LovelandPolitics.com Blog

LovelandPolitics Exclusive

LovelandPolitics has obtained some of the evidence used against Drake resident Roberta “Bobby” Allen (who wants to acquire county property along the Big Thompson River in Drake) to get a restraining order preventing her from contacting county staff.

Allen’s daughter owns 21 acres adjacent to a parcel of county land acquired by Larimer County following the 1976 flood of the canyon when FEMA purchased all the land in the flood zone that is not developable.

Allen fears the public having access to the land creates a safety hazard for she and her daughter and sounds willing to do most anything to get the county to relinquish the property to her.

LovelandPolitics obtained recorded voice messages she left for county officals that are just two of many.

Defamatory comments will not be posted but general comments on the matter are permitted on this blog. Please be aware that her language is a little rough and probably should not be heard by impressionable children.

On July 6, the Loveland City Council directed the city attorney to prepare language giving them an option to call for a special election regarding illegal marijuana dispensaries now operating in Loveland while in the meantime closing the dozen in Loveland.

A majority of the council reversed their positions last night after significant lobbying effort by owners of marijuana dispensaries and their customers to pressure council to allow them to continue operating in Loveland. City hall was packed with hundreds of people from all over Colorado representing dispensaries in Lyons, Boulder and as far South as Trinidad angry with the council’s previous direction to staff.

Mayor Gutierrez did an excellent job of maintaining the order and decorum of the public meeting while also giving everyone who came to speak an opportunity to address the council.

In the end, 7 councilors voted to allow the unregulated dispensaries to continue operating (in violation of Federal Law) in Loveland until a ballot measure can decide the issue while Donna Rice and Hugh McKean voted not to allow them to operate unless or until a ballot measure determines they can operate in Loveland and regulations by the city and state are in place to protect the community.

Many speakers urged the council not to “ban” medical marijuana in Loveland. No such ban was being considered by council but instead whether they will allow for-profit commercial distribution centers of marijuana in Loveland city limits.

The council will now refer the matter to voters for a special election November 2, while providing what Councilman Klassen described as “tacit” approval to current dispensaries to continue operating in Loveland in violation of federal law.

Two days in a row (Saturday and Sunday) the Loveland Reporter-Herald has opined on the subject of plagiarism on their editorial page. Both commentaries carry a similar theme – copying the work of others and taking the credit (even with their permission) is wrong. Ironically, Saturday’s opinion piece was copied.

On Saturday, the generic and mislabeled “Reporter-Herald Editorial” took a swipe at the internet for “creating” the copying culture in our society. See the LovelandPolitics article.

The Saturday editorial is identical to the Times-Call of Longmont newspaper Saturday editorial (owned by Lehman Communications as is the Reporter-Herald). Not similar or even customized but a verbatim copy of everything printed in the other newspaper but each pretending to be the “Editorial” of that ‘hometown’ newspaper. We don’t really see any problem in the two publications or their editors sharing editorial content or carrying opinions of the publisher instead of the editor with permission. Perhaps appropriate attribution would be in order next time — especially when that is exactly the point of each ‘hometown’ paper’s supposed original “editorial.”

The Sunday opinion piece strained to connect State House Representative BJ Nichols’ commentary on water with those of a Weld County Commissioner though the two commentaries were similar but not identical. Our complaint is why use such a strained example?

Last October, LovelandPolitics published a web posting exposing then Loveland Mayor Gene Pielin’s “guest commentary” in the Reporter-Herald as a verbatim copy of a public utility’s lobby group editorial that Pielin didn’t add or subtract any content. The Reporter-Herald never acknowledged their part even though our posting provided links to public utilities across the country that published an identical commentary by their utility managers.

Please feel free to post your ORIGINAL opinion here!

We have already received two emails commenting on the picture of Reporter-Herald Editor Ken Amundson on our front page not being a flattering picture. Sorry, we use real news photographs not studio portraits. Catching him with a smile in public would be a tough assignment anyway as the picture only reveals how he viewed our young photographer at a recent council meeting.

Call a spade a spade. Bill Beierwaltes talked the former Loveland City Council out of nearly $1 million to invest in his company as a ‘business incentive’ to help bring more jobs to Loveland. Instead he began laying-off employees before finally selling the assets of the company to an East Coast concern.

