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.
I went back and read your September 2009 blog string on this topic as advised. It was amazing how many people tried defending that vNet agreement with no basis in fact while attacking your motives! Even councilman rousey made some really ignorant comments.
We should organize a protest in front of Beierwaltes’ million dollar house saying ‘give our money back.’
Most Loveland families only make $50 thousand a year. Why shouldn’t they be told how much Beierwaltes got for their money when he sold all the assets in his company. Was 20 cents on the dollar?
I believe in private markets and and don’t agree the city should be trying to pick the winners and losers in our local economy by giving them our tax money. This time Beierwaltes’ company lost but he didn’t lose since the last million dollars sunk into it was ours and not his.
If I sound pissed it is because I am.
By the way, I was there when Donna Rice answered a question at the candidate forum that she would vote to sue Beiewaltes to get our money back. Too bad she didn’t agree to do this until their discussion was made public!
What is the defense Beierwaltes is using and what is the mysterious paragraph?
This comment leaves more questions for me than answers.
We are lucky to have a responsible news source in Loveland that investigates and reports on shady deals like this. Without LovelandPolitics, citizens would be completely in the dark. Thank you, LovelandPolitics!