As cities across the State of Colorado prepare to receive State of Colorado funds to upgrade railroad crossings to allow for “quiet zones” in their cities (thus exempting their town from the 2005 Federal Law requiring excessive whistle blowing before crossing roadways) Loveland’s resident are being told in essence to “pay-up or shut-up” about the train noise. Loveland’s City Council will receive a report from staff and a city consultant on March 10, 2009 during a council study session. see story
LovelandPolitics has been informed that City Manager Don Williams and Mayor Gene Pielin are looking to impose the “burden” of paying for the crossing upgrades on the residents in Loveland who live near railroad tracks by proposing a “special district tax.” They believe the threat of a proposed property tax increase for those living near a railroad track will “make the complainers go away” and resolve the issue.
The engineering firm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig, in concert with this strategy, held a “public information meeting” on February 19, 2009 regarding the issue known as Quiet Zones. The firm has roughly estimated the cost of both improving the safety devices at Loveland’s railroad crossings and upgrading the roadways and pedestrian infrastructure at $9.5 million. Every local media outlet has now reported the high cost of upgrading the crossings but failed to distinguish between the costs of updating already differed maintenance and modernization or substandard infrastructure and the few extra improvements required to become a quite zone.
Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig used a cookie cutter presentation to “inform” residents of Loveland about the issue but unfortunately provided the community false information regarding the availability of federal or state funding. The firm’s presentation stated that no such funding is available but instead proposed three potential sources – general fund, sales tax or the special district.
These are not the city’s only options. While State and Federal funding should have been sought by the city 3 years ago, it is not correct to say that none is available. Cities hosting the new commuter rail into Northern Colorado will receive that funding in addition to cities across the country using the federal transportation stimulus monies for crossing improvements. Loveland’s representative to the MPO (regional transportation consortium) Larry Heckel has advocated stimulus money instead be spent to improve Crossroads Blvd. and I-25 thus relieving McWhinney’s metro district of the obligation. (see the February posting on this blog for details)
The conclusion that the city cannot afford the upgrades is also not true. Loveland bought a large parcel of land near I-25 for over $6 million (see Lovelandpolitics.com/landbuy) that could be subdivided and sold at auction to the highest bidder. In addition, the City of Loveland bought water shares (to induce people near Johnstown to annex into Loveland) and other speculative non-real property acquisitions at the whim of the city manager and the previous council to expand city boundaries farther South along the I-25. You can watch a video clip of Loveland’s City Manager Don Williams explain to Loveland’s City Council in January of 2008 how the Annexation of land could cost only $2.6 million because they were overpaying the value of water shares but such an amount isn’t really significant on the city’s overall budget.
According to sources inside Loveland’s finance department, sales tax in the city is already down 11% this year and City Manager Don Williams will make a public announcement at the April 14, 2009 council special budget meeting. Nonetheless, a property tax increase is hardly the only solution available. City Manager, Don Williams, is up to his old tricks of trying to drive the study session, consultant data and public input into a single predetermined conclusion – a “make the complainers pay for it” conclusion.
LovelandPolitics has also uncovered a 2006 briefing from a Florida engineering firm on Quiet Zones that appears remarkably similar to the presentation provided by Loveland’s consultant. See the complete story and compare the briefings – decide for yourself whether the money Loveland paid the consultant to prepare a briefing with 3 year old data all over the web was really a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