Thanks to the efforts of then Councilmen Cecil Gutierrez and Kent Solt, Beierwaltes’ agreement with the city includes a personal guarantee signed by both Beierwaltes and his wife. The councilmen were skewered by the Loveland Reporter Herald’s Ken Amundson in an editorial for their insolence in not immediately writing the Loveland aristocrat a check once he dropped the magic word “JOBS” in his 2008 plea for $900,000 of hard earned Loveland taxpayer’s money. Thank God Amundson doesn’t have a vote on City Council!

Councilman Kent Solt angered his colleagues when he pointed to other companies that Beierwaltes started and later ran into the ground during the council deliberations. Beierwaltes whispered his net worth figures into council member’s ears and won instant credibility among the hay seeds on the former council. The idea that a smart person can protect their own wealth while risking yours is apparently beyond the comprehension of some (also demonstrated by their unhealthy affection for everything McWhinney).

Publicly declaring he would make good on city monies invested in his Colorado vNet LLC while privately refusing to honor the agreement in private is unfortunate behavior but apparently what members of Loveland’s City Council are accusing Beierwaltes of doing. His agreement with the city prohibits transferring the obligation without prior approval of the city — something Beierwaltes apparently decided to ignore or was hoping the city would ignore.

The new entity, that has no agreement with the city, has apparently already indicated they will not have 250 employees working at the facility improved with Loveland tax dollars by the agreement deadline of December 31, 2012. For his part, Beiewaltes is reported to have claimed he doesn’t owe the city anything until that date because he technically didn’t sell his company (which still exists but in name only as all the city purchased assets were transfered over to the new owners). Beierwaltes, a contributor to previous council campaigns, may be hoping a turn-over on council before the end of 2012 will allow him to quietly walk away from the commitment without public notice (especially if negotiated in closed session council meetings).

In case you were not paying close attention, the new company is Colorado vNet Corp. and Beierwaltes’ company is Colorado vNet LLC. Very clever. Working behind the scenes with his neighbor Councilman Hugh McKean, Beierwaltes may have felt his problem was solved until four council members refused to continue discussing the matter in closed session last Tuesday.

Hopefully the city will follow through this time since they decided last March to enforce the agreement. Despite the fact our hometown newspaper is taking his side, Beierwaltes doesn’t appear to have a very good case.

UPDATE JULY

The council approved Centerra’s request to allow the debt obligations of any new bonds to extend past the current termination date of the MFA and Urban Renewal Authority of 2029.

Uncertain whether the escalating debt payments on Centerra’s Metro District debt can be repaid, Centerra is asking Loveland’s City Council to extend the period for debt out to 2040 instead of the current limit when the MFA (Master Financing Agreement) expires in 2029.

It sounds reasonable until you look past the view graphs to see what Centerra is really asking for is the ability to raise even more debt.

Given the fact Loveland has never conducted an independent audit of the Metro District nor hired outside experts to determine the city’s liability if the Metro Districts defaults on its debts as McWhinney’s Promenade Shops recently did, it may not be a prudent financial move to approve the request coming onto the council’s agenda this evening. see story

In addition, the V-NET matter is back before council after the city has tried in vein to collect nearly $1 million lost in a business incentive gone bad.

Any comments?

The Coloradoan covered the foreclosure hearing yesterday of The Promenade Shops at Centerra in Loveland see story

LovelandPolitics previously covered the issues related to a dispute in court between the partners (McWhinney and Poag & McEwen) that have curiously not been covered to our knowledge by any mainstream media source.

Poag & McEwen, the managing partners of The Promenade Shops at Centerra, appealed the county property tax assessment of the shopping center in an attempt to lower their annual property tax burden and improve the bottom line of the center.

McWhinney opposed a re-assessment of the property value to a lesser value to defend the 98.8% of the property taxes rebated to the McWhinney controlled Centerra Metro District. The conflict between the partners ended in court where a judge was reported have decided to postpone a decision until after the foreclosure. KeyBank will likely support the lower assessment and reduced property taxes putting a strain on the Centerra Metro District’s ability to repay the $100 million plus public bond debt issued to build Centerra.

According to sources within Poag & McEwen, they were unhappy with McWhinney using the Metro District to develop competing projects like Grand Station by using property taxes generated by The Promenade Shops for questionable “public purposes.”

A quasi-government taxing entity Centerra has been operated out of McWhinney offices by McWhinney employees who determine when they were performing a function for McWhinney or for the benefit of the Metro District.

KeyBank may now be able to appoint non-McWhinney controlled directors to the Centerra board who could object to McWhinney’s previous governance of the Metro District.

Any comments?