Branson Courier

Month: June 2008

  • Corps fiddles “The Plood” while local Branson officials and leaders dance to the tune

    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.

  • Branson’s Financial “Caution Light” still burns brightly

    By: Gary J. Groman

    The operating financial condition of the city of Branson in a nutshell is, “Let’s be very careful, especially when we have a couple of months coming up where we could see some dips and let’s expect those dips to happen. If they don’t happen that’s good news. If they do happen then we’re ready for them.”

    That “nutshell” is based on the most recent financial reports presented to the City of Branson’s Finance/Budget Committee at its June 24 meeting and the response of Branson’s new city administrator, Dean Kruithof to that report. The report was presented by John Petty, President, District Offices, LLC (District) who also affirmed Kruithof’s response.

    In presenting the monthly report Petty pointed out although slightly less than in March of 2007 the 1 percent City Sales Tax receipts for March of 2008 were starting their seasonality trend upwards. The report breaks the collection of the tax into three general areas, Branson Landing, Branson Hills, and the rest of Branson. The collection of the tax at Branson Landing dropped from $88,206 in March of 2007 to $84,485 in March of 2008, from $605,480 in March of 2007 to $543,170 in March of 2008 for the rest of Branson and increased from $36,676 in March of 2007 to $45,704 in March of 2008 at Branson Hills.

    Petty said, “The 1% Sales Tax Trend is mostly used for seasonality impact on the city’s finances.” For budgeting and the managing of the city’s operation the report suggests a rolling 12 month average of the general sales within Branson which fall under the city’s 1% sales tax.

    The report indicates the “rolling general Sales” at Branson Landing rose from $78,983,359 in March of 2007 to $106,801,257 in March 2008, at Branson Hills, it rose from $40,560,256 in March of 2007 to $50,387,373 in March of 2008 and, for the rest of Branson, it dropped from $843,282,090 in March of 2007 to $839,993,100 in March of 2008.

    The report indicates as of April 30, the spending in the city’s general fund is approximately $3 million more than revenues with approximately $12,054,214 in expenses versus only $8,969,625 in revenues. In presenting this portion of the report Petty said, “The trouble that we have with giving any reliance on these numbers right now is that we do not have an expense protocol for the city. So staff can spend basically 90 percent of their budget in the first three months. So since we don’t have that discipline or spending protocol in place it’s difficult to determine whether or not you have a problem.”

    Various reasons for the difference were expressed such as big capital projects, the budgets frontloaded with a lot of “contractual stuff,” etc. Branson Mayor Raeanne Presley asked, “So how do you manage that?” Petty responded, “That’s the point Mayor, that’s exactly the point, how do you manage it without a protocol or a discipline in place because your system is only as good as what its tracking capabilities are and right now we don’t have anything to track to.” The discussion regarding Petty’s comments, by the Mayor, City Administrator Kruithof, Janice Moen Larned, Vice President of Finance for District and Petty himself indicated a keen awareness of how important such a protocol is and such a protocol is in the process of being developed on a priority basis.

    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.

  • Branson increases control of solicitation on public property

    After a postponement to clear up some language, the city of Branson’s newest effort to control the accosting and soliciting of people as they walk down the public sidewalks in historic downtown Branson is but one step away from becoming final as the result of the actions taken by the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board) at its June 23 meeting. According to the Staff report accompanying the proposed change, “There have been several complaints brought forth by business owners to elected officials regarding sales solicitation in the downtown area.”

    During the public comment on the proposed change Jackie Stevenson, identifying herself the owner and operator of a downtown business called “Branson Highlights,” said that this was the business everyone was talking about. Branson Highlights has a number of locations in historic downtown Branson on Main Street and Commercial streets.

    She said, “We stand in the doorway, we greet the people; we do have free tickets and they come in and get them. We do offer, ‘Hey folks do you want to go on a tour.’ They do say ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Obviously, we have quite a few that do say ‘Yes’ or we wouldn’t still be in business for five years in this town.”

    Stevenson asked Alderwoman Chris Bohinc, “And when you were first solicited by one of my people on the street did they chase you down the street, did they grab you by the arm?” Bohinc responded, “I have been followed down the street more than once, ‘Yes.’” Stevenson followed up by asking, “By my people in my stores?” Bohinc responded, “Before this came about I didn’t know which ones were your stores.” Stevenson said, “And they actually followed you and talked to you as you walked down the street?” Bohinc said, “Absolutely and I have seen it happen.” Alderwoman Sandra Williams recounted a similar experience that she had had while walking on the sidewalks in historic downtown.

    As he had done on previous occasions, City Attorney Paul D. Link pointed out that the city already has a solicitation ordinance all that was being dealt with was the definition of the word “solicit.” Section 26-67 of the Branson Municipal Code (BMC), 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 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.” Currently the BMC does not contain a definition of “solicit.”

    The definition of “solicit” that the board approved on its first reading at the meeting reads, “Solicit 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.” Typically, the matter will be placed on the “Consent Agenda” for the Board’s next meeting, scheduled for July 14, and will become final if not removed from the Consent Agenda by the request of a member of the Board.

    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.

  • MODOT meeting explains Branson’s Taneycomo Bridge options

    MODOT meeting explains Taneycomo Bridge options
    By Gary J. Groman
    What a difference a year makes. It was just about a year ago this time when the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) dropped the bomb that the Business Highway 65/MO 76 Bridge across Lake Taneycomo between downtown Branson and Hollister (Bridge) would be closed for up to a year for rehabilitation and that the Highway 76 traffic would be detoured through Hollister to the Highway 65/Hollister Interchange and back to Branson via Highway 65 to the Highway 65/76 Interchange.
    During the intervening year, thanks largely to the efforts of the officials of the cities of Branson and Hollister, the Taney Country Commission, other elected officials and MODOT’s District 8, it appears that the Bridge will not be closed. At a public meeting held by MODOT in Hollister City Hall on June 17 MODOT presented two proposed options, Option A and Option B, for public comment.
    Both options provided that the Bridge would in fact become a two bridge system consisting of the existing bridge and a new companion bridge that would be constructed on its downstream side. Under both options the existing bridge would remain open while the new companion bridge was constructed. It is estimated that the construction of the new companion bridge would start in the Fall of 2009 and would be completed by the Fall of 2010.
    At that time, under both options, traffic from the existing bridge would be temporarily rerouted to the newly completed companion bridge for about a year while the existing bridge is rehabilitated. It is anticipated that under either option construction and rehabilitation will be completed and the two bridge system operational by the Fall of 2011.
    Under Option A, both the existing and companion bridge will have traffic going in both directions. The traffic on the newly rehabilitated existing bridge will basically come into and out of Branson following the same route is does now. Traffic on the companion bridge will come in and out of Branson via Branson Landing Boulevard.
    Under Option A, the traffic control feature at the east end of the bridge will be a roundabout. Those coming from the east will have a choice. If they want to go west on Highway 76, or though the center of downtown Branson, they would chose the existing bridge. However, those wanting to go to Branson Landing, Highway 248, Branson Hills, or north out of town could chose the new bridge to get to those points via Branson Landing Boulevard. Those heading east from Highway 248, Branson Hills, Branson Landing, etc. would cross the new bridge using Branson Landing Boulevard and exit either to East Highway 76 or toward downtown Hollister via the roundabout at its eastern end.
    Under Option B, the two lanes of the existing bridge will carry eastbound traffic only and the two lanes of the companion bridge only west bound traffic. The traffic on both bridges will basically come into and out of Branson and Hollister following the same route is does now. The two lanes of west bound traffic will be merged into one lane between the end of the bridge and the new stop light that will be put in at the intersection of Branson Landing Boulevard, the old Long Street, and Highway 76.
    Under Option B, the traffic control feature at the east end of the bridge will be a stop light. Those using the bridge from the east will have no choice. Those wanting to go west on Highway 76, or through the center of downtown Branson, and those wanting to go to Branson Landing, Highway 248, Branson Hills, will all have to go through the stop light at the intersection of Branson Landing Boulevard, the old Long Street, and Highway 76.
    As stated at the meeting, the difference in the cost of Option A and Option B is about $1 million. Option A will cost $17 million and Option B $16 million. When Option B was initially discussed at the May Partners In Progress meeting MODOT estimated its cost at $20 million plus dollars. The cost has come down because some of the improvements that were going to be built into the Branson Landing Boulevard/Highway 76 intersection were removed and will be included in a possible future project.
    Chad E. Zickefoose, MoDOT’s District 8 Transportation Project Manager, mentioned that when most people look at the pictures of the two options side by side that their initial reaction is to select Option B. He went on to explain that as they go beyond the pictures to the way the two options will function on a day to day basis, particularly the potential traffic relief for the downtown area at the Highway 76/Business 65 intersection provided by Option A, many change their minds. He said that currently, of the comments received about 60 percent favor Option A and 40 percent Option B.

  • Branson Cemetery becomes tourist attraction

    Like National Cemeteries and other cemeteries located in the historic areas of many other cities throughout the country, Branson’s cemetery has become a tourist attraction. At its June 17 work session meeting, the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board) heard an eloquent plea from Jim Fullerton, a sixth generation Branson resident, that the Branson Cemetery be closed to the public after dark.

    Fullerton said that he has 10 immediate family members buried in the Branson Cemetery including his grandparents, four aunts, and four uncles and considers it sacred ground. He expressed concern over the fact that Ghost & Haunt Tours is running a business that involves taking groups of tourists through the cemetery after dark and that he considers such actions as degradation to the cemetery. He said, “I don’t feel that they have any business in the cemetery after dark” and asked the board to consider a regulation that would prohibit anyone from being in the cemetery after dark.

    The Branson Cemetery is a small cemetery located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Oklahoma and Commercial Streets in historic downtown Branson. The cemetery is owned and maintained by the city. Its historical significance includes the grave sites of civil war soldiers and early Branson residents, as well as Ruben S. Branson, who owned the general store that contained the Post Office after which Branson is named.

    Fullerton made it very clear that he was not asking that Ghost & Haunt Tours not be permitted to operate. He said, “I’m just asking that everyone be on the outside boundaries of the cemetery after dark.” Fullerton asked that the sanctity of the cemetery be maintained in a way that honors his ancestors and the other people who are buried there.

    Fred Athay, General Manager, Ghost & Haunt Tours introduced some of their guides and explained their qualifications. Athay explained that the tours are only within the interior of the cemetery for about 10 minutes of a 90 minute tour. He stressed that the groups are kept together, are not permitted to roam through the cemetery on their own and said that the route sticks close to the outside perimeter of the cemetery and was chosen to avoid stepping on any of the graves.

    Athay introduced Suzette Boutilier, one of the owners of Ghost & Haunt Tours, who reviewed the 16 year history of the company from its inception in Key West, FL. She stressed the professionalism of the company, the fact that their tours are historically based and don’t use gimmicks such as costumes and theatrics, and that they have a $2 million dollar liability policy.

    Boutilier said that the company never meant to be disrespectful in any manner whatsoever and apologized to Fullerton. She also said that the company is glad to be in Branson, wants to be a good business partner, that the company had changed tour routes in other cities, and expressed concern that they were not contacted earlier so that the situation could have been taken care of earlier. She suggested that the route could be modified so that the tours didn’t go into the interior of the cemetery if they were able to go by and look in from the outside of the fence.

    Alderman Bob McDowell asked Boutilier if in fact a perimeter tour of the cemetery could be a solution. She replied, “That is something that we could work out. That’s not an issue at all.” Fullerton said that the perimeter tour would be a good compromise. After pointing out that the Board would take no official action on the cemetery at the work session, Mayor Raeanne Presley asked Boutilier if they would consider moving their tour “onto the sidewalk.” Boutilier replied, “We can do that if that’s not a problem.”

    The Board briefly discussed other aspects of the cemetery including historical signage, new fencing, the actual land owned by the city making up the perimeter, and establishing hours of operation for the cemetery. These matters were referred to staff for study and possible future action by the Board.

  • Branson City attorney and Clerk under board control

    The Branson Board of Alderman voted to make it easier to remove a City Administrator from their position and put the positions of City Clerk and City Attorney under its formal control. The changes to the Branson Municipal Code (BMC) that the board approved on first reading at its June 9 meeting substantially reduces the role of the city administrator in appointing, terminating, and supervising Branson’s city clerk and attorney.

    All three changes were submitted by Branson Alderwoman Sandra Williams as part of a package of three specific separate ordinance changes. Williams said that one of her objectives was to make the wording in the BMC “be the same wording that is in our state statute.” Alderman Bob McDowell pointed out that the current ordinances, although more restrictive than state law, were in compliance with the minimum requirements of Missouri state laws. This was confirmed by City Attorney Paul D. Link.

    The change to the BMC involving the city administrator simply reduces the current three fourths vote of the board required in Subsection 2-81 of the BMC to terminate the administrator without the concurrence of the mayor to two thirds. Prior to the change, the BMC, although in compliance with the minimal two thirds requirements of Section 79.240 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo), required five votes to terminate the city administrator. With the ordinance change only the vote of four is required.

