In 2004 the McWhinney organization agreed to fund $12.5 million of the tax dollars their Centerra Metro Districts would receive to make certain upgrades to the I-25/US 34 interchange by 2010 and 14 years later fund the “final” larger improvement for over $20 million.
The City of Loveland kept its part of the bargain and McWhinney received governmental taxing authority for their special districts for 25 years of future property taxes (TIF) and sales taxes at a projected value of nearly $700 million. Using this authority, McWhinney’s entity borrowed $112 million through floating interest rate municipal bonds that now need to be repaid.
City staff, in apparent collaboration with McWhinney, are now urging the council to only award the lower cost “safety only” improvements for interchange of $ 8 million to free the remaining funds for other uses by the Centerra Metro Districts. On the chopping block is the upgrade to the bridge and landscaping improvements that were part of the Inter Governmental Agreement.
“Michael” and others have blasted this website for tagging some candidates as “McWhinneycrats” capable of agreeing to just about any whim or fancy McWhinney requests.
Now is their chance to prove us right or wrong. Hardly one month ago EVERY member of Loveland’s council voted to move $490,000 out of the I-25/US 34 improvement monies because the estimate, according to staff, were coming lower than expected and the money would not be required. Had council stuck to their guns and preserved the original $12.5 million promised there wouldn’t be an issue in completing the project as agreed.
Today the project cannot go forward because that money is gone and it has only some $11 million and change. Incredibly, McWhinney is lobbying council to allow them to strip away any landscape or bridge improvements and just provide the pavement essentially for safety due to the shortfall.
In an effort to distort the record, previous attempts by council to question the high cost of landscaping maintenance on the project is being used to argue the city didn’t want the landscaping anyway. In fact, the city argued only about a proposal to share the cost of landscaping with the Centerra Metro District.
McWhinney is looking to spend the least amount possible to complete the “Regional Transportation” requirement in their agreement with the City of Loveland thus allowing their Metro District to borrow even more money at the public’s expense. Arguments by staff that the changing economic situation necessitates the change in scope on the project are specious at best. In 2008 after the economy was already “bad” McWhinney borrowed another $60 million (now $ 112 all together) for the stated purpose of funding just this improvement.
If the regional transportation improvements were being funded entirely from current revenues the argument that the economy’s woes creates an impediment would hold water as funds for the improvement would not be available due to lower tax revenues. Instead, those monies were put aside from the debt for the purpose of funding not only the safety improvements but the landscaping and bridge improvements as well as reflected in the Inter-Governmental Agreement between the City of Loveland and McWhinney’s Centerra Metro District.
The point is McWhinney proposes spending the debt dollars whether or not the improvements are realized thus creating an equal burden to the Metro District’s obligation to collect taxes and repay the debt. Nothing in the “safety” only improvements proposal mitigates the potential impact of the ailing economy on the Metro District. What likely will change is McWhinney’s profit and ability to continue using the public monies of the Metro District as a kind of “slush fund” for their special projects instead of the promised regional transportation improvements agreed to with the city.
see LovelandPolitics.com story along with the legal documents and contradictory staff memos to council.
The vote this evening will be an excellent opportunity to sort out who on council is acting on behalf of the city’s interest by enforcing signed agreements and who is simply sitting on the dais on McWhinney’s behalf.
Why is it that city staff sounds like McWhinney? How can a guy working for the city tell the council to abandon any enforcement of McWhinney’s obligation cause its off a couple 100 thousand?
The answer is very simple. Approve the $12 million full interim improvement and either pay the few 100 thousand from city funds or slightly scale back the landscaping.
Is our our city council really that stupid or dishonest to believe because the metro district spent all their money now they get even more back to do with it what they please?
That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Rewarding McWhinney for not putting the money aside? Really? Can this be?
Yeah, I watched last night. What an outrage these people. Where is Michael when Walt Skowron thinks it is OK to allow McWhinney to break their agreement with Loveland and not fully fund the interim improvements. Gove me a break – custodian of tax dollars?
By the way i thought the Reporter-Herald wrote a good pre-meeting story on this issue but blew their credibility with today’s article.
Two guys, Cecil Gutierrez and Kent Solt, stood tall and carried the argument for 2 hours while their colleagues mostly said nothing. How can the newspaper write an article about that issue at the meeting and not mention the only two people who asked questions of McWhinney or caused an discussion?
