Before I begin... I know that I sometimes write these posts with a flair of sarcasm, and to some degree, the intention of humor. I realize that humor is judged by the reader individually and not by the writer. So when I do these kinds of posts... perhaps disagreeing with a fellow candidate... I will do my very best not to include the usual sarcasm and will maintain a healthy level of respect towards the candidates.
In fact, I am feeling a sort of kinship with the other candidates at this time. I think that it is wonderful that the 13 of us (originally) that qualified for the ballot stepped up at this time to, hopefully, rally the community and ultimately move Kingman in a positive direction. Kingman voters will have to make tough choices on March 11th.
I am going to copy and paste some quotes from this article that covered the Forum event on Tuesday night. The quotes are attributed to Harley Pettit and I'm sure most of you know that he is a founding member of RAID but apparently had to resign from that group once he announced his intention to seek office. You also know that I have disagreed with RAID on numerous occasions on numerous issues for the last year or so. I am not singling out Mr. Pettit because of his affiliation with RAID though, I'm doing this because I disagree with him on a very important issue... an issue that I think has become very blurred in this community.
From the article...
Former Residents Against Irresponsible Development member Harley Pettit's opinions have been in the community for months now: he prefers Rattlesnake Wash. For one, residents voted on it in the General Plan. Secondly, Kingman Crossing, he believes, would take sales tax revenues away from existing businesses in Kingman.
"I think the Nov. 6 ballot spoke loud and clear on the Kingman Crossing being funded by the city," he said, referring to the 60 percent majority of voters opposing two Crossing measures.
"Rattlesnake Wash has a plan and a purpose, and he have maps on that," he said.
Settle in and grab your favorite drink (one with caffeine in it, cause this may take awhile)...
Preferring Rattlesnake Wash is fine with me (I prefer both proposed interchanges), but I don't think the rationale he delivered works for the community.
Mr. Pettit alludes to the General Plan and says that voters of Kingman voted for approving the plan, in part, because it had the Rattlesnake Wash interchange on the map... and obviously not the Kingman Crossing. The General Plan is a long document with many things included, it is way more than a land use designation map. I'll be responding to the General Plan stuff a bit later (because of length) and for now will respond to the other comments first.
Sales tax migration:
The other point Mr. Pettit brings up above is how sales tax dollars could be diverted away from other existing commercial businesses in Kingman, assuming in the event that Kingman enters into a development/reimbursement agreement with a developer that would front the cost of infrastructure improvements and later be reimbursed over time. I could very well agree that this could be an issue... only if the population of this area was to remain static for many years. Will our population remain static?? Here in the southwestern part of the United States?? In one of the fastest growing states in the country?? In one of the fastest growing county's in the nation?? Folks... before you answer...
The issue that he bring up stems from what I perceive to be a misinterpretation of how development and public/private reimbursement agreements work in the state of Arizona. It is impossible to make the kind of determination that Mr. Pettit has until a private entity and a municipality agree to have a feasibility study done to determine the affects a reimbursement agreement will have on the community. Until that study is ordered, completed, and studied (by the public)... none of us can really make a clear determination about whether or not a reimbursement agreement would be a worthy path to take to improve infrastructure needs within our community.
Nobody should assume anything at this point. The 'investment' into a feasibility study is rather low (much less than what Kingman gave to the Chrysler corporation to 'incentivize' them to move their testing operations to the Yucca area), especially as compared to what could be a significant increase over time to the collection of sales tax dollars in Kingman... as Kingman grows. And just what if the feasibility study shows no increase in tax dollars or harm to the revenues for the reasons Mr. Pettit stated?? That is easy... don't enter into a development/reimbursement agreement.
November 6 local issues election:
Did the voters of Kingman have a chance to cast their vote about development/reimbursement agreements, or the proposed interchange itself, or the development on the north side of Kingman Crossing last November the 6th?? The answer simply is no.
Proposition 301 was the only issue that I would consider to be closely related to the remarks that Mr. Pettit offered. Prop 301 only dealt with the land use designation on the Kingman resident owned property on the south side of the Interstate at Kingman Crossing. But yes, 60% of the voters voted to hold the current land use designation in place and bypassed a chance to increase the value of our own property. Something that I bet all those voters would not have voted to do if they individually owned those 168 acres of prime real estate.
I remember well the organized effort by RAID to defeat the proposition on the ballot. I know that members of that organization really believed in what they were doing... and I don't hold anything against them... I still simply disagree with their lack of intention to do something positive with the very best land asset that Kingman will likely ever have.
Rattlesnake Wash:
The proposed interchange at Rattlesnake Wash most assuredly has a plan and a purpose, as Mr. Pettit alludes to in the above quote. And yes, there are maps that have the proposed interchange on them.
What many people may not know is that developers and land owners on the south side of the Interstate near Rattlesnake Wash and the city entered into one of those development agreements some time ago. While that agreement does NOT have a reimbursement element included back to the developers, it certainly is the kind of agreement that benefits the City of Kingman AND those landowners and developers. I'll offer more details about this existing development agreement in a future blog post, but yes Mr. Pettit is right... there is a strong purpose for the Rattlesnake Wash interchange project... including (but not limited to) profiting many millions of dollars for private interests due in large part to public funding.
The General Plan stuff:
Let's jump in the 'way back' machine and head back in time to the date of May 18th, 2004. Do you remember what you were doing that day?? Well while you were doing whatever it was you were doing, there were 2,262 of us voters here in Kingman that voted to approve the General Plan. That number represented just short of 75% of the voters that bothered to show up to cast their vote on what has become such a huge and important document that has become just short of being worshiped by some people here in the community.
On that particular election day voters were asked to decide on a Mayor, one City Council seat, the Home Rule Option, and the aforementioned General Plan. There were 13,134 registered and eligible voters that day and; 3,970 voters cast a vote for their choice for Mayor, 3,761 votes were cast to decide who would sit on the City Council, 3,724 folks chimed in on the Home Rule Option, and the General Plan only appealed to 3,538. See the results for yourselves here.
You may draw your own conclusions, but when I see that 1 out of every 10 voters that decided who would be the Mayor -- but didn't bother to vote either way on approving the General Plan or not -- I'm guessing the issue wasn't clear or even important to voters one way or another.
To give you some idea, here is a link to the city website that has the entire General Plan... that the voters voted on. Now if you decide to wade through that long document -- your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find exactly where the voters of Kingman approved the Rattlesnake Wash interchange project... both phase 1 and phase 2.
I searched the Kingman Daily Miner's website for past articles about the general plan before that election and came up with NOTHING, so I don't know (and can't remember) the community discussion about this very important (as it seems now) subject. The only thing I vaguely remember about deciding to vote to approve the General Plan or not was the fact that according to state of Arizona statutes... municipalities had to HAVE one. I certainly do not remember anyone selling me on the idea that approving the General Plan equated to a huge infrastructure project moving forward. If the interchange was a selling point I know that I would have remembered it since I've been saying since I moved here in 2000 that I didn't think there were enough interchanges in Kingman along Interstate 40.
If you decide to peruse the General Plan that I linked to above, be sure the read chapter 9 of that document. It is the cost of development element that talks about the various ways that the City of Kingman should consider, going forward, as ways to pay for improvement projects. See the following...
The Cost of Development Element includes:
A.) A component that identifies various mechanisms that can be used to fund additional public services necessary to serve new development, including, but not limited to: bonding, special taxing districts, development fees, in lieu fees, facility construction, dedications, and service privatization.
B.) A component that identifies policies to ensure that any mechanisms adopted by the City of Kingman under this element result in a beneficial use to the development and bear a reasonable relationship to the burden imposed on the City to provide the additional public services.
Easy enough right?? I'll share a bit more from item number 9-2 from this chapter named Funding Mechanisms of the General Plan...
In order to achieve Kingman's goal of meeting the needs of our growing community, the City must continue to expand public infrastructure and facilitate services. It is important that the City establish specific policies, plans and strategies that can be implemented with community support to address financial needs and achieve stated community goals.
With continued growth, Kingman has made efforts to fund increases in the number of police and fire personnel, and other employees, services and facilities. City facilities and services are funded through the general fund and some special grants. The general fund is funded through sales tax revenues, which are the largest source of revenue, and other population-based revenues from the State or through payment for City services. Sales tax revenue tends to be unpredictable due to fluctuating economic conditions such as employment rates, stock market changes, and tourism levels.
Among the list of funding mechanisms mentioned in 9-2.1 of the General Plan is the following...
Development Agreements
Development agreements are permitted under A.R.S. 9-500.5 for municipalities. Development agreements permit contractual arrangements between the City and property owner(s) regulating the permitted uses, density, maximum height, and other aspects of the land subject to the agreement. Advantages of development agreements are that they are voluntary and, therefore, mutually agreeable to all parties involved in the negotiations. Also, they can enable the City to attain planning goals at minimal or without costs.
Yep... Kingman voters voted on this. Now let's take a look at the goals, objectives, and policies from 9-4 of this chapter of the General Plan...
GOAL: To apportion the costs of development by ensuring that development pays its "fair share" of the costs of additional public service facilities, and needs generated by new development.
Objective 1.0:
Ensure that City services, facilities, equipment and infrastructure properly serve the community in a manner that enhances quality of life, optimizes existing facilities, and provides for future needs.
Policies:
1.8 Evaluate public/private partnerships, and development agreements.
To save space I did not include all the listed policies in this subsection of the General Plan. I do find it interesting that Mr. Pettit uses the General Plan to make his point about Rattlesnake Wash, doesn't seem to want to abide by the General Plan when it comes to evaluating public/private partnerships as stated as a policy.
Mr. Pettit also mentioned something about maps earlier... stating in the past that the Rattlesnake Wash interchange was included on the land use map for the General Plan. Click on the land use map at the link I offered earlier... once you have opened that map please notice that the Kingman Crossing interchange is now that map... and also notice that the map itself has be revised in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (and likely again in 2008... probably due to change and growth).
I don't think the General Plan should be used politically the way we've seen it used in that manner over the last year or so. Especially since the whole concept of the plan is mandated by the state of Arizona first and foremost. The other bit of importance is that this plan is primarily used as a guideline and not something set in stone... the plan can be altered based on change and need.
I see the need for change in Kingman because of the growth we have experienced. The flow of growth is moving nicely east along the Interstate.
With the utmost respect towards a fellow candidate for the office of City Council, I am compelled to disagree with him for the reasons I have included in this blog post. I certainly wouldn't mind discussing these issues further with anyone who wanted to, whether you agree or disagree. Candidates for office are invited to chime in as well if they choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment