You see in this little town there is a nice big Interstate that runs east and west through it. There are a couple of ideal locations to add a traffic interchange. Let's just take one as an example, we'll call it the Kingman Crossing area (you may have heard of it).
On the north side of the Interstate there is a private property owner (from out of the area with deep pockets) who has grand plans to build a shopping and entertainment center for all of the fine citizens of the area to use. However the locations current state makes it extremely difficult for the population of all Kingman to easily access the area... especially with a giant Interstate in its backyard (or maybe its front yard, whatever) going underutilized. The following is my understanding, I might be off and I reserve the right to be called out on what I'm about to share. When the deep pocketed private property owner acquired the property (some 200 acres) it came with the condition that if a traffic interchange was built that they'd be on the hook for half the costs. I'd appreciate comments if what I just said is in error. I don't mean to mislead anyone.
On the south side of the Interstate the City of Kingman, and all the residents, own some 168 acres of land. Some citizens insist this area is reserved for a park that the city should provide and maintain (and carry liability for). The park should include lush grass and jungle gym equipment for the kids, maybe even a ballpark, or a skate park, or an ATV/motocross track (face it I've heard many uses implied). Without a traffic interchange located near or through the park, most of the citizens of Kingman would have to travel longer distances and possibly use the sacred street of Seneca to arrive for the fun and frivolity that only a large community park can offer. Luckily in recent weeks a community group with a strong media presence has publicly said that they would support a traffic interchange in that particular area.
So now we've identified two interested parties that would like to see a traffic interchange constructed to improve access to both sides of the Interstate for various reasons. One supposedly has to pay for half of the construction and the other side... well just how is the city to pay for their half of the construction?? I didn't see this item included on the bond issue that voters will decide on later this year. If you've been at meetings with Council Members or the Mayor you probably have heard that the City of Kingman is tapped out of funds needed for an infrastructure improvement such as a traffic interchange. Solutions anyone??
Well, the State of Arizona passed a measure called ARS 9-500-11 which if adopted by a city or municipality could offer a possible solution the current situation that Kingman faces. It basically allows the City of Kingman (if adopted) the chance to allow the developer on the north side to provide all of the funding for the construction project with one obvious catch. The developer would prolly like to get reimbursed for picking up the entire tab when Kingman is able to repay.
Let's take a closer look at this Arizona Revised Statute.
D. Before entering into a retail development tax incentive agreement, a city or town shall make a finding by a simple majority vote of the governing body without the use of consent calendar that includes both of the following:
1. That the proposed tax incentive is anticipated to raise more revenue than the amount of the incentive within the duration of the agreement.
2. That in the absence of a tax incentive, the retail business facility or similar retail business facility would not locate in the city or town in the same time, place or manner.
Yep, my emphasis. You know that sounds pretty good. A net add to the city coffers has to be guaranteed during the duration of the agreement, and I get to use the traffic interchange at the same time. Win/win. So far.
Here is an article in the Miner that is leading us astray in my opinion...
But the mayor and many on City Council have said several times throughout the past four months that the city could not afford to give sales taxes to a developer.
Without a primary property tax carrying some of the burden of providing basic city services, such as road repairs and public safety, sales taxes are often called the lifeblood of Kingman.
Who is giving sales tax away?? The state statute calls for there to be a net add not a net negative. And there would be nothing to 'give away' if Kingman had the money for the project in the first place.
More statute...
J. A person or business entity receiving the retail development tax incentive agreement shall not finance the independent third party verification of the findings or have input into the selection of the independent third party verifying the findings.
This is where the frenzy will no doubt begin. Again in the Miner article many will likely be led to believe that the City of Kingman and the developer have already overstepped their bounds and are dealing dirty. But keep in mind that nowhere in the article does it say that the developer financed or plans to finance the independent third party verification of the findings or has had or will have input into the selection of the independent third party verifying the findings.
The other agenda item was a proposal from staff to hire an outside consulting firm to conduct an independent, third party impact study to see if sharing sales taxes with Vestar would be beneficial to the city.
Arizona Revised Statutes require this outside consultation, and to avoid skewed results, the laws prohibit the developer from paying for the third party firm to investigate the effects an agreement would have on the city budget and the community.
Vestar helped influence process
But according to several e-mails turned over by the city last week, Vestar did have some influence in the process, both with recommending firms to conduct the studies and with providing information to be used in the studies.
Vestar Project Manager Ryan Desmond wrote an e-mail April 2 to Kingman Economic Development Director Jeff Weir, stating, "To follow up on your question about who has provided the independent 3rd party reviews for our agreements with other municipalities, Pat Flynn (Queen Creek, Gilbert) and Elliott Pollack (Coolidge, Maricopa) have provided that service recently."
Wow, I wish more was shared in these blasted emails that shows me exactly where the big bad developer did anything other than let the City of Kingman know who the third party was that did the reports were for past projects. Is there anything definitive that shows anyone other than the municipalities hired Pat Flynn and/or Elliot Pollack?? If there is, please call me on it.
I'm not familiar with Pat Flynn, but I do know something about Mr. Pollack's firm. He is a well known economist in the state of Arizona. He has been hired by the Arizona Association of REALTORS in the past for various housing market studies. I sat through a presentation he made last year that I felt was very fair and it could hardly represent cheer-leading for the end of the housing market struggles (like I'm sure all the REALTORS in attendance wanted to hear). This is a link to some of the economic and fiscal impact studies that his firm has worked on in Arizona. It's a pretty good list. Kingman would be lucky if his firm took our money to do the report, again in my opinion.
Since when does a recommendation equal answering a question of fact on who the third party was that did the independent reports??
Frenzy, frenzy.
Deering wants to have a choice
Councilman Kerry Deering will be making sure of that. Upon hearing the news indicating that (Jeff) Weir had asked Vestar for references, about the city picking the reference, and that Vestar and the selection, Pollock & Company, had worked together in the past, Deering responded: "If I'd found that out I would have been raising hell, you know that."
Deering preferred having more than one choice, and actually having a choice. He said that having a company without any ties to Vestar is a "no-brainer."
"I don't think the city staff needs to direct us on who to use," he said.
Sorry but I don't think that the developer and the independent third party work 'together'. Based what the Miner used for the smoking gun in the article, I'd hardly call it a 'reference' as it sounded more like a finding of fact. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the heat... just show me the entire context. The municipality chooses the third party and pays the bill. If the City Council doesn't want to hire Elliot Pollack (which Kingman hasn't according to the article) there is still time to find another. While Pollack is probably one of the best, because of the coming frenzy, Kingman will likely have to settle for another third party that may not be as good or not even from the state of Arizona.
Maybe I'm way off. Luckily anyone that can correct me can do so in the comments. Otherwise all this apprehension is a waste of time (like waiting in Stockton Hill traffic).
The state statute doesn't look to be that hard to follow. If the leaders are listening to the people, remember that the people have stated at City Council meetings that they are not against a traffic interchange at Kingman Crossing and here is one possible solution to follow up on. So don't hire Flynn and Pollack, but do something to find out if the project is feasible. Does it (1) meet the requirement that more money comes into Kingman than it costs for the project and (2) can the developer meet the standards put on them during negotiations with the city?? If the answers are yes to both, then we have the makings of a solution.
Otherwise there will be a very different frenzy in the not too distant future.
No comments:
Post a Comment