It just shows the Reporter-Herald knows most people don’t watch the meetings and really doesn’t care that those of us who do know their reporting clearly is intended to mislead instead of inform.
Chad McWhinney was probably on his big yacht somewhere laughing at all the taxpayer’s in Loveland making him rich!
This is small-town, good’ol’boy politics at its best. Carol, I often wonder how many people watch the Council meetings beside me. Kind of a horror show, really … at least that’s kind of what it feels like.
But you’re right about the two members , Solt and Gutierrez … it’s kind of reassuring to see that not ALL of the Council are so ignorant or owned by McWhinney.
Thanks for reporting this… you’d never know about it if you relied on the local daily.
Hello everyone,
Looks like McWhinney is at it again. And yes, the Administrator is absolutely right that this is the chance for candidates to more clearly define their position on supporting or not supporting McWhinney.
Unfortunately, I have been out of town on business and the only news I have read has been here, the Reporter Herald website and LovelandConnection.com. It is disappointing that the Reporter Herald website has chosen not to cover the discussion of this issue at the Tuesday night meeting. Based on what the lovelandconnection.com website presented, after debating the matter, the council ‘steered clear of a vote’ and will further discuss the issue at an October 6 public hearing.
I would hope that most on council realize that many projects like this don’t always go as planned and change orders and unexpected delays, utility conflicts, etc. add time and cost to the anticipated budget of a project. Whether they do or do not complete the landscaping and other features that they originally committed to is another matter (I don’t think they should be able to sneak out of commitments they had agreed to in their negotiation of the Master Finance Agreement), but either way it sends the wrong message for McWhinney to even be having this conversation when the project hasn’t even broken ground yet. Their figures (I believe) are in today’s dollars; with a further weakening US dollar, inflation is a real possibility that could bring the ultimate project cost significantly higher than their filtered down $8.7 million dollar bid. Maybe they should wait and decide how they want to play with the leftovers when we know there will be leftovers.
I look forward to the October 6 meeting and how the councilors and mayoral candidates respond.
I think the amount the Metro District is obliged for at I-25 and US34 for “Final” improvements is DOUBLE the $25 million reported here. At least that’s what my notes from past discussions state. But of course the local paper doesn’t bother to report those “little details”…I guess they think we’re too stupid to care.
I am vehemently opposed to corporate welfare however it appears Love-land Politics has an axe to grind. Are you people zero growthers? Green with envy at the McWhinney wealth? Disappointed your city government has less money for expansion?
Not quite sure what your angle is but somethings rotten in Denmark.
If total tax rates were low, like they should be, developers would not have to ask for so much of it back. How about some tax cuts, FOR EVERYONE?
Most if not all governments are notoriously wasteful, ineffectual. Why does Loveland Politics want the city to have so much more too waste?
When McWhinney keeps what is theirs at least the consumer gets something in return. Look how nice the I25/34 area of Love land is becoming. If Loveland City had the money it would lead to more bureaucratic feet up on the desk. Maybe more trips to the government hideaway called hermit park?
Metro districts are moving towards privatization, that’s a good thing in my opinion.
Harry, you are correct. That was our error and the amount McWhinney owes on the I-25/34 by 2024 is $50 million. Given their poor history of following through on promises to the community it will certainly not happen as McWhinney already spent the public money they borrowed.
Patrick –
The McWhinney machine profits from the newly created public debt that taxpayers pay for the next 25 years. Nobody has argued the City of Loveland should be getting even more tax revenues.
Loveland is now discussing an agreement to rely on Windsor for fire protection in Centerra as they have a station closer to north-east Centerra.
The I-25/34 interchange is an ugly death trap. Maybe you want a Mexico style of development where lavish shopping centers and grand houses are accessed through narrow and dangerous public roadways.
McWhinney has generated an enormous amount of additional traffic into an intersection already unable to safely handle the daily traffic counts. Now they don’t want to even use the public bond proceeds they received to improve the intersection as promised. So far that public/private agreement is working great!
Privatizing profits while socializing losses is a strategy McWhinney has perfected through public/private partnerships with Loveland. We pay all their costs while they take all the profits from Centerra.
All most people want is an alert council that looks out after the public’s interest. The Metro District is by law a public entity and one that now needs to be funded in the millions. That is hardly a move towards privatization.