Case goes to AZ Supreme Court...

Back on May 22nd I wrote a post about the legal battle involving a developer that made and agreement with a municipal government. The Arizona Supreme Court made its decision to go ahead and hear that case.

More about that here from this report...

The battle over CityNorth is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Both the developer of the project, Klutznick Co., and the Goldwater Institute, which filed suit to end the incentive agreement between CityNorth and the city of Phoenix, will have their arguments heard before the state’s highest court.

At issue is an economic development agreement between Klutznick Co. and the city. The conservative Goldwater Institute says the $97.4 million tax incentive package given to the mixed-use, partially built project is not in the best interest of taxpayers.

The Goldwater Institute challenged the CityNorth agreement in court claiming it violated provisions of the state gift clause. But a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the developer and city in April 2008 and dismissed the case. The Goldwater Institute appealed the decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision late last year.

Klutznick, along with the city, then asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the matter. The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will indeed hear the case. No date has been set for oral arguments, but they will likely be heard in the fall.

This case apparently is one thing that has put the possible negotiations between the city of Kingman and a different developer on a public/private partnership to build an interchange along Interstate 40 near Kingman Crossing on hold until after the decision of the Supreme Court ruling.

Shame really, since the plaintiff in the CityNorth deal has supported such agreements for actual beneficial infrastructure projects that would enhance the community. Something an interchange would do for Kingman at this time.

More econ development efforts from other places...

Haven't done this in awhile and being that I had 5 minutes to search the Interwebz, I found some happenings on the economic development front.

City council okays money for economic development

Wednesday May 06 2009, 12:38pm

Norwalk City Council took the first step toward more funding for economic development Tuesday by passing an emergency ordinance to free up $5,000 for the Norwalk Economic Development Corp.

In last week's work session, Mayor Sue Lesch and Ellen Heinz, NEDC director, said the money would be used to support existing manufacturing companies by helping them diversify their businesses, compete for new businesses and build on international connections Norwalk already has.

Hey now.

Genesee County partners with neighboring counties to spur economic development
by Melissa Burden | The Flint Journal
Tuesday May 05, 2009, 4:50 PM

PONTIAC, Michigan -- There's a change of attitude these days when it comes to economic development.

Genesee County will fight to bring jobs and economic development here, but it's taking a more regional approach to do it.

Genesee County on Tuesday inked a partnership in the nonpartisan Economic Growth Alliance during a news conference at a hotel here, joining Oakland, Livingston and St. Clair counties in a collaborative effort to spur economic development, growth and diversification in the area.

"You think and act regionally to benefit locally," said Michael Brown, interim mayor of the City of Flint.

I like the aggressive wording at the beginning of this article. 'Change of attitude' towards economic development and 'will fight' to bring jobs to the area. Would love to see the local daily rag print words like this someday about economic development efforts in Kingman... soon.

Food-processing plant to create 54 jobs near Whiteville

Published: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 11:51 a.m.

Nice Blends Corp. will open a food-processing plant near Whiteville, investing $1.5 million and creating 54 jobs over three years, according to the Columbus County Economic Development Commission.

The company is moving from the Bronx in New York City and has bought a 57,000-square-foot building in the Southeast Regional Park on N.C. 130.

...

North Carolina’s Southeast Partnership, which markets 11 counties to businesses, last fall brought the lead on Nice Blends to the commission, director Justin Smith said Tuesday.

The Columbus County Board of Commissioners awarded a performance-based incentive grant of $46,455 over five years based on Nice Blends investing $1.5 million and creating 54 jobs within three years, Smith said.

Additionally, the company paid about $1 million for its building, but that was not part of the incentive agreement and is not included in the $1.5 million, Smith explained.

Performance-based incentives?? You don't say.

Investments brings jobs?? Who'd a thunk it??

And now this last one is my favorite of the day. Read this to see if you get the same sorts of feelings as I did when I read it for the first time.

Agawam shows plenty of potential
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
By JIM DANKO

AGAWAM - Information from a recent workshop examining future goals for the city will help shape an economic development plan now in the works.

The plan will direct future economic growth in the community by identifying parcels of land appropriate for development .

I can think of a parcel of land appropriate for development here in Kingman. Sits just off the Interstate and is currently used as a non-official dumping ground. In fact the city owns this land.

It also will examine what kind of infrastructure the community needs, including sewer, water, schools and community centers, said Planning and Community Development Director Deborah S. Dachos.

The Planning Department is using a $69,150 state grant to fund an economic development plan for Agawam. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is conducting the study.

The plan, which should be completed by December, would then determine what zoning amendments and infrastructure investments would be needed to create feasible future development sites, Dachos said.

The state government bailed on helping our community with an obvious infrastructure need, for shame. Yet Kingman still has needs. Time to get creative.

The plan also would identify any other municipal barriers to commercial development (such as the local permitting process, labor suitability, and quality of life factors) and identify strategies to address these barriers.

I'm not sure if any of our local municipal barriers have been addressed or not, but I've heard rumblings that the new prominent project has faced several challenges. Sorta the same that has been heard on other commercial projects in the past. Couple that with the micro-nit-picking that goes on when any investor/developer tries to come into the area (the biggest barrier IMO) and it appears much work still needs to be done. Oh and might as well throw in impact fees into the discussion as well as they are not helping economic development.

The plan calls for public outreach to assure that the new development is consistent with community goals and to gain support for any zoning changes or infrastructure investments that will ultimately need to be made.

A "visioning" workshop held on April 29 drew a mixture of comments about the city's development.

Residents Peter H. and Jill M. Hallock said they would like to do their shopping in Agawam.

"We go to Wal-Mart in Westfield, and we have to park way out in the boondocks because so many people shop there," said Peter Hallock, of 71 Perry Lane. "We're sick of having to leave town to buy a shirt. We don't have a decent restaurant to go to as far as I'm concerned."

