Dear Editor,
The May 5 Kingman City Council meeting on the proposed annexation of approximately 4,300 acres north of Hualapai Mountain Road raises important questions about long-term planning, fiscal responsibility, and public accountability.
The scale of the proposed development is significant. With projections of up to 25,000 new homes, the city could see a population increase of roughly 75,000 new residents over time. Even conservative estimates suggest that approximately one-third, or 25,000, of these new residents will be school-aged children, placing considerable demand on our existing educational infrastructure. Our schools cannot absorb 10 to 20 thousand additional students. Who will pay for these new schools? Developers, who profit the most from new home sales, should share more of the financial burden for building these schools that this increase in population will require. This raises a critical policy question: how should the costs associated with growth, such as schools, roads, and utilities, be distributed between developers, taxpayers, and other stakeholders? Vice Mayor Sammeli, who works for a real estate title company that stands to receive substantial income from expanding growth, was confronted with this at the Tuesday night council meeting; specifically in relation to the amount of fiscal responsibility the developers of those new subdivisions, that will create such a burden, should share in building new schools to accommodate those new students. Sammeli ignored any responsibility of the council’s decisions in approving new growth that affect school infrastructure; as if the council’s decisions were not connected to the problem. She stated she wanted it reflected “on the record” that the city was not responsible for building new schools and had no financial connection to or responsibility for the building of new schools. Thus, refusing to acknowledge that it is the council’s irresponsible decisions regarding growth that create this burden. She attempted to shift responsibility to the school district. While it is accurate that school districts are formally responsible for building and operating schools, city planning decisions made by the council directly influence when and where population growth occurs. Effective governance typically requires coordination across agencies to anticipate and mitigate downstream impacts of development decisions. The council should be coordinating with the school district and other agencies; that would be good management, but that is not what we have. Vice Mayor Sammeli epitomizes the exact type of poor management that should not be entrusted with making decisions for our City of Kingman. Kingman does not have a revenue problem, it has a management problem. Our representatives on the council that exhibit this lack of good management skills should be removed and replaced.
If the council held the developers responsible for paying a fair share of that burden, the developers might not build; of course, if these subdivisions were not built, there would be no income for the title companies or construction related businesses that some of the council members own or work for either.
A second issue concerns the relationship between voter-approved measures and subsequent council actions. In 2024, Kingman voters approved Proposition 413, which established safeguards requiring voter approval for certain sales tax changes. In September 2025, the council passed Ordinance 1983, which repealed those safeguards. While questions of legality may be distinct from questions of policy or public trust, such actions can raise concerns about how closely elected officials align with the intent expressed by voters at the ballot box.
These two examples, growth-related infrastructure planning and changes to voter-approved tax safeguards, highlight broader themes that demonstrate the poor quality of our city management and is worth community discussion: transparency, accountability, and the balance between legal authority and public expectation are vital to efficient, responsible growth, and public trust.
These are just two glaring examples that highlight the prevalent attitude of the poor management skills, and ethics, of the city council and why we should elect new management. Just because something is “legal” for the council to do does not mean it should be done. Sammeli, has consistently demonstrated a tendency to justify bad council decisions rather than engage in good management.
As Kingman continues to grow, residents may benefit from ongoing, open dialogue about how decisions are made, how impacts are managed, and how public input is incorporated into the process. But, for that to happen we need new management.
Mark “Doc” Berry
Read more Letters to the Editor by clicking here.
