist attacks, as the people of countries or ideologies make war on each other they fall into two general categories, “Military” and “Civilian.” The Military, the fighters, generally kill each other and the civilians they believe are making war on them, the old fashioned way, directly, with bullets, bombs, planes, tanks, ships, knives, hand to hand combat etc. History testifies to the fact that they are generally the first to bleed, suffer, and die.

The Civilians of warring nations provide the means for the military to kill each other and the bodies to replace those that are killed or maimed. History records that the bullets, bombs, torpedoes, planes, ships and other implements of war used by Japan, to destroy the peace at Pearl Harbor and during the war in the Pacific, and by Americans, to reestablish the peace, were made by civilians.

Prior to December 7, 1941 there was peace between the United States and Japan. At approximately 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, on Sunday, December 7, 1941, while Japanese diplomats were in the process of negotiating to maintain that peace with Secretary of State Cordell Hull in Washington, DC, and without warning, the country of Japan shattered that peace by spilling American blood in a cowardly surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack killed over 2,400 and wounded over 1,175. On Monday December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt went before Congress and declared December 7, 1941 as, “A date that will live in infamy.” Congress declared war against Japan on that date.

Upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, over three years and 200,000 American lives later, Harry S. Truman, became the 33rd President of the United States. He was a Missourian known for his honesty and one of the most respected politicians of his time. The war in Europe was over and the Axis Powers of Italy and Germany had been defeated. All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative “was complete and utter destruction,” Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight.

Truman had served as an Artillery Officer in France during World War I and, prior to becoming President, was not aware of the “Manhattan Project” and its Atom Bomb. His advisors estimated the war could be shortened by a year and that 1 million Allied casualties, 500,000 of them American lives, could be saved if the Atomic Bomb was used on Japan. He decided that enough American blood had been spilled in trying to reestablish the peace that Japan had shattered. Truman said, “Let there be no mistake about it, I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used.”

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, after repeated warnings for Japan to surrender, the Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. In spite of the horrific carnage and destruction that resulted Japan did not capitulate. On August 9, 1945, another Atomic Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan sued for peace the next day and the formal surrender papers were signed, on the deck of the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri, on September 2, 1945. Peace had been restored.

Some say America owes Japan an apology for using the Atomic Bomb. The lives sacrificed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many times the lives, Japanese, American, as well as others, that would have been spent if the war had continued. Without Pearl Harbor and the refusal of Japan to end the war that they had started, not only would there have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but millions of people, Japanese as well as others, would not have died. If the people of Japan are due an apology it more appropriately should come from their own government.

Some say that Japan owes us an apology for Pearl Harbor. No apology can undo history or bring back the lives that were lost, or the treacherous cowardice of that attack. The blood of her sons, and ours, staining the sands of remote Pacific Islands such as Peleliu, Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and others, solemnly testify to the futility of such an apology and of war itself.

Rather than seek useless insincere apologies let us thank God that the nuclear power used to end a terrible war, has never been used in war since. Let us pledge our efforts towards insuring that all nations live in peace with each other.

When the voters of the city of Hollister go to the polls on Nov. 6 they will have a unique opportunity to vote on a tax that could actually save them money and will not cost the vast majority of them one dime. A natural reaction might be to say, “Seagull, have you lost your mind, a tax we not only don’t pay but that can save us money! Do you think we are stupid?” Quite the opposite, the Ole Seagull agrees with a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln saying, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

In terms of real facts, most people would acknowledge that Hollister is growing at a rapid pace. As long as that growth is a balance between commercial and residential the expenses involved in providing the normal city services for that growth can, in most cases be met out of the current tax structure. Although an oversimplification, to an Ole Seagull it is more a “one to one thing,” one unit of residential or commercial growth and the unit of taxation necessary to furnish the city services necessary to support that unit of growth.

There is however an area of growth that is not consistent with that type of tax structure and that is in the area of tourism or, what the Ole Seagull refers to as, destination growth. It is that exponential pulsating type of growth that occurs when large numbers of people come to a destination, on either a day trip or transient, overnight, basis, for entertainment, relaxation, shopping or to enjoy or do something for which they willing to travel to that destination for.

In the early 1990s, Branson, a town that was already growing in the area of tourism and destination visitors, experienced what happened when the tourism and destination growth outgrew the resources available to service it. Branson reacted well and immediately put into place a tourism tax to help finance the infrastructure and marketing necessary to service and market that growth. The rest, so to speak, is history; new roads, sewer and water plants, and marketing that have helped maintain and expand that growth.

“Now hold on Seagull, are you comparing the actual or potential tourism or destination growth of Hollister with Branson?” Of course not, Hollister is just beginning to grow in that area but that is exactly the point. Hollister residents have a unique chance to include the tax structure necessary to support and market that growth into the very process itself, at its earliest stages, and, in large part, ensure that the costs of that growth are paid for by the people creating, and most directly benefiting from, it rather than the residents of Hollister.

When one reads the portion of the Nov. 6 ballot entitled the “City of Hollister Question,” stating what the 5 percent tax will apply to and who will pay the tax, it is immediately apparent that the vast majority of Hollister residents will never pay a dime of the tax. The ballot says, “Shall the City of Hollister levy a tax of five percent (5%) on each sleeping room or campsite occupied and rented by transient guests and any docking facility which rents slips to recreational boats which are used by transients for sleeping in the City of Hollister…?”

What is not obvious on the ballot and in the term “Tourism Tax,” commonly used to characterize the tax, is how the tax proceeds will be used. According to information received from Hollister city administrator, Rick Ziegenfuss, 75 percent of the tax will be used for infrastructure and tourism related operational costs and 25 percent will be used for marketing.

How can the tax save money for Hollister residents? Is not the answer to that question contained in the answer to the question, “If Hollister experiences the tourism and destination growth that is anticipated, will there be adequate resources to support that growth and who will pay the costs of that growth?” The very question that Hollister voters will answer on November 6?

It is deceitful to say that voters are voting for a new bridge when they go the polls on Nov. 6. If voters vote “Yes” on Proposition A, the Taney County sales tax proposition for a one half of one percent retail sales tax increase, they are approving the creation of a fund of money that the Taney County Commissioners can spend for economic development purposes just about any way they want.

The law authorizing the tax is new. Its purpose is to provide, those entities able to get the voters to approve the tax, with a pool of funds for economic development. The law specifically states that expenditures out of that fund must be submitted to a seven person Economic Development Tax Board (EDTB), composed of one member from a school district in the county, two from cities, towns, and villages within the county, and four members appointed by the Taney County Commissioners. The three members, other than the four appointed by the Taney County Commissioners, are basically, appointed as the effected entities agree and the Commission has no say in the matter.

The EDTB considers the proposal, votes on whether or not to recommend approval, and forwards its recommendation to the Taney County Commissioners. The law specifically states, “The governing body of the city or county shall have the final determination on use and expenditure of any funds received from the tax.”

Why hasn’t the Taney County Commission taken the appropriate steps to set up the EDTB? Isn’t that an important part of the process and something that voters would want to know as they consider whether or not they want to vote for the approval of the tax?

The law does not contain a specific definition of “economic development.” It does however, include a non-inclusive list of items such acquisition of land, installation of infrastructure for industrial or business parks, improvement of water and wastewater treatment capacity, extension of streets, and public facilities directly related to economic development and job creation that gives an indication of what “economic development” is.

The ballot for the Proposition A tax contains a Note reading, “Commission priorities include, but are not limited to “Taneycomo Bridge and community recreation facilities. All expenditures under this tax are subject to final approval by the Commission.”

Some might ask, “How was the determination made that ‘community recreationfacilities’ are an economic development activity authorized by the law?” Could it be in the same way that some stretched the definition of “blight” and other aspects of the states Tax Increment Financing (TIF) laws to cover the development of Branson Hills?

To an ole Seagull, it appears that a new bridge is a “carrot,” that those wanting a tax for other purposes, are using in the hopes of getting access to funds for their pet projects. The truth of the matter is that, about a year of inconvenience aside, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has the funding, is in the process of planning for, and will rehabilitate the existing bridge into a condition that will handle the projected traffic for the next 30 years.

For what it matters, an Ole Seagull believes that if the measure fails and the citizens of Taney County want a new bridge built that the resources are currently available to do so. He further believes that with Taney County handling the financing that the project could be completed in a timely manner, avoid the closing the current bridge, and, more than likely, that Taney County would receive reimbursement from MoDOT and other entities for a substantial portion of the cost.

The Taneycomo Bridge is not the question voters should be asking themselves about as they vote on the Proposition A Tax. The question they sholuld be asing themselves is “Would I be voting for this tax if the Taneycomo Bridge was not involved?”

In a letter to the editor appearing in last Sunday’s edition of this paper, Michael London refers to the fact that the Ole Seagull recognizes the need of good marketing for Branson’s future success. He then goes on to ask, “I wonder how he feels about the Chamber’s most recent report to the city that showed virtually every segment of the Branson business community is substantially up over the last year, except theatres.” Assuming that is not a rhetorical question, let there be no more wonderment.

He feels elation and happiness for those shows, attractions, restaurants, lodging, retail, and other businesses that are successful and participating full measure in the year-to-year economic growth indicated by the figures. He thanks God for the marketing program that is bringing the visitors to Branson that, in large part, enables that success and growth within our community. A marketing program, he believes, that is the primary reason that the dire forecasts of the city’s consultants as to what was going to happen to existing retail immediately after the opening of Branson Landing did not materialize.

At the same time, the reality of the situation is that those numbers consist of totals and averages. In any given category, a given entity may be above or below the average. For those below the averages, or not otherwise participating in the reported growth the Ole Seagull feels concern.

Some might ask, “Why did you preface your response with the statement, ‘Assuming that’s not a rhetorical question?’” On Aug. 18, London sent an email to the Ole Seagull and others within the community about a recent column that the Ole Seagull had written. He said that the Ole Seagull was trying “to dismiss the concerns of the shows and other community members regarding the recent trend of visitors seeing less shows while they are in Branson.” The column was entitled, “Why aren’t more people playing at Branson’s shows?” It and a companion column, “Where’s the beef that brings millions to Branson,” are available on line at www.BransonCourier.com under “Editorials.”

London closes his email by saying, “Ignoring, or dismissing the trend, as Gary seems to do and influence others to do, might have the same dire results as ignoring the FACT that you are getting fewer miles per gallon as you are driving into the desert.” An Ole Seagull can only suggest another fact. In trying to mitigate the potential “dire results” that could occur while driving in the desert it is not as simple as just having enough gasoline and one should not ignore other factors which could cause the same dire results.

In addition to gasoline, one would not want to ignore such things as the condition of the vehicle cooling system, its general mechanical condition, and the condition of its tires. Ironically, in last Sundays letter to the editor, London’s sole proposed solution to the apparent lack of Branson’s shows participating the current economic uptrend is “That at least half of our marketing dollars be spent on show focused ads, while the other half be used to sell everything we have to offer.”

Would it not be a good idea to identify the actual reason or reasons why shows are not participating in Branson’s current economic uptrend before changing a marketing strategy that seems to be working for most of Branson’s businesses? May an Ole Seagull suggest that an appropriate and obvious first step might be a study to do exactly that?

Are there too many shows in Branson? How many shows are enough? Is the price of tickets a factor? How does the fact that a lot of shows and theatres sell their tickets to time-shares, ticket resellers, or others at drastically reduced prices impact on the problem? Does the quality of some of the shows and the condition of some of the theatres play a part? How vital is a local intercept marketing program to a theatre’s success? How much, if at all, is the current national marketing program for the Branson area affecting shows adversely?

It would seem that the shows and the community would be in a much better position to find, evaluate, and implement an appropriate solution after such a study. But, if an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull, he’d bet, from a show perspective, that Pogo was right, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

The first paragraph of the column the Ole Seagull had originally written for this space said:

“In terms of the Branson Convention Center’s website shedding light upon the historic downtown business district and Branson Landing, it is almost as if Branson’s historic downtown district is a nebulous black hole somewhere in outer space and Branson Landing is the sun lighting up the universe. When one first looks at the official web site for the Branson Convention Center, www.bransonconvention.com, for information on Branson’s historic downtown district they could get the impression that Branson did not have one even though the convention center is located within that district.”

The primary reasons he wrote the column was because the web site not only ignored Branson’s historic downtown district but also, although listing many other businesses in Branson, did not list any from the historic downtown district. At 4:00 a.m. on Oct.6, the Ole Seagull noticed, for the first time, that the site had been changed since the last, of many times, he had looked at it, 4:00 a.m. on Oct.5, to include a listing of the businesses in Branson’s historic downtown district.

That does not change the lack of information or emphasis on the site relative to the fact that it is located within Branson’s historic downtown district or some other concerns that the Ole Seagull has. It does however address the major concerns that the downtown merchants, the Ole Seagull, and many others had about the businesses from historic downtown not being listed on the site.

For that reason, and because it seems more appropriate to celebrate the moment by expressing thanks to those who made the listings happen, the remainder of the original column will not be published.

A successful business environment for Branson’s businesses requires the same thing that makes Branson’s Lake Taneycomo the successful trout fishery that it is, comparatively speaking, lots of fish. In the case of fishing in Lake Taneycomo, it is enough Rainbow and Brown Trout to provide a quality fishing experience for most of those fishing the Lake. In the case of Branson’s business environment, it is in providing enough potential customers to provide a quality business experience for Branson’s businesses.

The responsibility for insuring that there is a constant supply of trout for Lake Taneycomo’s anglers is the responsibility of the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery. Both the hatchery and Lake Taneycomo are managed to maximize the number and size of trout in Lake Taneycomo. The result, for most anglers, is a quality trout fishing experience.

Whereas a definite physical facility, the hatchery, operated in a specific prescribed manner by one entity, the Missouri Department of Conservation, can, absent natural disaster or calamity, provide enough trout to make Lake Taneycomo a successful fishery, the same cannot be said for providing Branson’s businesses with enough customers to be successful. The hatchery equivalent, in terms of providing enough customers for Branson’s businesses, is marketing.

Whereas the running of a hatchery and managing the Lake Taneycomo fishery is more a matter of science than art, marketing is at least as much art as it is science. In addition, the marketing of Branson involves the active participation and coordination of two primary government entities, the city of Branson and the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District. They finance and administer Branson’s marketing program and select an organization to actually development and implement the marketing program, which is currently the Branson/Lakes Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.

Some might say, “Now hold on there Seagull, what’s all this marketing stuff, isn’t it "things," especially new "things" such as Branson Landing, the Titanic Worlds Largest Museum Attraction, Branson Convention Center, Dick Clark Theatre Complex, the anticipation of the new Sight and Sound theatre that are bringing people to Branson?” To an Ole Seagull the answer is “No.” Simply put, it is the marketing of those "things" and everthing else that Branson is that brings people to Branson.

As an example, when Branson Landing was in the planning stages, one of the city’s nationally recognized consulting firms forecast that existing retail in Branson would suffer about a 19 percent drop in the two years immediately after Branson Landing opened. Yet, as recently as the Budget/Finance Committee held at Branson City Hall on Sep. 25, a city official expressed the opinion that, according to the city’s analysis of sales data, those forecasted drops were not occurring.

Why, what changed? Could a nationally recognized consulting firm be that far off on their estimates? Maybe so, but may an Ole Seagull suggest that they could not possibly have taken into account the effect of a marketing tax that was non existent at the time they made their forecasts. The Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District tax was passed, after a Herculean effort spearheaded by the board, other organizations and people in the community, in Nov. 2005.

The proceeds from that tax, and the astuteness of the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District Board in jump-starting the marketing effort in early 2006, resulted in huge increases in the number of people coming to Branson in 2006. Although the most recent figures indicate the possibility of problems down the road ,if not an anomaly, the number of people coming to Branson thus far in 2007 is greater than in 2006 and Branson still has the strongest part of its season ahead.

Does that mean that every business in Branson is doing well? No more than just because there are plenty of Rainbow and Brown Trout in Lake Taneycomo every fisherman is going to catch their limit. What it means is that Branson’s marketing is working, there are plenty of people coming to Branson and that every business in Branson has an opportunity to earn their patronage and business.

This week’s column is a simple Q and A on questions the Ole Seagull has been asked about the proposed economic development tax and the downtown bridge and, for what they matter, his responses.

1. Does Taney County need an economic development tax? Yes.

2. Why? It is a Class 1 county and one of the fastest growing counties in the state with overall planning, transportation, environmental, quality of life, employment development, and other issues that far outstrip the available financial resources available to solve them.

3. Is the Business Highway 65/MO 76 Bridge across Lake Taneycomo really in danger of being closed down for an extended period? Yes, more than likely, even with the cosmetic treatment its driving surface will receive in the near future, the bridge will transition from its current 3 rating, “Serious Condition” to class 2 “Critical Condition” within the next two to four years

4. Why? After 75 years of wear and tear, the cement deck and its supporting cross beams, upon which the driving surface rests, is deteriorating at an accelerating rate and, if not corrected very soon, will lead to the bridge receiving a rating of 2 by MoDOT which requires that the bridge be shut down.

5. How do you know that is true? Of his own volition, he does not but the Ole Seagull has observed both the process and the people involved with the process and trusts both.

6. It is a MoDOT bridge why not let MoDOT take care of it? We could and they will do so to the best of their ability based on the their prioritization and available funding which, in this case, after an extended closing of the existing bridge, will result in a rehabilitated bridge and round about that will handle the projected traffic for the next 20 years.

7. If that will take care of it why build a new bridge? A new bridge is the preferred solution as part of solving the county’s long-term transportation needs, providing bridge redundancy at a critical point in its transportation system, and having to close down the existing bridge for an extended period and avoiding the economic and quality of life issues associated with such a closing.

8. Was the statement in last weeks column stating “It is almost inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that Taney County does not have the resources and ability to take the lead in obtaining the financing necessary to build a new bridge without the imposition of a new retail sales tax” a sincere statement? Of course it was, the root thought of that statement is not original with the Ole Seagull and, in one form or another, is on the minds of many voters.

9. If that is the case, why do we need the economic development tax? If it was just the bridge alone it wouldn’t be necessary but, as number 2 above indicates, it’s not just the bridge requiring adequate financing.

10. What is “adequate financing?” To an Ole Seagull, it means having enough financing so that the elected representatives of Taney County have the resources to be proactive in meeting the multitude of challenges facing our rapidly growing county rather than reactive.

11. What does that mean? Simply put, it means that the county would not have to use most of the financial resources available to solve one part, the bridge, of one major issue, transportation, at the expense of not only not being able to address another important part of the same major issue, the East West Corridor, but the other major issues facing the county.

12. Why would you have put the tax on the November ballot? For what it matters, the Ole Seagull would not have put it on the Nov. ballot because of the “appearance” it created, lack of time for detailed planning relating to the bridge and other issues, and the fact that if the tax fails it cannot be put back on the ballot for at least a year.

13. What is your recommendation? For what is matters and Number 12 aside, at the end of the day, what it will boil down to for the Ole Seagull is his faith and trust in our Taney County Commissioners and the process that the enabling law for the tax sets forth. For most others he would recommend ignoring what has happened up to this point, listening to what is said between now and the election, observing the leadership of the County Commissioners regarding the issue, evaluating the need for the tax and voting accordingly.

Is it just possible that no new sales taxes are needed to build a new bridge and avoid the closing of the Business Highway 65/MO 76 Bridge across Lake Taneycomo? But even if they are, how is it possible that the same Taney County Commission that put the tax on the ballot doesn’t know what percentage of that tax will be used for a new bridge?

On Sep. 5, a meeting to discuss the bridge and potential solutions was held at Hollister City Hall. Representatives of the cities of Hollister and Branson, Taney County, and the Missouri Department of Transportation, MoDOT attended. All three Taney County Commissioners were present.

The one half of one percent county wide retail sales tax that the commission had just put on the Nov. ballot was mentioned as a potential source of funding for the bridge. Having heard that the proposed tax had evolved from a tax to fund the Taney County Industrial Development Authority, IDA, county parks, and the historical society, the Ole Seagull asked the question, “How much of the proposed tax would go to helping resolve the current problem with the bridge?”

To his great surprise, the consensus of those talking about the proposed tax at the meeting, including all three of the Taney County Commissioners, was that the “steering committee” is still working on that. Well evidently, they are still working on it because when the Ole Seagull asked Taney County Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel the same question, late on the afternoon of Sep. 15, his response was, “At this time the steering group has not told me what the percentages are.”

The first thing that comes to an Ole Seagull’s mind is what is this steering committee stuff? Taney County already has a “steering committee,” elected by the voters, its County Commission, Chuck Pennell, Danny Strahan, and Ron Herschend. These are men that the Ole Seagull knows and respects. When it comes to the steering related to the need for new taxes and how those taxes are going to be spent he expects the steering to be done by them, not some nebulous unelected, and unaccountable, steering committee.

To an Ole Seagull, in terms of how what he calls the “Steering Committee” tax has evolved to its current state, it seems that the bridge is an add-on to improve the chances of getting the tax passed and, what an add on it is! In its earlier stages, it was a one eighth of one percent. Now it has grown to one half of one percent, a 300 percent increase, ostensibly because of the bridge.

Yet, there has not been one public announcement relative to what percentage of the Steering Committee tax is intended to be devoted to that purpose. More importantly, there has been no announcement of what the Taney County Commission that put the tax on the ballot will do to insure that, in fact, that percentage is devoted to solving the issues involved with the bridge.

Perhaps the more burning issue is whether an increase in the retail sales tax is even needed to build a new bridge. As was recently pointed out in connection with the emergency funding of the assessor’s office, Taney County has millions in a contingency fund. If they have that much for emergencies how much more does it have in other reserve funds? If the city of Branson’s sales tax revenues have grown by 15 percent over the record year of 2006, hasn’t the same thing happened at the county level?

It is almost inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that Taney County does not have the resources and ability to take the lead in obtaining the financing necessary to build a new bridge without the imposition of a new retail sales tax. In any event, is it inappropriate to ask just how much effort was spent exploring alternative methods of financing a new bridge before it was thrown in the Steering Committee tax increase hopper with the IDA, county parks, the historical society and, under the law that governs this particular tax, potentially a lot of other things?

Who can forget the 1984 Wendy ads where an 81 year old actress, Clara Peller, asked the question, “Where’s the beef?” The words, “Where’s the beef?” quickly became part of America’s lexicon and took on a meaning that expanded far beyond the boundaries of a mere sandwich to become an instant catchphrase for “Where’s the substance.” In Branson, “Where’s the beef could be applied to a number of different situations.

“Where’s the beef” that built Branson to the point where it is today? The simple fact is that the “beef” that built Branson to the point where it is today is its shows and attractions and their effective marketing.

In the1984 ads, Wendy’s was trying to use the “beef” in their sandwiches, the amount or otherwise, to differentiate themselves from their competition. They wanted potential customers to choose Wendy’s over all of the other fast food choices that were available to them. Is it much different in the vacation destination business?

Since its very early stages, Branson has wanted potential customers, visitors, to pick Branson over all the other vacation destination choices available to them. History testifies to the simple undisputable fact that the “beef” that has drawn millions upon millions of visitors to Branson over the years is its shows and attractions.

“Oh no Seagull, you have it wrong. In terms of a general category of things that people do when they come to Branson isn’t shopping the number one activity?” Outside of eating, that might very well be, but people are going to shop and eat wherever they are, whether vacationing or not. The obvious fact is that for that shopping to take place in Branson, the person doing the shopping must be in Branson.

Does not Branson’s actual history, from the late 50’s through the end of Dec. 31, 1990, testify to the fact that it was the category of shows and attractions, not shopping that caused people to choose to visit Branson? When they came they shopped but to shop in Branson they first had to come to Branson and come they did. Was it any different between Jan. 1, 1991 and Dec. 31 2000 or Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2005?

How many people believe that the original malls built in Branson, let alone Branson Landing, would have been built if there were not already millions of people coming to Branson? What was the primary reason those millions of people chose to come to Branson? Amidst all the new government financed glitz and glamour may an Ole Seagull suggest that it was Branson’s shows and attractions?

There are those who would say that the shows and attractions, especially the shows, have served their usefulness and that Branson must move on to new things if it is to be successful in the future. The caution that an Ole Seagull would give is to suggest that it is Branson’s shows and attractions, and the type of shows and attractions it has to offer, that provide a major part of our areas uniqueness. They are the primary reason that the vast majority of it’s visitors not only chose to come to Branson in the first place but return on a regular basis.

But Seagull, didn’t your column of last week ,entitled,“Why aren’t more people playing at Branson’s shows,” try “to dismiss the concern of the shows and other community members regarding the recent trend of visitors seeing less shows while they are in Branson?” Au contraire, on balance, what it did was acknowledge the reality of what is, the current environment within which shows must compete, not only for customers but marketing emphasis, and suggest some elements that some shows might want to look at to improve their situation.

It clearly establishes the answer to the question of “where the beef is” in Branson’s never ending extravaganza of entertainment opportunities. As it has always been, and must remain if the Branson entertainment experience is to keep from becoming simply another cornflake in a box of destination cornflakes, it is in the uniqueness of Branson’s shows and attractions and their effective marketing.

The comments of Branson Alderman Jack Purvis to the contrary, the downtown merchants, as well as the other citizens and businesses of Branson, have every reason to rely on the credibility the current Mayor and board of aldermen. The sad thing is that without the April election, where a new mayor and three new aldermen were elected, Purvis would have been 100 percent right but now, in terms of the current board of aldermen, he is only half right but still wrong.

Purvis’s comments came while the board was in the process of discussing the proposed Parking Garage Management Agreement between the city of Branson and the Hilton Hotels Corporation. As part of that discussion, Deana Acton, President of the Downtown Branson Main Street Association, spoke on behalf of the association about their concern with language in the agreement that appeared to limit the number of monthly parking spaces to 20. At no time during her presentation did she speak about the credibility of the board, the trust that the downtown merchants had in the board or request anything in writing from the board.

Alderman Stan Barker had just commented regarding the fact that what was being discussed was the contract with Hilton, it should contain nothing that would tie the hands of the board in dealing with needs of the downtown merchants for parking in the facility, and expressed his belief that the board was committed to meeting the parking needs of the downtown merchants. Then, from out of left field, Purvis blesses all those in attendance, with his wisdom regarding what was being discussed at the time.

Purvis said, “I’m afraid that I don’t agree with my friend and neighbor Mr. Barker and our credibility is, on a scale of one to ten, with the downtown merchants right now, I think, about a minus 10.” First, what is his basis for making that inane statement? It certainly wasn’t based on anything that Acton or anyone else at the meeting said.

The second and more onerous issue is his use of the word “our” in what appears to be an attempt to revise history and stigmatize the newly elected board members with the type of credibility and fairness that a number of people in the community attached to the previous administration. Surely Purvis remembers.

It’s the one he was a member of. The administration which lost its choke hold on the community as a result of the overwhelming results in the April election when a new mayor and three new aldermen were elected to, as newly elected Alderman Bob McDowell said, “Earn back the benefit of the doubt position from the community.”

Purvis then goes on to point out that the downtown business owners taxed themselves to pay for half the cost of a public garage and said, “We took the top level away from them” and “Our word has not been all that great Mr. Barker.” He continued, “I don’t think that we have been fair with them over the last year and a half and I don’t see why they should trust us to be fair with them again…”

What is this “we,” “our” and “us” stuff? Did the current board create the credibility, fairness, and other issues that Purvis is referring to? Most reasonable people would agree that the answer is “No” and that, if Purvis is correct, they were created by the previous board, of which Purvis and two other members of the current board, who did not have to run for reelection in April, Alderman Stan Barker and Alderman Dick Gass were members.

“But Seagull, if Purvis, Barker, and Gass compose half of the new board doesn’t that make Purvis half right?” The Ole Seagull knows that you asked first but, “Is a person who makes it half way across Highway 65 before getting hit by a dump truck traveling at 60 miles per hours “half right” or a hood ornament?

It is one thing for the new board to do what must be done to “Earn back the benefit of the doubt position from the community” that the previous board squandered away. It is entirely another thing however, to even imply that the new board was in any way responsible for creating the situation. The ironic part about Purvis’s grandstanding and comments is that they illustrate the very credibility problem of which he speaks.

In a city where legalistic manipulation and interpretation has been used to call land that a developer was reimbursed over $100,000 an acre for “blighted” or to say that the city of Branson owns the name “Branson” is it any surprise that a “bicycle” could meet the legal definition of a “skateboard?” Or is it that a skateboard could meet the definition of a bicycle?

To help in the analysis of those two weighty questions, let’s start off with a simple two choice multiple choice question, “A two wheeled device powered by the user is “a. Skateboard” or “b. Bicycle?” Actually, thanks, at least in part, to the same legal leadership that led the city into the Branson “name gate” fiasco, both would be correct under proposed changes to an ordinance that were presented to the Branson Board of Aldermen at their Aug. 27 meeting.

