I ask that you please click the link and read the whole thing for yourself. I am not going to dedicate all that much time into disagreeing with parts of the letter. The author is a respected business owner in the Kingman area. He has voiced his displeasure and criticism at City Council meetings many times over the course of the last 6 months or so. He was one of the most visible critics of the former city manager that has since been fired from that position. He is also the same person that publicly took a swipe at a local community group that has only one mission... to get more people to vote in this community.
I find the author of the letter to the editor to be a person that I will sometimes agree with, and sometimes disagree with. The same goes for the letter that was published on Sunday.
However, there is one passage in the letter that I would like to discuss and share information. By now, most all of Kingman has heard of the infamous email quest that some citizens have pursued. The pursuits led those citizens to sue the City of Kingman for more emails.
What some may not know is that many emails (not all) were released by the city some time ago (before the summer months of this year). The gentleman that wrote the letter to the editor and I had a brief discussion around that time. He asked me if I had seen the emails at that point and I informed him that I had not. He told me that I could come by his office and pick up a copy that he would furnish for me. Keep in mind that at the time the number one target of all this was to convince the City Council members to have the city manager at the time fired.
The expressed reason that this gentleman gave me the copies was so that I'd have one of those "AH-HA!!" moments revealing to me why the city manager, the consultant the city hired to possibly sell the city owned 168 acres, and city department heads should be fired (and why everyone else is either a crook or scoundrel). Before I received my copies I had already reached my own conclusion about the city manager... and yes... I believed the city manager needed to go.
In just a moment I will be sharing with you the emails that were given to me by the author of the letter to the editor in regards to what the city, the consultant, and the developers at Kingman Crossing were up to in late February and early March of 2007.
First, the following comes from the Sunday letter...
The mayor says they will sell our 168 acres at Kingman Crossing for $28 million and he won't give Kingman Crossing our sales tax revenue. That's not what the e-mails show.
The city is paying 14 percent for consulting on Kingman Crossing. Why do the e-mails say Vestar won't pay for any of the interchanges; that's not what the city said? Why did developer Bill Nugent and his partners get to keep the money they sold their property for at Kingman Crossing, but we are to use ours to pay for the interchange? Why do the e-mails say Beecher and Stone and Youngberg Capital Group would like to call our 168 acres a blight area so our citizens can't vote on the property sale?
The emails that were given to me by the author of the above are what follows. I took the time to recreate these to use on this blog. I also put the emails in chronological order and will be starting from the beginning. I have hard copies and I have scanned copies on PDF files. If you wish to compare what follows with the copies that were given to me you may stop by my office or request the copies in an email.
I do not have any other copies of any other emails that may have since been released. The only other emails that I have seen published somewhere are from this article back in August. I still believe that if something inappropriate was done and the emails clearly pointed to the transgression... we'd see the emails on the front page of the Miner. The only emails I've seen in the paper are the ones from the link.
The beginning of the conversation about city/developer development agreements and 'blighting' of the resident owned 168 acres...
From: Christine Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:21 PM
To: Brian Kennedy
Subject: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
http://azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2508
__________
From: Brian Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:32 PM
To: 'Rob Owen'
Subject: FW: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
This is the full text of HB2508 -- see Page 6.
Brian H. Kennedy
__________
From: Brian Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:34 PM PM
To: Paul Beecher
Subject: FW: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
Paul: Can we make Kingman Crossing a Redevelopment Project Area -- see Page 6.
Brian H. Kennedy
__________
Here the city manager was asked a question by the consultant. A Redevelopment Project Area is a fancy way of imposing blight on property. You will see more about this later.
From: Paul Beecher
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:44 AM
To: Coral Loyd; Rob Owen
Subject: FW: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
Can we?
__________
Here the fired city manager asks his loyal department heads about the prospects of perhaps 'blighting' the resident owned 168 acres.
From: Rob Owen
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Paul Beecher; Coral Loyd
Cc: Brian Kennedy; Carl Cooper
Subject: RE: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
I think the council would have to declare the area slum and blighted prior to designating it a redevelopment area. Might be a reach.
__________
From: Coral Loyd
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:44 PM
To: Rob Owen; Paul Beecher
Cc: Brian Kennedy; Carl Cooper
Subject: RE: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
I agree with Rob -- No, the Kingman Crossing area does not meet the definition for a redevelopment project area.
__________
Great answers. I can't see the current City Council ever agreeing to 'blight' Kingman's best land asset. Council, in fact, agreed to change the land use designation on the General Plan to do just the opposite. The successful referendum (the defeat of Prop 301 and Councils decision) though... not so much.
From: Brian Kennedy
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:56 PM
To: Brian Masterman
Subject: FW: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
On what grounds is Sierra Gateway within a Redevelopment Area?
Brian H. Kennedy
__________
From: Brian Masterman
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:42 AM
To: Brian Kennedy
Subject: RE: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
In years past, it was much easier to declare a property as "blighted". Most of the Palmdale (like Moreno Valley) was considered blighted. In the good ol' days, undeveloped property would qualify as blight.
__________
As you see now, the consultant decided to get more clarification on what constitutes a Redevelopment Area and found out that California has a different set of rules than does Arizona.
From: Brian Kennedy
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:05 AM
To: Paul Beecher
Cc: Rob Owen; Coral Loyd
Subject: FW: Arizona State Legislature: HB2508 Municipal Tax Incentives...
We are working on two similar areas in Palmdale and Moreno Valley California which had never seen prior development and yet met the "blight" definition. Are there any precedents in Kingman where "blighted" means "undeveloped"?
Brian H. Kennedy
__________
From: Paul Beecher
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:07 AM
To: Brian Kennedy
Cc: Brian Masterman, Coral Loyd, Rob Owen
I was out on my quad yesterday and saw a truck leaving our property with an empty flatbed; upon further investigation I noticed that whoever it was had dumped a lot of trash at the sight; that, along with the car chassis, several tires, a broken doll house and too many Wal Mart plastic bags to count must surely qualify our property as blighted.
__________
End of email stream
Yeah... the dude (the former city manager) needed to go. He is gone. But it does sound like the Kingman resident's owned property could use some sprucing up.
Still the Sunday letter author alluded to something along the lines of the mission to 'blight' the property was done to avoid Kingman voters voting on whether or not to sell the 168 acres. The election was nearly 2 weeks ago, and the voters voted not to sell the property. What is the 'gotcha' moment here?? I can't find one.
So far the emails that were given to me by the Sunday letter writer do not show me anything he alluded to in the Sunday letter.
The last email that was given to me on the Kingman Crossing subject follows. I was not given any follow up emails that may have come from the fired city manager or any other city staff person or current city leader.
From: Brian Kennedy
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:33 PM
To: Paul Beecher
Cc: Brian Masterman; Jeff Weir
Subject: Kingman Crossing - Site Planning
Paul: The following issues came up at yesterdays' meetings with Vanderbilt/Vestar and Continental:
Vanderbilt/Vestar
- They were not aware of the fact that the City Land cannot be included in the CFD while owned by the City. This led to discussions on an ID as an alternative approach -- we told them the City does not want ultimate liability.
- They were not interested in planning the City Land.
- They are looking for a 5 to 7 year "icing" on the City Land -- no competing development
- If the City Land was sold for retail development they wouldn't proceed with the Interchange. Two competing projects would destroy each other
- They would not pay cash for the City's 50% of the Interchange -- but would consider covering the City Land's annual assessments during the "ice age" with repayment out of eventual sale proceeds.
ContinentalThe biggest concern was Vanerbilt's statement that they would not proceed with the Interchange in the event we introduced competition. While Vestar would be concerned about retail competition on say 70 acres of the land, Vanderbilt would still have 110 acres (after the Interchange taking) to develop for all of the same non-retail uses that we would want to attract on the City Land. Any slae of the City Land before the Interchange construction contract was let could be clouded by concern that Vanderbil/Vestar might pull out -- leaving a reduced and wary field of competitors. My initial conclusions are:
- Believe that competition is healthy and both projects would flourish
- Acknowledged that their planning pricess would be designed to serve their Company's best interests
- S&YCG should initiate planning on the City Land but not to the level of detail and specificity as a PDD would require. All appropriate uses should be addressed including retail, commercial, multi-family residential etc. The primary purpose would be to indicate to the public and prospective buyers what the City would like to see on the property. Not knowing at this stage who the buyer might be and the timing of the sale, greater definition in my opinion would be premature
- We should anticipate a sale in late 2008 at the time of construction start to the Interchange. The buyer will be assured of an Interchange.
- Steps to seek voter approval to a sale should be taken in November of this year using the conceptual development plan and Interchange funding plans as support
- If Vistoso/Vestar want to freeze the use of the City Land they should buy it. Alternatively they should finance and absorb the full Interchange cost for so long as the City holds it off the market for the benefit. Presumably this issue will become part of the Revenue Sharing agreement
- If the City put the City Land up for sale and Vistoso/Vestar withdrew from the CFD, the City could threaten to use the sale proceeds to pay for the north side 50% share -- and to impose a new traffic impact fee (or similar if you have one) on all new development on Kingman Crossing North. That should bring them back to the fold.
- If the City is prepared to freeze the use of the City Land we need to devise a way to "temporarily" convey it into private hands for purposes of CFD financing. One idea is that if we could get around the competitive bid situation, the City could sell the land to a private entity for a nominal sum with the right to repurchase at the same amount in 5 to 7 years. In the meantime Vistoso/Vestar would cover the annual assessments. In 5 to 7 years the site would be sold to the highest bidder just in time for the City to contribute its share of Rattlesnake Wash.
- Vestar asked whether we could create a Redevelopment Area, presumably to solve the CFD problem -- should we explore this further?
- We need to engage Vanderbilt/Vestar in discussion on the above and their revenue-sharing ambitions as soon as possible -- I think they will clarify a lot of things and give us ideas.
End of email.
I'm just not seeing it folks. I'm not feeling it. Are you?? If so, I'm all ears and would love to know why you might agree with the Sunday letter author on why the unearthed emails are so detrimental to the city.
A short summary...
I got the clear indication from the emails that department heads at the city were not going to recommend that the city leaders blight Kingman's best land asset. Maybe the city manager (at the time) would have, but he never did, and he will never get the chance.
I saw nothing in the emails that stated Vestar won't pay for the interchanges (note -- plural as it appeared in the Miner). There is talk about NOT proceeding with the interchange (singular) if the city sells our best land asset in the infamous emails that I have a copy of.
There was also a bit saying that Vanderbilt/Vestar would not be paying cash for the 50% that presumably the city would be on the hook for since it is the owner of the land on the other side of the Interstate in the way a normal CFD might work. But it should be noted that the city cannot enter into a CFD so that part is a dead issue anyway at this point with the fact that the city is still the owner of the property. Reading the last email again though leaves me with the impression that there IS actually some kind of expectation for Vanderbilt/Vestar to pay for 'something' if there is going to be a new interchange along Interstate 40 near Kingman Crossing.
It is clear that at the time of the emails, the land developers on the north side of the Kingman Crossing area did not want the city to sell the 168 acres on the south side. They did not want competition. The north side landowners company name begins with a 'V' and so do the rest of the companies and LLC's that are involved, and all of those parties have been vilified by the Sunday letter writer, the good old boys, and RAID. And all of those folks worked together to get a result from the election that favored all of the 'V' parties. I bet those 'V' parties sure learned their lesson.
LOL!!
No comments:
Post a Comment