City asks county for business park funds
Lawrence city leaders asked Douglas County commissioners to help fund infrastructure improvements that would pave the way for a new business park near the Lawrence Airport. Enlarge video
Taxpayers from all across Douglas County will be asked to help pay for infrastructure improvements for a proposed business park near Lawrence Municipal Airport.
City commissioners alerted county commissioners at a joint study session Monday that the county will be asked to finance certain road improvements related to a plan to redevelop 144 acres near the intersection of North Seventh Street and U.S. Highway 24-40.
"We're going to be coming to you and asking for help because there is no way we can do it on our own," City Commissioner Mike Amyx told county commissioners.
But even with that help, the airport business park still may be a financial stretch for the city, some commissioners said. City Commissioner Rob Chestnut said he wanted to make sure the city didn't forget about infrastructure improvements needed to turn the former Farmland Industries site east of Lawrence into a business park.
"It comes down to an issue of scarce capital," said Chestnut, who said he supported the idea of a business park near the airport but was uncertain the city could afford to fund infrastructure at both sites.
City commissioners are in the process of making a bid to purchase the former Farmland Industries site, which is about three times the size of the proposed airport park.
City Manager David Corliss said he wasn't in a position to say how much public improvements might cost for the airport project but indicated such estimates might be available early next week.
County Commissioner Charles Jones said he thought the airport project ought to slow down until the cost question could be answered.
"It seems like we have gotten to detailed negotiations before we have answered the threshold question of what is the total cost of the project, and does it make sense," Jones said.
The project near the airport is being proposed by a development group led by Lawrence businessman Jes Santaularia.
While Santaularia has said his group would pay for all the infrastructure needed on the project's 144 acres, he wants public funding to help with offsite improvements - specifically, extending water and sewer service to the site.
The project also would require work at the intersection of North Seventh Street and Highway 24-40. That is the project the county likely would be asked to fund. The intersection is outside the city limits, and a recent traffic study found that it should be improved regardless of whether the airport business park is built.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"he wants public funding to help with offsite improvements - specifically, extending water and sewer service to the site."
Water, sewer, and garbage are specific, basic services provided by a city. The County is not in the business of providing them, and shouldn't be. No, this is purely a City funding issue except for any County-remaining roads that need minor upgrades.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
No doubt the plan is to make this proposal "inevitible" before the costs to taxpayers are disclosed, and you can bet that these costs will be low-balled when they finally are "disclosed."
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
"Water, sewer, and garbage are specific, basic services provided by a city. The County is not in the business of providing them, and shouldn't be. No, this is purely a City funding issue except for any County-remaining roads that need minor upgrades."
Excellent post LogicMan.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
I figure a large part of the problem is that the city will not allow adjacent property owners to use the new infrastructure without being annexed. I expect a lot of the folks along North 1500 road would buy a share of the pipes if they could use it without becoming subject to all the BS being in the city involves.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
"While Santaularia has said his group would pay for all the infrastructure needed on the project's 144 acres, he wants public funding to help with offsite improvements - specifically, extending water and sewer service to the site."
That is very wrong. The public should not have an increase in taxes to pay for a speculative development that has not even attracted an employer. This is just speculative gambling at the taxpayers expense. The developer should pay for MOST of the infrastructure upgrades if they think the project will be successful. Cost estimates should be known, and they had better be fairly accurate. I have a feeling that the city commission is underestimating how much the airport project will cost!
nlf78 (anonymous) says…
I can't believe they are asking for the county to pay for infrastructure. I also can't believe the city commission is this bad. Farmland...now this. When there are a few buildings all over town that are empty, no businesses in them bringing in jobs, etc. Basically the Pines don't feel they are rich enough, so let's sell this land to people who have NO common sense and let the city and county deal with the rest of it. I really wish they would just drop this from consideration. Honestly, what's the point in another empty park? Also drop Farmland, that's just another cash cow.
twosides (anonymous) says…
A lot of the "folks" on 1500n all ready have rural water which tastes a hell of a lot better than the city water and don't care about the city water. The big question now after the report in the Journal World yesterday about the reservoirs filling up and how long they will be good for flood control is this projects life. Will the city and county be pumping money into something with a 10 or twenty year life span before it is under water?