In the Aug. 26 edition of this paper the Ole Seagull reported, “The board will also consider an ordinance prohibiting the riding of any non-motorized skate, skateboard or scooter, or any type of non-motorized vehicle, including bicycles, upon any parking lot, sidewalk, pedestrian ramp, public parking garage facility, retaining wall, stairway, step, stonework, or similar structure, located on property owned or controlled by the City of Branson…” On Aug. 30, the city of Branson’s Public Information Director, Jerry Adams, called the Ole Seagull to let him know that the proposed ordinance didn’t pertain to bicycles, that the article was in error, and that a citizen had attended the meeting because of that error.

Didn’t the board itself actually approve a motion, by a 6 to 0 vote, to postpone taking any action on the proposed ordinance until its Sep. 24 meeting? Didn’t that motion say that the action was being taken so that city attorney Paul Link, “Has an opportunity to further look into this and see what a non motorized vehicle is, if that is a bicycle and to come back to us with some definition of terminology in Section F and to make some further recommendations to us.”

Doesn’t subsection G of the proposed change, say “The term Skate, Skateboard or Scooter shall be defined as any one, two three or four wheeled device powered by the user?” Is a bicycle not a two wheeled device powered by the user?

“Oh come on Seagull, use a little common sense?” When it comes to the legalistic, the time to use common sense is before a law is passed because after it’s passed it will mean what the judges, lawyers, and those with the controlling power, money, and vested interests say it means. Common sense would tell most people that a piece of vacant land valued at $100,000 plus per acre isn’t blighted but the law says it is. Common sense would tell most people that a skateboard and a bicycle are not the same thing but that’s not the way the proposed change was written.

How much easier it would have been if the person having the legal responsibility for writing the proposed change had simply added the words “except for bicycles after the word “user” in the proposed subsection G, kept subsection F simple by omitting the words “any type of non-motorized vehicle,” and put all the regulations pertaining to bicycles in one appropriately titled subsection and all those pertaining to the operation of skates, skateboards and scooters in another.

Just today, for the second day in a row, the Ole Seagull noticed an adult riding their bicycle down the side walk on Commercial Street. When he stopped the person and asked them if they knew it was against the law to do so they said they did not. Wouldn’t it be a better use of Adam’s time to write a press release telling citizens that it is a violation of the law to ride a bicycle on a public sidewalk in a business district?

There are people in Branson who actually believe that Branson’s shows are “down” because of a variety of alleged reasons from free shows being offered at Branson Landing to inadequate marketing emphasis. Give an Ole Seagull a break, 86 percent of all the people who come to Branson see one or more shows. If an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull, he’d bet that, statistically, the only activities participated in by more people coming to Branson, day tripper and overnighter alike, than shows, are eating, shopping, and going to the bathroom.

Branson’s marketing brand proudly proclaims to the world the illusion that “Someone you love is always playing in Branson.” What the message doesn’t promise is that the “someone” will “always” be “playing” in a show or theater and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

One of the Ole Seagull’s favorite entertainers, Shoji Tabuchi, has from time to time explained the difference between a “fiddle” and a “violin” to his audiences. Shoji points out that both a fiddle and a violin are the same instrument and that the only difference between the two is the way one fiddles around with it. Said another way, the difference, to one listening, is the way the instrument is being played.

In a similar manner, visitors coming to Branson are “playing” with the same entertainment mix and choices. It is how the visitor chooses to play within that mix that determines, not only the type of personal experience they will have while in Branson but, whether or not they will be playing in shows and, if so, what shows. The latest and best marketing statistics indicate that about 86 percent of the adult visitors coming to Branson will be playing in one show and perhaps in as many as 3.66 shows, while in Branson.

Yet, the truth of the matter is that there are some shows doing real well, some doing alright, and others in trouble. There are shows that market well and those that don’t, shows that maintain a consistency of quality from year to year and those that don’t and there are shows that update their material and costuming every year to adapt to Branson’s ever changing audiences and entertainment environment and those that don’t. When it comes to the financing necessary for a show to succeed there are those, particularly new shows, that are adequately financed and those that aren’t. Oh, and not least of all, it should be noted that there are an awful lot of shows competing for each visitor playing in Branson.

“But Seagull, the problems for shows don’t end there. They have to compete against everything else that Branson has to offer, outdoor activities, lakes, shopping, attractions, museums, just relaxing, fine dining, not to mention that about 63.4 percent Branson’s visitors go down to Branson Landing and spend about two hours each there.” Get over it! It’s not only shows that have to compete for the business of those playing in Branson, its what every tourism related Branson business has done for years and must continue to do to be successful.

Shows should be rejoicing in the fact that 63.4 percent of the visitors coming to Branson spend a little over two hours of their total time in Branson visiting Branson Landing. Why? Well, why not? Isn’t it just another of the exciting ways that visitors coming to Branson can play. Besides, if the average visitor spends 4.17 days in Branson, of which only about two hours is spent at Branson Landing, doesn’t that leave an enormous amount of time for them to see a show? Also, the occasional show on the public square to the contrary, isn’t it basically a non-competitive environment?

Evidently so, because the latest marketing statistics indicate that about 86 percent of the people coming to Branson see one or more shows. Isn’t the average number of shows seen per party about 3.66? “Ah, but Seagull, that number has declined from 4.23 in 2004.”

May an Ole Seagull suggest that what should be important to a given show is the number of visitors playing in Branson that choose to make that show part of their Branson experience. If a given shows numbers aren’t what is expected or needed to be successful the question that must be asked is, “Why?” Is it more a function of internal factors directly related to that show and under its control or external factors over which it has minimal if any control? In most cases the answer will be obvious.

Is there a relationship between the need for low income housing in Branson and a possible conspiracy to curtail commercial business growth and wage increases in Branson? Well, according to “Grizzly” there just might be.

This week’s column is based on a thread entitled “SLOW DOWN, Take Breath, GROWTH” started by a poster using the screen name “Grizzly,” on the internet site, www.1Branson.Com/forum, with which the Ole Seagull is affiliated. The thread is posted, under the sub-forum entitled “Local Branson Tri-Lakes Area Issues.”

Grizzly writes, “The City of Branson has clearly taken on the new attitude toward growth that was explained and demonstrated recently in the media. Mayor Presley chose to use Mr. Dody’s departure to explain that while under his leadership we experienced massive growth in certain sectors we also fell short in developing lower income housing for employees of the area.”

Interestingly enough, immediately after making that statement Grizzly says, “I AGREE however, that is not the responsibility of the city, or the city administrator. That is a matter for the market, and the market will not be capable of meeting the demand because the family income level is not high enough.”

Incredulously, in the very next sentence Grizzly goes on to state, “For those of you that love to see conspiracy in every action look long and hard at this one folks. The new theory is curtail commercial business growth and give the housing market a chance to catch up. OR at least that is the current rhetoric. What you may really be experiencing is an attempt to curtail wage increases and stifle [the] job market. Listen carefully and you hear how there are not enough employees to go around now, so we need to slow growth. EMPLOYEES of Branson let me interpret please.”

The scariest part of the whole thing is the part where Grizzly says, “EMPLOYEES of Branson let me interpret please.” Let’s hope that the interpretation is better than the one given in this case. How can a reasonable person interpret a possible conspiracy to “curtail commercial business growth” and “an attempt to curtail wage increases and stifle the job market” from a statement reiterating the generally held community belief that there is a need for affordable housing in the Branson area?

How is it a conspiracy “to curtail growth” if anyone who wants to develop a project in Branson is free to do so, providing they comply with the same applicable ordinances and procedures everyone else does and finance and build that project from their own resources, not from the public’s pocket book? To an Ole Seagull the answer is simple, “It isn’t.”

Now, the Ole Seagull knows that there are a lot of folks who believe that it’s the big developers, government financing and intervention through Tax Increment Financing, (TIFs) etc., that “power” Branson’s economic engine. He would respectfully suggest however, that even as a car manufacturer builds a car so too do they build Branson’s economic engine.

What powers the car is gasoline. The gasoline that powers Branson’s economic engine is its workforce. Without an adequate workforce Branson’s economy would move about as far down the road of economic success as a car without gas would move down the High Road.

Is it more reasonable to use government funding, power, resources, and influence to help provide housing for that workforce or to use it for the benefit of a few big developers to create more of the same types of jobs and salaries that don’t permit the majority of those working those jobs to earn enough to raise their families? To an Ole Seagull the answer seems obvious.

The truth of the matter is that for the next 99 years or so, the public square at Branson Landing is not “owned” by the public. Yet, never has the public had more access to, or made more use of, the area occupied by Branson Landing’s public square.

First, the reality of the situation because, like it or not, it is what it is. In a general sense, the land east of Branson Landing Boulevard to the eastern boundary of the city of Branson in Lake Taneycomo is, for all practical purposes, private for about the next 99 years. Why? The owners of that land, the city of Branson, entered into a 99 year lease with the developer of the Branson Landing project, HCW Development.

As is the case with any other lease, as long as the lessee, HCW Development, HCW, pays the rent and otherwise complies with the conditions of the lease, it has the right to use the property in any legal manner it chooses without interference from the lessor, the city. Does that mean that Branson Landing it is not subject to city regulations and laws?

Absolutely not, but it is not subject to any additional requirements either. As an example, city health inspectors may inspect businesses located on the private property of Branson Landing just as they would inspect any other business. City police and fire would respond to, and treat, situations at Branson Landing in the same manner as they would similar situations on any other private property in Branson.

The bottom line is that the “public square,” or as some call it the “town square, is for all practical purposes under the control of HCW for the next 99 years subject only to the conditions in its lease with the city. If there are no conditions in the lease relating to a particular use or situation in the lease the city has no control. If there is, the city has the control authorized by those conditions.

Basically, the lease contains no provision that gives the city of Branson any real control over what the public square is used for. If the lessee wants to sell beer out of kiosks in the public square, and can do so legally, the city can’t stop it under the terms of the lease. Could the city have negotiated a provision into the lease prohibiting the sale of beer from kiosks on the public square? The answer is “Yes” but what it could have done, might have done, or, in some people’s minds, should have done, is immaterial. It did what it did.

