Branson, Missouri Airport 'Understanding' sparks county friction
Friday, March 10, 2006
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.”
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.”
Branson Considers Transportation Alternatives
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Branson considers transportation alternatives
By SBJ Staff
3/7/2006
Branson is holding a public meeting this week to consider transportation improvements – including a possible “sky train” – to alleviate traffic congestion.
The meeting will be held 4:30–6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Municipal Courtroom in Branson City Hall, 110 W. Maddux. The public is invited to the “open house” meeting to review proposed transit alternatives and provide input.
The meeting is part of a transit study that began in 2004 when Branson received a $450,000 federal grant, used to hire consultant and study leader Jacobs Civil Inc. The study will produce an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year.
At Thursday’s meeting, the public will be able to review the results of a 2005 travel patterns survey of Branson’s visitors, employers, employees and attractions; learn about proposed transit alternatives and express their preferences; and discuss the potential ridership of each alternative.
Jacobs has begun to detail the city’s transit alternatives, and choices include creating a Transportation System Management alternative or a series of build alternatives.
The Transportation System Management option would provide a shuttle bus service on Main Street and Route 76, as well as several loop bus service routes on the city’s color-coded streets.
The build alternatives include adding bus routes and a 6.5-mile elevated fixed guideway system, or “sky train,” with 11 stations, or adding bus routes and a 7.5-mile guideway system with 13 stations.
According to Jacobs’ pre-study report, Route 76 remains a major travel artery that cannot be widened easily and is constrained by its pedestrian-unfriendly environment. There is currently no public transit system available in Branson.
“Avoided trips ultimately translate to reduced business revenues and fewer jobs, because the inability to easily and reliably get to venues reduces paying customers and diminishes visitor potential,” according to Jacobs’ pre-study report.
In addition to the open house meeting, the city has plans to gather input several other ways. A Project Oversight Committee has been established that includes representatives from the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee, the city’s hospitality industry, the tourism industry, downtown representatives, property owners and the development community. Also, federal, state and local resource agencies will be invited to several meetings to review the study as it develops.
By SBJ Staff
3/7/2006
Branson is holding a public meeting this week to consider transportation improvements – including a possible “sky train” – to alleviate traffic congestion.
The meeting will be held 4:30–6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Municipal Courtroom in Branson City Hall, 110 W. Maddux. The public is invited to the “open house” meeting to review proposed transit alternatives and provide input.
The meeting is part of a transit study that began in 2004 when Branson received a $450,000 federal grant, used to hire consultant and study leader Jacobs Civil Inc. The study will produce an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year.
At Thursday’s meeting, the public will be able to review the results of a 2005 travel patterns survey of Branson’s visitors, employers, employees and attractions; learn about proposed transit alternatives and express their preferences; and discuss the potential ridership of each alternative.
Jacobs has begun to detail the city’s transit alternatives, and choices include creating a Transportation System Management alternative or a series of build alternatives.
The Transportation System Management option would provide a shuttle bus service on Main Street and Route 76, as well as several loop bus service routes on the city’s color-coded streets.
The build alternatives include adding bus routes and a 6.5-mile elevated fixed guideway system, or “sky train,” with 11 stations, or adding bus routes and a 7.5-mile guideway system with 13 stations.
According to Jacobs’ pre-study report, Route 76 remains a major travel artery that cannot be widened easily and is constrained by its pedestrian-unfriendly environment. There is currently no public transit system available in Branson.
“Avoided trips ultimately translate to reduced business revenues and fewer jobs, because the inability to easily and reliably get to venues reduces paying customers and diminishes visitor potential,” according to Jacobs’ pre-study report.
In addition to the open house meeting, the city has plans to gather input several other ways. A Project Oversight Committee has been established that includes representatives from the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee, the city’s hospitality industry, the tourism industry, downtown representatives, property owners and the development community. Also, federal, state and local resource agencies will be invited to several meetings to review the study as it develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