    Prior to the change, the BMC was silent as to who appointed and terminated the city attorney. With the changes a new subsection has been added to the BMC provisions pertaining to the city attorney entitled “Appointment, term and removal.” That subsection provides that “the mayor, with the consent and approval of the majority of the members of the board of aldermen shall appoint a city attorney who shall hold office at the pleasure of the board of aldermen.” The proposal also provides that the city attorney may be removed by four votes of the board with or without the mayor’s consent at will. State law, in Section 79.230 RSMo, states that “The mayor, with the consent and approval of the majority of the members of the board of aldermen, shall have power to appoint,” among other positions mentioned a “city attorney.”

    Of the three proposed changes, this was the most contentious with Alderman Stephen Marshall, Bob McDowell, and Stan Barker against the measure because, among other things, they thought it could cause day to day inefficiencies in performing the city’s business. McDowell also pointed out that as the system currently works the city attorney reports to both the city administrator and the board. Aldermen Rick Davis pointed out that is was strictly an organization structure change which was consistent with the views of Williams and Alderwoman Chris Bohinc.

    The vote was tied three to three on the issue and Branson Mayor Raeanne Presley broke the tie in favor of the change. In doing so she expressed her belief that on a day to day basis the city attorney would still answer to the city administrator, equated the boards working relationship with the city attorney to that of its relationship with the city administrator and “that our citizens have asked us to bring this to the level of the elected official’s oversight.”

    The revised ordinances also revised subsection 2-121 of the BMC to read “The Board of Aldermen shall elect a clerk for such board to be known as “the city clerk,” whose duties and term of office shall be fixed by ordinance, and shall serve at the pleasure of the board of aldermen.” Subsection 2-121(c) of the BMC entitled “Term; Compensation” removes the city administrator from the termination process and places the process under the mayor and the board.

    During the board meeting, as well as during the work session, it was pointed out that the situation had been discussed with the new city administrator, Dean Kruitof, during the interview process. It was said that he had indicated that he had worked under similar arrangements where the attorney and clerk had worked for the board, was familiar with it and had no problem with it. The proposed changes will be on the consent agenda for the boards June 23 meeting and will automatically become final without any further discussion unless removed from the consent agenda.

    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.

    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.

  • “Kum Ba Ya” theme song for TanStone Development Agreement

    "Kum Ba Ya" easement east to Forsythe Road
    from Rose residence.

    After many miscues, meetings and negotiations regarding the TanStone Development on Forsythe Road, a little “kum bay ya” paved the way for the city to “ease” into the final approval of a Development Agreement with TanStone Group LLC (Agreement), the developers of the project. When the final development agreement was presented and approved at the May 24 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board), on its first of two required readings, it was clear that the board was concerned about an access easement issue regarding the property of Dr. Pat Rose.

    The second and final reading of the agreement was scheduled for the Board’s June 9 meeting as part of the Consent Agenda. Alderwoman Sandra Williams requested its removal from the Consent Agenda which opened the way for additional public and board input on the issue.

    Stephen Bradford, the attorney representing Dr. Rose, said, “I am here to inform the board that a resolution has been reached between the parties and they do have an agreement concerning access and easement that has been executed. We are ready to sing ‘Kum Ba Ya.”

    Bradford pointed out that the access road involved in the easement agreement will be designed and drawn specifically to a drawing by the engineering firm. Using a copy of the drawing, Branford explained that the easement starts at the end or Rose’s current driveway and heads east in a relatively straight defined manner toward the realigned Forsythe Road. He pointed out that it will be bermed and elevated.

    Alderwoman Sandra William asked Chris J. DeJohn, representing the developer, whether or not there would be any problem indicating the easement location etc. on the final plat that would be submitted to the city? DeJohn replied, “Nope, and as part of our agreement we are going to record it prior to the final plat as far as the deeding of the easement.” Williams asked if there has been a timeline established for the building of the easement and DeJohn replied that there had. He did not state what that time line was nor did Williams press for a specific answer.

    Exhibit D to the Agreement entitled “Estimated Timeline” does not mention the Pat Rose easement. It does, however indicate that Forsythe Road will be open to traffic by Sep. 15 and that the entire road portion of the project, including the Roark Valley Road interchange will be completed by the Spring of 2009.