Obviously not the same challenges here (we have a Wal-Mart) but the sentiment is nearly the same. Just replace Agawam with Kingman and the statement would probably look like this... "Residents 'X' and 'Y' said they would like to do more of their shopping in Kingman"... which no doubt would help the 'Shop Here' economic development plan currently in place.

As part of the two-hour workshop, planning officials discussed results of a retail survey of residents.

The survey revealed that many people travel outside of Agawam to shop to find a greater section of retail goods and services.

"We heard a lot of comments about a need for Target, Wal-Mart or Kohl's," said Jessica Allan, senior planner with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission,.

The survey results, with comments from residents, are posted on the city of Agawam's Web site.

Sounds so familiar. Community residents wanting -- no not more public services but instead -- more commercial services. And at least in Kingman, more commercial services lead to more sales tax dollars collected. No-duh solutions are slapping me in the face right about now (actually for a few years now).

Marc Horne, of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, presented the results of an "economic development self-assessment tool" undertaken as part of the economic development plan.

The self assessment tool examines Agawam's ability to promote commercial and industrial development, Dachos said.

Horne's presentation, which was based on information the town of Agawam submitted, looked at what Agawam has to offer to spur business growth. It included traffic flow, proximity to universities, quality of available space, rents, and timeliness of approvals from various boards, among other categories.

Agawam has a lot of positive attributes, including a low crime rate, affordable housing and good schools.

However, its commercial and industrial tax rate, at $25.64 per $1,000 of assessed value, is higher than some other communities, Horne said.

I wonder what an economic development self-assessment tool might produce here in Kingman at the moment. Probably something a bit similar as what was copied above to some degree, but that just means that more work needs to be done (and covered by the local media).

But at this point, we know more about what is happening in Agawam in regards to economic development than we do here in Kingman. That has to change.

Holy Moses!!

Last week I put up a post about the demise of a proposed interchange project in the Kingman area. I'm not going to dwell on that bit of information and simply say it is what it is.

However, according to the article that covered the news of ADOT pulling the project off their 5 year plan (at least for now) there was this nugget of what I consider good news...

Fortunately for Kingman, at least one local ADOT project remains funded and will see completion sometime this summer. The repaving of the city's section of Interstate 40 from Holy Moses Wash to Rattlesnake Wash is scheduled to go out to bid on May 18, and will be awarded at the June 17 board meeting. Once the bid has been awarded, Beggs said, the pavement preservation should begin within a month.

And you know what, I'll take it. The stretch of Interstate 40 through Kingman is in horrible condition. I've recently traveled the entire length of I40 in Arizona and truly, this stretch is by far the worst. It is probably dangerous to a higher degree as well, it certainly cannot be good on tires or for vehicles.

So at least that bit of news is encouraging.

Was it worth the risk??

The risk I'm talking about was relying on the tax payers of Arizona to fund and develop a traffic interchange along Interstate 40 here in Kingman near what is popularly described as Rattlesnake Wash.

I have to admit that I haven't seen any solid reports delivered by any local media outlets (this blog is not an official media site), so all I'm going on is an eyewitness account of the mayor announcing that Rattlesnake Wash was pulled off the ADOT 5 year plan (scroll to the bottom of that link).

If the eyewitness account is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), then this news is really bad news... but news that was not all that unexpected. For the last year or so all the reports out of the state government was that there is a budget crisis and the state basically has no money (to spend in Mohave County for primarily Mohave County citizens to be more accurate). The federal government promises money in the form of a stimulus package that is given to the state government, and the state government applies that money to projects in the Phoenix area. Really, are you shocked??

I have been supporting both this proposed interchange and another one referred to as Kingman Crossing since I first heard of them (many years now). Both projects would mean opportunity for our community. Both now are severly threatened by all kinds of forces, espeically economic forces.

I ask if it was worth the risk to rely on the state taxpayer because if the news is correct, now there won't be an interchange in 2014 (or thereabouts) that will connect the Interstate to the airport area, or even connect the southeast bench area to an almost finished hospital that is in clear eye shot of the residents that live on that side of town. This was THE project that had the promise of better than retail paying jobs. It was also the project that would have led to more truck stops being built (if that is your bag, baby).

So now what?? Well first, I hope and pray that the reports are false or that someone at ADOT was simply having a bad hair day and today or tomorrow come out to fess up and say 'my bad'.

The state taxpayers just told us 'NO'. Our local risk was relying on the state taxpayer to pick up 70% of the Rattlesnake Wash project. Highly doubtful that the Kingman taxpayer will step in to pick up that portion, and frankly I wasn't too confident that they would pick up the other 30% portion either.

Meanwhile there has been this other deal in the works for some time. A deal that if negotiated correctly would put the onus of risk and financing on some other entity other than the tax payer of Kingman, Mohave County, or Arizona. And that would only be one way to make that project move forward. Another idea all along has been to sell the property on the south side of I40 (the 168 acres that the city of Kingman owns) to a private property owner and use the funds to help pay for projects that will bring growth opportunities, no doubt jobs, and many other benefits to the community.

Kingman and the powers that be have whiffed badly so far on opportunities that would have not saddled the city or its community residents with that much risk. Will it turn around?? Well I think the count is no balls and two strikes at this point. But as any good hitter knows, there is still a chance to hit a home run.

Shades of possibility...

City Council members held a public work session last Wednesday, the subject was on the proposed Rattlesnake Wash interchange and road improvement project.

Read this whole article for a better update... I'm going to share the following from the end of the article...

One of the property owners present, Paul Shuffler, said a handful of property owners had been willing to help fund the project if it could be moved up in ADOT's calendar. Since that didn't seem likely, Shuffler said he thought it only fair that all property owners should be involved in some kind of development agreement with the city to ensure everyone paid their fair share. Another property owner, Bill Bowers, agreed that an improvement district was the only reasonable way to go.

Council directed staff to draw up a resolution to hire a legal representative to proceed with financing such a development agreement with the property owners, as well as to initiate a formal Intergovernmental Agreement with ADOT that would make official an earlier letter of intent calling for ADOT to finance 70 percent of the project, with the city funding the remaining 30 percent.

I consider this a positive sign of the times. There is so much potential for industry type of jobs and other opportunity in this area, but much work needs to be done. For the landowners to reach out publicly the way they did is certainly a great beginning to get the community on the same page. If they are willing to pony up in return for normal benefits and take some risk, I think the community would also be more willing as well.

I've said all along that this infrastructure is as important as any other Interstate related proposed project.

From the mail bag...

I'm talking the traditional mail, not email on this one.

Last week I received a newsletter from the Mohave County Landowners Association (no link and as far as I can tell, no web site). I am not a member of this association but I suspect I received the newsletter because I am a property owner in this county and this is an effort to create more association members.

I thought I'd share with the readers here some of MCLA's take on what is happening around these parts. I'll just share some bullet points and offer how to contact the association at the end if you are interested in getting this sort of information in your mail box.

From newsletter #68

From the heading 'MOVING FORWARD'

Despite all the bad news and problems on Wall Street and other national news, MCLA remains optimistic about the future of Mohave County. They talk about the strategic location between Phoenix and Las Vegas, the availability of relatively inexpensive land, and plentiful groundwater to foster commercial and residential development.

Also mentioned is the growing industrial park at the Kingman Airport and opportunity to expand the Interstae 40 Industrial Corridor. Goes on to say that hundreds of millions of dollars have been dedicated to upgrading the transportation routes in the area.

Now from the heading 'KINGMAN'

MCLA offers the opinion that Kingman has the best long-term development potential of the incorporated areas of Mohave County... due in large part the vast expanse of privately held undeveloped land and possible annexation of said land.

Mentioned is the construction of the new hospital in the Kingman Crossing area of Kingman. The hospital under construction had its 'topping off' celebration a couple of weeks ago. The new hospital hopes to start receiving patients in the fall of 2009.

This newsletter included a review on the special election that took place over a year ago in determining the present fate of 168 acres of land that is under the ownership of the city of Kingman near the proposed Kingman Crossing interchange. Included is a bit on the efforts of a slow or no-growth activist group... also known as my favorite local special interest political action committee group... also know as RAID... in that special election a year ago. Moving on...

Goes on to say that the landowners on the north side of I40 are still moving forward with plans of a regional shopping center AND an infrastructure improvement. Talks about a potential sales tax reimbursement agreement between the city and the developer/landowner, but concluded that this sort of agreement would be a hard sell.

Also describes a bit on another I40 infrastructure improvement slated to begin in 2013 with completion sometime in 2015... and that is just phase one of a two phase project. I've mentioned the Rattlesnake Wash interchange plenty of times here at MOCO and the MCLA assesment of the project is very similar.

A map was included in the newsletter focusing in on the more east side of Kingman and notes the proximity of some future projects.

I'll skip the stuff about Bullhead City and Lake Havasu and move on to the heading titled 'JOBS'...

First up is some information about the old North Star Steel plant under new ownership Nucor, and how it plans to invest $30 million dollars to upgrade the plant and actually reopen the middle of next year (2009).

Next is the new county jail that has started construction. Also the new Canyon Distribution Center nearing completion.

Under the heading 'HOOVER DAM BYPASS'

MCLA has indicated that a key element for the future growht of Mohave County will be the completion of the new bridge in late 2010. The go on to mention how it may impact the home construction market as mega developers anticipate future growth in the county once the project is completed. Also mentioned is the funding needed to widen the 15 mile approach to the Hoover Dam Bypass has been identified and bids have been sought for that project.

There's plenty of other good information included in the newsletter as well, for that you will have to contact the association to get a copy (and perhaps become a member). To contact the Mohave County Landowners Association, phone 800-441-2816 toll free -- or 753-3055 locally. You might also try email address HGause@aol.com.

So... the town hall deal??

I was unable to attend last night, but I bet a few of you did. Please give some thoughts and details of the discussion.

Update:

Thanks for all the comments (save one), linked here is the article from the paper (KDM).

Still Talking 'Target'

The article that appeared in the Miner last week is still causing some bits of conversation.

There seems to be two camps in the conversation. Those in Kingman that desire to shop at a fine retail store like Target... and those that are using the article to end the discussion because Target chose a different location than in Kingman.

I'm not going to get all that 'linky' in this post. The readers that are most interested in the discussions know where to look to find the various takes (hint, letters to the editor that appear in the Miner and the posts below). I even see a MOCO commenter got in the act and offered a letter in the Miner... even responded to a responder of his letter (how's your trip going Al??).

Speaking of Al (Koffman), he informed us here at MOCO that there was an article that spoke about the effort that was made to bring Target to the Bullhead City area. Now, while I haven't found the article as of yet, I don't think Al pulled what he said out of thin air. Apparently a group approached Target and told them that even though Bullhead City didn't have the needed 100,000 in population, Bullhead City was THE place to open up for business in Mohave County.

Al responded to a post by informing the others that the group used the populations of Needles (California), Laughlin (Nevada), and Arizona municipalities including Mohave Valley and Bullhead City in swaying Target to come to Mohave County.

So that got me thinking... just what is the estimated population of all of those communities??

I used city-data.com figures and here is what I came up with.

I started in Bullhead City. Notice the estimated population numbers for 2006... the number is 19.1% higher in population than the more official numbers taken from the year 2000. City-data.com did not give these estimated figures for ALL of the other communities such as Mohave Valley or Laughlin. So I've decided to add 20% to those figures in the rundown below.

Bullhead City, Arizona = 40,225
Mohave Valley, Arizona = 16,433*
Laughlin, Nevada = 8,491*
Needles, California = 5,330

Total estimated population count = 70,479

*denotes a figure derived by adding 20% to the reported population figure from 2000 according to city-data.com

Again, these numbers are estimated and I'm only using the resources from city-data.com to arrive at the figures above.

