The Loveland City Council voted to waive the confidentiality requirements they imposed on themselves and members of the Open Lands Advisory Commission regarding two closed meeting held to discuss the possible acquisition of Staples Farm. The action was precipitated by requests from the commission members and councilors to discuss openly what was decided (or not) in private. City Manager Don Williams had informed the local press the City Council did not make any decision to buy Staples Farm. A number of commissioners and councilors felt this statement did not accurately reflect what was decided in the two private meetings and thus wanted permission to speak freely.
Four Council members also requested the “Golden Nest Egg” plan of employee health benefits for some employees be brought back to the council on August 19, 2008.
Assistant City Attorney Rene Wheeler committed a “crash and burn” in front of the City Council when they convened as the board of LURA (Loveland Renewal Authority). The Annual Report presented to council claimed the TIF (tax increment financing) was performing “as expected” despite poor performance. A number of councilors took issue with the conclusion and other comments throughout the report which they refused to endorse or accept. The report also contained a number of factual errors like which wards councilors represent and other factual or typographical errors.
Councilman Darryl Klassen deserves the kudos this week for standing-up for fiscal conservatism and not accepting inferior work or false conclusions by city staff. His tireless efforts to read AND UNDERSTAND what is before him is commendable.
Any comments by those who watched the meeting?
The comments now emerging from members of the City Council are very interesting on Staples Farm.
Glenn Rousey apparently fought against making it open space in private while pretending to be a supporter in public. Walt Skowron, normally a candid person, also was found hiding behind a closed door and the City Manager’s skirt to pretend he wanted to “help” while killing it in private.
There is a word for people who do one thing in public and another in private. Now I am told Jan Brown is planning to run in Rousey’s Ward when his term is up soon and is looking to buy a house in his Ward. Another plan in private.
The City Council paid $6.6 million for the property along the 402 near I-25 to annex it into the city recently. It didn’t help a single resident, provide any open space or enhance a route along the city’s bike path that thousands of residents use regularly.
Glenn Rousey’s comment to the Reporter-Herald that council can’t buy every piece of open property is absurd. They are trying to buy every piece of open property along the I-25 to annex it into the city at much greater cost and at a tremendous risk to taxpayers.
Walt Skowron also seems to forget they paid FULL ASKING PRICE for the property on the 402 which couldn’t sell for years plus double the market value of the water shares. Now a modest gesture (in comparison) to preserve a wonderful oasis of undeveloped Loveland and they want deep discounts in the price.
The only difference between buying Staples Farm or the property along the 402 is the latter was the city manager’s objective and the first was not.
It is time to elect a council that isn’t afraid to make decisions in public.
I agree. They need to stop meeting in private.
My hat is off to John P. Lewis and all his sincere efforts to make this happen against great adversity from city staff.
That old pirate we call a city manager needs to go!
Yeah – was I the only who caught the Mayor’s comment that they didn’t HAVE TO talk in public about what they said in the private meetings on Staples Farm. Only cowards need to hide when doing the public’s business.
Everybody with a heartbeat in Loveland knows the following meetings were in secret to protect the council from public view of their unpopular positions on the:
1. McWhinney taxpayer funded trolley
2. Controversial annex deals and land purchases along the 402
3. McWhinney “flexibility” plan to abdicate council’s elected authority to McWhinney – a first for the Stat of Colorado.
4. Staples Farm
Walter: I don’t believe I ever (in public or private) stated that I wanted the Staples Farm property to be purchased for open space.
What I told the Reporter-Herald, was that if every group of homeowners who had land next to them that was being proposed for development, came forward and requested that the land be purchased for open space so their views could be protected, that monies for every request made would just not be available.
I don’t blame the property owners near Staples Farm for wishing the land would be purchased and turned into open space, but do we then do it for every request?….many, many residents have complained that some new development will affect their views…do you want the city/open lands commission to buy every bit of property that may be developed to protect someone’s view…who when they built, in all probability, had some adverse affect on someone else’s view.
By the way….I asked if this property was on any wish list that the open lands commission had. The answer was “no”. They do, however, mantain a listing of properties that they are interested in for open space purchase.
A couple of years ago, council was presented with a request to develop this property and the request was denied due to high density. In that time, from that request to the last request (also denied), the open lands commission made no request to purchase the property. It was only after the property owners around Staples Farm became concerned that the property may indeed be developed that the open lands commission became involved.
Sorry, but I just don’t believe that land should be purchased for open space based on concerns dealing with someone’s view….if you think that’s wrong then you should request from council that we buy all the property in the city that may be developed.
The property on 402 will generate revenue for the city while Staples Farm will not if we purchase it.
By the way, the 402 property was $4.5 million not $6.6 million. That is what the Open Lands Advisory Commission is reserving for another open space area much better than Staples Farm.
You people need to get your facts straight and get a life. Half of the kooks who testified last April on Staples Farm don’t even live near it and really have no business getting involved in something that doesn’t involve them. If Virginia wants a view over that property she needs to buy it herself and not hold the owners hostage to her crazy ideas.
The CM was telling the truth – it is not going to be bought. Cecil and Kent are the only two who really want that to happen so if they raise it we will defeat it on a 7-2 vote. Be sure to watch because nobody is hiding.
As for the flex plan and amendments to the MFA, it is a normal course of action and nothing unusual. That will also pass without any problem since most everyone has already agreed.
Get your facts straight. We need growth to pay for the cost of services especially when costs are going up.
Grow of die
I also attended that meeting and didn’t hear you say it should be purchased. I also don’t remember you saying it should be developed either.
The land is adjacent to the city’s bike path and the river with some open space on each side. Let’s be honest here, the builder wants to capitalize on the city’s open space adjacent to the river and bike trail by placing homes in a very desirable area. Similar to the open marsh and lakes just South of that location along Taft where monstor condos or paired homes are being built on the sliver of land between Taft Ave. and open spaces. The condos are priced high because they border open space maintained by the City of Loveland but will be almost exclusively used by the adjacent condo owners.
I would not describe people’s concern over Staples Farm as only having to do with views. If this were the case, only residents from the 10 homes where the view is impacted would have gone to your meeting. Instead, hundreds of people who use the bike trail came to protest the annexation and zoning proposal.
If residents showing-up by the hundreds at a council meeting can’t expect some consideration from the council you really leave them few choices when seeking a responsive local government that listens to residents.
McWhinney booster “Bob” says, “We need growth to pay for the cost of services especially when costs are going up. ” – Ridiculous! Clearly, growth doesn’t pay for itself and is why our cost of living is going up.
That’s exactly why we have growing transportation deficits, new taxes proposed by the Council 7, water and wastewater rate hikes, proposals to weaken the standard for fire response times, traffic and so on.
The Loveland Town Council recently voted to provide heathcare coverage for senior officials in Loveland about to retire. After the first vote was turned down, a second vote was taken (guess they didn’t get the “desired” result the first time around). The second vote passed by Mayor Pielin casting the breaking vote “FOR” TAXPAYER DOLLARS (projected $307,000 over 10 year period) going to select city individuals for their retirement healthcare coverage.
I, for one, am sick and tired of supporters of large corporations (McWhinney, Don Morostica,owner of Loveland Commercial and over half of our town council being owners of construction companies) dictating how the hard working citizen tax monies are spent in this town. We need more minimum wage citizens representing the town majority.
The ordinary Joe or Josephine are trying to hold down 2 jobs, sometimes more, to feed their families, provide a roof over their heads, and keep gasoline in their vehicles. Heathcare and dental care are an UNREALIZED DREAM for most families in Loveland. I am outraged at the audacity of the city council to disregard the reality of the taxpayer in favor of healthcare for a few select fat cats in city government.
I would like to point out the members on the city council who voted AGAINST the heath coverage:
Walt Skowron, Daryl Klassen, Ken Solt and Cecil Gutierrez.
Thank you gentlemen for showing concern for the less illustrious citizens of our community.
I would suggest everyone remember who supports the taxpayers at the next city council/mayor election!
I would also like to point out that Ken Bennett was instrumental in bringing Gov. Ritter to Loveland to hold a non-partisan town hall meeting on healthcare in Colorado at the Rialto theater last fall. We need people like Ken standing up for the little guy/gal for a “much appreciated” change! A vote for Ken is a vote for taxpayer representation.
The city of Loveland actually has over 700 million dollars in the bank and has made a large amount of revenue so far this year (2009). In case no one has mentioned it, the city manager is trying to get the police chief to cut anywhere between 5% to 10% of the police officer jobs. We are talking about 3-13 police officer off the streets! If the citizens living in Loveland like being safe and want to be responded to quickly in an emergency situation, they need to sound off and stand up for these officers’ jobs! If you get rid of law enforcement officers, you will have lawlessness and things go really bad. You can’t risk it in this day and age! The Ccity manager needs to cut costs in other areas, like sculptures, golf-courses, U-tube sites, etc….. The citizens need to be aware that their safety is at risk and the city they so adore will turn to crap. If you don’t believe me research what happened in Grand Junction, Colorado with the same situtaion and a bad city manager.