Loveland’s City Council capitulated Tuesday night to McWhinney’s demands to gut the promised improvements to the I-25/U.S. 34 interchange as promised.
By a 7-2 vote, Loveland City Council approved a change to the terms of the Centerra Metro District’s agreement with Loveland. The newest change essentially allows the Metro District to reduce by $2.5 million the amount it received from public bond proceeds to fund the interim improvements to I-25 / US-34 interchange.
As a result, Loveland’s gateway interchange will receive only road enhancements with no landscaping, bridge improvements, or proper signage. Ironically, Loveland’s council rushed to annex property bordering Johnstown three years ago to prevent “low-quality” development. It appears as though “low-quality” is OK if it allows McWhinney off the hook for their commitments.
It appears that McWhinney already was counting on those funds to subsidize their new office complex to accommodate Agrium moving to Centerra from just 9 miles east on Highway 34. In a poorly orchestrated attempt to confuse the public, those on council really only representing McWhinney’s interest used a smoke and mirrors argument that they were voting for jobs. The assumption being that diverting tax dollars away from transportation improvements and into improving McWhinney’s private property creates jobs.
As is now almost routine, the McWhinneycrats on Loveland’s council (Pielin, Clark, Skowron, Klassen, Johnson and Heckle) all voted as they apparently agreed in advance with McWhinney. Therefore, they appeared very impatient with the 12 members of the public who spoke in favor of the seven getting-up on their hind legs and standing for the rights of Loveland’s taxpayers.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark could be heard whispering to his mentor, Mayor Gene Pielin, to let McWhinney rebut the public speakers. Clark than received boos from the audience later for his own comments while Rousey announced he would vote in favor of the McWhinney request because he didn’t like the way the angry audience was reacting to their comments.
Glenn Rousey doesn’t appear to understand he is not royalty deserving a special courtesy or bow from the public before they receive his consideration on an issue. How a councilman votes should relate to the merits of the issue instead of his perception of how a particular advocate of the issue acts towards him. Imagine a Mayor Rousey? Any public speaker who dares shows his back after speaking may find themselves on the wrong side of his highness.
In another sad day for the 1st Amendment, The Coloradoan’s Loveland Connection first reported online the fact Mayor Pro Tem Clark received boos from the audience for his insulting comments. Within hours the story was amended and the news censored to provide a more positive appearance for McWhinney and their 1st choice for Mayor, David Clark.
LovelandPolitics will no longer carry the RSS feed to the online version of The Loveland Connection until the newspaper allows its reporters the freedom to accurately report on public events in Loveland. A common problem reported by former reporters now of both the Loveland Connection and Repertor-Herald has been the heavy hand McWhinney uses in manipulating the news coverage by complaining to their editors.
By Friday LovelandPolitics will post various video clips of the meeting for the public to see exactly what occurred. In the meantime, if you missed the meeting — look for the re-broadcsats on Loveland’s cable channel 16.
Any comments on the meeting?
I was not surprised by the outcome. I recorded it and watched today, and was happy to see those citizens speaking out; I wish I’d been there. I was dismayed at the Mayor’s dishonest attempt to put down those who disagree with his giveaways to McWhinney as being “against jobs”. (In case anyone hasn’t noticed, that’s the current spin the McWhinney 5 repeat ad nauseam to justify every tax giveaway: “It’s about jobs”. ) Gutierrez rightly challenged him on that.
The issue seems to boil down to this: McWhinney was given several hundred million of tax dollars and agreed in return to give a small portion of that to improving road interchanges, etc. Through a complacent Council, they’ve gotten a number of changes, including the one last night, to steadily reduce their obligations so they could use the money more as they want – to subsidize other parts of their development. As if several hundred million in subsidy weren’t already enough.
No matter how the Council or print media spin it, that much is obvious to most, it seems. I’d venture to guess that the news papers’ lack of journalistic integrity is not helping them at all with the public, either. It’s no wonder why they’re struggling. (Though I must say the Reporter-Herald did report in today’s edition that citizens spoke in opposition….give credit where it’s due.)
I don’t even understand what all the fuss is about. Chad and Troy have brought this community lots of great benefits! Look at the Chapungu Sculpture Park which now bypasses Benson Park in numbers of visitors.
Each year I hear even more complaints about the McWhinnney this and McWhinney that. Personally I think they are great people who have provided this little cow town with so much culture and diversity the people against it don’t even know what they are talking about.
If these “taxpayers” want better regional transportation why didn’t they support the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) for only 1 cent for every dollar spent? The McWhinneys have given so much more to this community than anyone on this website could even afford to give.
Why can’t you just be happy with all their contributions and sop trying to ask for even more money!
This site if funny. If McWhinney had asked council to allow them to use the tax dollars to make the bridge look better and install landscape, everyone on this site would have complained and said it was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Now McWhinney has rethought priorities and doesnt want to spend the money to make things look pretty but rather spend the money on items that could have a greater financial impact in Loveland such as funding other needed improvements or attracting primary jobs.
McWhinney should use some reverse pyschology here and ask the council a eliminate the taxing district and everyone on this site would say no way. That would be fun to watch.
There is one thing for sure, we dont need a pretty bridge in Loveland when our unemployment is so high. These funds should be used to stimulate the economy and get people back to work.
I have mixed feelings about McWhinney, but I can say I think Loveland is much better of with McWhinney and Centerra than without. I lived here 20 years ago and it wasnt a very pretty place and I couldnt wait to get old enough to move from here.
Joy,
wow, what a setup- a softball over the plate!
” …. look at Chapungu Sculpture Park…”
What, are you crazy? McWhinney didn’t provide that… WE TAXPAYERS did! Personally, if I’m going to pay taxes for a sculpture garden, I’d at least like a say in if, when, and where.
“…this little cow town…”
That kind of arrogance is telling, friend. While it’s certainly run like an old cow town run by a cattle baron, if you drop your nose long back to earth long enough, you might find that the people here are far more sophisticated in their understanding then the members of the McWhinney cheerleader club of which you seem to be part.
The money was promised for a public improvement and will now likely go to improve private property.
McWhinney subsidies compete with other commercial properties owners in the vicinity. I know because my family owns property in Loveland. Agrium had already decided to move to Loveland yet McWhinney wanted a subsidy to bring them to Centerra specifically by taking the money away from the I-25/34 project.
It has been proven many times that our lack of proper traffic improvements is what is hurting local development. All McWhinney did was crowd an interchange that they are unwilling to help fix. They are the problem here.
How can you defend such dishonest tactics? The “mystery” fortune 500 company to bring jobs was
1. Already coming to Loveland and
2. Not fortune 500 as described
3. Being kept a secret from council for these reasons
McWhinney tried to lure the Embassy Suites Hotel away from its current location (also in Loveland) before it was built by using the same taxpayer funded subsidies. Had they been successful, the county and Loveland would be poorer and McWhinneys richer.
Unless McWhinney is willing to support a limit on the money to only lure jobs from outside the area and not use it to simply get an advantage over other area commercial properties that argument is empty and false.
The point is no other developer or property owner is given so many advantages. Adjacent property owners cannot compete against so many subsidies because McWhinney’s tenants get lower rents due to government intervention.
So please explain to me how moving the Embassy Suites into Centerra or blocking Agrium from 2534 (across the street) would have brought new jobs to the area?
Fool me once – shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Mayor Gene Pielin is a liar. It is not the city’s job to steal money from public improvements to subsidize McWhinney. That only helps McWhinney but hurts everyone else.
Steve, you are a great example of Chad McWhinney’s favorite mantra for his yoga stretches -
“Success is getting in front of the inevitable.”
What a great American success story he is!! Loveland’s population hits 50,000 and he is subsidized to bring the big box brand name stores looking to locate in towns bigger than 50,000 population and growing.
Instead of natural development that creates benefits across the entire community all these new opportunities drawn by the growing population are concentrated into the McWhinney farm properties east of Loveland that are made attractive by massive subsidies.
Chad McWhinney used his grandparent’s seed corn to get in front of the inevitable. McWhinney took a partner for the Centerra Promenade shops that have already said they would have built here themselves if McWhinney just sold them the land (which now they really would have preferred).
Instead, Poag & McEwen Lifestyle Centers, LLC from Memphis own 50% and leased all the stores and brought all the success while Chad, Troy, Trent just collected their checks.
When Chad tried Grand Station on his own with lots of government money he still couldn’t get it off the ground. All the McWhinney leasing agents brought was a Mexican Restaurant and a bowling alley from Ft. Collins before they were let-go. Probably while Chad was stretching in a hot room doing Bikram Yoga thinking about which Niegeria art piece he was flying to Africa to buy for his Chapungu Park using Metro District dollars.
Now how does a heavily subsidized business model with a failing Metro District survive? You obviously know (like lots of people) McWhinney can’t afford to complete any of the Regional improvements they promised once these last 25/34 funds are spent on improving McWhinney properties.
Of course they will want out of the Metro District! Its liabilities exceed its assets by $48,000,000. That is the financial vehicle they stuck their losses into just like Enron used to do with their failing subsidiaries.
Nobody I read here is against jobs or development. They are against the resources of their town (not mine) all going to one property owner to compete against everyone else.
Name Withheld To Protect Family Business
Interesting discussion here.
I’ll limit my post to a response to Joy, who said,
“If these “taxpayers” want better regional transportation why didn’t they support the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)”
The point is, the improvements at the heart of this discussion were PROMISED and contractually obligated by the McWhinneys. Period.
They were allowed to pay for them with the public taxes the City allowed them to divert; a serious wrong in itself, in my opinion. However, the huge tax take apparently wasn’t enough. They’ve systematically gotten the City to agree to amendments to let them off the hook for these.
One of those amendments in fact let them find “other” public money to pay for them!
And so it’s especially ironic that you pointed to the RTA. In fact, the amendment to which I last refer was pushed through with little discussion, just about the time that McWhinney got involved in pushing for the RTA. Their agent worked full time to push the McWhinney-obligated projects to the top of the funding list… which is why both Fort Collins and Greeley dropped support for the RTA.
Finally, to the few who seem to be trying to turn this into an argument about whether or not money should be spent on aesthetics, that’s an obvious red herring. The issue at hand is that this company agreed to spend a certain amount of money ($12.5 Million, according to City documentation) for the interim improvements, and that they were to include landscaping, etc. If McWhinney or anyone else wanted to argue that they should keep the project to a lower cost by eliminating aesthetics, the time to do that was in the crafting of the ORIGINAL agreement. Because as a result of Council’s blind allegiance, what was once promised and sold to the public is now moving farther and farther from reality.
So please stop with the nonsense and dishonesty about what this is about. It’s about greed, pure and simple.
As a life long Republican, it galls me that all 7 of the votes for allowing a partial abrogation of McWhinney’s agreement w/ the city were from my party. This same “Group of 7″ have shamefully – but consistently – voted for immenent domain for private purposes, subsidies to the already-rich, and erected unfair barriers to competition w/ a “FOC” (friend of councilors). Loveland seems like a bad dream or a lost episode of “The Twilight Zone”, where Democrats are the ones who champion these things, and even guard the public purse! It just goes to show that if a vacuum is created in the political spectrum, it will be filled. In this case, it’s Democrats who are filling the void of fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, & respect for free markets. As sick as I feel saying it, please vote them into office where possible in November. Perhaps then we can return to Republican principles of government.
Royalty? No. Just someone who will voice his displeasure of those not
showing the same courtesy they recieved when they spoke. I did not giggle, talk or make rude comments when they were speaking and I expect the same behavior when council is making comments.
Shared respect should be present even when people don’t agree on the issues. If you would expect this from your children…why not from yourselves?
Regardless of my displeasure with some of the behavior shown, my vote would still have been “yes”.
Steve is correct…if a couple of million was put into flowers, trees and shrubs most of you would be upset. If, during the next 5 years, council approves spending this money on site development for a major retailer or employer then I have to believe it is a better use of the monies.
Is the agreement changed? Yes. Will the change be better for Loveland? You have 5 years to decide if the “yes” vote was the best thing to do.
I did some research. Centera district is self supporting for the most part. The public bonds are repaid by fees collected. The Loveland general fund is not used to repay the bonds. The Centera customers are voluntarily repaying the debt. This information can be found on the Loveland website in the CAFR.
According to the master financial agreement the district is guaranteed a 1.25% sales tax reduction. So Centera pays the city only 1.75% sales tax rather than the 3%. For this exchange Centera must charge fees that are used to upkeep and improve the area.
No other hand our or subsidy has been given. The final tax rate at Centera is actually higher than the other part of Loveland.
This smells like privatization to me. Less centralized government.
Now for relevancy. The highway improvements are actually funded by Centera customers rather than the rest of Loveland. Considering this economic downturn, if it were left to me, I would have granted the McWhinney boys the right to forgo ALL improvements till the economy returns. Then I would hold them to the original contract. Just good timing and good common sense.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald’s endorsement of Walt Skowron today for Mayor shows that even the chamber and McWhinneys realize David Clark is already toast and has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming Loveland’s next Mayor.
Anyone who watched the Oct. 6 council meeting saw how confused and lost Skowron was but he still appears to be the most acceptable “protest” candidate the Reporter-Herald can endorse.
Skowron clearly had no understanding of the >100 million dollar public bond proceeds McWhinney already spent. He thought the regional improvements were being paid by TIF revenue instead of already having been funded by the last of the bond proceeds now in the bank. He was surprised to learn that not even 1 cent of the bond debt principle has been paid back!
I agree with Galt – we do live in a Twilight zone.
Anyone involved in writing the editorial today could not have also watched the Oct. 6, council meeting.
Walt Skowron is a wonderful father, neighbor and even a great friend to those who worked with him at HP. As far as understanding even the most rudimentary facts of municipal financing or the metro district financing — he is lost and confused.
He would probably make the goofiest Mayor Loveland has ever seen and rely very heavily on staff to answer the big questions like,
Why are we here tonight?
How is the city funded?
What about inflation?
Councilman Rousey, here is what you said,
“When I hear little snickers and snide remarks that forces me to go the opposite way from what you want…”
You went on to explain it is in your nature and couldn’t help it. Really? If that is all there is to it people who want you to stop capitulating to McWhinney demands should go to council meetings and act rudely towards you while advocating for McWhinney.
What an odd way to make public policy.
By the way I think you are a lesser of evils on the ticket and without so much guidance from Pielin (since he will be gone) likely could make a thoughtful and competent Mayor.
Patrick Henry your posting is again not accurate.
Centerra not only receives the sales taxes (which are not voluntary for customers) but also the TIF from the Urban Renewal Authority.
That means McWhinney is refunded all the property tax assessments for any improvement above the base value as farm land.
Let me help you understand this better. It is the same as if Loveland homeowners were rebated at the end of the year all their property taxes by the county except for the amount of the assessment for the empty land value. That means a typical $200,000 home in Loveland if receiving the same TIF benefit would in fact only pay the property taxes as if the property was worth $20-30,000.
In addition, Centerra has received over $7 million waivers on CEF fees needed to expand police, fire, library and other services commensurate with the number of new population (both commercial and residential) put on those service. Instead, everyone else in west Loveland has to either share the same services already here (thus less for everyone like snow plows) or pay to expand those services through our taxes that do get collected.
Lastly, the Centerra Metro District IS NOT a private entity. By law is a governmental entity with taxing authority (much of outside TABOR). Projections I have seen indicates they will not have the cash-flow to pay back the public debt they created and interest while also maintaining the Metro District’s financial obligations under the MFA. In other words, they can’t get more bond debt not only due to market conditions but because of the uncertain future of the Metro District as their bond payments will go up faster than their revenue.
If interest rates go up and RBC can’t cover the spread, they will need to dramatically increase taxes or abandon the responsibilities of maintenance to the city. Word out of McWhinney is they are planning the latter and sooner than you my think.
Glad to hear you are researching it but please don’t draw quick conclusions until you can see the entire picture of how they are funded.
Patrick,
I regret to say that your research has been inadequate. As was reported by the developer, the City, and the Reporter Herald, the estimated tax benefit to Centerra as a result of its Master Finance Agreement, was $591 Million. That is because, as an urban renewal authority, it could retain ALL the property tax increment (instead of the County, School District, City, etc.), and a bit less than HALF of the City sales tax collected; along with local fees they could charge on customer sales.
Yes, that’s right… over a half-BILLION dollars of public taxes diverted to their control. With one small exception. About 1/6 of that amount would be used to bring about so-called “regional public improvements”, including the interchange in question. (It could be argued that improving those I-25 interchanges was also significantly beneficial to Centerra, but let’s not quibble.)
Now that their financial obligations for funding of such “regional public improvements” has been steadily reduced, that means the subsidy of the private business has grown proportionately.
So please explain again: How is this NOT a huge public subsidy of private enterprise?
Update – We have posted the public comments on the story for the Oct. 6, council meeting along with before and after drawings so citizens can see the direct result of the council decision to allow McWhinney not to fully fund the project with the taxpayer money they already received.
http://www.lovelandpolitics.com/McWhinneycrisis43.html
Below is the email from McWhinney advertising the ground breaking for the “Safety-only” improvements to the I-25/US34. By the look of the professional drawings and advanced preparations, they appear prepared for the decision before Oct. 6, and likely already knew the outcome before the community did due to private conversations with council members.
Here is the McWhinney email – ——————————–
The I-25/US 34 Ground Break Event is scheduled to take place on Thursday, October 29th at 10:00AM. (drawings attached)
Please mark your calendar and we hope you can join us!
Regards,
Celeste Smith
Marketing Manager
McWhinney
2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue
Suite 200
Loveland, CO 80538
Office: (970) 962-9900
Direct: (970) 613-4567
Fax: (970) 635-3003
celestes@mcwhinney.com
While I appreciate all the thought and research that has gone into the comments, seems to me that the central issue is not McWhinney. Or vNet, for that matter.
I disagree with some of the conclusions, but that’s not the point either.
Businesses want to get the most they can. And why not? It is in their interest to do so.
The real question, seems to me, is how government responds.
Like it or don’t, we’ve made a great public investment in private industry/enterprise across the board. On every level.
To be fair, sometimes it works. But more often it doesn’t.
Corporate welfare has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars at the local, state and national level.
All I ask my fellow citizens is to think about that, and how that has been aided and abetted in Loveland — since that’s the election decisons we now face.
That we have a dumbed-down newspaper run by dumded-down owners/editors (aka business managers) doesn’t help. We’ve got to figure more out on our own than ever before.
Walt Skowron for mayor? I rest my case.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland
Tony,
agreed.
Corporate welfare has been raised to a high art here. I know it takes place (as you note) at every level of government in many different places across the nation. However I’m willing to bet that for the sheer magnitude of it, i.e. the scale of giveaway compared to a government’s size (total budget), nothing begins to approach Loveland’s subsidy of Centerra; even before adding on the comparative pennies given to VNet (a half-million dollars throwaway at least), etc.
When you hear the term “public-private partnership”, it’s time to hold tightly onto your wallet, because it means the con-men are reaching after it.
The Centerra fiasco was made possible by loopholes in state urban renewal law that allowed unscrupulous lawyers and accountants to claim that farmland at a City’s edge was blighted, i.e. “a menace to public health and safety”, so they could siphon off most of the taxes for private gain. And also, of course, by a City Managment and Council that are either incredibly incompetent or unfathomably corrupt.
Hello Harry,
Thanks for sharing your ideas.
I agree with your points. Although I could give you examples of corporate welfare and so-called public/private partnerships that make the stuff here in Loveland look like chump change (okay, not exactly, but certainly in the same ballpark).
Not that that makes it right.
Still maintain these sweetheart deals couldn’t happen without the hearty approval of our elected officials. And that is the part we, as voters, can and ought to control.
Which is why this year’s round of local elections is important.
Tony Benjamin,
Loveland
OK, so I am staying in this snowy day reading LovelandPolitics – it is much funner than all the housework I should be doing right now You guys sound really smart and I really appreciate the interest you show in the city.
After watching all the videos I was struck by Walt Skowron not understanding Centerra at all. He thought the debt was $70 million but its $112 million, he thought 10-20 million was paid back but nothing has been paid back. Is the most of the council really that lost?
Now I was furious to see the Mayor explain that the public doesn’t know as much as council about this McWhinney. From the looks of it the public knows more than those 7 McWhinney guys on council,.
