Archive for June, 2009

Downtown Takes First Hit / Lodging Tax Likely To Be On Ballot

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Loveland’s city staff was looking for direction Tuesday night (June 23, 2009) at the council study session. The staff presented a list of projects from the Capital Program which is funded by CEF’s (Capital Expansion Fees), Council Reserve, General Funds and other sources.

Funded capital improvement projects create a problem as the flat general fund cannot absorb the additional annual expenses a finished project will create without cutting the budget somewhere else. The staff also presented a list of planned capital improvement projects totaling $45 million that are not yet funded.

Here is what the staff presented;

It is also important to note that as the Transportation Program adds lane miles to the City’s street system, over time the Street Rehabilitation Program will need increased resources to maintain these additions if we are to maintain service levels at current standards.

Based on the revenue projections in the Financial Plan that reflect a flattening revenue stream over the ten-year period, there will be difficult decisions to make in the General Fund. Limited resources will require setting priorities for adding new services, adding new facilities and maintaining current service levels.

The reality that the city may be unable to support the infrastructure it needs to keep pace with growth already built created a somber mood. The only part of the capital program that was identified for future delays or cancellation are the improvements scheduled for the downtown area. This is awkward since Carol Johnson and other McWhinney cheerleaders on council have always sought support from downtown merchants claiming the city’s commitment to McWhinney could only help downtown. Now the cost of providing services is rising while tax revenue it not.

The downtown parking garage, the pedestrian path where Mr. Neat’s was once located along with other general improvements are now in jeopardy for lack of funding. Among the items draining current revenue is “repayment of the inter-fund loan for land purchase on State Highway 402.” That was money taken from the CEF’s (Capital Expansion Fees) to expand a current fire station and build another that City Manager Don Williams raided for land speculation on highway 402. The city now has the vacant land but no new or improved fire stations and an inter-fund debt that needs to be repaid with money that could have been used elsewhere.

Staff left frustrated at the lack of clear direction. It appeared council is not yet prepared to tell the community or staff exactly which capital programs will be indefinitely delayed in the coming years. It appears they prefer to leave the projects in the capital improvements schedule while knowing the money will not be to maintain them once they are built.

On another topic, the council concluded that a lodging tax should be placed on the ballot for November of this year. While they couldn’t agree on where the money from a lodging tax should be spent they agreed to work with public input to make that determination. The City of Loveland failed in 2000 and again in 2001 to get voter approval for the imposition of a lodging tax in Loveland.

Council Approves Factory Outlet Sign on Odd 5-4 Vote / Also Phone Ban Comments

Friday, June 19th, 2009

An odd alliance was formed last Tuesday night on Loveland’s City Council in an effort to deny a variance request by Loveland’s Factory Outlets to build a bigger and better sign than McWhinney’s the Promenade Shops sign across the I-25. The Factory Outlet operator is concerned the passing traffic misses his smaller sign completely.

Councilman Cecil Gutierrez voted no because the new sign violates the updated city sign code the council passed that evening. Councilman Kent Solt voted no since the applicant couldn’t make a convincing case that the exception was required due to a unique condition on his property. Joining these two newer members of the council was its longest serving member, Mayor Gene Peilin, who appeared to be playing defense for Loveland’s “partner” in retail along the I-25, McWhinney. In the end the ayes had it by one vote. Now the Factory Outlet gets the privilege of building a sign with private dollars to rival McWhinney’s purple monument to public debt. The other no vote was likely due to the fact the applicant wasn’t McWhinney.

Those unfamiliar with the history should know that hardly any of McWhinney’s Centerra signs conformed with city code and variances became the norm instead of the exception.

On another note, we have received many emails asking why we didn’t cover Councilman Glenn Rousey’s attempts to ban touching, looking at or even thinking about a cell phone while driving in Loveland. We didn’t cover it because contrary to what the Loveland Reporter-Herald erroneously reported, no other councilors agreed to support bringing the measure back. We also learned that City Manager Don Williams told city employees he isn’t spending time on it since Glenn is now a lame duck and will be off the council in November.

One email we must publish stated the following, “do you think there will be an exception for McWhinney in Rousey’s cell phone ban?” Very clever especially if the mobile phones are being used to bring jobs to Loveland. Maybe instead his proposal will give McWhinney a pass and a 60% reduction of the fine for anyone driving in Centerra.

Anyone opposed to McWhinney’s exemption and the Centerra discount would be an easy target for the Report-Herald and Loveland’s Chamber of Commerce to call them anti-business.

On a more serious note we have posted a new article helping to demystify the sales taxes in Centerra. Read it here

Snyder Announces Run For Council

Saturday, June 13th, 2009

Loveland Farmer’s Insurance agent Robert Snyder spoke with LovelandPolitics today about his intention to run for Loveland’s Ward 2 council seat to replace Glenn Rousey who is not seeking reelection. see story

Rumors are going around that Andrew Boucher (a Ft. Collins based political consultant who recently lost a race for Ft. Collins City Council) is recruiting candidates for McWhinney to run in Loveland’s upcoming city election. Election reform Measure 2C (passed in a landslide by Loveland voters in 2007) prevents McWhinney from hiding large contributions to candidates through multiple contributions by various LLC organizations as they have done in the past. Loveland Commercial, the next largest contributor to city campaigns, will also be limited to providing each candidate they support only $100 each.

Boucher owns Boucher Strategies which is paid to run the Enterprise Group. The Enterprise Group is a business PAC that tries to impact the result of elections at various levels of government. McWhinney’s employee Rocky Scott is an active manager of the PAC who also funnels money to Boucher from McWhinney for consulting services. If Boucher is directly contacting Loveland council candidates the Enterprise Group intends to support with independent expenditures than they will likely be in violation of Loveland’s charter and risk damaging the chances of the candidate they want to support.

The November 2009 election in Loveland may decide the direction of the city for years to come since a majority of the council are now up for reelection. Frustrated by their reduced ability to control the outcome through contributions, the McWhinney organization may be seeking alternative methods to sway the results of the election.

Council candidate Robert Snyder denied even knowing Andrew Boucher today so we are taking him at his word. While certainly a Chamber of Commerce candidate whether he is “pro-business” in the plural or singular sense remains to be seen.

LovelandPolitics will publicize any outside involvement in Loveland city elections especially if we believe someone has violated the city charter with respect to contribution limits. So far, Snyder appears to be a sincere candidate who wants to help his community but he may be in for a run for the seat.

A number of longtime residents who are active in the downtown revitalization effort have been talking about running for city council along with others who are new comers to the scene. We will strive to give every candidate an introductory announcement and biography once they decide to run.

Council Votes Down McWhinney CEF Reduction Proposal

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

Anyone who believed the proposed reduction in CEF’s (Capital Expansion Fees) debated by Loveland’s City Council last night was motivated by a desire to “stimulate” building in Loveland is drinking bath water. The spin put out by McWhinney was quite frankly insulting.

We applaud both the Loveland Reporter-Herald and Loveland Connection for accurately reporting the measure which was an effort by McWhinney to rush through a temporary reduction in developer fees for their 300 unit apartment building in Centerra to be built later this year.

We sympathize, however, with those in the development community not wanting to pay such high CEF’s of over $20,000 per residential unit. City Manager Don Williams borrowed money from the CEF’s to buy land along the I-25 near the 402 to annex it into the city. Today Loveland owns over $6 million in land that could have been used to build a police or fire station in east Loveland but instead is invested in land speculation by the city.

However, a conversation to examine the CEF’s needs to begin with the city spending less, lowering service levels or finding an alternative funding mechanism to cover the capital costs growth places on city services. Loveland needs 300 more apartment residents competing for services without contributing their actual costs like it needs a fire in city hall.

Rocky Scott argued that an arbitrary reduction in the CEF’s has a good long term impact on the local economy and pointed to Greeley and Johnstown as community fee structures Loveland should more closely emulate. Most residents of Loveland likely don’t want to have their home value drop to those of Greeley or Johnstown but that is exactly what will happen if our city abandons its commitment to residential quality of life by trying to stretch fewer services over a larger population.

We want to propose a bold new idea. McWhinney should try and develop something outside their urban renewal district, outside a metro district, without a waiver of use taxes, paying all the CEF’s others pay without insider tips on prospective tenants from the NCEDC (Northern Colorado Economic Development Council) and do it for a cost competitive with others in the private sector. If they can’t the land should be sold to a developer who knows how instead of making their inefficiencies Loveland’s problem.

In the meantime, Council should consider ways of bringing down the CEF’s for all developers but under their own initiative guided by the city staff, finance advisory committee and builders advisory board. Recognizing a fee reduction is accompanied by an alternative taxing method or reduction in city costs is essential if the council will act responsibly.

Loveland Considers Law Suit Against Larimer County

Monday, June 8th, 2009

The Loveland City Council will be asked Tuesday night during a special meeting whether or not the city can go forward with a lawsuit staff is preparing against Larimer County. The discussion has been scheduled for the closed door portion of the meeting so the public will not be able to watch the discussion.

According to a source inside Loveland’s city hall, management has been asked to take action against the county to recover taxes and/or fees the city believes are owed for mitigation of the costs associated with the development of The Ranch (Larimer County Fairground Complex). According to the same sources, Loveland developer McWhinney has long complained the development should have paid more fees and was directing Loveland’s City Manager, Don Williams, to take more formal actions to enforce their agreement with the county.

So far, we have not heard the county’s side of the dispute. According to one attorney familiar with the issue it is largely a “technical” argument where the decision is not political or policy related but instead a difference on how the two sides interpret both the law and their agreements.

Curiously, Don Williams moved this item in the agenda from the June 2, 2009 meeting when the McWhinney’s request to have the council reduce their future CEF (Capital Expansion Fees) by 25% was also moved ahead to a special meeting. While there doesn’t appear to be any obvious connection between the two items (one agendized for public and the other private discussions) the City Manager has grouped them together. Perhaps, he wants to have McWhinney’s staff available when the lawsuit with the county is discussed so they can answer any questions that come up like – “why is the city doing this?”

McWhinney Proposed 25% Reduction In CEF’s

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

The Loveland City Council has postponed their discussion and consideration of a request by McWhinney to lower by 25% the impact fees the city charges for new developments for the next 18 months. Wrapped in language like “stimulus” and efforts to help restart the local construction industry it appears like a special coupon McWhinney is seeking for a $29,000,000 multi-family housing project they would like to build in Loveland.

Feel free to comment on anything from last nights meeting or the specific proposal.