Archive for September, 2010

Council Rejects RH Request – Closed Session Law Suit

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Tuesday the Loveland City Council rejected the Loveland Reporter-Herald’s (RH) request to address the ongoing litigation challenging a closed session interview of city manager candidates in private. see Reporter-Herald

Our View
Personnel matters, we believe, are appropriate for closed session meetings and that opinion is backed by 30 years of legal precedent in Colorado — so we don’t believe the newspaper will prevail on that allegation. However, we do believe the council was in error when they determined candidate Matt Brower performed poorly in his personal appearances thus making a decision in private to remove him from the candidate pool. That vote and discussion should not have taken place in a closed session meeting even though we understand it was by unanimous consent.

The Real Issue
We believe the lawsuit is motivated, in part, by the council breaking a long held tradition in Loveland of seeking advice from the RH on their choices for the city’s top job. Former RH Editor Bob Rummel participated in secret meetings by a group of “community leaders” appointed by previous councils in the 1990’s to choose the next city manager. Mayor Gutierrez and his council instead took an active role interviewing as many candidates as possible without consulting outside “authorities” like the local newspaper, chamber of commerce or other special interest groups. The secret meetings the RH Editor Rummel participated in years ago are covered under the same sunshine laws (since his committee was appointed by council to provide a recommendation) as those laws now being exalted by the RH today.

It is certainly ironic that on a City Council of 4 attorneys and 1 paralegal they defend themselves by saying everyone relied on the city attorney’s direction. Especially when 4 of the 5 ran for council claiming the city attorney allowed closed sessions in matters not appropriate for closed session.

The Loveland Reporter-Herald has shown extra-ordinary courage and integrity by challenging the inappropriate use of closed sessions by Loveland councils in the past. Unfortunately, that record is inconsistent since some meetings (like deciding to buy 97 acres along 402) were never challenged by the newspaper. And, of course, the meetings where their own RH Editor participated in choosing previous city managers in private meetings were not challenged in defense of open meeting laws.

So we believe our city council was in error when making the decision in private to remove one candidate. We do not believe they were in error when interviewing and discussing the other candidates’ applications and interviews in private. Salary negotiations, applicant benefit demands and other sensitive issues should not be the subject of public domain. Such issues should become public only when the council makes a choice on which candidate they will hire and also how much the candidate will be paid. The public has a right to know which public official supported the hiring of a particular candidate not what every candidate said in their interviews.

What is your view?

Posted in City Council - General Issues, City Manager | 7 Comments »

More On Marisol – And Sam Betters

Friday, September 17th, 2010

We received an email regarding our Marisol Madness story correcting some information in the story while providing additional data. We promised to publish the email but it was too long to be posted as a comment. So here it is below -

The author is Carol Terrell, a former tenant of Marisol.

Thank you for bringing these matters that are causing distress for several of the residents at Mirasol and should be of concern to the City Council and taxpayers of Loveland since the community could become a blight if the facility and grounds continue to be maintained as they are now. Mrs. Jacobs has tried to be as amicable and friendly as possible to HACOL and Mirasol management but has been met by threatening and intimidating responses including their suggesting she move. All that she expects is for the fulfillment of the commitments they have made to ALL the residents not just herself. The taxpayers of Loveland should be concerned since Mirasol was given a grant from the taxpayers and the property also is not assessed for property taxes. We estimate that Mirasol’s gross income from rents and fees exceeds $770,000 per year yet they repeatedly state they do not have the money to fulfill their commitments.

The standard response from all management staff to questions regarding the degrading services has been “we are doing the best we can”. I consider that to be an excuse not an explanation or solution and also shows a total lack of interest in responding to the problems. The other standard answers include “we would have to raise your dues” and the quote from Sam Betters, “maintenance free does not mean free maintenance”. Considering the amount the residents are paying in community fees each month ($113 or $131 or $151 or $297) they are not receiving FREE Maintenance. Mr. Betters cannot seem to resist any opportunity to insult or intimidate an elderly person.

