Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Memorial Hall MOU after hotel industry raises concerns; CVB review requested
Summary
After extended public testimony and letters from local hoteliers, Joplin City Council voted 5–3 (1 absent) to table a memorandum of understanding with Friends of Joplin Memorial Hall until the council’s second January meeting, asking the Convention & Visitors Bureau advisory board to weigh in.
The Joplin City Council on Dec. 15 postponed action on a memorandum of understanding with Friends of Joplin Memorial Hall after hotel owners and tourism stakeholders raised concerns about the project’s financial assumptions and potential impacts on lodging tax policy.
Bill Stinnett and other hotel representatives told the council they had not been adequately consulted and that some owners doubt the projected room‑night increases cited in the Friends’ plan. Stinnett said a letter representing 14 hotel owners voiced opposition to using an additional 2¢ lodging tax for the Memorial Hall proposal as presented and asked the city to pause and seek further stakeholder input.
“Some of the owners do not believe this particular project as laid out will produce significant impact on room nights,” Stinnett said. He urged council to slow down, involve the CVB advisory board and test the Friends’ financial assumptions with a consultant.
Friends of Memorial Hall supporters and some council members said the group had invested many volunteer hours and fundraising effort and argued the MOU is the only current plan to preserve the building. Proponents noted prior studies and community interest in saving Memorial Hall.
CVB advisory members said the CVB board has lacked a quorum and asked council to let the advisory board review the proposed reorganization language in the MOU (which would change board composition to add hotel seats) and to provide feedback. A CVB representative asked for the opportunity to present a reorganization plan consistent with the MOU’s guidelines.
After extended debate, Council member Jackson moved to table Council Bill 2025‑017 until the council’s second meeting in January to allow the CVB advisory board to convene and provide a recommendation. The motion passed 5 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 absent.
Council did not adopt the MOU at the meeting; staff and councilmembers urged further outreach to lodging stakeholders and CVB members and called for follow‑up discussion in January.
