76 Entertainment Community District board advances cooperative agreement work, reviews bond-financing scenarios

The 76 Entertainment Community District board met March 25 in Branson and directed staff to negotiate a cooperative agreement with the city after hearing a financial presentation that compared bond-financing scenarios under different sales-tax growth assumptions.

At the meeting, Todd (presenter) walked the board through a conservative “1% growth” model and a parallel “2% growth” model, noting one of the main changes in the draft was treating a 12% maintenance payment as an item deducted ahead of debt service. "The 12% maintenance cost being paid, and that's being paid ahead of debt service," Todd said, explaining that sequencing the maintenance payment before debt service reduces net revenues available for bond coverage in the near term.

Todd showed how the scenarios affect debt-service coverage and cash balances. Under the board’s conservative assumptions the first bond issue could be sized at about $34,000,000 to finance segments 1 and 2; Todd said the board’s cash balance and time would provide flexibility for later segments. "We've got that sized at $34,000,000," he said. He also noted specific line items in the model, including a $22,000,000 cost estimated for segment 4 in 2030 and a proposed $10,000,000 cash contribution to support coverage for segment 6.

Board members questioned the decision to show the 12% maintenance payment before debt service and discussed alternatives. One member asked whether paying the 12% after debt service would raise coverage ratios; Todd confirmed that shifting the 12% payment to after debt service would increase coverage because it raises net revenue available for debt service. The presenter and members also considered hybrid approaches — using some cash alongside bonds for segment 4 to achieve target coverage levels (the board’s target cited repeatedly was a 1.25 coverage ratio).

On revenue assumptions, Todd demonstrated that raising the assumed sales-tax growth from 1% to 2% materially increases long-term revenue and coverage ratios: the low-point coverage in a stressed year rose from roughly a 1.18 under the conservative scenario to about a 1.29 under the 2% scenario. Todd characterized the 1% scenario as conservative and workable and said the 2% scenario produced stronger, more resilient coverage metrics.

Staff and board members also discussed next steps on the cooperative agreement and contract language. Members asked for explicit language clarifying that the city would manage construction and for contractual mechanics to move bonding proceeds from the issuer to project payments. Paul and Sarah were identified as the staff leads who would review and negotiate the cooperative agreement when the city’s draft is delivered. Sarah was noted as the staff point for preparing the preliminary official statement and draft legal documents required for the bond process.

Todd outlined a roughly 75-day timeline from document preparation to bond proceeds in the bank — describing the rating-agency review and underwriting steps — and Sarah added that the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) would be the likely issuer to allow a longer maturity term than a CID bond typically permits. The board discussed placing a short reimbursement resolution on the next CID agenda so expenditures made before closing (for mobilization or early work) could be reimbursed from bond proceeds.

Members raised construction scheduling and business-impact concerns and discussed timing that balances contractor availability with minimizing disruption to businesses on the corridor. One suggested start dates in mid‑August with completion before Memorial Day; contractors’ mobilization windows and conditional contract language (mobilization deadlines, phased access guarantees) were proposed to manage timing and performance.

A motion to authorize staff to negotiate the cooperative agreement with the city — directing Paul and Sarah to take the lead — was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The board also approved the March 12 minutes earlier in the meeting by voice vote. No final bond authorization or ordinance was adopted at this meeting; board members emphasized that the presentation provided options and that final sizing, sequencing and contract language will return for approval after negotiation and additional review.

Votes at a glance - Motion to approve March 12 minutes: moved by Committee member (S7), seconded by Chuck (S5); voice vote, approved. - Motion to direct staff (Paul and Sarah) to negotiate the cooperative agreement with the city: moved by Committee member (S6), seconded by S1; voice vote, approved. - Motion to adjourn: moved by S8, seconded by Chuck (S5); voice vote, approved.

Next steps Staff expects to receive a draft cooperative agreement from the city within about a week to 10 days for review, to prepare bond documentation and to coordinate IDA agenda timing. The board asked staff to draft a short reimbursement resolution and to return with recommended contract language and timeline options for construction and procurement.