IS IT TRUE January 14, 2013

1. From: missourinetizen.com August, 2011

   Flood Money behind Branson Landing Property Dispute Yields Unusually Rapid Ruling From Southern District Court of Appeals
   When a large portion of the Branson Landing was awarded to Doug Coverdell the City of Branson filed with the court of appeals to hear the case. In order to get millions in loans to finance the development project, Bank of America among other investors were informed the land wasn’t in litigation.

   In order to get a loan on the property banks were informed that no litigation was in progress. Whether simple misrepresentation, fraud or it just happened to slip the minds of attorneys, documents reveal the city lied in order to ensure the Branson Landing project was developed and the state of Missouri would kick $50 million to create a Super-TIF.

   The $450 million Branson Landing project was completed and millions in tax dollars were rebated to the developer. Contrary to information provided to financial institutions, one-third of the Branson Landing’s ownership was being disputed. A Taney County Jury awarded the land to Doug Coverdell much to the dismay of city officials and a variety of law firms – many of which argued that Doug Coverdell did in fact and in other motions did not own the land.

   Branson’s local newspaper didn’t inform the public that a local jury granted a large portion of the Branson Landing to a third party until the cover-up was too large to ignore and a score of other media outlets beat them to the punch.

   The Branson Tri-Lakes news served as a mouthpiece for the City of Branson who beat the battle drum and promised the case would be heard in the Supreme Court of Missouri. The facts were so overbearingly against the City of Branson that a victory in a lower court wasn’t even considered.

   While Raeanne Presley continues to perpetually wave her middle finger at the Attorney General Chris Koster by repeatedly ignoring Missouri’s open government aka Sunshine Laws; it is well known in the legal community that former Supreme Court Chief Justice John Holstein was paid off to handle the case. Holstein happens to be the father-in-law of the Branson City Attorney who orchestrated the debacle in the first place. Presley has denied access to information regarding how large the pay-off was; however, Branson city leaders have allocated $750,000 to an unknown legal expense.

   After being rejected by the Southern District Court of Appeals several times, Holstein was able to make an incredible save for Empire District Electric who was brutally beaten in both Taney County and the appellate. Holstein was able to side step court rules by submitting new evidence (a map perverting the land layout and development that occurred years after the dispute began); time limitation requirements and jurisdictional issues.

   Holstein verbally argued on April 5th of this year that enabling a jury to rule on the Branson Landing case would cause harm to land law throughout the state. Though the very opposite was true; Holstein was able to yield Taney County residents impotent when it comes to making jury verdicts.

   The Court of Appeals ruling insured the case would continue. A second case alleged public officials plotted with Empire District Electric conspiring to defraud Coverdell out of the land. While the public hasn’t been informed of the case through media; court records show Holstein has appeared at taxpayer expense to fight this case as well.

   For an entrepreneur having land locked in litigation is damaging. The double edge sword has cut both sides. Rick Huffman, a principle of HCW learned the hard way that development on the water front was to be halted for a unknown period of time. After the Southern District Court of Appeals sent instructions back to the 38th Circuit ; Huffman celebrated victory; a victory that was never won.

   Since the land is in litigation Huffman has been blocked from inking deals. Bottom line is he can’t get title insurance due to the fact it is now well known that the Branson Landing ownership is in dispute.

   Four years ago we reported Shelia Wyatt filed a wage dispute suit against the city of Branson; the case has been sitting without action in the court of appeals indefinitely. Coverdell chose a different path by exploiting Presley’s love affair with Obamabucks.

   In order to get the case knocked out of the Southern District Court of Appeals in 58 days, property owners and businesses on the Branson Landing were given notice that any funds allocated for flood damage would be diverted to him as the rightful owner. Effective pressure was given to the court of appeals and a ruling quickly kicked the case back to the 38th Circuit.

   An appeal to Missouri’s Supreme Court has been filed and Huffman suggested to the press that Holstein has enough pull to ensure the court never rules on the case.

   Unfortunately for city officials and private developers; no development will occur on the disputed land until the case is resolved. If the Supreme Court of Missouri fails to hear the case it will likely be heard by a new Taney County Jury, a process that could take years.

   (Draft 1 Aug, 12 2011)

   ___

2. $33,515,000*
   Missouri Development Finance Board
   Infrastructure Facilities Revenue Bonds
   (City of Branson, Missouri – Branson Landing Project)
   Series 2012A

   The Series 2012A Bonds are issuable only as fully registered bonds, without coupons, and, when issued, will be registered in the name of
   Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York pursuant to the bookentry-
   only system described herein. DTC will act as securities depository for the Series 2012A Bonds.

   Beneficial ownership of the Series 2012A Bonds may be acquired in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Principal of and interest on the Series 2012A Bonds will be paid from moneys available therefor under the Indenture (defined herein) by Commerce Bank (the “Trustee”),Kansas City, Missouri, as trustee and paying agent.

   Interest on the Series 2012A Bonds is payable on each June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1, 2013.

   The Series 2012A Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as described herein. See “THE SERIES 2012A BONDS – Redemption of the Series 2012A Bonds” herein.

   The Series 2012A Bonds are being issued as Additional Bonds under the terms of the Indenture (defined herein).

   The Series 2012A Bonds will be payable from, and secured by, an assignment and pledge of (1) the Payments (defined herein) by the City of Branson, Missouri (the “City”) pursuant to the Financing Agreement (defined herein) between the Missouri Development Finance Board (the
   “Board”) and the City, and (2) any other moneys and securities (except moneys and securities held in the Rebate Fund, the Subsidy
   Revenue Fund or the debt service reserve fund for the Series 2005A Bonds) from time to time held by the Trustee under the applicable
   terms of the Indenture.

   The City’s obligation to make Payments on the Series 2012A Bonds is secured by (1) an annual appropriation covenant of the City contained in the Financing Agreement, (2) two Mortgages (defined herein) on the Mortgaged Property as described herein, and (3) if and when realized, a pledge by the City of Pledged Revenues as described herein, all subject to the City’s right to issue or cause to be issued Additional Bonds as described herein.

   The City’s annual appropriation covenant obligates the City to make
   Payments on the Series 2012A Bonds from all legally available moneys of the City but only to the extent it has included such Payments
   in its annual budget.

   The Series 2012A Bonds are being issued to advance refund a prior series of Bonds issued under the Indenture (the
   “Refunded Bonds” as described herein).

   The Series 2005A Bonds, a prior series of bonds issued by the Board, are also currently outstanding under the Indenture and are secured on a parity with the Series 2012A Bonds.

   See “SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE SERIES 2012A BONDS” and “BONDOWNERS’ RISKS” herein.

   THE SERIES 2012A BONDS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RISKS.

   PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THE SERIES 2012A BONDS SHOULD EVALUATE THE RISKS AND MERITS OF AN INVESTMENT IN THE SERIES 2012A BONDS BEFORE
   CONSIDERING A PURCHASE OF THE SERIES 2012A BONDS. SEE “BONDOWNERS’ RISKS” HEREIN.

   THE SERIES 2012A BONDS ARE NOT AN INDEBTEDNESS OF BOARD, THE CITY, THE STATE OF MISSOURI OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

   NEITHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWERS OF THE CITY,
   THE STATE OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE SERIES 2012A BONDS.

   THE ISSUANCE OF THE SERIES 2012A BONDS SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY,
   INDIRECTLY OR CONTINGENTLY, OBLIGATE THE CITY, THE STATE OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF TO LEVY ANY FORM OF TAXATION THEREFORE OR TO MAKE ANY APPROPRIATION FOR THEIR PAYMENT, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE DESCRIBED HEREIN.

   THE BOARD HAS NO TAXING POWER.

   The Series 2012A Bonds are offered when, as and if issued by the Board and accepted by the Underwriter, subject to prior sale, withdrawal or modification of the offer without notice and subject to the approval of their validity by Gilmore & Bell, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri, Bond Counsel, as described herein. Certain legal matters will be passed on for the City by William Duston, City Attorney.

   Certain legal matters will be passed on for the Board by Gilmore & Bell, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri. It is expected that the Series
   2012A Bonds will be available for delivery through DTC in New York, New York on or about December __, 2012.