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Also, they do not even know how much it will cost for improving the existing road infrastructure in the area. Will certain roads have to be widened, paved, or sewers put in? This all costs a ton of money. I think the economic development efforts would be better spent in areas away from the floodplain so the taxpayers of Douglas County do not have to pay for all the infrastructure costs. The greedy developers should pay for nearly all the costs of the development instead of shifting the burden over to the taxpayer. This is a common-sense libertarian viewpoint. Manage the infrastructure that we have now instead of catering to the greedy developers that are out to make a quick profit at the expense of others. The tax and spend attitude is getting completely out of control.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says:
"cough up the money!! Use it to reinvest in development with the understanding that the county will place a lien on the real estate Santularia wants to develop. treat the infrastructure costs as specials and collect back the funding through real estate taxes. someone needs to give back what they are taking"
I like your reasoning here. However, the city commission seems like it just wants to keep up the heavy taxing and spending agenda just to please the people who promote this speculative development that does not even have an employer lined up.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
"It comes down to an issue of scarce capital," said Chestnut, who said he supported the idea of a business park near the airport but was uncertain the city could afford to fund infrastructure at both sites"
Promote economic development in areas outside the floodplain. It would be a better investment to put some money into the non-contaminated farmland plant area than to spend tons of money tearing up productive farmland near the airport! This is sort of a lose-lose situation. The aiport site is more convenient to road networks, but costs a ton of money for infrastructure improvements and is flood vulnerable. The farmland site is still contaminated in certain areas, and is not as convenient to existing road infrastructure compared with the airport site. Either way, the taxpayers should not have to pay for this speculative development. The developer should pay the costs. If it is to expensive figure out a new economic development project that is outside the floodplain zone.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"While Santaularia has said his group would pay for all the infrastructure needed on the project's 144 acres, he wants public funding to help with offsite improvements - specifically, extending water and sewer service to the site."
--------------------------------------------
This is Unbelievable! This City Commission has completely sold out City Hall to the developers and is asking the taxpayers to pay their way. Outrageous! The City cannot afford this and neither can the taxpayers. However if anyone can afford it, Santaularia can afford it! I'm tired of the city's wealthiest members being the ones we have to subsidize. If you want to make a huge speculative business deal Santaularia, go to the fricking bank and get a bigger loan or look for a project you can actually afford!
merrill (anonymous) says…
The city county wants tax dollars for a lot of projects. This deal should have proof that there is in fact a need based on something more than speculation. The Chamber favors adding 1000 aces of industrial land while the number of industrial jobs is declining, not rising, and our industrial facilities are sitting empty or are being converted to storage uses. Given this poor record of success why are we still following the chamber lead?
Bear in mind taxpayers both city and county commissions have many tax dollar projects on the table in which the taxpayer is being left out of the process. The powers that be fear if put to a vote the very savvy tax payers of Lawrence will vote NO and demand absolute proof that any of these projects will work or are necessary...speculation is NOT enough.
City and county commissioners have taken up creative financing as an end run around taxpayers.
FYI
One more thing. The leadership of the Chamber are the same people that led the City into 18 prior tax abatements of which 14 are either total failures (the firm failed or left town eg: Serologicals, Davol, E&E, etc.) or the firm failed to provide the jobs or wages promised (eg: Microtech, Prososco, Packerware, etc.) Lawrence needs new leadership across the board.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Mkh,
I completely agree!!!
This is what happens when you vote in the pro-business people onto the city commission.
The taxpayers will have to PAY for all of these speculative projects. Those would include:
Airport Development (The taxpayer must help out. What a joke!)
Oread Hotel
Huge infrastructure upgrades on speculative developments.
Santaularia should come up with ALL the money if he thinks the project will be successful instead of shifting the burden back to the taxpayers!
snowWI (anonymous) says…
"The Chamber favors adding 1000 aces of industrial land while the number of industrial jobs is declining, not rising, and our industrial facilities are sitting empty or are being converted to storage uses."
1000 acres? You have got to be kidding me. Where is the exact source for that Merill? The last thing we need is for more productive farmland to be turned into an industrial wasteland! If you recall the original proposal for the airport project was 900 acres, but it was cut back to 144 acres.
"The powers that be fear if put to a vote the very savvy tax payers of Lawrence will vote NO and demand absolute proof that any of these projects will work or are necessary:speculation is NOT enough."
You are completely right with that statement. Most people know when the city commission is catering to the developers. The taxpayers should not pay for speculative developments just so a few people can get rich quick.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
"It comes down to an issue of scarce capital," said Chestnut,"
No, it really comes down to catering to a few developers at the expense of the taxpayers of Douglas County. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize speculative developments that do not even feature an employer or a guaranteed number of jobs. Make the developers pay for the majority of the costs. Redeveloping the non-contaminated farmland site makes much more sense than spending a TON of money to develop the floodplain that should be left as farm land.