The City Board of Aldermen did, after many citizen voices were heard, vote to amend the 2011 proposed budget leaving $165,000 in the reserve fund of the 2010 budget and may now move that money into the 2010 Branson Airport line item at their next meeting. That all mean that if they proceed as described, they will pay the 2010 invoices that are in essence for a portion of what everyday people call 2009 and early 2010. Good Job!
I know that was all a bit confusing. Basically due to a change in the way we (Branson) "book" moneys and expenses, this year 2010 was a 15 month year which included 3 months in 2009. The important part of all that first paragraph is they might be paying the invoices for all the passengers delivered to them per the contract thru June 2010. (long night and lots of votes, so I hope I get this right) The vote on this amendment was 4-2. Alderman Davis remains against the payment of any money due to his belief that the contract (even though modified in 2010) is unconstitutional. Alderman Williams voted no and either I missed the reason given or she did not give one, which is troubling since this move did not effect the 30% floor, she just last week gave as her reason to oppose appropriations. Once the amendment passed the budget as amended passed 6-0.
This was the (extended) first reading so yet another exciting meeting is set for the December council meeting. Since these things are fluid I do hope all the citizens who are concerned about this issue show up once again in force. Thus far, the City has not appropriated fund for the 2011 budget year. While so many of us applaud their steps last night, the message being sent to the community and the airport is mixed. In April 2011 the city will receive another bill from the airport for work completed through December of this year and so far the message is that the city is not intending to pay the bill. Alderman did discuss briefly an option to appropriate a small portion of the anticipated amount, but fell short of making that motion. Perhaps another sole searching and budget searching will take place over the next couple weeks.
Many of the public have viewed this as a simple issue based around a debt owed and a contractual agreement that needs to be honored. City council has been dealing with the legality of this agreement for over a year. I'm not an attorney and certainly not a constitutional scholar, I have reviewed both sides written and disclosed legal advice and one thing keeps ringing in my ears. Technically legal or not we agreed to do this. The commitment and the intent is clear. I deal with attorneys all the time. They deliver what the client asks for. If our city leaders tell the attorneys we want the contract fixed so that the intent and our commitment is honored, they will get that job done. If they ask for loophole which might prevail in court and get this agreement voided and allow the city to break the commitment, I bet the attorneys will have a course of action available for the city on that line too.
It could also be a prudent move to appropriate and pay the debt while looking into the constitutionality. Many attorneys advise clients to fight a case, but not to compound the case by defaulting on the obligation. IF the contract is some day deemed inappropriate, AND the city wants to discontinue the relationship via the accidental unconstitutionality of the document, they can stop the payments then, or they can do the right thing and fix the agreement. IF they were to be proven incorrect, the cost of litigation as well as the additional cost of defending the default and quite probably the further additional cost of potential damages to the Airport could be much more damaging to the city. Not to mention the wonderful public relations we have and will generate.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.
No comments:
Post a Comment