| LovelandPolitics.com |
| McWhinney Wants To Gut I-25/U.S. 34 Commitment After failing to significantly reduce their commitment to improve the I-25/U.S. 34, McWhinney is coming back to Loveland's City Council again but this time with a plan they have negotiated in secret |
Loveland - Oct. 3, 2009
Tuesday night (Oct. 6) the Loveland City Council will be asked again to abandon agreed to interim improvements of the I-25
and U.S. 34 interchange by McWhinney - at least part of it. The proposal is to fund "safety-only" improvements along with
very minor and cheap landscaping and allow council some say of where the left-over funds are spent in the future.
McWhinney's Centerra Metro District has been attempting (see Sept. 15 council meeting story) to reduce the scale of
improvements to the interchange in an attempt to access some $2.75 million of the now $11.5 million set aside for the project.
Loveland staff is implementing McWhinney's direction to reduce the project in scope and spend as little as possible to make
sure money is left over to be used to improve more McWhinney owned properties.
Dispute Over Who Controls Funds -Caused Delay in Decision
Councilman Kent Solt argued during the September 15, council meeting that he was prepared to protect public funds by
holding McWhinney to their commitment of improving the interchange as promised. Others on council appeared ready to
agree to gut the I-25/U.S. 34 project commitment to only safety improvements so long as they didn't lose control to decide
how the rest of the funds set aside for the project could be spent.
The September 15, meeting took several bizarre turns as McWhinney's attorney, Allan Poag, corrected Loveland's city
attorney on his advice to council regarding their agreements with McWhinney. The balance of funds (according to
McWhinney) can be accessed after 18 months if not used for the limited safety improvement McWhinney has proposed.
During the September 15, council meeting Loveland City Attorney John Duval informed the council that the city would
indefinitely control the balance of funds if the council agreed to the limited scope project. Just after Duval gave the advice he
was corrected by McWhinney's attorney, Allan Poag, who whispered into Duval's ear.
Duval than told the council there was a problem (see the video clip upper right corner of this page) and said McWhinney did
appear to have access to the funds 18 months following the completion of the proposed safety improvements. This put the
final vote in question for Mayor Pielin who chose not to call for a motion for approval. Instead, Pielin asked members of council
to direct staff as to terms that would be acceptable thus pushing the discussion back to closed door meetings.
City Staff Out McWhinneys McWhinney
Casual observers to Loveland Council meetings may have a difficult time distinguishing city engineer Dave Klockman from
representatives of the McWhinney Corporation or Centerra's Metro District. This is because Klockman falsely reported to
council in his staff presentation at the Sept. 15 meeting that the Master Financing Agreement (MFA) contemplated only the
safety improvements for the interchange and not the landscaping or other infrastructure McWhinney now doesn't want to
fund.
In fact, the MFA and accompanying documents address the financial level of commitment for each project and even show the
schematic (Exhibit D) of an estimated $50 million improvement to the I-25 and U.S. 34 improvements. McWhinney
committed to spend $12.5 million by 2010 on the interim improvements to the interchange in question and later $50 million
by 2024. McWhinney has already spent some of the $12.5 set-aside on other projects bringing funds set aside down to $11.5
million and failed to set-aside any money to fund their later $50 million commitment for the same interchange. On the table
for council Tuesday night is a staff generated proposal to reduce McWhinney's current commitment down to less than $9
million and postpone indefinitely significant landscaping or any bridge improvements.
Where Does The Money Come From ?
The some $11.5 million is now all that is left of $112 million bond proceeds McWhinney's Metro District received last year.
McWhinney used $63 million to payback the $57 million 2004 bond issue including financing expenses. The balance left from
the 2008 bond proceeds (approximately $50 million) has already been spent to increase value of McWhinney owned
properties by building infrastructure, signage and landscaping.
Loveland taxpayers are responsible for repaying the bonds plus interest until 2029 at an escalating rate beginning at around
$4 million per year. Councilman Solt asked McWhinney representative Rich Shannon whether the "public funds" already
spent from the bond proceeds included landscaping and signage on McWhinney owned properties. Shannon confirmed that it
has paid for such projects but said he wasn't prepared to provide a break-out of what the money was spent on.
Revising History
As seen on the video clip from the council's September 15, meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Clark makes a vein attempt to revise
history and tell his colleagues that the intent of the original agreements with McWhinney were only to have the Metro District
pay for the safety improvements to I-25/U.S. 34 interchange.
This contradicts not only what Rich Shannon, speaking for the Metro District, said earlier in the same meeting but also the
well documented agreements between Loveland and McWhinney.
What Was Really Promised?
Loveland City Engineer David Klockman has long been on the front pages assisting McWhinney in promoting the interim
improvements to the I-25 / U.S. 34 that have yet to begin.
In May of 2008 Klockman assisted McWhinney in selling the complete "$12 million project" to residents of Loveland in an
apparent effort to garner positive publicity for their damaged reputation of not keeping promises to the community. Read the
Greeley Tribune article announcing the public meeting last year where Klockman and McWhinney representatives described
the improvements they are now trying to exclude from the project. Despite all the positive publicity, McWhinney unilaterally
backed out of beginning the project as planned and Loveland staff failed to inform council until after the date to begin the
project had long passed.
McWhinney promised to fund the $12 million full interim project to improve the I-25 / U.S. 34 in their Master Financing
Agreement (January 2004), the bond indenture document (March 2008), and the Intergovernmental Agreement (June
2008). In not one of these agreements was the project described as "safety-only" as proposed by both city staff and Mayor
Pro Tem Dave Clark.
Tuesday night (Oct. 6) the Loveland City Council will be asked again to abandon agreed to interim improvements of the I-25
and U.S. 34 interchange by McWhinney - at least part of it. The proposal is to fund "safety-only" improvements along with
very minor and cheap landscaping and allow council some say of where the left-over funds are spent in the future.
McWhinney's Centerra Metro District has been attempting (see Sept. 15 council meeting story) to reduce the scale of
improvements to the interchange in an attempt to access some $2.75 million of the now $11.5 million set aside for the project.
Loveland staff is implementing McWhinney's direction to reduce the project in scope and spend as little as possible to make
sure money is left over to be used to improve more McWhinney owned properties.
Dispute Over Who Controls Funds -Caused Delay in Decision
Councilman Kent Solt argued during the September 15, council meeting that he was prepared to protect public funds by
holding McWhinney to their commitment of improving the interchange as promised. Others on council appeared ready to
agree to gut the I-25/U.S. 34 project commitment to only safety improvements so long as they didn't lose control to decide
how the rest of the funds set aside for the project could be spent.
The September 15, meeting took several bizarre turns as McWhinney's attorney, Allan Poag, corrected Loveland's city
attorney on his advice to council regarding their agreements with McWhinney. The balance of funds (according to
McWhinney) can be accessed after 18 months if not used for the limited safety improvement McWhinney has proposed.
During the September 15, council meeting Loveland City Attorney John Duval informed the council that the city would
indefinitely control the balance of funds if the council agreed to the limited scope project. Just after Duval gave the advice he
was corrected by McWhinney's attorney, Allan Poag, who whispered into Duval's ear.
Duval than told the council there was a problem (see the video clip upper right corner of this page) and said McWhinney did
appear to have access to the funds 18 months following the completion of the proposed safety improvements. This put the
final vote in question for Mayor Pielin who chose not to call for a motion for approval. Instead, Pielin asked members of council
to direct staff as to terms that would be acceptable thus pushing the discussion back to closed door meetings.
City Staff Out McWhinneys McWhinney
Casual observers to Loveland Council meetings may have a difficult time distinguishing city engineer Dave Klockman from
representatives of the McWhinney Corporation or Centerra's Metro District. This is because Klockman falsely reported to
council in his staff presentation at the Sept. 15 meeting that the Master Financing Agreement (MFA) contemplated only the
safety improvements for the interchange and not the landscaping or other infrastructure McWhinney now doesn't want to
fund.
In fact, the MFA and accompanying documents address the financial level of commitment for each project and even show the
schematic (Exhibit D) of an estimated $50 million improvement to the I-25 and U.S. 34 improvements. McWhinney
committed to spend $12.5 million by 2010 on the interim improvements to the interchange in question and later $50 million
by 2024. McWhinney has already spent some of the $12.5 set-aside on other projects bringing funds set aside down to $11.5
million and failed to set-aside any money to fund their later $50 million commitment for the same interchange. On the table
for council Tuesday night is a staff generated proposal to reduce McWhinney's current commitment down to less than $9
million and postpone indefinitely significant landscaping or any bridge improvements.
Where Does The Money Come From ?
The some $11.5 million is now all that is left of $112 million bond proceeds McWhinney's Metro District received last year.
McWhinney used $63 million to payback the $57 million 2004 bond issue including financing expenses. The balance left from
the 2008 bond proceeds (approximately $50 million) has already been spent to increase value of McWhinney owned
properties by building infrastructure, signage and landscaping.
Loveland taxpayers are responsible for repaying the bonds plus interest until 2029 at an escalating rate beginning at around
$4 million per year. Councilman Solt asked McWhinney representative Rich Shannon whether the "public funds" already
spent from the bond proceeds included landscaping and signage on McWhinney owned properties. Shannon confirmed that it
has paid for such projects but said he wasn't prepared to provide a break-out of what the money was spent on.
Revising History
As seen on the video clip from the council's September 15, meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Clark makes a vein attempt to revise
history and tell his colleagues that the intent of the original agreements with McWhinney were only to have the Metro District
pay for the safety improvements to I-25/U.S. 34 interchange.
This contradicts not only what Rich Shannon, speaking for the Metro District, said earlier in the same meeting but also the
well documented agreements between Loveland and McWhinney.
What Was Really Promised?
Loveland City Engineer David Klockman has long been on the front pages assisting McWhinney in promoting the interim
improvements to the I-25 / U.S. 34 that have yet to begin.
In May of 2008 Klockman assisted McWhinney in selling the complete "$12 million project" to residents of Loveland in an
apparent effort to garner positive publicity for their damaged reputation of not keeping promises to the community. Read the
Greeley Tribune article announcing the public meeting last year where Klockman and McWhinney representatives described
the improvements they are now trying to exclude from the project. Despite all the positive publicity, McWhinney unilaterally
backed out of beginning the project as planned and Loveland staff failed to inform council until after the date to begin the
project had long passed.
McWhinney promised to fund the $12 million full interim project to improve the I-25 / U.S. 34 in their Master Financing
Agreement (January 2004), the bond indenture document (March 2008), and the Intergovernmental Agreement (June
2008). In not one of these agreements was the project described as "safety-only" as proposed by both city staff and Mayor
Pro Tem Dave Clark.
| Scene 1 Rich Shannon, McWhinney’s Metro District Manager, states they are not in a position to pursue the full enhancements (I-25/34 interchange) “that were originally envisioned.” He goes on to say, “we took it to the community and sold it.” Leaving no doubt the safety-only scaled back improvement was not contemplated when the Master Financing Agreement (MFA) was proposed and signed in 2004. Scene 2 Loveland staff David Klockman supports McWhinney’s safety-only improvements and states “Again we are going to have a discussion of this item with the hopeful culmination in a motion of approval for award.” Scene 3 In response to Councilman Skowron’s questions about whether the proposed contract includes an escalator clause for inflation, the City Attorney says “I haven’t seen the contract yet” Councilman Skowron than asks Dave Klockman what staff is proposing. As he tries to answer Mayor Pielin interrupts staff twice and finally speaks over Klockman and changes the topic back to safety improvements thus preventing Skowron from receiving an answer to his question. Scene 4 City Attorney responds to questions by Mayor Pielin regarding the agreement with McWhinney. The City Attorney says, “under the agreement that money has to be spent for that purpose…..they have to come to city council and get your consent to amend that indenture..” Scene 5 Rich Shannon (McWhinney) interrupts Duval and begins whispering in his ear and is soon joined by McWhinney attorney Allen Poag who also begins speaking outside the microphone to the city attorney. Duval states, “there is a problem.” “because nobody talked to me about this until today.” He immediately reverses his legal opinion of the agreements and explained the city rights are under the MFA (Master Financing Agreement) and Indenture Agreement to explain it appears the money left over from the project does go back to McWhinney’s Metro District general fund. Scene 6 Mayor Pro Tem David Clark tells the council the original intent of the McWhinney agreement was to only provide safety improvements and give McWhinney the balance of the funds. Scene 7 Councilman Kent Solt asks several questions of McWhinney’s representative. |