September 19, 2010 Update
Due to the length of the email we moved the full article to email by Carol Terrell

Posted in Marisol | 10 Comments »

Loveland’s New City Manager: Bill Cahill

Sunday, September 12th, 2010

Loveland now has a new City Manager, Bill Cahill, who at this moment is moving his family to Loveland from his home for the past 20 years, Merced, California where he serves as the Assistant City Manager. He starts his new position on November 1, 2010. see story

6 Councilors wanted Cahill while 3 wanted the younger candidate from Missouri, Matt LeCerf. Some argued Cahill brings maturity and calm during this time of a troubled national economy while the other 3 argued age doesn’t matter but charisma and energy do. In the end, it was a personal choice of style and all seemed comfortable with either of the two finalists.

We are relieved to see the council made the choice instead of some “blue ribbon” advisory committee appointed to interview the candidates as has been done in the past. Now the council owns their decision good or bad; depending on how Cahill performs. What is unlikley is that Cahill will continue Don William’s autocratic Tijuana style of governance that demonstrated Williams’ disdain for any fair public process. Hiring from within (sorry Rod) didn’t provide any such guarantees.

One lingering doubt, however, is whether the council did its due diligence on the reported success of Cahill’s downtown development activities in Merced, California. Merced is an economic disaster (see facts in the story) and anyone familiar with Merced has to wonder how is was spun as having a successful economic development plan. It doesn’t matter just how great the downtown “looks” to outsiders. If the city can’t pay it’s bills due to falling tax revenue and unemployment is growing to over 18% it begs the question why anyone would call it “vibrant.” But that is exactly the term used by some members of Loveland’s City Council when describing Merced’s downtown redevelopment.

Only time will tell. In the meantime – good luck Bill Cahill in a difficult job with 9 quirky bosses.

Any comments?

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Mirasol Madness

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

When 88 year-old Bette Jacobs appeared before the Loveland Planning Commission to oppose the next phase of the troubled Mirasol Senior Housing project, she was ignored and the amended proposal approved.

For many people that may have been the end but not for Bette. She has retained an attorney and is in discussions with Loveland City Councilman Hugh McKean. Ft. Collins former Housing Authority board member Ray Hale is the Loveland attorney now representing Bette see story.

Among her many complaints is the shoddy shuttle service that only operates for grocery shopping once a week and will not run for any senior who cannot round-up three friends willing to ask for the same trip. The snow removal has been problematic as it is piled in-front of some senior’s paired unit. Footings built for a new unit that was delayed were allowed to remain open for two-years without any safety fencing in violation of city code and list goes on.

Sam Betters who represents the city’s “partner” Homequest Development LLC in the project and Loveland’s head of community services, Darcy McClure, have been reported as giving the complainers a cold shoulder. Darcy even rallied other residents to attend a Loveland Affordable Housing Board meeting in an effort to diminish Bette’s complaints. Mirasol has struggled to fill units despite receiving significant subsidies from various government agencies.

Are you a resident of Mirasol or are you familiar with the project? Please feel free to post your comment here.

Posted in Loveland Housing Authority | 7 Comments »

Metro District – Follow-up to The Centerra Enigma

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

We received an overwhelming response to our previous post “Centerra Enigma.” Mostly either in favor or against Metro Districts by email. However, Centerra’s funding involves sales taxes (called fees), property tax rebates, mill levies (Metro District) and lastly huge subsidies by the city through fee waivers. Therefore, we decided to create a new string for Metro Districts as the Centerra Enigma involves many other issues to which we object – not the fact they also have a Metro District.

Below is a typical email we receive from people living within residential Metro Districts both inside and outside Loveland. We don’t have the staff to research every complaint but it appears as though some people may have purchased their homes unaware that they would be paying higher property taxes for 20 years.

Here is one email –

” Hi,
I live in the Waterfront Metro Taxing district. Our taxes are double what the typical Loveland resident pays. Do you think any shenanigan’s went on with the city when this taxing district was formed. I know Fort Collins city council has been against creating them for residential subdivisions which is exactly what Loveland did.

Thanks”

If any of our well informed readers want to help answer this question please jump-in. We believe incompetence and simple bias resulted in Loveland’s previous “builder” council approving some Metro Districts that have become unpopular. Others, nearly identical ones, they also denied so the picture may be more complicated than what it appears.

Posted in City Council - General Issues, Larimer County, McWhinney, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »