Airport ‘understanding’ sparks county friction
By Brandon Cone
BDN Staff Writer
During the Taney County Commission’s weekly meeting Monday, the assessor questioned a “memorandum of understanding” with Branson Airport Authority, LLC, signed by commissioners last week.
“I come before this board today not as the Taney County assessor, but as a Taney County taxpayer,” James Strahan said. “I am disappointed that this commission signed a document paying my taxpayer dollars directly to the owners of an airport.”
Branson Airport is a proposed $93 million commercial airport that would be located near U.S. 65 north of the Arkansas border. The group Branson Airport Authority has been trying to get the project off the ground since 2001.
The memorandum proposes that the county pay $5 of incremental tax money to the airport for each passenger that comes to the area from the airport, with a cap of $1 million each year for 10 years.
“That’s money the county is going to gain in sales tax, because when people come here, they’re going to spend money,” Commissioner Ron Herschend said. “If the airport doesn’t bring anyone in, then we don’t owe them a dime.”
“All that document shows is that we're not opposed to this plan,” Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel added.
The airport group approached the commission in mid-2005 and requested the tax money, generated by visitors, to help offset certain expenses. Commissioners said they just recently were presented with a plan they could agree with.
“It wasn’t easy for me to come to this decision,” Pennel said. “I have done a lot of research and talked to many people before getting to the point where I would say yes to this document.”
County Attorney Bob Paulson said the memorandum is not contractually binding.
“This is not a contract,” Paulson said. “This a document that the airport's attorneys can take and begin composing something more official from.”
The assessor’s brother, Commissioner Danny Strahan, was the only commissioner who did not vote in favor of the plan.
“I didn’t vote for this memorandum of understanding because I didn't understand it,” he said. “I’d hate to think county tax money was benefiting a private owner.”
Herschend said the tax money would not be used for private benefit.
“The money would help public infrastructure, not private,” he said.
James Strahan questioned why the commission did not approve the document during a public meeting.
“Why didn’t you sign it here at this meeting now, instead of in your office, if there wasn’t something to hide?” he asked.
Paulson said that if the document had been a contract, it would have been voted on during a meeting.
“All this says is that they feel this plan might be workable,” Paulson said. “No one is obligated to pay any money based upon this document.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment