Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Workspace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingman council backs further work on shared co‑workspace; route 66 site favored
Summary
City staff, Mohave Community College, WAVE CTED and the SBDC presented a plan for a 16,000‑square‑foot shared co‑workspace. Council directed staff to continue negotiations and planning, with most members favoring a Route 66 site; funding and final agreements remain unresolved.
Kingman — City staff on Tuesday updated the Kingman City Council on a proposed shared co‑workspace that would house Western Arizona Vocational Education (WAVE), Mohave Community College’s Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and the city’s economic development staff.
The concept, presented as a 16,000‑square‑foot facility on a Route 66 parcel (parcel 311‑16‑003B), would combine classroom and vocational training space, rent‑generating co‑work offices, conference facilities and shared equipment to support entrepreneurship and workforce development. The city appraisal for the parcel was reported as $750,000.
Staff and partners said they estimate construction and engineering costs using midrange assumptions at about $6.2 million; WAVE has proposed contributing up to $5 million, reducing the remaining estimated local funding need to roughly $1.2 million, the presenters said. Council was told the $5 million figure is a proposed contribution from WAVE, not a completed commitment. Other potential funding sources mentioned included grants, federal appropriations and the possible sale of city property.
Mohave Community College President Stacy Klippenstein told the council MCC would likely participate under a lease arrangement, paying fair market rent for a modest amount of space and potentially prepaying several years of rent to provide upfront capital if a structure of that sort is desirable. WAVE representatives said their district has a carryover fund that could be used and that the district board would have to approve any major commitment.
Presenters suggested a phased approach, noting partners could occupy portions of a building over time rather than funding full construction immediately. Alofiber — a regional internet provider discussed as a potential in‑kind partner — expressed interest in supplying gig‑speed connectivity and Wi‑Fi equipment in exchange for co‑branding; details remained to be negotiated.
Council questions focused on financing and operations. Finance staff said preliminary modeling suggested annual debt service on financed amounts could be roughly $70,000–$80,000 depending on term, and that staff was not prepared to guarantee rental income would cover debt service. The city manager noted city land could be offered and said the next step would be to develop formal funding options for council review.
By voice, most council members said they supported continuing to pursue the project and asked staff to return with more detailed funding options and the draft partner agreements. Several council members said they preferred the Route 66 parcel as the primary location; others asked staff to keep downtown options on the table. Presenters and public commenters emphasized phasing and flexibility to limit upfront city borrowing.
Why it matters: Councilors said the project could provide workspace and training that support local small businesses, workforce development and economic diversification, while also creating a single location for partner services.
What comes next: Staff will draft funding scenarios and partnership agreements, seek more detailed cost estimates, and return the project to council for further direction. Public comments and partner commitments will be part of the next presentations.