The major provision in the lease giving the city a say over the use of the public square relates to the city’s right to use it for events that it wants to sponsor and up to 12 days per year of events sponsored by other organizations, designated by the city. However, among other conditions, such use is subject to availability and the payment of certain fees to reimburse HCW for the costs of providing the necessary services and facilities. Since the opening of Branson Landing, over a year ago, the city has made minimal use of this provision.

Yet, on most days, thousands of people use the public square to view Lake Taneycomo, watch the fire and water show, or just relax for a moment while they are at the Landing. At other times, thousands gather on the public square to listen to the concerts or participate in the entertainment or other events that HCW is providing, generally for free, as part of the ambiance that makes up the Branson Landing experience.

In the final analysis, Branson Landing’s public square, in a very real and practical sense, is available and used on a daily basis for the use and entertainment of Branson’s citizens and visitors alike. In an Ole Seagull’s mind that makes Branson Landing’s public square our public square and, to him, that’s a good thing.

This week’s column is a response to a post made to a thread entitled “State enforcement agency admits that Branson Landing kiosk beer permit vague,” that the Ole Seagull started in the forum of a website he is involved with, www.1Branson.com. The post is under the topic “Other Branson/Tri-Lakes Issues,” was posted on July 26 and has had 27 posts and 309 views as this is being written. The topic is so very timely and pertinent to the events currently going on within the city of Branson that the Ole Seagull wanted to share it with the whole community through the printed medium rather than simply posting it on line to a relatively small segment of that community.

The post is made by an individual who has identified themselves as BransonMoTiger. It very concisely and tightly discusses the alcohol issue that is currently being addressed within our community and asks an apparently rhetorical question about how one can then blame the city administrator and current city attorney “in this so called “liqueor-gate?”

BransonMoTiger then goes on to answer their own question by saying, “Because those who are complaining the loudest are those who either (1) made a campaign pledge as a candidate to, when elected, fire the city administrator and attorney or (2) citizens who supported candidates who promised to do the “firing” if elected.” Oh really, was it even a “candidate” that brought the issue up recently or was it a citizen, during a “Public Comment Meeting” of the board, that had a specific concern? Were the Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he would bet that, at this juncture, BransonMoTiger doesn’t even know the name of that person let alone who they supported in the election.

Even a cursory review of the recordings of the recent meetings, discussing the issue of beer being consumed on the public access areas of Branson Landing, will indicate that one of the most outspoken and sincere individuals regarding this issue is Alderman Jack Purvis. Obviously, as a board member not up for reelection he was not a candidate and surely, BransonMoTiger has to know, or should know, that, to put it mildly, Purvis was not a citizen who, assuming that a candidate did, would have supported any candidate who promised to fire either Dody or Link.

Indeed, is it even possible that Purvis himself also brought up the issue of people carrying open containers of beer at least once prior to the election? And what was the reason no action was taken on his concern at that time?

BransonMoTiger then continues, “Ultimately, the alcohol issue is not important to the “new slate” of aldermen and mayor, who are not driven by a Carrie Nation type of prohibition frenzy.” What is the basis for BransonMoTiger’s conclusion that “the alcohol issue is not important to the “new slate” of aldermen and mayor? Why would it be any more or less important to them than the other three aldermen? You know, the ones who make up the rest of the very board of aldermen that, according to a July 23 press release issued by the city of Branson, unanimously voted and “passed a motion to review and strengthen the city’s liquor ordinances.”

The post continues by stating, “They are just looking for a supposed reason to fire Terry Doty and Paul Link.” That seems contradictory to what the city’s press release says as it goes on to state, “The motion, which unanimously passed, would set up a community task force to review current liquor ordinances for greater control, check other cities’ liquor control ordinances, and then make a recommendation back to the aldermen. The Board also wants to eventually form a city liquor control commission to enforce state and municipal liquor laws.”

To an Ole Seagull, the boards handling of this issue in the professional and efficient manner that it did, in spite of the contradictory advice received from both Dody and Link, speaks for itself and had nothing to do with the firing of either. One would hope, regardless of the outcome, that should such firing become an issue in the future that the board would handle that issue in the same professional and efficient manner.

As some have noticed, the Ole Seagull has recently started doing some reporting in addition to writing a weekly column. Strange as it may seem, the major guiding percepts for criminal investigators, reporters, columnists, and just about anyone who wants or needs more than conclusions were all set forth and summarized in the first line of a poem contained in a short story by Rudyard Kipling. He wrote “I keep six honest serving-men, they taught me all I knew; their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.”

The Ole Seagull first learned them just about 40 years ago as he went through the basic law enforcement training course that all U.S. Treasury Agents went through and they have served him well. Yet, the six are not equally weighted in terms of use and, in some situations, not all will be used. The Who, Where, When, and What are pretty basic factual determinations in the majority of situations. The How and Why of a given situation is more an art than a science and are susceptible to opinion and conjecture. It is a necessary part of every investigation and an opinion columnist’s world, but not necessarily every reporting situation.

As an example, as a reporter, the Ole Seagull, in reporting on what was said at a particular meeting, wrote a news article in the July 20 edition of this paper entitled, “Branson alderman warns city administrator and attorney about erroneous information,” which is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Local News.”

The article reported that, at a July 9 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, city attorney Paul Link responded to a request made by Mayor Raeanne Presley for information regarding the area within Branson Landing where beer purchased at a particular kiosk could legally be consumed. It quoted Link as saying, “In a nutshell, as has been stated here many times in public meetings, Branson Landing is private property. The liquor license that allows that kiosk [Chicago Hotdogs] to sell beer by the fountains extends for the Branson Landing property and it’s completely legal for someone to buy a beer at that kiosk and walk on the Landing because its private property.”

From a basic reporting point of view there was the Who, What, Where, and When. No one asked Why or How Link had reached that conclusion and, if history is any witness, had it been the previous elected leaders ship of Branson, as it was constituted before its change during the April elections, Link’s statement would have been accepted as “gospel and that would have been the end of it.

The news article reported that, at a board of alderman’s workshop held on July 17, after there was some indication questioning the basis for the conclusions contained in Links July 9 statement, that the following exchange took place between Link and city alderman, Stephen Marshall starting with a question asked by Marshall. “So Paul, how do you tell us, tell me, that it’s the whole thing that was licensed?” Link responded, “That was my understanding and I think, the city’s understanding.” Marshall then asked, “Who gave you that understanding?” Link replied, “That has been my understanding since I came down here and the reason why I, honestly, didn’t call liquor control and get the exact boundaries was because it was private property.”

The honest serving-men named What, When, Where and Who have done their job and the reader has the facts. However, the columnist in an Ole Seagull has to ask two questions.

How could a city attorney, or any other professional for that matter, respond to the mayors request and tell the board, as a matter of fact, what Link did during the Jul 9 meeting without having the professionalism to at least have done the basic research to determine that what they were saying was true? Why would anyone give anymore credence to the opinion of a person who would do such a thing than they would give to the person who sent the Branson Namegate letter of Sep. 15, 2006?

“But Seagull, what if he was right?” Does it really make any difference?

The question is simple, how will the closing of the “Business 65 Bridge” over Lake Taneycomo for a year or more impact on our community and the lives of the thousands of people and the many businesses that use and depend on it daily, in terms of safety, economic impact, convenience, and quality of life? Unfortunately, the answers to the question are not as simple and, as often as not, lead to more questions without simple answers.

A recent news article reported the good news, that according to Missouri Department of Transportation, MoDOT, Project Manager Chad Zickefoose, “The bridge isn’t in any danger of falling in.” Unfortunately, it also reported the bad news which, according to Zickefoose, is that “The deck is deteriorating fast” and will require repairs which will necessitate the closing of the bridge. Zickefoose is reported to have said that the closure would be for “a significant amount of time… in the vicinity of a year plus.”

When discussing this potentially hot button issue, the wise words of Hollister’s city administrator, Rick Ziegenfuss, come to mind. He said, “I feel very confident that MoDOT and the principals involved want to do the best they can for the area.” The Ole Seagull shares that sentiment, particularly as applies to MoDot and the personnel of District 8. Simply put, there are very few people that travel in and around the Branson area that do not reap the blessings of their efforts on our behalf.

That said however, it is hard to understand how a project of this magnitude, having this much impact on our community, could progress to the point of a public announcement of apparently being a “done deal” without more public awareness of what was going on. Why was there not more public discourse on the issue and how the proposed action ties into the overall long term comprehensive transportation plan for solving the immediate and future transportation needs of those traveling, living, and working in the area east of Lake Taneycomo?

To an Ole Seagull the governing words here are not “more public discourse.” The governing words are “How the proposed action ties into the overall long term comprehensive transportation plan” for solving the obvious, and growing transportation needs that have been present since before the building of the Ozark Mountain Highroad. Time can dim the mind and lead some to hope that history will change the reality of what was done. Over a hundred million dollars was spent to build the Highroad on a priority emergency basis for the alleged expressed purpose of relieving Branson’s traffic congestion.

Oh there was plenty of public discourse, but what there wasn’t was an overall long term comprehensive transportation plan showing, how, with the funds and resources available at the time, that the expenditure of over a hundred million dollars would solve Branson’s traffic congestion problem as it existed at the time. History and today’s reality testify as to how effective the expenditure of those millions of dollars was in solving the problem. Praise God for the city of Branson’s initiative in building its alternative road system!

Although, the building of the Highroad cost over a hundred million dollars, it did not impact on the daily lives of the number of people and businesses or entail the community sacrifice that the closing of the Taneycomo Bridge will. Before our community pays that price and makes that sacrifice, is it totally inappropriate to ask to see an overall long term comprehensive transportation plan for solving the immediate and future transportation needs of those traveling, living, and working in Taney County east of Lake Taneycomo?

You know, the overall plan developed jointly by MoDot and the principals most directly involved, the cities of Branson and Hollister, and Taney County. The one that presents a coordinated and agreed upon approach to solving the immediate and future transportation needs of the effected area. The more the Ole Seagull inquires about the existence of such a plan however the more he just gets a queasy Highroad déjà vu kind of feeling.

The recent “Bransongate” embarrassment was couched in terms of preserving the “purity” of Branson’s name from those who would deflower it by the city’s senior unelected leadership and elected leadership, as it was composed prior to the April mayoral and aldermanic elections. But, is there just the possibility that the primary motivation was more concerned about getting one particular business to drop the term “Branson” from its name than anything else?

What could possibly lead one to even think that? Well how about starting with the fact that there are only two businesses registered with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office with the term “Branson Sports” in them. One is “Branson Sports Club, Inc.” which was first registered with the state of Missouri on Apr. 9, 2003. It is a nonprofit corporation that lists its Registered Agent is Pamela Sue Dapprich, 414 Buchanan Road, Branson, Missouri 65615. The other is “Branson Sport Incorporated” which was first registered with the state on Aug. 29, 2005. It is a general business corporation that lists its Registered Agent as Jeffery Scott Nichols, 167 Jack Hollow Road, Walnut Shade, Missouri 65771.

Interestingly, one of those two businesses was, and still is, involved in bringing sporting events into the city of Branson’s new RecPlex at a charge of hundreds of dollars per team thus providing direct and peripheral revenues for the city of Branson. It appears that at a time when the city of Branson was doing business with a entity having the name “Branson” in its name and either knew or should have known that it was outside the city limits of Branson, Branson Sports Incorporated of Walnut Shade, it sent the now infamous letter of Sep. 15, 2006 to the only other business in Missouri with “Branson Sports” in its name, Branson Sports Club, Inc.

That was the letter signed by Branson City Attorney Paul Link sent only to “Branson Sports Club, Inc., informing them of the fact that “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI” and that the use of the term “Branson” in its name was a deceptive trade practice and “constitutes trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C 1114(1); false designation of geographic origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and violates state trademark statutes and common law principle of unfair competition and misappropriation?”

The same letter that said, “Within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, we expect to receive from you a written undertaking that you will formally change the name of your business to delete all references to ‘Branson.’ Alternatively, if you would consent to annexation into the City of Branson when the City is ready to take you in, then we would not prohibit the use of ‘Branson’ in your name.”

At first blush it would appear that there are two choices. However, when one considers that Pam Dapprich was very outspoken against annexation into the city of Branson, could not a reasonable person conclude that there was really only one viable intended choice left for Branson Sports Club, Inc., the deletion of all references to “Branson” from its name?

“Oh come on Seagull, isn’t that a little far fetched?” Why, is it any less far fetched to believe that it is just a coincidence that a business having a name similar to a business working with the city to develop revenues for the Branson RecPlex, Branson Sports Club, Inc, got the type of letter it did when neither the business working with the city, Branson Sports Incorporated, or any other business entity received such a letter until things blew up in the city’s face?

If an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull he’d bet that the real reason the letter was sent to Branson Sport Club, Inc. was to try to get them to drop Branson out of its name, not to try to get them to annex into the city or otherwise help them. Unfortunately, when it’s ill advised, deceitful and intimidating letter became public and the city elected to react in the manner that it did, Bransongate became a sad and embarrassing part of Branson’s history.

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.” In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of Mexican General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming and killing everyone of its 189 defenders.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis and the spirit of the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since? What are we to remember? Was it their courage or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long, the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win, or a combination of these factors?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Church within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It meant surrender or die. Despite the odds against them, instead of surrender, it was answered with cannon fire from the defenders of the Alamo.

Days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or of fighting on and the certainty of death. The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.

All, but one, chose to fight on. Unknown to them at the time however, was the special place in history where their choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause, is revered and preserved.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they “…rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?” Their individual reasons probably varied the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes. They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was in the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2006, from Valley Forge to Bagdad, and countless places in between, America’s greatness, and very existence has depended on that “spirit” and those willing to commit and sacrifice their all for it.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation. May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and will not long endure. Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

A recent survey of about 30 businesses in Historic Downtown Branson is being used to define the current health of business in the Historic District. The results of the survey could be summed up in a paraphrase of a line written by Sir Walter Scott, “Breathes there a business with its soul so dead who never to itself hath said, “Ouch?”

The survey shows that of the approximately 30 businesses surveyed, 90% suffered a decrease in sales and 10% received an increase in sales between March 2006 and December 2006 as compared to the same period in 2005. The businesses suffering a decrease in sales during the period suffered an average of a 19% decrease while those having a gain averaged only five percent.

According to the survey, it doesn’t get any better in 2007. The same survey indicates that between March and May of 2007, 90% of the businesses surveyed suffered a decrease in sales and 10% received an increase in sales as compared to the same period in 2006. Even more astounding is the fact that the businesses suffering a decrease in sales during the period suffered an average of about 22% while those having a gain averaged 29%.

The survey goes on to point out that it might be more than an “ouch” for a lot of businesses in Branson’s Historic District. About 37% of the businesses surveyed indicated that their business was in danger of having to close their doors, 50% said that their net profit was less in 2006 than in 2005 and 41% indicated that that they had to borrow money or use savings to reopen in 2007.

Now a knee jerk reaction could be, “Why is anyone surprised, didn’t the city of Branson’s own consultants say that Branson’s existing retail establishments would take an 18 to 20% hit for the first two years that Branson Landing was open?” Yet, although the answer to that question is “Yes,” when the survey asked the question, “To what do you personally attribute your decrease?” only about 32% even mentioned the name of Branson Landing either directly or indirectly as being responsible for the decrease.

About 26% of the survey’s answers said that inadequate parking was the cause of the decrease. Now some might say, “Well Seagull, if you add the 26% parking to the 32% related to Branson Landing isn’t that about 58% related to Branson Landing?” Not really because to do that, one would have to assume that the downtowns parking problems are all the fault of Branson Landing and that simply is not the truth.

A public meeting between the Branson Board of Aldermen, Mayor Pressley, and downtown businesses held on Jun. 28 indicates there are a variety of reasons why there is not enough parking in the downtown area, not the least of which is the employees of businesses in the Historic Downtown area are parking in spaces intended for customers and a lot of the spaces are taken up by the construction of the convention center.

The sad fact of the matter is that there is going to be a continuing parking problem in downtown Branson even after the construction on the convention center is done and it will not be the fault of Branson Landing. The new parking garage has about 498 spaces and the parking lot off the south end of the convention center has about 462 spaces for a total of about 960 spaces.

Sounds good but what happens when 295 Hilton spaces are taken out of the new garage and about 110 or more of the spaces in the garage are rented out to downtown merchants on a monthly basis. How many spaces are left in the garage for the convention center and other public parking? Is it 93? What happens when there is a consumer show at the convention center that is drawing 3,000 visitors for the day? Don’t know for sure but it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to hold “Plumb Nellie Days” while it was going on.

May an Ole Seagull suggest that one of the most immediate problems that downtown has is not Branson Landing but inadequate parking. Could part of a quick and efficient solution, that could be implemented almost immediately, be the addition of adequate signage throughout the downtown area saying, “2 Hour Parking Strictly Enforced- Fine $200” and the enforcement of downtown parking regulations on Saturday and Sunday?

Prior to the April elections, there was the sense of a basic disconnection between the government of the city of Branson and a lot of the people and businesses that it served. In large part this was caused by the public’s perception of the attitude of certain high level nonelected city officials and the failure of Branson’s elected mayor and aldermen to even recognize that there was a problem let alone correct it. While running for the office of mayor, prior to the April election, then candidate, now newly elected city of Branson mayor, Raeanne Presley described the situation as an “attitude at city hall that borders on arrogance” and pledged that if elected that attitude “will not stand.”

Well the April elections have come and gone and the voters overwhelmingly voted for change as they voted out long term incumbents in both the mayoral and aldermen races. The net result is that out of the seven elected governing positions, the mayor and six aldermen, there are now four new people, mayor, Raeanne Presley, and three new aldermen, Stephen Marshall, Sandra Williams, and Bob McDowell. Alderman Dick Gass, Jack Purvis, and Stan Barker, from the previous administration, did not have to stand for reelection and comprise the other three aldermen on the board.

The question that comes to mind is what has changed since the election? Perhaps a chance encounter that the Ole Seagull had recently can shed some light on the situation. As he was walking down the promenade at one of Branson newest attractions, Branson Landing, an employee standing outside the door of their establishment asked “Are you the real one?” After making sure that he liked at least some of his columns, the Ole Seagull “fessed up” and had the pleasure of chatting with him for a few minutes.

The very first thing the person said was words to the effect of, “It seems like things are changing for the better at city hall since the election.” The very next thing however, was the question, “Are things really as they seem?” The answer to that question is an overwhelming, “Yes!”

Perhaps the greatest evidence of the change is apparent in the actions and conduct of city of Branson’s administrator, Terry Dody, and its attorney Paul Link during the board’s business meetings. It is obvious to all in attendance that Mayor Presley has made good on her promise that if elected the arrogance at city hall “would not stand.”

Prior to the election, the “Branson Namegate” issue caused great public concern not only because of the pettiness of the city of Branson saying it had some legal right to control the term “Branson” but with some of the abusive intimidating tactics involved with the effort to do so. One of the first acts of the new mayor and board of aldermen, after being elected, was to reverse the actions of the previous administration in this regard.

In the short time the new administration has been in office, changes have been put into effect that make the city of Branson’s government more people friendly and open. As but a few examples, the city’s ordinances are now available on line, there are expanded written minutes, on line audio files of the board of aldermen meetings, and meeting agendas are available enough in advance so that the public and their elected officials have time to prepare for those meetings. Members of the public have been added to each of the city’s administrative/supervisory committees and there is open public discussion of topics that, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, under the previous administration, would have been discussed primarily in closed executive session.

