On Tuesday the Loveland City Council will decide whether or not to allow McWhinney’s Metro District to again break their agreement with Loveland and keep back $2.75 million that was promised for the I-25 / U.S. 34 interchange. See story and video of the earlier meeting on this same topic.
For those of you determined to discredit this website, go back and read our story that revealed McWhinney’s dishonest public relations campaign to say scrapping the I-25/34 improvements was the only way to bring a mystery fortune 500 company to Loveland. Oct. 6, will be another attempt by McWhinney to funnel more public monies into their private ventures they were unable to get before.
On September 15, 2009 it was very disappointing to see Loveland Mayor Pro Tem David Clark attempt to support McWhinney with clearly false arguments and a revision of history. According to Clark, the scaled back “safety-only” improvements is what the 25 year tax diversion agreement with Loveland always contemplated. This Loveland Reporter-Herald story is one of many announcements regarding what was agreed (and never ultimately started). City engineer David Klockman used to argue (as he does in that article) that McWhinney never committed to finish the projects because of escalating cost but instead committed to a level of funding.. That was $12.5 million and not $8 million.
The “gateway” to Loveland that McWhinney sold their 2004 nearly $700 million future tax diversion scheme on is now in jeopardy as the council is again being herded by McWhinney through a collaborative city staff into a corner of limited choices. McWhinney wants to gut the full project in two steps. First approve a cheap “safety-only” contract for just over $8 million and later come back with a separate proposal likely to fund commitments they already made to build an office building for Agrium. Any argument that is “may” be used to complete the I-25/34 project later is silly. To restart the project would cost an additional 15% that the current fund just doesn’t have plus McWhinney has already made it clear they cannot raise any additional bond debt given the current performance of their Metro District sales.
Make no mistake about it, they are reducing the ratio of funds available for “Regional Transportation Improvements” while increasing funds available to improve their own property — thus increasing their net worth at the expense of greater Loveland.
In an awfully condescending argument, Rich Shannon has told the council the current “poor” economic times necessitate the city allowing McWhinney to fundamentally change their commitment to that interchange under the agreement. Even LovelandPolitics doesn’t believe the council is that ignorant to accept his specious argument. The project money is already in the escrow account and ready to be spent.
By design, funding for these bigger capital improvement projects depended on bond proceeds and not current revenue. In 2008 McWhinney’s Metro District borrowed the money, in part, to fund the I-25 and U.S. 34. We are talking about only $11.5 million out of the $112 million in bond proceeds they raised last year.
McWhinney promised to fund $12 million for the 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).
Now they want to renege on their legal commitments and not return the money they received or spend it for the purpose it was received. The 2004 MFA agreement speaks to the Metro District using excess money from the Regional Transportation Improvements once complete to repay the debt created by the bonds. Unfortunately, the money isn’t excess and the project has not even started but McWhinney wants the money anyway.
This shouldn’t be a hard decision for our city council to make. Stick to the agreement and be responsible custodians of taxpayer funds. Use the bond proceeds for what they were intended and nothing else.
If McWhinney agreed to fund the interchange before they took the bond money what is their problem?
I am sorry but new to this and trying to understand what is going on. Too much information to go through here.
Why can’t the city council just not make any changes and force McWhinney to honor their agreements??
Is it because the changes will make is uglier or more dangerous? Is that their position?
In regards to McWhinney,
What was the total bond amount issued and what stream of revenue is used to repay the bond? Does the Loveland general fund repay the bonds?
I need to trace the exact path of bond distribution and bond repayment to decide what level of subsidy this McWhinney project is.
It appears that most of the bonds are repaid by Centera customers. The State, County and even Loveland city government will be receiving most of their customary tax rates. Just because Centera customers are willing to pay extra fees does not grant Loveland City government the right to these extra fees.
First, they arranged a takeover of a government, placing a menagerie of dunces on it and promoting those within it who were easily co-opted to their way of thinking. Second, they engineered large subsidies for big business in exchange for promises of jobs & funding for infrastructure well into the future. Third, they set about to systematically change the meaning of their promises, funding only those projects that served to consolidate their power & benefit their friends. Fourth, they bullied those who dissented into silence & led the people to slowly accept a new status quo.
Of course, I’m speaking of Hitler’s Germany, circa 1930’s. Don’t know why that came to mind….
PatrickHenry:
You are welcome to post opinions here but that privilege comes with a few simple rules;
1. Please don’t use profanity
2. Libelous comments and attempts to attribute libelous comments to others will not be tolerated
3. Try to stay on topic – we seldom enforce this but you have now pushed the limit by so many postings on other topics
4. Don’t bomb the site with many irrelevant postings in an attempt to stymie any conversation. This is an old trick and not very clever.
We will continue to allow you to post only if you can follow these simple rules of civility.
Thanks
I was tired of reading his pollution on this blog. Hey he said McWhinney has a right to charge fees to their customers more than others do so what is it your business.
We thought you should know this is a typical defense of guys I know close to that organization that I have heard the same argument many times before but couldn’t respond when they said it to me. My name is not here because I don’t want anyone to know i am posting this message on this website.
It isnt true because Loveland REDUCED Centerra fees to provide more headroom for the taxes they charge. Retail city taxes charged in Centerra are actually LOWER just so Centerra can charge a fee most shoppers don’t even notice. So it is everyones business because it means any tenant of Centerra collects less taxes for the city. Does this make sense to everyone?
Be careful because you people are upsetting a lot of powerful people in town.
Mr. Galt,
Did you REALLY just compare Loveland to Nazi Germany?
WOW…
This story speaks to my own observations about how this whole affair has proceeded, starting from when the farmland was declared blighted in a clear misuse (abuse?) of urban renewal.
It’s been a long story of “bait and switch”, as others have noted. The boosters promise one thing; then along the way they change both the agreements and the story they’re telling to the public. I’ve never seen anything quite like it anywhere in this country.
For example, when they pushed the whole LURA concept, they said it was wise to let McWhinney take the (roughly) $600 million in taxes, because:
“they’ll fix all the interchanges”.
Later, after they let McWhinney amend the agreement several times, the City Manager, Mayor and others claim they never intended for McWhinney to do that; and they’ve steadily let them change agreements to avoid having to pay. So they’ll say they’re going to just reduce the project scope… and call it good.
The current spin is to keep saying it’s “about jobs”…. they think we’re all just dumb hicks who won’t get that they’re just trying to manipulate us. Well I got news for them: it’s not working. Not a person I’ve talked to anywhere in town likes what they’re doing.
Upon reflection of Galt’s note and John’s follow-up, I guess I’d agree that it’s a bit of a stretch to compare this to Nazi Germany. After all, we certainly haven’t begun rounding up any minorities or burning books, etc.
On the other hand, aside from its miltaristic /nationalistic overtones, fascism is “corporatist economic ideology” (Wikipedia), and “socialism with a capitalist veneer”
(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html ) . And I think that’s what “John Galt” may be referring to.
In fact, Loveland’s City Hall has taken this marriage of government and private interests to its extremes. In the Centerra public-private “partnership”, much of the risks and costs are publicly distributed; while of course, all profits are private.
I agree. Why doesn’t Lovelandpolitics say good things about the McWhinneycrats seems to be a common complaint here.
Well, when will they do something positive. The meeting and vote last night said everything.