    The Board’s final approval of the Agreement at its June 9 meeting also included approval of the attached cooperative agreements between the city, TanStone, and the TanStone Development’s related Community Improvement District (CID) and Transportation Development District (TDD). The cooperative agreements, with their associated tax revenues, will provide the primary source of the revenues being used to pay for Forsythe Road and, possibly, some or all of the city’s costs for the Roark Valley Road improvements.

    As reported previously, the Agreement will require TanStone to fund and construct both Forsythe Road and the Roark Valley Road improvements with the city reimbursing TanStone’s cost for the Roark Valley Road improvements, including financing costs, up to a maximum of the $1,908,610 that it is estimated the improvements will cost. The reimbursement will take place over a period of three years at a cost of $636,204 during each of the Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 20l0. In order to accommodate the 2008 payment, an amendment to the city’s 2008 budget is part of the ordinance. The agreement also provides that if the actual cost of the improvement is lower than the $1,908,610 estimated cost that the city will pay the lower amount.

    The agreement also provides the possibility that the CID and TDD sales taxes collected within the development could also be used to reimburse the city for some or all of the costs involved with the Roark Valley Road improvements. That provision will only become operational after TanStone has received reimbursement for the initial $3,500,000 in project costs involved with the rebuilding of Forsythe Road and its other authorized public improvement costs related to the development.

    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.

  • Board “solicited” to make the simple complex but why?

    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!

  • Back to drawing board for Branson’s solicitation ordinance

    It’s back to the drawing boards for the proposed change to the Branson Municipal Code’s (BMC) solicitation ordinance. After a considerable amount of debate on a change to add a more restrictive definition of “Solicit” to the ordinance at its June 9 meeting, the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board) unanimously voted to postpone any further consideration of the change until its June 23 meeting.

    According to the Staff report accompanying the proposed change, “There have been several complaints brought forth by business owners to elected officials regarding sales solicitation in the downtown area.” The report goes on to say, “This ordinance addresses those concerns in that it prohibits the ability to entice customers into a business through free or discounted items.”

    Previously, in discussing the ordinance change at the Board’s public work session meeting held on May 6, 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 that meeting, Link went on to say that it’s not necessarily selling product on the sidewalk. He pointed out that some sales people approach people when they get out of their cars and saying, “Hey have you got your tickets yet for this weekend or I’ve got free tickets for you and enticing people to come back into the four corners of their store to sell them stuff.”

    During the introduction of the ordinance at the June 9 meeting Link said, “All that’s on for tonight is a definition of the word “Solicit” to deal with those issues that have been complained about regarding the offering of free tickets or discounted goods as an enticement to get people into stores and doing it on public sidewalks.” He pointed out, “We already have a solicitation ordinance all that we are dealing with now is the definition of the word “solicit.”

    The proposed change adds a definition entitled “Solicit” to Section 26-261 of the BMC. As proposed it reads, “Solicit 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.”

    During the public discussion on the ordinance Bill Stevenson presented an argument against not only the proposed change but the current solicitation ordinance based on constitutional commercial speech issues and stated that when they had contacted the ACLU for assistance that the ACLU had advised them that they are currently investigating the city of Branson’s ordinances regarding solicitation. He gave a copy of the ACLU letter regarding the issue and suggested that the city might want to contact them.

    Downtown merchants, Grant Johnson and David King spoke about their first hand observations of how visitors to the downtown area are solicited as they attempt to walk up and down the sidewalks of the historic downtown district. Both Pat Joyce and Joel Merrifield, who operate businesses in the downtown area that, among other things, use discounted show tickets as an inducement to generate tours for times shares, expressed opinions that the personal solicitation of visitors walking the public sidewalks of downtown Branson was inappropriate.

    Based on the public comments and the issues they raised, the board decided that further consideration on the matter was needed. The vote on the first reading was postponed until the Board’s June 23 meeting and the issue will be further discussed during the Boards June 16 public work session held at 10:00 a.m. in the Municipal Courtroom.

    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.

  • Branson Landing sponsoring Free STARSHIP Concert and Downtown Clown A’Round

    Father’s Day weekend has traditionally been celebrated by families getting together and honoring Fathers in a special way. This year, Branson Landing is extending a very special invitation to Fathers and their families… to join in Branson Landing’s weekend long celebration.

    In celebration of its second successful season, the Branson Landing is inviting the community to share in their celebration with a host of family-friendly activities, concerts and of course – wonderful dining and shopping.
    .
    This weekend long celebration will kick off on the evening of Friday, June 13th at 7:30 pm with a special On-stage Birthday presentation , special guest appearances, BIG surprises and more – followed by a FREE concert at 8:30 pm with STARSHIP, Starring Mickey Thomas. Join us as we take a trip down memory lane with Mickey Thomas – as he celebrates his 30th Anniversary with STARSHIP! Enjoy all of those great hits like, Sara, Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now, Jane, No Way Out, We Built This City and their new single, GET OUT AGAIN!

    “After an evening of birthday celebration, families are invited back to the Landing on Saturday and Sunday for Branson Landing’s 1st Annual Downtown Clown A’Round – where Branson Landing will be transformed into a Festival of Family Fun for Everyone!” stated Tammy Scholten, Director of Marketing.

    The Downtown Clown A’Round is a celebration where kids, both young and old will be entertained throughout the weekend with a multitude of activities, as well as the antics of over fifteen talented clowns – located up and down the Branson Landing Promenade, making balloon animals and offering FREE face painting. Don’t miss the Downtown Clown Alley, where you will find tons of fun, games and activities hosted by our very own Branson Landing Clowns, Ronzo and Sugar. And on Saturday and Sunday at Noon, kids of all ages can join in the Downtown Clown A’Round Parade, marching right down Branson Landing’s Promenade.

    Throughout the weekend, families can experience a wonderland of huge interactive inflatables, with the 60’ Obstacle Course, the Bungee Run, the Kiddy Grand Prix, the HUGE Kiddiepillar, The Great Ship, S.S. Buccaneer, the “Just for Kids” Beagle Belly, Gumball and Crayon Jumpy Bounce Houses, the Giant Double Lane Slide, the Trampoline Thing and much, much more! Enjoy jumping, flying, sliding and running in nearly a dozen towering interactive inflatables, provided by Amberg Entertainment, the Mid-West’s fastest growing
    full-time entertainment and party planning company.

    Besides taking pleasure in a unique family experience, participants will be giving the best birthday gift of all—the gift of charity. Over 15 local, non-profit entities will be on hand throughout the weekend, benefiting from all of the family fun with 100% from the inflatable admissions (starting as low as $1.00) and donations throughout both days – being given back to the charities, to assist area families with food, clothing and shelter. See attachment for complete list of charitable organizations.

    This event, created by Tammy Scholten, Director of Marketing at the Branson Landing, will provide the perfect opportunity for families to share their joy with each other while also helping those less fortunate. “This too, is a celebration of the fifteen plus local charities in our area who – with their hard work and dedication help those in our area with assistance, food, education, support and so much more” stated Tammy Scholten.

    The Branson Landing extends an invitation to both the local community and area tourists to join us during this special weekend, celebrating Branson Landing’s 2nd Birthday and Father’s Day – as well as the many local not for profit organizations that help those less fortunate, each and every day.

  • Branson can survive the “perfect economic storm!”

    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.

  • Hollister expands city limits north along Lake Taneycomo

    With the voluntary annexation of approximately 4700 feet of Empire District Electric (Empire) property the northern city limits of Hollister have been extended about nine tenths of a mile north along the shores of Lake Taneycomo. The voluntary annexation of the approximately 27 acres, consisting of Lake Taneycomo and the shoreline Empire owns was given final approval by the Hollister Board of Aldermen at its June 5 meeting by a unanimous vote.

    The annexation extends the city limits of Hollister north and east. Hollister’s city limits are extended north from their current northern boundary, just south of Coon Creek, along the Lake Taneycomo shore line to a point just south of the mouth of Roark Creek. The annexation also extends its city limits west about halfway across Lake Taneycomo to the point where its meets the eastern city limits of Branson throughout the entire length of the annexation.

    The only public comment on the matter as it was being considered by the board came from Don Frank, Chief Financial Officer of Kanakuk Camps. Frank inquired as to the northern boundary of the annexation as relates to Kanakuk’s property. The question was answered by Doug Tiemann from Pickett Ray & Silver, a development firm headquartered in St. Peters, MO, with a local office in Branson, who was representing Empire. The firm was also representing Ahmed A. Salama in a separate request for the voluntary annexation of approximately 6.76 acres located immediately contingent to the Empire land being annexed. Tieman said that the northern boundary of the Empire annexation would extend out into the middle of Lake Taneycomo from the southern boundary of Kanakuk’s property where it meets the northern boundary of Salama’s property.

    Immediately after the Empire Annexation, the board considered the second and final reading on the voluntary annexation of approximately 6.76 acres owned by Ahmed A. Salama located immediately contingent to the northeastern end of the Empire land that had just been annexed into Hollister. The only public comment on the Salama annexation came from Don Frank. He said that Kanakuk was not necessarily against Hollister’s annexation of Salama’s property but did have some concerns.

    Frank pointed out that about a year ago 160 residents of the area along Lake Shore Drive signed a petition and took action to stop the development of a very aggressive condominium project proposed by Salama on the property. He said that even though it appears that the project has been scaled back, the primary concern today is the same as it was a year ago, the ability of Lake Shore Drive to safely handle the traffic that would be generated by the development of the property and the challenges that such traffic would pose for emergency services such a ambulances and fire protection.

    Frank also acknowledged the creativeness of the unusual process of using Lake Taneycomo to create the situation where the Salama property became eligible for annexation into Hollister. He said that the procedure could ultimately lead to the point where the city of Hollister would have several parcels mixed in intermittently with other parcels not within the city limits of Hollister and expressed concern over the challenges that would bring to the city in terms of providing services. Frank also was concerned about the potential commercial implications of the C-3 zoning that the annexed land would have.

    The board approved the annexation by a vote of three to one with Ward I Alderman, Dr. Howell Keeter voting against the annexation.

    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.

  • Increased Branson board control over city attorney and clerk proposed

    If proposed changes to the Branson Municipal Code (BMC) are enacted, it appears that the role of the city administrator in appointing, terminating, and supervising Branson’s city clerk and attorney will be substantially reduced and the roll of the Branson Board of Aldermen (board) substantially increased. If approved the changes will remove the city administrator from the appointment and termination process and make the city clerk “subject to the direction of the board of aldermen.”

    The proposed ordinance changes were presented by Branson Alderwoman Sandra Williams at the board’s work session meeting on June 3 as part of a package of three specific ordinance changes. The changes involve the number of votes it takes to terminate the city administrator and the appointment and termination of the city attorney and clerk`. In presenting the changes Williams said that that one of her objectives was to make the wording in the BMC “be the same wording that is in our state statute.”

    The change to the BMC involving the city administrator is minimal. It reduces the current three fourths vote of the board required in Subsection 2-81 of the BMC to terminate the administrator without the concurrence of the mayor to two thirds minimum. The current provisions of the BMC, although in compliance with the minimal two thirds requirements of the Section 79.240 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo), requires five votes to terminate the city administrator; if the proposed change is approved that number will be reduced to four.

    Currently the BMC is silent as to who appoints and terminates the city attorney. Williams proposes adding a subsection to the BMC provisions pertaining to the city attorney entitled “Appointment, term and removal.” That subsection provides that “the mayor, with the consent and approval of the majority of the members of the board of aldermen shall appoint a city attorney who shall hold office at the pleasure of the board of aldermen.” The proposal also provides that the city attorney may be removed by four votes of the board with or without the mayor’s consent at will. State law, in Section 79.230 RSMo, states that “The mayor, with the consent and approval of the majority of the members of the board of aldermen, shall have power to appoint,” among other positions mentioned a “city attorney.”

    Section 79-320 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo) states, “The board of aldermen shall elect a clerk for such board, to be known as “the city clerk” whose term of office shall be fixed by ordinance.” Currently subsection 2-121(a) of the BMC, entitled “Appointment” reads, “The city clerk shall be appointed by the city administrator and his/her name shall be submitted for election by the board of aldermen.” As proposed the revised subsection 2-121 would read “The Board of Aldermen shall elect a clerk for such board to be known as “the city clerk,” whose duties and term of office shall be fixed by ordinance, and shall serve at the pleasure of the board of aldermen.”

    In addition, the proposed changes to subsection 2-121(c) of the BMC entitled “Term; Compensation” would remove the city administrator from the termination process and place it under the board and put it in the hands of the mayor and board. The ability of the city administrator to require the city clerk to perform other duties at their discretion would be reduced under the changes proposed to subsection 2-121(b) of the BMC, entitled “Duties.

    During a lengthly discussion on the changes, Alderman Bob McDowell expressed his opinion, which was confirmed by City Attorney Paul D. Link, that the city’s ordinances in these areas are in compliance with state statute. Mayor Raeanne Presley said that her concern with the situation involving the city clerk and city attorney’s position was one of checks and balances and went on to say, “I do think that the clerk and the attorney rise to the level, while not quite equal, I think they rise to the level beside he city administrator and it is the responsibility of this board to know that these individuals are answerable directly to the board.”

    She also pointed out that the situation had been discussed with the new city administrator, Dean Kruitof, during the interview process. The mayor went on to say that Kruitof had indicated that he had worked under similar arrangements where the attorney and clerk had worked for the board, was familiar with it and had no problem with it. The proposed changes are scheduled for consideration at the board’s next regular meeting on June 9.

    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.

  • Easement issue impedes “access” to TanStone Development Agreement

    A rose may be a rose, but as the developers of TanStone Development, TanStone Group LLC, are finding out, a rose also has thorns. Doctor Pat Rose, the owner of the land immediately to the west of the TanStone Development has become a thorn in the side of TanStone’s plans by persistently reminding the city and TanStone that their actions have resulted in her losing the easement access to her property from Forsythe Road.

    Rose’s property runs from Highway 76 south fronting the old Forsythe Road on its eastern edge. A water slide and parking lot occupies the property at the top of the hill on the south end. About half way down the hill on the property there is a residential complex, containing Rose’s home and some rental cottages.

    The eastern edge of her property was separated from the old Forsythe Road by a narrow band of land through which she obtained an access easement. She had used that easement to access her property directly from Forsythe Road for about ten years until, without warning, on the morning of Oct. 2, 2007, when, as she went out to pick up her newspaper, she discovered that Forsythe Road had been destroyed.

    Subsequent events have disclosed that the road was destroyed by TanStone without any written agreement with the city to do so and that the purpose of destroying the road was so that it could be rebuilt and realigned hundreds of feet to the east. The immediate effect was to render the access easement Rose had to exit and enter her property off of Forsythe Road useless.

    The only remaining access to Rose’s property became a narrow steep road leading from her residential complex up through a water slide parking lot at the south end of her property. Rose and her attorney, Stephen Bradford, have been working with the developer and the city, both privately and publically, to get a satisfactory resolution to the easement issue since.

    The record of the public meetings with the city involving the TanStone project since the destruction of Forsythe Road will show a pattern. The actual issue comes up for discussion, in this case the approval of the Development Agreement between the developer and the city. During the discussion of the specific issue the issue of the easement will be raised either by Bradford or one of the aldermen. In this case, Alderwoman Sandra Williams expressed concern about the Rose easement.

    The board was told, by both Bradford and a representative of TanStone, Randy Winski, one of its partners, that late the week, prior to the board’s meeting, the developer had submitted three different easement options to Rose for consideration. Bradford pointed out that although they were still evaluating them that, in his opinion, they did not seem to be practical or fair in terms of the circumstances. Winski’s statements contradicted that opinion.

    One of the easement options would require building a long steep road across Roses property. When City Engineer David Miller was asked about that option he said that anything could be done if you had enough money and indicated that while it might be practical in certain situations he did not feel this was one of those situations.

    Another option would give Rose a 30 foot easement to Forsythe Road from her property going hundreds of yards through as yet undesignated parking lots and other public areas of the TanStone Project located between Rose’s property and the relocated Forsythe Road. Further the proposed easement had a restriction that it can only be used for residential purposes even though Rose’s land is commercial. None of the other easement choices had a similar restriction.

    City Attorney Paul D. Link again stated his opinion that all the developer was required to do was grant an easement to replace the easement that was taken away so that the property would not be landlocked. He again reiterated his belief that the easement issue was a civil matter between Rose and the developer. He also recommended that the board not require the developer to do something that is not required by law.

    Although the Development Agreement was approved on its first reading it was not without a warning from the board. At the request of Alderman Stephen Marshall, City Engineer David Miller pointed out that in a “worse case” scenario, if a final agreement is not worked out, the city could condemn the new road under construction in the development and keep the old road’s right of way. Alderman Marshall advised Winski that the board has been told over and over that they are working on an agreement; that the board’s patience was coming to an end and suggested that they had to get an agreement.

    In the normal course of events, the Development Agreement will come up for its second reading at the board’s first June meeting on June 9 and will be on the Consent Agenda.

    Furnished courtesy of 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.

  • When the waters go down what then?

    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.