When he was running for office prior to the Apr. election, then candidate Bob McDowell, in speaking of the manner in which he believed the public perceived the previous administration, said, “They have lost the benefit of the doubt position.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, in the short time of their new administration, aldermen McDowell, Williams, Marshall and mayor Presley have made huge strides towards regaining that “benefit of the doubt position” in the hearts and minds of those they govern. Thank you!

At the city of Branson’s Alderman’s public Work Session on June 5, Alderwomen Sandra Williams said words to the effect that she disagreed with changing the time limit of speakers from ten to five minutes and that she would be making a statement against it when the issue came up at the Jun. 11 Branson Board of Alderman’s meeting but that she would be nice about it. Alderman Jack Purvis said words to the effect of, “As long as you’re nice about it.” Oh, that he had had the class and wisdom to stop there but, he demonstrated neither. Instead, Purvis went on to say, “Just don’t Dapprich us, OK.”

Pam Dapprich had been waging a tenacious and persistent battle seeking an apology from the city of Branson for the now infamous “Branson Namegate” letter of Sep. 15, 2006. That’s the letter sent to her by the city of Branson and signed by its attorney, Paul Link that tried to use a blend of coercion, deceit, bullying, and harassment to force Dapprich to drop the name “Branson” from the name of her not for profit organization, the “Branson Sports Club Inc.” She also fought to get the city to back off the heavy handed legal tactics it was using as it tried to develop a legal claim that it currently didn’t have in a misguided effort to control the future use of the name “Branson.”

It was a battle that received no support from the elected mayor or board that was then in power. However, it was a battle that highlighted very clearly, to the public, yet another example of how out of touch with the electorate the elected officials and the “Dodink Law” they failed to control was.

“Dodink Law” was a term the Ole Seagull used to categorize his opinion of the actions of the previous mayor and board of aldermen regarding their failure to exert control over the actions of the city of Branson’s administrator, Terry Dody and its attorney, Paul Link. Actions that, in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, and as evidenced very clearly in the Branson Namegate letter of Sep. 15, 2006, appeared to involve the use of intimidation and coercion to try to get businesses to give into the demands of the city or face the alternative of fighting its unlimited resources.

The good news for most people is that Dodink Law is a thing of the past because in the April election the voters took care of the portion of the problem they could by electing a new mayor and three new aldermen. The voters could not express their feeling toward Aldermen Purvis, Gass and Barker however because they will not be up for re-election until April of 2008. One of the first things the new administration did was reverse the position of the old administration regarding the Branson name change and issue a general apology for the letters that the city of Branson had sent out.

At the Jun. 11 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, when the Ole Seagull asked Purvis why he had made such an inane and divisive statement regarding Dapprich his reply was, “I made that Statement Mr. Groman because Mrs. Dapprich has used all kinds of verbiage to describe us from snakes to other descriptive adjectives. That’s why I made that statement.”

It should be pointed out that Dapprich was not involved, even remotely, in what was being discussed at the time Purvis made his gratuitous statement and in all the appearances she made before the city counsel there is no record of Purvis ever asking the presiding officer to call her out of order for anything she said as permitted by the council’s decorum rules. To an Ole Seagull, Purvis’s statement about Dapprich appears to be a chauvinistic sexist Freudian slip back to the way he believes things used to be run under the previous administration, where a lot of the city’s business was conducted in closed executive session and behind closed doors.

Is it totally inappropriate to advise Purvis that the cloak of invisibility previously provided by the city’s inordinate use of closed sessions is not as wide as it used to be so he might want to consider exercising a tad more control over what he says in meetings? Before casting dispersions on Mrs. Dapprich maybe Purvis and those of like ilk should answer a paraphrase of the old adage, “What came first, the Dodink or the Dapprich?”

What will bring visitors to Branson is the expectation of experiencing what they believe Branson is, shows, shopping, attractions, family entertainment, lakes, values, etc. What will bring them back to Branson, or not, is the actual experience they have while visiting Branson. Even with all the great things there is to see and do in Branson, very little will affect that experience as much as the way they are treated while they are our guests.

A few years ago our community developed the “Branson Promise.” In an Ole Seagull’s mind it does two things, provides our visitors with an expectation that transcends things and activities and reminds those of us having the privilege of living and working in these beautiful Ozarks hills of what it is that makes Branson so special.

With some slight omissions and the addition of the word “God” where it appears, the “Branson Promise” says:

“We believe that a vacation is not an escape from reality but a connection to what is real, you, your family, laughter, music, pure fun, and doing the things you really want to do, together….

We believe you deserve to take a break from your regular life while preserving the security and comfort that comes from feeling ‘right at home.’

We believe the best experiences are live and personal. They affect you – and you affect them. The most memorable experiences have always been personal and unique spontaneous and unexpected – not planned or manufactured.

We believe in families, and that vacations can belong to everybody in the family. …

We believe in our American values and celebrate them everyday, respect for God, the individual, patriotism, faith, hope, optimism, family, courage, generosity, and opportunity for all. We believe in the home….

We believe that new people aren’t strangers, just friends who haven’t visited.

We believe that every guest can be a part of our Branson family. From headline performers to the folks who sell the tickets, we invite you to become part of the fun we create every day as the families who built this community.

We believe that world-class entertainment doesn’t need to cost a world-class fortune!

We believe that money is hard earned, and respect the work that sits behind every dollar spent by our guests. We still think it’s possible to be surprised about how much money can buy, especially in Branson.

We believe in Branson, Missouri, nestled in the lakeside beauty of the Ozark Mountains.

We’re proud of who we are and where we are going. We’d love to show you around, because we love the ways in which we will surprise you. We’ve found what we want in Branson, and we know you’ll find what you want here too. Our doors are open, come on in.”

As it has done since its earliest days, Branson’s constantly evolving and changing “product” of providing a great family entertainment experience will continue to draw millions of visitors to Branson. An Ole Seagull’s prayer is that, as a community, we are convicted of what it is that we profess “We believe,” and that through a smile, extended courtesy, greeting, personal relationships, etc. make that belief and the Branson Promise an integral part of insuring that every visitor to Branson has a pleasant, memorable, and unique experience that will bring them back again.

The Branson Municipal Code Section covering the right of the public to speak during public comment meetings, Section 2-55, is in the process of being revised and will be one of the few regular agenda items discussed at the regular business meeting of city of Branson’s board of Aldermen on Jun. 11. Section 2-55 is important because it is what gives those wishing to speak during such meetings the right to speak and sets forth the conditions under which they may speak.

It logically follows that any changes to this Section can either enhance the opportunity for open government and the effective exchange of information between those wishing to speak and the city of Branson’s elected representatives or reduce that opportunity. For what it’s worth, with a tweak here and there, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the proposed changes, on balance, are positive and improve the opportunity for open government and the effective communication of information between those affected by the actions of the board and the board.

The major impetus for the change was a situation where newly elected alderman Stephen Marshall wanted to ask a question of a speaker after they had spoken. He was informed by city attorney Paul Link that, under the code provisions governing the meeting, although he could ask the question, the person to whom he was asking the question could not respond.

The proposed change to specifically address that specific issue provides that “There may be an additional five minuets for comments and questions from the mayor, board of aldermen, and/ or city staff directed to the speaker for the speaker’s response.” This is intended to provide the aldermen, the mayor, or city staff a chance to ask questions and get additional information to effectively respond to the speakers concerns. It is important to note that these five minutes is an option that is solely within the control of the mayor, aldermen, and city staff and is nothing over which the speaker has any control to trigger.

Probably the major change is the wording that, at first blush, appears to reduce the time speakers have to speak from ten minutes down to five minutes. In actuality that is not the case simply because under the current language any aldermen could ask any question or make any comment they wanted during the ten minutes the speaker was allocated and it came out of the speakers ten minutes. If a speaker had been speaking for one minute and an alderman wanted to make comments for nine minutes the speaker’s time was up and that was it.

Although the proposed change only gives the speaker five minutes to make their presentation it extends that time by any time the speaker is interrupted by questions or comments from the “mayor, board of aldermen and/ or city staff.” The ability of the mayor and board of aldermen to interact with the speaker while they are speaking without taking away from their time should, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, enhance the opportunity for effective communication between those speaking and the city of Branson’s elected representatives.

The only real problem the Ole Seagull has with the proposed changes relates to the provision that adds “city staff” to the list of parties that may interrupt the speaker during their allocated five minutes. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the speakers five minutes should be uninterrupted except for questions and comments from the very elected officials the speaker has signed up to address. City staff should be listening, taking notes, and responding, as appropriate, during the five minute period set aside for additional questions and comments.

In any event the specific changes are on line at http://cityofbranson.org/ and can be accessed by going to Agendas and Minutes and clicking on the Agenda for 06/11/07. Those wishing to express any concerns or suggestions regarding the changes have an opportunity to do so, either by contacting one of Branson’s elected representatives prior to the meeting and/or by attending the meeting and doing so.

Particularly in these initial stages of the city of Branson’s new administration, there has to be a way of separating the actions of the new mayor and current board of aldermen from the actions of the old mayor and old board of aldermen. Even as “AD” for “Anno Domini” and “BC” for “Before Christ” provides a clear distinction for dates, the Ole Seagull hopes that the term “AE”.” for “After Election and “BE” for “Before Election” will provide a simple means of differentiating between the two administrations and their actions.

At the May 29 meeting of the AE board of aldermen they voted unanimously to rescind the current program which the BE board initiated in the Fall of 2006 to try to give the city of Branson rights to the name “Branson” that it did not have. “But Seagull, how could it have been unanimous, aren’t three of the BE aldermen still on the board?” Yes, aldermen Purvis, Gass, and Barker, from the BE board, did not have to stand for reelection in the April election and are on the AE board.

During the meeting, BE Alderman Jack Purvis said, “As of the last meeting I can no longer take a stand on this name issue concerning Branson because the attorney who was supposedly a well informed person on this specific issue basically waffled, rolled over on us, and told us that really we didn’t have a stand on this issue.” The meeting Purvis is referring to was a closed executive session meeting held, after the recent April election and prior to the May 29 meeting.

AE Alderman Marshall pointed out that during that meeting the statement, “It appears as though you are giving different counsel during this particular meeting,” was made to the same attorney that Purvis was talking about. Marshall pointed out that the attorney’s response was “No I am giving you the same advice but there are different ears listening.”

What an indictment that appears to be. The BE Board was told that they “didn’t have a stand on this issue” and yet voted to spend tens of thousands of tax payer dollars, probably hundreds of thousands before it was all over, pursuing the issue.

BE Alderman Gass then responded by saying, “I will tell you this, when we met with that attorney he told us that this is what you do. It wasn’t what do you think. He said, ‘This is what you do, this is the law and you are going to prevail in this thing.’ He was pretty adamant about it and that’s the way we were directed and that’s the way we went right, wrong, or indifferent.”

And, therein lays the reason why the people of Branson wanted and got, by a huge percentage of the vote, a change in their elected government. In this issue, as it appeared to do in a lot of other issues, the BE administration was in fact “directed,” by certain nonelected forces to the conclusions that, for whatever reason, “they” wanted.

Does an Ole Seagull believe the statements of Purvis and Gass relative to the legal advice they were given? Absolutely. Does he believe that they were given the same legal advice in the original meeting prior to the election that they were given at the most recent meeting after the election? Absolutely not!

Although he might disagree with some of what they say, do, or fail to say or do he has never had reason to doubt their integrity, honor, or commitment to Branson. Unfortunately for them, in this case, they got a taste of their own medicine and the frustration that some in the community have felt regarding their actions or failure to act. “Ah Seagull, can you say the same for city administrator Terry Dody or attorney Paul Link?” Surely that’s a rhetorical question but just in case its not, absolutely not!

For what it matters, an Ole Seagull sincerely believes that this same thing would not have happened under the AE administration. Why? Simply put, because they are “directing” rather than being “directed,” do not blindly accept what they are told by city administrator Terry Dody and city attorney Paul Link, and will hold all, including themselves, accountable for their actions. What a positive and refreshing change.

Five time Grammy Award winner Randy Travis.

Country and gospel superstar Randy Travis is coming to Branson for a concert series this week at RFD TV-The Theater. Travis has sold more than 24 million records since his classic country debut album “Storms of Life” in 1986. He has received five Grammy Awards, five Country Music Association Awards, nine Academy of Country Music Awards, 10 American Music Awards and six Dove Awards.

Travis is presently scheduled to appear Thursday through Sunday at 7 p.m. nightly. For more information or to purchase tickets stop by the RFD box office or call 417-332-2282.

After four nights of classic country music with Randy Travis, switch gears for Branson’s first [2007] polka festival that kicks off Monday, May 28 for six big days. Big Joe’s TV Polka Festival is coming to RFD TV-The Theater and features 24 bands, all taped live for nationwide broadcast.

The daily festival admission of $25 per person includes eight hours of polka music and dancing to four bands on a 30 x 80 foot wood floor in front of the stage.

Bands performing during the festival include Greg Anderson Band, Leahning German Band, Jim Busta Polka Band, Squeezebox with Ted Lange and Mollie B, Czech Friends, Smiling Scandinavians, Bobby Jones Czech Band, Marge Ford, Patti Gersich & Alaska Polka Chips, Dave Slavinski, Ray Watkoski & Family, George’s Con-certina Band, Misty Blue Band, St. Louis Express, Hank Haller Band, Virgil Baker & Just-4-Fun Band, Johnny Koenig Band, Reingold German Band, Leon Olsen Band, Marty Swiatek & RBO, Don Lipovac, and Phocus.

For further information or to purchase tickets by phone or on line, call 1-800-451-3791.

Furnished courtesy of the Branson Daily Independent.

A recent report, made to both the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) and the Branson Board of Aldermen by the Branson/Lakes Area Convention & Visitors Bureau said that, “2006 was outstanding in terms of visitation, occupancy, and tax revenues.” The report went on to project that, although 2007 will not match the “double-digit growth” of 2006, it will be a strong year.

To an Ole Seagull, this is an indication that Branson’s constantly evolving and changing “product” of providing a great family entertainment experience to its visitors is being effectively marketed and is bringing millions visitors to Branson. Whether or not that is putting more of those millions of visitors into a particular business, i.e. hotel, show, attraction, restaurant, retail establishment, etc. is a function of how effectively that particular business is competing with everything else that Branson has to offer.

The Ole Seagull, like everyone else, hears the rumors about how, in terms of Branson’s visitors, Branson is having a good year or a bad year, business is up or down, etc. Folks, rumors aside, the “science” shows that Branson had one of its best years ever in 2006 and is poised for an even better year in 2007. Does that mean that every business sector and every business within each sector did well in 2006 and will do well in 2007?

Absolutely not! But it does mean that every business in Branson had access to millions of visitors spending enough to set sales and tourism tax collection records. Some businesses might say, “But Seagull, my business was down in 2006.” That might very well be the case but it’s not because there’s not millions of visitors coming to Branson who are spending enough to set new sales and tourism tax collection records. Could the reason for the lack of success of an individual business be as simple as the fact that, for whatever reason, those millions of visitors are patronizing other businesses?

Where else in this country, perhaps the world, can a person go where there is the variety of things to see and do that is available within as small a geographic area as there is in Branson? From a business perspective that is both a blessing and a curse because there is always something competing for the limited time and resources of Branson’s visitors.

As an example, if a family of four is spending their time and money sharing a wonderful entertainment experience at Silver Dollar City from about 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. today then they are not shopping, boating, eating, seeing shows, playing miniature golf, going to museums, or doing anything else anywhere else during that period of time. On the other hand, if that same family chose to spend their time and money sharing a wonderful entertainment experience shopping, boating, eating, seeing shows, playing miniature golf, going to museums, etc. at a place other than Silver Dollar City during that period they would not be at Silver Dollar City.

“Now that’s pure genius Seagull, what’s next, are you going to tell us that if that same family is eating the lunch buffet at the Golden Coral tomorrow that the chances are pretty good that they won’t be eating lunch at any of Branson’s other excellent restaurants tomorrow?” Of course not, it’s just been said, but that’s the hang of it. From shows to museums; specialty, craft, art shops, and retail stores to Branson Landing and discount Malls; golfing, fishing, boating, restaurants, and attractions, etc. there’s a constantly growing and evolving choice of things and businesses competing for the business of the millions of visitors coming to Branson.

Even as each of those millions of visitors to Branson must make a choice as to how, when and where they will spend their time and money while in Branson, each of Branson’s businesses must create a need or desire on the part of those visitors to want to make their business part of that visitor’s Branson experience. Those who do so will be competitive and have an excellent chance of enjoying success and the vast majority of those who don’t, regardless of the reasons or excuses why, won’t.

If it takes day one plus two more days to accomplish a task that means it is done by day three (1+2 = 3). So if the starting date was day two it would be done by day four and if it was day three it would be done by day five.

What would happen if, instead of using numbers, days of the week were used for the starting and ending points and it still took two days from the starting point to complete the task. If started on Wednesday the ending day would be Friday, if started on Tuesday the ending day would be Thursday, and if started on Monday the ending day would be Wednesday.

Now let’s just say that the task is the delivery of the agenda and materials to the city of Branson’s board of aldermen so that they can review the materials and prepare for their business meeting. In the past those documents including disbursements for review and approval, complex legal documents, zoning requests, 25 story building requests, a myriad of other things, and, most important of all, the agenda for their meeting have been delivered to them late on the Friday immediately preceding the Monday of the meeting.

The city of Branson’s newly elected mayor and aldermen are taking a novel approach to the governing of the City of Branson. They actually want to participate actively in the development of the agenda for their business meeting and get that agenda and the documentation relative to that agenda that they are expected to act on at their Monday night business meetings enough time in advance so that they have time to effectively review them before the meeting.

Obviously the first step in that process is to have effective participation of the aldermen in the development of the agenda for this meeting. It is, after all, the business meeting of the Brandon Board of Aldermen not the meeting of the city administrator, big developers, etc. In an effort to accomplish that the new mayor and the new aldermen working in conjunction with the aldermen that the public did not get a chance to vote on last election now hold what the Ole Seagull will call for lack of a better name the, “Alderman’s Agenda Workshop.”

It is a public meeting of the board and, since Mayor Presley has taken office, has been held early on the morning of the Wednesday prior to the next Monday’s board meeting. Among other things, items proposed by city staff to be on the agenda for that Monday’s meeting and other items proposed by the alderman are discussed. Two days later, generally late Friday, the agenda and accompanying documentation for the next Monday’s board meeting are delivered to the aldermen and posted, as available, on the city’s web site.

The problem is that there is not a lot of time between the time the aldermen get their packets and the meeting about 72 hours later. At the last agenda workshop an aldermen asked if they could get the packets at least a day earlier so that they could have more time to study the material etc.

The Ole Seagull thought no big deal, if, using whatever procedure has been in use up to this point, it takes two days after the meeting to get the packets to the alderman, just move the agenda workshop and everything that precedes it back a day to Tuesday and deliver the packets on Thursday or, better yet, move the work shop back to Monday and deliver the packets on Wednesday.

Boy was his thinking evidently wrong. Why there are “drop dead dates,” production schedules, deals that mean big money to the city, and it was actually suggested that if it was not left up to the discretion of the city administrator there would have to be an ordinance or resolution to make a change. Would someone precisely and concisely explain to an Ole Seagull why, if the current system being used is sufficient to get the “packets” delivered two days after the agenda meeting, the entire process cannot simply be bumped back a day or two so that the packets can be delivered on Thursday or Wednesdays? And that’s not a rhetorical question.