Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Estate Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen defer lease of small downtown parcel after debate over rent, easements
Summary
The Branson Board of Aldermen deferred action on a proposed 20-year lease of a 3,125-square-foot parcel next to the Branson Lock Building after aldermen questioned the $240 annual rent, lack of escalation language and easement protections.
The Branson Board of Aldermen on Wednesday deferred action on Bill 65‑16, a proposed 20‑year lease of a small parcel of city land adjacent to the Branson Lock Building at 120 E. Oklahoma St., after aldermen said the $240 annual rent and the contract’s easement language need further review.
City staff said the parcel is 25 by 125 feet (3,125 square feet, about 0.0717 acre) and that True Love Properties LLC, the business that purchased the Branson Lock Building, asked to lease it for parking. Michael Woods, a city staff member, told the board that True Love would pay $240 per year for a 20‑year commitment and provide an insurance certificate listing the city as additional insured.
The lease drew questions from multiple aldermen about whether $240 a year reflects market value and whether the agreement should include an escalation clause and clear language protecting city easements. "It seems like an incredibly low price," Alderman Schultz said during debate. Schultz also pressed for an escalation clause, saying, "If you had just 2% inflation, just 2 percent a year, by the time this lease is over, they're paying a $180 a year for the property." City staff noted the figure continues terms from a 2019 agreement and offered to return with additional valuation data.
Woods flagged utilities on and near the parcel: a water line crossing the property and a sewer line in the alley. He said the city would require a maintenance easement — roughly 7.5 feet from the centerline — to ensure continued access to water lines. Staff also confirmed the parcel contains improvements placed by prior occupants and that the lease would continue the current land‑lease arrangement rather than a sale.
Aldermen suggested adding explicit language to the contract clarifying the city’s easement and maintenance rights and limiting the lessee’s ability to grant third‑party easements. Alderman Schultz moved to defer the item to a future meeting so staff could return with recommendations on valuation, escalation terms and clearer easement language; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The board did not adopt the lease; staff was directed to revisit terms and bring revised language and valuation information at a future meeting.