Now, let us look at the Kingman area that includes Kingman, New Kingman (Butler), and Golden Valley using the same resource and percentage increases as seen in the Bullhead City numbers. I'm going to use a 20% increase even though city-data.com shows that the population in Kingman increased at a rate of just under 40% from the year 2000 to 2006. I realize this isn't the most scientific way to do this but I'm trying to give Kingman every disadvantage that I can... with one exception.

I was looking for traffic counts on Interstate 40 and came across an ADOT website (Arizona Department of Transportation) and found a reported number of 22,000 vehicles a day traveled through Kingman along this major Interstate... in 1998. Yet an estimated 40% of those vehicles were 18 wheeler's, truck drivers, and the like. So I removed the amount reported for truck traffic. Keep in mind that this is daily traffic.

Taken from ADOT's website...

In 1998, Interstate 40 east of Kingman carried an average daily volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, of which 40% is truck traffic.

Let us just look at the numbers, later you will be free to call 'bullshit' if you must.

Kingman = 27,271
New Kingman/Butler = 17,772*
Golden Valley = 5,418*

Total estimated population count = 50,461

Interstate 40 Traffic = 13,200**

*denotes a figure derived by adding 20% to the reported population figure from 2000 according to city-data.com

**denotes a figure derived by subtracting 40% from ADOT's daily traffic estimation of truck traffic

So there are the numbers. I added the traffic count simply because it is more than possible that most of the traffic on Interstate 40 is NOT local traffic, certainly much less of a percentage than the traffic counts that pass by the property where Target is located in Bullhead City. In a given year according to ADOT's 1998 figures, more than 4.8 million vehicles that aren't tractor-trailers pass through Kingman using the Interstate.

The population counts between the Bullhead City area and the Kingman area are different by about 20,000. Not really all that much, but certainly Bullhead City has the population advantage.

To make up the population difference, Target or other retailers (or other forms of commerce) would only have to attract 0.416% of the traffic that runs through Kingman along I40 a year.

Now I'm under no impression that even a slight minority of drivers using the Interstate will simply be drawn to a place like Target just because it is in Kingman with freeway frontage... but there is a ton of potential with an asset like I40. It is a huge advantage over our neighboring communities in Mohave County. Given the right access, it is more than possible that Interstate traffic can be courted for shopping, eating, entertainment, and even fuel sales in greater numbers than what Kingman is experiencing today at this moment.

Another benefit for the locals would be that this traffic wouldn't have to necessarily utilize overcrowded streets such as Stockton Hill either. Imagine a commercial center with easy access on and off the Interstate a mere stones-throw away... local traffic would hardly be impacted... and it actually could be improved in some places.

Now, if you are a local Kingman resident, raise your hand if you've shopped at the new Target in Bullhead City. Oh I see many hands. Raise your hand if you shop at other places such as the outlet mall in Laughlin, or catch a movie, or even enjoy a nice meal. Wow, many hands are still up, in fact others have raised their hands to join. Now... how many head out to other destinations and find themselves shopping for goods they don't have a choice for in Kingman?? I'm seeing plenty of raised hands still. These raised hands represent lost dollars in terms of sales tax revenues. These hands also represent lost revenue to local business, and I'm talking 'ma and pa' types of shops as well as other locally owned franchise opportunities.

Just a couple of weekends ago, while visiting my sister's family in Las Vegas and watching my nephew play a little league game, I ventured off to Target and spent a little over $30 bucks on some items I cannot get in Kingman (I've looked). After that adventure it was off to catch a bite at one of my favorite sandwich shops known as Capriotti's (I ordered the Bobbie and it was better than good, it is a great sandwich). I only mention this because Capriotti's is a franchise and one of the franchise owners sponsored my nephew's little league team. He told me that the company is looking to add another 500 locations throughout the west. How much does anyone want to bet that I see a Cap's in Bullhead before we see one in Kingman?? This might just be one more reason to spend money in another town, unfortunately.

I love local food joints and always will. The Kingman Deli makes a great lunch and now that Senor Taco is open again I'm finding that my exercise regimen needs to be taken up a notch or two (as I have no more notches left on my belt). Local places like this will only see more business opportunity as the area grows on the back of a growing economy. They will welcome competition because they will have to continue to produce a good product and the exceptional service. As of right now, I doubt either location is noticeably benefiting directly from the traffic that passes through Kingman on the Interstate as neither is located right off the highway. Both examples will attract the local business opportunity and more business will come when there are more locals living in Kingman.

All in all, this isn't only about Target. Yeah, Target has some products in stock that I prefer over Wal-Mart and K-Mart... but I'm not living in misery because Target was courted by a group of people to open up shop in Bullhead City. Target probably made the best decision to locate in Bullhead at this time for themselves. Bullhead is doing just fine with the decision, I thought that I read that the city is expected to receive nearly $840,000 in sales tax revenues in the first year of Target's operation (with the other new retail venues in that commercial center it won't be tough to believe that BHC will benefit over $1 million dollars a year, funds that will hopefully be used to better services in that community).

Once again, the city made a horrible decision in 2005 when Target was actually very interested in locating in Kingman (for whatever reason that may have been). There was a development plan in place with letters of intent signed to develop property along the Interstate... I say again... along the Interstate. A development agreement that would have put a large sum of money into the city treasury, a public infrastructure improvement, and the means to millions of dollars of sales tax revenue.

This horrendous mistake was followed by vocal locals opposing a lesser proposed development agreement to do similar improvements. The window that was wide open to real opportunity only three years ago is getting slammed shut by other factors that aren't controlled by local issues. The national economy is now lagging, we have the credit crunch, high fuel prices, and higher prices on staple goods we all rely on. No fault of the vocal locals on this, but it has to be clear that better opportunities for Kingman are in the rear view mirror. Alarmingly similar as the rear view image as 0.416% of vehicles that pass through Kingman see every day on their way to spend money somewhere else.

I was asked...

... so I will answer.