Councilman Rousey, I was one of the 11 who made public comment at the meeting. Clearly, I am not very good at public speaking and I was really caught off guard by McWhinney changing their request right before I stood up to speak. Also, just as obvious was the way us public speakers were treated by city council. Klassen’s smart-ass question and demeaning tone immediately after public comment was ridiculous “does anybody know how many times the US Constitution has been amended? Anybody? Anybody know? Anyone?” (I’m paraphrasing.) Then by Peilin’s “partnership” clarification comments – again demeaning. Followed by Peilin completely disregarding what 11 residents had to say by directing the discussion after we no longer had a chance to speak “this discussion is about jobs.” In my mind it wasn’t about jobs, that’s why I focused on changing the agreement. If I knew it was about jobs I would have argued that $2.5mil in landscaping/aesthetic improvement jobs were a definate (unlike MAYBE bringing a company in), relocating jobs from Greeley is not creating jobs, McWhinney could surely find a partner if it came to it, etc. I pray everyday you don’t become mayor because of your “giggling and snickering” comment. Public involvement is an amazing thing and currently there isn’t much because when you get up to speak, chances are pretty good you’ll be treated like an idiot – who would want to subject themselves to that? Because people fear getting singled out, they ’snicker and giggle’ in the anonimity of the crowd and you think that is unacceptable too? Is the only option in your mind the fact that you know what’s best for us and we all just need to shut up and go with the flow? If the answer is ‘no’, then please tell me.
Neil: I never made one negative comment after you and others spoke before the council and I appreciate comments made by the general public. What upset me was the “giggling” and “snickering” while the council was speaking. I didn’t do it while you were speaking..why should you do it while I was speaking?
I have never been one to be “politically correct”. To be elected and then change into someone who I am not never has never seemed right to me. Meaning…If I’m upset with behavior I will let it be known.
Remember the “Triangle” sculpture? Many citizens expressed their displeasure with the work itself and the location where it was placed. The council listened to each one but after the comments were made and council discussion started, we had numerous shouts, boos and comments from the audience….I wish I had been more verbal about the rude behavior at that time.
Fair is fair…maybe not policially correct but that is me.
“I didn’t do it while you were speaking..why should you do it while I was speaking?” And I didn’t do it while you were talking (I only laughed out loud when Dave Clark said McWhinney is ridicouled more by city staff than most developers.) I guess we’ve both unfairly judged each other because we were sitting next to people that we cannot control. I feel there is dissatisfaction on the part of the public when we come prepared to argue our side, and the argument we present doesn’t mean anything because SOME on the city council make fun of it and SOME direct what the discussion will be about after we can no longer make comment. I was really against changing the agreement because I feel Loveland deserves a nice entryway from I-25 and that is all. I was willing to argue any approach that was presented to make what I wanted happen – whether it be changing the agreement, jobs, economy, McWhinney’s trend, etc. So, when we have one, and only one, chance to get our voice heard and within minutes that chance is thrown to the side people tend to get upset. I guess the point I’m trying to make is, there will be more snickering from the crowd if the next mayor tells the council what the discussion will be about after public comment is made – the mayor either needs make the statement before public comment (instead of after) or not make the comment at all. I can respect your frustration because you’re getting the bad end of a stick you can’t control, but so are we. (By the way, I think it’s great that you will publicly address people’s comments when they disagree with you. I currently have only one councilperson that will reply to my emails, so you are ahead of the game in regards to that.)
Thanks. Point taken.
I agree with Neil’s assessment of some of the comments made at the meeting the meeting.
“Klassen’s smart-ass question and demeaning tone immediately after public comment was ridiculous “does anybody know how many times the US Constitution has been amended? Anybody? Anybody know? Anyone?”
The correct answer is 27, including the Bill of Rights. I have been passing out pocket Constitutions for more than 12 years, and since Klassen asked repeatedly and was answered with silence,not even a wrong answer, perhaps we should keep a small display of pocket Constitutions available in council chambers just in case the subject of the constitutionality of any subject is questioned before the council.
I am still confused about how making amendments to the Constitution is comparable to amending a legal binding contract…