For the most part, the people who directly benefit should pay. It really is that simple.
However, I would argue that the case for both interchanges are different. People are starting to lump the two together, and I think we need to keep them apart from a financing standpoint.
First for Kingman Crossing. As far as I know, the State is not helping on this one. We bascially have a private developer wanting it, but we also have the People of Kingman that will also finanicially benefit from their 168 acres directly south of the interchange. So only in this case, do I personally feel that the people of Kingman should bare some cost of the interchange. Only so that it can unlock the value of tens of millions of dollars of Kingman owned land.
In the case of Rattlesnake Wash, "the people" (in the form of State and county tax dollars) are already on the hook for a large percentage of the cost. So, I believe that the Shorts, Brunos, Schritters, and any other owner within a given radius of the interchange should pay what is left. NOT THE PEOPLE OF KINGMAN.
At my age, I'm never quite sure if my mind is going to fetch up an accurate recollection of the recent past, but let's try.
I seem to remember that Mayor Byram made some comments at a council meeting about a proposal the V&V had fielded concerning a sales tax based reimbursement from the city to V&V for fronting the TI costs. I seem to recall that they were proposing a 100% payback and Byram stood pat that a 100% payback was not reasonable and everything stopped at that point.
I don't know if that is accurate or not and I think all this was going through city manager Beecher at the time – so who knows?
It would seem logical to me that a "stakeholder" list needs to be drawn up and everyone, including members of the public, realtors, builders, basically everyone (suggest Town Hall here) start pounding on this thorny bugger. A current cost estimate would be helpful, because the Feds are making new demands for extra lanes, etc.
Also, the state wants an "at speed" tie-in from 93 to I-40 on the west end. This is going to get real complicated, real fast and that equals "BIG BUCKS" from somewhere.
At this crazy point in time while the economy is so balled up, I just don't see anything happening for the next couple years. But, it certainly doesn't hurt to talk and start planning.
If V&V does come forward in the near future, then I would think that possibly they still believe the KC project is still viable – economy aside. If they don't, then they possibly would be making a statement that there is just too much uncertainty right now. We'll see, I guess.
RW is looking firmer, KC is still iffy. I don't think we should shoot ourselves in the foot by the city cancelling RW.
That wouldn't make sense to me unless of course they want to raise sales taxes to do it. That just makes Kingman less competitive and we don't need that. This is really a toughie.
Yeah, there is a lot of finger pointing about how will benefit from what...who will pay for what...
But, the fact the the people of Kingman stand to tremendously benefit from this Kingman Crossing interchange gets completely lost.
And since the poeple of Kingman will reap tens of millions by selling their commercial land, it is only fair that the people of Kingman help pay of the Kingman Crossing interchange.
Though I also would like to see Rattlesnake Wash, tax payers are already footing a huge percentage of the bill for that one via state and county funding. I think the owners around Rattlesnake Wash should come up with the balance on that interchange. NOT the people of Kingman.
..." I seem to recall that they were proposing a 100% payback and Byram stood pat that a 100% payback was not reasonable and everything stopped at that point."
Vestar did say that they would be expecting 100% pay back. But Vestar is the developer who would be fronting the money to pay for 100% of the interchange and Vestar does not own property on either side of the interchange. The property holders are Vanderbilt Farms and the City of Kingman. Where the waters became murky is where everyone assumed that since Vanderbilt Farms and Vestar partnered to construct the Vestar/Vanderbilt project that they were are the same entity.
Vanderbilt Farms is still on the hook for paying its portion of the interstate cost to Vestar just as the city would be. Think about it, knowing that RW is going to cost approximately $30-35ml, and ADOT has said many times that the cost of a diamond interchange is a minimum of $25 ml, if the city was going to have to assume full cost for the interchange, why is our cost only $11 ml? That $14-26 ml is coming from somewhere other than the city.
Speaking of errors in calculations, the Miner's article deduced its projected revenues from impact fees to transportation based upon the past two years, NOT including the projected impact fees from the MedCath Project and the Vestar/Vanderbilt project. I don't know how much those are going to come out to but....MedCath is putting over $3 mil into escrow as a committment to the city towards the completion of Santa Rosa and the sewer and water improvements. Do they deserve a negotiated rate on their impact fees?
Could the impact fees collected go towards our funding of the KC interchange? Is that negotiable?
It is feasible for me at this time to consider that the impact fees of these two projects alone could even go towards the funding of RW, even though the impact fees collected are to service future projects needed in the area created by the development and RW will be 3 miles away. And the future impact fees collected off of RW projects could again well pay for our cost of the KC interchange.
In all fairness, I have to agree with Scott Dunton's proposal. Everyone just pays a flat non-negotiable $1/sqft for impact fees and then the extras that developers do on top are to be negotiated with the city. Ken as a developer, what would you feel fair to all, including the "little guy" building his residential housing projects two or three at a time and the "master planners" who develop neighborhoods, including the commercial extras.
It would seem logical to me that the city council should approach the state about switching KC for RW and we wouldn't lose a whole lot of time if RW is dropped off the ADOT 5-year plan.
What doesn't make sense to me is this leap-frogging over KC which is a good viable project that would bring great value to the City of Kingman – while focusing on RW where no proposals have been fielded. It appears that some TI spacing formula is the basis for RW being given a level of credence.
A systematic TI to TI progression would make more sense than jumping way ahead and then making it more difficult with the in-fill in between. This city has always had a problem with developers buying large tracts of cheap land farther out and leaving huge bare spots in between.
I suppose it is the same everywhere. Buy cheap, sell high – that's how it works in America.
Commenting by HaloScan