   ___

3. The Biggest Bank is the Public Treasury and it is under constant siege,by what “Muddy Maude” called “Educated Crooks”…..Yep. Their Everywhere!

   • So True!

4. Doesn’t SMG manage the Centre? If so, I wonder if the financial performance of 2009 coincided with a contract renewal.

5. Today, I read comments from John Friend, published in the Courier & Press, regarding Mayor Winnecke’s invitation to meet individually with members of City Council.

   The mayor’s expressed intent is to inform each council member with regard to the mayor’s choice of hotel developer for the downtown hotel. The thrust of Councilman Friend’s comments seem to be he perfers being well informed, thereby well prepared, to focus on the important issues when the mayor brings his proposal to a public meeting of the city council.

   I hope I’m representing the Winnecke’s and Friend’s intentions correctly, because I happen to agree with them. While a member of the area plan commission, the most frustrating and bothersome situations where those where staff dropped proposed ordinance changes or other critical issues on our desks moments before the meetings commenced. This happened more than once each year while I served on that board, and it left members totally unprepared to adequately and intelligently discuss or question the issue at that public meeting.

   Furthermore, since the meetings of the city council are broadcast on local television, it would seem that each member of council would be even more concerned about appearing prepared and able to discuss the issue intelligently, and ask the important questions at a public meeting.

   Now, the state statutes allow a mayor to meet individually with council members. And state statutes allow a mayor to bypass such a process and go straight to a redevelopment commission with his recommendations. We’ve seen all this done before.

   If a council member strongly believes such processes are inappropriate, then that council member should address his concerns with the state legislature.

   Meanwhile, it seems politically prudent and just administratively sensible for council members to take the mayor’s offer as a gracious step forward in the process. It offers council members an opportunity to study the proposal before it’s presented in a public meeting of the city council, and it’s a damned sight better than if the mayor throws down the gauntlet, bypasses the council altogether, and took it straight to the Evansville Redevelopment Commission where it wouldn’t be presented in a publicly broadcast meeting.

   • They can be given time to study the proposal without secret meetings. Stop being an apologist for inappropriate government actions.

   • If everything is as you say then I would agree, but you have to consider that then public has had the wool pulled over our eyes more than once by a mayor, and the fact that Mr Winnecke was involved in the backroom homestead credit fiasco the public is understandably cautious, skeptical, or just plain looking for the other shoe, I think most of us don’t trust that he is being open, honest, and transparent.

     Everything may be above board but to be honest with you after the last 8 years of Weinzapfel, how the arena went down or really just pick a topic from the McCurdy to Roberts stadium the public has learned from experience not to trust that there isn’t something sinister or rotten going on in the civic center. (we won’t even mention just how our mayor got elected in the first place) 😉

     But then it is JMHO

     • Setting premature conspiracy theories aside, and comparing apples to apples, it seems to me this is a different way to approach discussion of projects between a mayor and city council. In other words, this approach is one-on-one, one-by-one, rather than as a caucus. Between the two, which would you prefer?

       • Honestly? I’d prefer the mayor appear in front of the entire city council distribute his info packets, make his pitch for his choice, then give the council 30 days to review the info, do their investigation, formulate questions, then after the 30 days the mayor and a representative from the company he has chosen can appear again in front of the council answering questions.

         At that point…..a vote could be cast on a motion to proceed or just kill the project, if the vote is to proceed then the mayor and the rep can do their pitch in front of the ERC.

         That’s how I think it should be handled, everything above board and laid out to all the members at the same time, unless the ERC is funding 100% of the project no need to bring then on board until the council has agreed to fund the project.

         Again it’s JMHO

         • Since you prefer to play the what-if game … yes, building stuff would be so much simpler under a countywide executive commission with a hired, professional municipal manager. But the city has a charter, and the state provides the operating statutes.

         • So…..your saying it can’t be done as I suggest because of state statutes? I don’t get it, your saying it’s by design (statute) that the mayor has to do it this way? Bill I really have to say WTF on that one.

           JMHO

         • No, I am not saying that it cannot be done differently. And the statutes do not prevent it being done differently. Rather than prolong the discussion to the point of repetitious boredom, please refer to what I said in the original post.

         • No, I am not saying that it cannot be done differently. And the statutes do not prevent it being done differently. Rather than prolong the discussion to the point of repetitious boredom….

           ——————–

           What? Repetitious boredom? spending taxpayers monies on a project that was deemed unnecessary and possibility harmful to the existing hotels. If there ever was a case to tread lightly, take your time, weigh all the facts, and get it right…this is it!

           If its boring to all the parties involved I’d suggest that they are not cut out to hold whatever office they find boring, rushing through with half-baked ideas just for the sake of not being repetitious and trying to hold peoples attention is utter BS.

           Mr Jeffers we are talking about spending $20-$40m of taxpayers monies for a hotel that will in all likelihood fail and add further debt, the city has paid for two studies that have shown that convention business is dead and that the hotel isn’t needed and won’t in any way help the Center, the arena, and the downtown as a whole.

           Maybe the city knows something the rest of us doesn’t but I doubt it, we only need to look at one of the first projects that this administration pushed through without giving anyone the time to become bored with the issue and look at that outcome….can you say Earthcare?

           Unfortunately dealing with public expenditures is a tedious task that requires repetition which might be boring to some, but in my mind it is a area where we need to take all the time it takes to make sure the all the members of the council fully understand every aspect of the project and the potential gains along with the potential failures.

           I’ll say this one more time….if a downtown hotel was such a profit center full of potential Mr Dunn and ONB would have been all over the project from the start, their not and in fact we have to go outside the city to find a company willing to take the risk along with the taxpayers ponying up the bulk of the money to build the hotel…..it doesn’t even pass a basic smell test, everything about the project reeks, and you think it should be rushed through to save the city council from becoming bored with repetitive tasks?

           Mr Jeffers….maybe it is time for you to retire, the basic premise of your argument is in fact what has gotten us to the position we are in today, the CCO coined the phrase describing the Weinzapfel administration of Ready Fire Aim…do you see a parallel?

           JMHO

   • “If a council member strongly believes such processes are inappropriate, then that council member should address his concerns with the state legislature.” (Bill Jeffers)

     * * * * * * * * * *

     I do not think it is appropriate to attempt to minimize the importance of the role of the city council in this process. They do not need to go to the legislature for anything. The city council holds the purse strings where any public financing is involved.

     The council should take the amount of time necessary to fully understand the entire process and all of the legal ramifications, and not be hurried into casting a vote, as has happened in the past.

     The city council also has an obligation to the public to keep them informed on the proposed project, along with providing an opportunity for the public to make comments.

     I noticed in the minutes of a special meeting the city of Branson held concerning the bond issue for Branson Landing, and also in the description of the bonds by the underwriter that there was some “catch-all” language inserted that said that should the stated sources of revenue be insufficient to meet the bond service, the city’s annual appropriations covenant obligates the City to make
     Payments on the Series 2012A Bonds from all legally available moneys of the City but only to the extent it has included such Payments
     in its annual budget.

     So as 2013, and the first bond payments was approaching and the shortfall in stated sources was looming large, it was necessary to find the funding for the payments. The city of Branson will be taking $1.4 Million from the city general fund, and $1.2 Million from the city transportation to meet the required debt service on the bonds.

     Since the debt service on the bonds is just beginning and will no doubt increase with future payments, it does not bode well for future city of Branson budgets. Nor does it bode well for the taxpayers of the city.

     This is what happens when things are not explained well to city council members and the taxpayers. I am sure that there is some buyer’s remorse going on in Branson nowadays.

     So lets settle down here and take whatever time is needed to look at this hotel project. Especially since the same developer is involved.

     ___

6. I prefer, if he already has made up his mind, HE pay for it!

7. The $1.3 Billion proposed nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing facility in Southwind Marine Port in Posey county is reported to be using a conduit bond financing scheme to fund the construction of the plant.

   You might be interested in this LA Times article on “conduit bonds”. It is worth the read.

   ___

   • http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/14/business/la-fi-risky-municipals-20110614

     ___

8. The Center…finances ? If you check back a few years I think you will find that the past city controller was there before going to the city.

Comments are closed.