Month: October 2007

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.