There has been one citizen that has been writing email and calling me with the most frequency since the campaign began. I appreciate his tenacity in getting answers to what he feels are important questions as he decides who he may be voting for. His latest question is one that I thought I'd share my answer publicly by posting it here on MOCO.

I am leaving the state for the week end but your reply to how you will fund KC interchange is critical. Answer when you get caught up.

My reply follows...


This will have to be a two-part answer to the question.

The first answer is easy, if the developers on the north side of Kingman Crossing are so insistent on an interchange that will bring Interstate traffic to their development then they can pay for it. When only private funding is used, the developers can use the design/build method of construction and it will save them millions of dollars. I believe that if the developer wanted to provide this infrastructure and allow for access to the north side only, they should be supported to do so.

The developers shouldn’t be expected to grant access to the south side off the Interstate if they are paying the bill with no expectation of reimbursement or other means of public financing in return for their efforts. (To me all along, I've got the feeling that the developer is more interested in getting traffic from the Interstate to their project, not so much has been said about catering to the needs of the residents on the south side. Even the new hospital project underway has been quoted as saying they don't need the interchange to move forward)

Now that leaves future access to the south side up to the property owners on that side of the Interstate, those owners are the city of Kingman and the state of Arizona. The community can decide later on in the future if they’d like to have that access and could do something about it (i.e. pass bonds, set up improvement districts, or something else that puts the weight of the cost on the residents of Kingman).

Now for part two of my answer.

Since the beginning of the talk about an interchange at Kingman Crossing, I’ve felt that the biggest benefit to the community that would come from that interchange would be public safety and convenience. I am specifically speaking about traffic flows. A complete interchange that allows for full access with north and south egress and ingress would provide alternate routes for residents in most parts of Kingman and the surrounding area. We are seeing a hospital go in at the new development, and access that might save some lives of residents in the southeast part of Kingman will be impeded without the fully built out interchange. Other forms of emergency response will also be improved with the new access this proposed project can produce.

This is why I don’t have a problem with having a sit down with a party with a funding source to see if that funding source would be willing to provide all the funding up front with some promise to repay at a later time. Not only that but put the onus of risk on that funding source instead of the taxpayers in the community. Public/private partnerships offer the foundation for such things.

You asked how would I fund the project, well in this manner my best guess and favorable support would be to pay back or reimburse the funding source out of realized net add gains to the bottom line of sales tax collection. There are literally multitudes of ways to accomplish this, but the tough part would be in the details of any future negotiation of course. The following is what I’d consider a favorable way and one that I would seek if elected to the office of City Council.

The first thing that has to happen, according to state statute, for this kind of development agreement with a municipality is to have the city pay for a feasibility study. The economist that is hired to perform this function would investigate the potential revenue gains that would be uncovered by the scope of the project. This study would be the basis to use to begin negotiations between the city and the developer. This feasibility study could possibly even tell us all up front that the developers project wouldn’t create an increase in sales tax enough to warrant moving forward with this type of agreement. If that ends up being the case, the developer would be left to my answer number one -- pay for what they think they need on their own dime with no expectation of pay back.

I’m going to assume that this kind of study does in fact show a substantial net add in revenues. I’ll keep the numbers simple for this. Let’s assume that Kingman currently draws $100 total in sales tax returns from the current situation. Now the feasibility study comes back and says that if this project goes through and is successful that the projected return of revenue will mean that Kingman draws an additional net add of $10 a year (a new grand total of $110 dollars). Now both sides (the city and the developer) would have a basis to begin working towards an agreement in my opinion.

I would only be interested in reimbursing the developer for the up front costs of the infrastructure out of the net add revenues generated… in other words the additional $10 a year. Maybe $5 dollars of those $10 dollars a year is enough for the developer to accept for repayment. Maybe the city feels that reimbursing for the project should happen as fast as possible and decides to give all of the net add back to the developer until the cost is fully repaid. That would be a decision that the community should weigh in on… but only if we all get that far. Otherwise the project goes back to my answer number one.

I talk about shifting risk onto the developer and for this next part of the negotiation the city can do exactly that. Once again we will use my simple example from above, but we will assume that we are repaying the costs to the developer at $5 dollars a year. The agreement can be benchmarked that if ever the net add revenues do not exceed the $5 dollars, then the city does not have to cut a check that year for reimbursement. Now if an agreement cannot be reached at this point because the developer won’t take on the bulk of the risk, then the project goes back to my answer number one.

Now another consideration that would have be agreed on is what portion of the project would the city of Kingman reimburse the developer for IF the project is completely built out granting full access to both the north and south side off the Interstate. Some folks will want to reimburse only for half. As I stated earlier the full project would enhance public safety and convenience needs of the community. I believe the entire project (the infrastructure) belongs to the community and therefore if a party agreed to fund the entire project up front then this community would need to fully reimburse the funding source. After all, none of the funding would be coming from additional taxes on the Kingman resident. No sales tax percentage increase, no implementation of a property tax, and no bonding that lays the risk entirely on the community.

A fully built out interchange at Kingman Crossing also enhances the resident owned 168 acres that makes up the greatest economic asset that belongs to this community. The value of that land would increase significantly and could ultimately lead to many other benefits to the residents. It would also increase the value of the state owned land further to the south of the Kingman property and developers would have to pay a higher amount to acquire that property if they so desired for other future development. So in my opinion, the project is worth paying for fully and I believe that the infrastructure is our liability… but a liability that doesn’t carry all of the risk.

I can understand that all of this is based on assumptions, but the only reason they are assumptions right now is because the city and the community is not having meaningful discussions and working towards conclusions and solutions. I’m not worried that the critics will say something negative about my assumptions as some local voices have already made their own assumptions without even considering anything else. If the voters really want to have someone looking for real solutions, while at the same time clearly communicating the findings, and at the same time protecting the community – then I will be elected to serve for the next four years. If the voters choose others that have made negative assumptions based on zero data taken from zero discussions then I believe the community will be buying misguided hype based on zero facts.

What do we collectively know as facts right now??

The city had a plan to sell the 168 acres of Kingman resident owned property to partly pay for not one but two major infrastructure projects. The results of the November 6 election last year pretty much squashed those plans.

So since then the facts are…

A developer is proposing to the city a new interchange off of I-40 at Kingman Crossing. The developer approached the city about the possibility of pursuing a reimbursement type of development agreement. And as the Looney Tunes would appropriately say… “And that’s all folks”.

The next step of course is to get a feasibility study done. It will cost less than the actual INCENTIVE the city paid to Chrysler for some jobs in YUCCA and potentially the feasibility study could lead to returns back to this community many times greater than the Chrysler proving grounds EVER will. Again, we won’t know until we take the next step.

To me, at least, it sure beats waiting a year or longer before actually doing something.

I hope your out of town trip went well.

Thanks,

Todd Tarson

General Plan and local politics...

As I said before... I intend to use this blog to help communicate to voters where I stand on the issues... AND how I view the issues differently than perhaps some or all of the candidates for city council. In this post I will be disagreeing with another candidate on an issue he spoke about at the Mohave Republican Forum last Tuesday night.

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.

Kingman Crossing discussion...

Greetings from cold country.



I left Kingman last Tuesday, the morning after the latest City Council meeting. I watched the meeting via the city website on Wednesday and read on Friday the KDM article about an agenda item that I thought was worth noting.

Watching the video, I could not hear the motion made by Council Member Tom Spear because his microphone either wasn't on or he wasn't speaking into it. I'm assuming that he moved to pass the recommendations by staff... one to finish the Design Concept Report with the URS Corp. and two to terminate the contract with S&Y Capital Group.

According to the Council Action document on the city website, the staff recommendation was approved. My confusion at this moment is that I counted two recommendations by staff under item 4 Old Business and the following is how the Council Action document reads...

Staff recommends that the Design Concept Report for this project be completed. The report is 90% complete and would be valid for a period of at least five years.
Staff recommends terminating the development management and brokerage agreements with SYCG, and authorizing up to $250,000.00 in contingency funds to reimburse their planning expenses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 6-0.

I have to admit that when I first read the KDM article... the beginning almost made it sound like the Design Concept Report was scrapped. I suppose that concern stemmed from the fact that a RAID member spoke at the meeting on Monday that there was no need to continue with the Design Concept since 60% of the voters voted against the Kingman Crossing proposed interchange at the last election (although I must have missed that issue on the ballot because I never saw such a thing).

But the following from the KDM article seems to clear this up... for me at least...

Once that report is official, it will remain valid for approximately five years, meaning that while the most recent Council action puts a stop to any direct city involvement for now, the report will be available if future officials choose to pick back up the project. If that happens, with all the preliminary work complete, officials could begin actual design of the project.

Now that there are 4 seats for wide open for new members of Council, it is nice to know that the Design Concept Report will be around for the new Council to at least consider. As I do believe the new Council will have to work towards solutions for both proposed interchanges along I40 and hopefully with as many options on the table as possible.

I return to the home office after a few more games of 'shinny'.

Agenda item at City Council tonight...

If you want, you can view the entire City Council meeting agenda at this link.

I wanted to pass along one item that is worth noting from that agenda.

4. OLD BUSINESS

Direction from Council on completion of the URS Inc contract for the Design Concept Report for Kingman Crossing/I-40 Traffic Interchange and termination of development management agreement with S&Y Capital Group (SYCG)

The contract with URS Inc for the Design Concept Report for the proposed Kingman Crossing/I-40 traffic interchange is approximately 90% complete. $52,254.00 remains to be paid on the original contract price of $321,457.00. The City of Kingman has signed a development management agreement and brokerage agreement with SYCG. This agreement authorized SYCG to spend up to $250,000.00 up front on the planning and preliminary design for the Kingman Crossing project. Staff recommends that the Design Concept Report for this project be completed. The report is 90% complete and would be valid for a period of at least five years.

Staff recommends terminating the development management and brokerage agreements with SYCG, and authorizing up to $250,000.00 in contingency funds to reimburse their planning expenses.

As you can see, tonights Council action will likely put another major tie to the former city manager to bed.

Now I don't know how the the usual suspects will address the Council tonight, and I won't be there to witness it for myself (I'll have to watch the video the next day).

I think I can safely say that all sides will support the termination of the the agreement with the SYCG (Stone & Youngberg Capital Group). This company was essentially hired by the city to manage the potential sale of the 168 acres of prime location property along Interstate 40 near Kingman Crossing. It is my understanding that in return for the sale, SYCG would collect 14% of the amount of sale for conducting the transaction.

Now... bringing this into the realm of real estate sales... 14% commission seems like a lot of fees. Let me admit that I have never been involved in this kind of transaction before... by that I mean be an agent on behalf of a government entity... so I don't know what may be involved. But 14%?? That never rested well with me. To me it sounds as if Kingman hired a 'partner' instead of an agent.

I do not know for certain if the former city manager hired SYCG or not, but their association has been synonymous for the last couple of years. The association attracted even more scrutiny when the infamous city emails started leaking out.

At the recent issues election, the voters turned down giving authority to the City Council to sell the Kingman resident owned property... so the termination of SYCG (since they were hired to manage a potential sale) was likely inevitable at this point.

Leading up to the election I was telling everyone to vote 'YES' to Kingman on all the ballot measures, but I wasn't supporting a sale of the resident owned property in the near term. I still believe that either leasing or selling the property is a wise move... only when the property is fully conditioned for highest and best use that would bring the ultimate value. In order to do that I felt that changing the designation to the property on the general plan to something along the lines of 'Regional Commercial' AND figuring out a sensible way to have infrastructure (say... I don't know... a traffic interchange in the area) provided to the property would lead us all in the right direction.

The eventual outcome of the election though tells us that other solutions will need to be sought and agreed to before the resident owned property can truly be the kind of asset that will benefit the entire community.

I don't even pretend to know the motivation of the SYCG plans. I have no idea if they wanted to help the conditioning effort to eventually sell the property for $50 dollars or $50 million dollars (I assume the value of the property right now is somewhere in that range). I will be comfortable if the Council decides to terminate the agreement tonight with SYCG and continue the URS Inc. design concept for the proposed interchange.

But this is also where I think the comments could get interesting, if there are any. The design concept decision is an opportunity for certain community groups and potential candidates for Mayor and Council to be on record as to whether they support the interchange or not. Might we hear some folks say that the remaining 10% of the design concept be sacked?? If so, why??

Of course you know that I'd support finishing the design. At that point the clock would start ticking and the city could then begin looking for ways to possibly produce what is designed and do so in a way to benefit the entire community. If at some point there appears a means to a positive end... a winning position for the city to take action on... then good. I prefer that the city keeps the options open for now that could lead to something good, Kingman certainly could use some good right about now (instead of waiting a year or until 2013 or whatever).

Should make for an interesting (and probably long) meeting.

So why the change of heart??

The question from the title is directed at my favorite... well... my favorite local community group guest columnist, such as a spokesperson, through which views are expressed, that contributes to the Kingman Daily Miner.

I'm sure you all remember the many nuggets of wisdom that she has passed on to the readers of the KDM in the last year or so. If you are having a difficult time remembering these, just click on any of these words to refresh your failing memory.

I'm going to focus on something that she put in the paper way back in March, you'll find the entire guest column here.

This column was part of a response she made to a local developer, the 'you' she refers to in the following passage is that developer.

I do agree with you that the landowners surrounding Rattlesnake Wash have not agreed to participate in the cost of construction, however, that is not a criteria to build the interchange. The state of Arizona will pay 70 percent and the city will be responsible for 30 percent of the cost. I believe that these big (local) landowners will find it in their best interest to help fund the interchange because they will certainly benefit from it being built.

I wonder what moved her propose the following passage from her most recent guest column (click here to read it all) ??

• Approve a $10 million bond to provide the funds to make the Rattlesnake Wash interchange a reality. (ADOT has it on the plan and will pay 70 percent of the total.)

From a belief that (local) landowners would help fund the project to flat out asking the tax payers of this community to fund it 100%. Nice.

...

Yes... I saw a particular 'letter to the editor' in last Sunday's edition of the Kingman Daily Miner.

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.

Continental

• 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

The 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:

• 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!!

Somebody clearly drank all the Kool-Aid...

You know folks, I am truly enjoying the fact that we are seeing more conversation about local issues on the Internet these days.

In the last week or so I've noticed that the Kingman Daily Miner website has been putting responses to on line articles and columns in less than a weeks time, which has most likely spurred others to respond to the responses. One on line column has over 20 some odd contributions from readers (scroll down on that link) and I believe that leads to better community conversations.

There have been good conversations going on at the local TOPIX.net site for almost a year. Although some of the conversation did 'jump the shark' once efforts to slander certain individuals took hold.

I have even been impressed to some degree with RAID's website. There are many contributions there from the president on down the membership, water issues are covered, the 'opinion' page offers us a glimpse into RAID's take on issues (but hurry if you want to read those, I've noticed that articles tend to disappear), and even the feedback to RAID page is worth a hoot if you like reading the ramblings from the 'anonymous' (one of these submissions will be the focus today).

All in all though, it is good to see more folks coming together and at least be given the opportunity to see what others are talking about in regards to issues in the local community.

It also gives me the opportunity to get out the scissors and do some cutting and apply just the right amount of fisking when I find something that warrants it.

Lets take a look at what I found today shall we??

This one comes from the 'feedback to RAID' page on their website. Of course, like with ALL of the other feedback submissions... it was offered by someone who wished to remain anonymous. To be honest, there was one submission to the 'feedback' that did have a name attributed to it, but it has been removed. I heard that the particular (now missing) submission was sorta critical of RAID and I guess that is not allowed over there.

Anyway, strap yourselves in for this one. Might be a bumpy ride.

----- Original Message -----
FROM: Withheld by Request

Fraidy Cat, Fraidy Cat... I feel compelled to use 'Fraidy Cat' when responding to the following. I know I would be fearful of using my name if I wrote what Fraidy Cat wrote.

Hey Vestar, what part of the ballot measures not passing don't you understand? There will be no deal with the city. Not withstanding your reputation, the city (citizens) are not here to partner with you. If you want to start a business here, you're going to have to do it on your own dime just like everyone else. And that includes the interchange too.

Yeah folks, the above is real.

First of all Vestar was NOT on the ballot on November 6. But... the voters may have actually helped Vestar to some degree. I've covered that before, and even the KDM covered that this week.

The last bit in bold makes for a real interesting showdown if the contributor here is either in the RAID camp or the Good Old Boys camp.

Medcath says they are not dependant on the T.I. and they are on their own (investor) money to develop their (hospital) business. Nice try, Vestar, tring to force our hand by selling them 35 acres.

Sorry folks, I'm simply having a difficult time doing this because of all the laughter the above has caused.

And also... Fraidy Cat says 'screw you' if you need emergency services and live on the wrong side of the Interstate. This hospital plan was basically and evil ploy on behalf of the developers so nothing to see here, please move along.

Fraidy Cat would rather see people in need of emergency services suffer than the city of Kingman letting a developer front the money for needed infrastructure. Fraidy Cat comes across as a real meanie.

To the mayor and city council. What part of NO don't you understand? The city government is not a business to joint venture with a company. Where is your (AROC) license? If anyone approaches you about (sales tax) reimbursement to build, you have to turn them away.

Fraidy Cat... are you sure?? Somebody inform the communities Queen Creek and Gilbert here in Arizona. I didn't see either city on the AROC list of contractors and they both have reimbursement agreements with this particular developer.

This is hysterical. Never mind the state statutes or anything, only the AROC applies.

Our tax money is not to be given away. Having no primary property tax is enough incentive to develop and build. Are you going to adjust impact fees with Vestar? The people put you in office to represent the masses, not the special interests. Trying to circumvent the people by creating funding mechanisms including sales tax reimbursements and improvement districts won't fly.

The funny thing here is there is still more Kool-Aid for Fraidy Cat to drink. I'm not even kidding. I don't see the city creating funding mechanisms... I see the city (if it chooses to even investigate this opportunity to let someone else pay for infrastructure) copying what other communities have done, and have done so legally by state statutes.

Having the city residences (27,000) foot the bill is ridiculous. The only acceptable funding mechanism is for Vestar to use their own (investor) money.

Fraidy Cat... would this demand be the same for any and ALL parties that have an interest in a new interchange along the Interstate?? This is a serious question.

To the other developers / builders. What would happen if you tried for city reimbursement? The answer wouldn't be no but HELL NO.

Somebody get Fraidy Cat a new tinfoil hat.

And explain to me again how freezing the city property for several years benefit the citizens. Competition is good for business.

The voters, for all intents and purposes, just 'froze' out the resident owned property. Again, the irony is delicious. I wanted our property to be that competition, but RAID helped convince the voters to stand with Vestar to give them plenty of what they wanted.

In short, the city cannot partner with any business because of conflicts of interest. The council would have to recuse themselves on almost any P&Z or C.U.P. matter.

In a reimbursement agreement, the city does not give up its sovereignty to a private interest. There is no real partnership. The city simply agrees to allow the developer to front money for public infrastructure and agrees to pay the developer back over time out of sales tax dollars that are generated only at the developers project. AND only if the project is meeting the benchmarks and the criteria in the agreement. The developer still has a huge risk if the project does not perform in the way that the original 'feasibility' study shows.

Fraidy Cat, just what are you so afraid of anyway?? Kingman would not be the guinea pigs here, these agreements have happened before all over the state, and even in Mohave County.

It's real easy, Vestar. You're not going to make a ton of money on the backs of the citizens, You'll have to do it the old fashioned way, "you'll have to earn it."

I'll just let this one speak for itself.

Name withheld by request.

And that is probably for the best.

Developer still sees light...

To say the waters were muddy before the last local election would be an understatement.

There was some interesting quotes from this article in todays edition of the KDM (Kingman Daily Miner). I want to share a few things from the article...

"From our standpoint, not much has changed," spokesman Stuart Goodman of Goodman-Schwartz Public Affairs said Tuesday. "From our perspective, Kingman Crossing is still the ideal location for a major retail project that can benefit the Kingman community and the region as a whole."

From my standpoint, I agree. The whole community could and will benefit. Better public access, increased public safety, more sales tax dollars generated, among the many benefits.

"The vote last week requires more creative thinking on the funding mechanisms," Goodman said, "but the fundamentals of the project still remain the same as they were when we first closed on the land back in January of 2007."

I think creative thinking has been needed since the project was first talked about. To me the election didn't have much to do with the project at all.

The Vanderbilt-Vestar partnership has dedicated most of the talk about funding to a sales tax reimbursement: Vanderbilt would front the entire cost of the interchange, then, over the course of several years, receive a 100-percent reimbursement from a portion of sales taxes collected from a mall that Vestar plans to build on the north side of I-40.

You mean... just like other municipalities have done throughout Arizona and California?? Say it ain't so. I'd still love someone to point out the flaw in at least attempting discussions in this manner when other communities are using this kind of agreement to improve their situations. Why not us??

Although the expectation was that the election would be the next major step for the project, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for progress right now, as Council's retreat is still a month away and there have been no discussions lately on the one thing Vanderbilt and Vestar need to move forward: an economic impact study that outlines the feasibility of entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement. These studies are a prerequisite for any such sales tax sharing agreement.

I think the 'expectation' thingy was flawed. I still don't see how this election was tied to the future of this particular development when there is well known and well used options that have been staring at us all since the beginning. Plus the fact that a new interchange was never part of the roads improvement part of the bonds on the ballot that failed. These developers didn't expect us all to pay for it as an add on to our property taxes.

I certainly hope the current council or the new council will call for this 'feasibility' study to be considered. The cost is lower for one of these studies than what Kingman contributed to the package to bring Chrysler to Mohave County to replace Ford at the proving grounds in Yucca. The rewards would also likely be much higher in terms of returns as well.

E-mail records released from the city revealed that Vanderbilt had proposed a several year "freeze" on the city's land to eliminate commercial competition with Vestar's shopping center planned at Kingman Crossing North. Since the city's request for authorization to sell the Kingman Crossing South land, and since the denial of a major amendment to the General Plan for that same land, Vanderbilt essentially received what it indicated it wanted in the e-mails.

The above is so precious, so delicious. If you've been following along here then you will know why I say that.

I see the next decision for Kingman in regards to our community owned property to be either;

1) try for another major amendment to the general plan for the land use designation of the property... to once again go for conditioning the property for highest and best use. However, with no bonds in place to improve the resident owned property, it is likely that the city will have to look to the developer to enter into a development agreement (if it checks out through the feasibility study and an agreement between the city and the developer can be reached) that pays back the developer for fronting the costs to improve not only their property, but ours as well.

Or...

2) let the developer improve their property on their own dime with no expectation to pay back the city, but in return (since there is no free lunch) guarantee the developer that Kingman will not sell the resident owned land for commercial use for some period of time (maybe 20 years or more).

If you think about it rationally, option #1 gives Kingman more options to play with from the first day because there would little doubt that our property (the 168 acres) would be getting conditioned for a higher value if it was ever decided by the voters to sell some or all of it, while the other option limits what Kingman could do with our best land asset for an agreed to period of time.

Great article and I'm so pleased to see the developers speaking to the actual issues. Sure beats hearing the 'crooks and scoundrels' routine at city council meetings.