- rich mcfadden Why wouldn't I vote YES on all three? Let's see, reductions ...
- rich mcfadden Re: Main St dream may be clouded by economy editorial on 9/1...
- LB Low-income housing brings crime. The subsidy is not the big...
- Ronald Looks great, I hope more people will review and evaluate the...
- Ron Hopwood The tabor law was put in effect to support the taxpayer from...
Shotgun Approach to Downtown Revitalization?
Outsiders not in the loop of the Downtown Revitalization dream are easily confused with what appears to be many different schemes of pumping money into Downtown to bring it back to life.
At the August 10th Study Session, Loveland City Council will be getting an update from TST Engineering about the City’s “Request for Proposal” plan for Downtown properties. The RFP appears to be a plan to promote City owned real estate, as well as other developments in the Downtown area. According the one Councilmember, “the consultant will be asked to concentrate on promoting city owned properties downtown, ie, 3rd street, museum and annex and any other private property owners that come forward during this outreach period.” It will essentially be a direction for potential developments and partnerships that the City hopes to gain in working towards the Downtown Revitalization scheme. As a stand-alone project that doesn’t sound too bad, but when one considers the other simultaneous projects, one can see there is way more to the story.
In the apparent ”throw it on the wall and see what sticks” approach, the City is spending $87,900 for the RFP, while City Council has also moved ahead with at least two projects without waiting for the results from the plan. At the June 1st Council meeting, City Council directed City Staff to proceed with a new parking lot at 3rd and Lincoln with a budget of $367,500. They also approved spending $145,090 to a private developer for the “Rialto Bridge” project design, this public/private partnership will end up costing the City approximately $1,000,000if everything goes as planned. While no money has been committed, two other projects being discussed are the Artspace project, which is an affordable housing project for artists, and the LAEDC. Loveland Arts Economic Development Center, or LAEDC, could end
up costing the taxpayer $100,000 annually for “financial support for staff and programs”, but one has to believe if a prospective developer comes forward as a result of the Center, it could end up costing the City way more. The highly touted Artspace scheme could end up costing the City of Loveland $550,000 in up front costs and ‘unknown‘ costs for construction.
Without being ‘in the loop’ it is very difficult to be optimistic that there is a true and direct plan to the spending, but hopefully our elected officials and those passionate about Downtown Revitalization have a better view of the 
path to success than they are presenting. Parking lots, RFP’s, Museum Annex, Rialto Bridge, Artspace, LAEDC, Facade grants, etc. is there a definate plan for the road to success or is this a true ‘shotgun approach”?
Re: Main St dream may be clouded by economy editorial on 9/12
Your editorial stated, “Is now the right time for Main Street?” I would agree that now is not the time to possibly burden Loveland taxpayers with $1 million more in expenses. Yes, this is contractually how much the Rialto Bridge project would cost the city’s Council Capital Reserve fund. This capital program is primarily funded by new residential and commercial development fees. We all know how uncertain those funds might be relied upon in the future as the housing bust might not ever recover. The economic outlook for city revenue is precarious at best. Why not save existing funds for necessary city services such as street and building maintenance, transportation, libraries and police and fire?
The Rialto Bridge building plan features a space for a restaurant and a “green room” for performers and storage. As numerous restaurants have attempted but failed to operate profitably on 4th street, why add additional restaurant space through partial taxpayer subsidies? If people can’t afford to dine out, shall we subsidize their meals as well? Additionally, how would a ‘green room’ for performers and art display area drive economic development? Since the Downtown Development Authority purchased the Rialto in 1987, hasn’t the city continued to subsidize its operations?
Finally, I agree with the editorial board’s suggestion that a “city employee” could be utilized to focus on downtown efforts, but only if this person is an existing employee. Hiring a new employee financed by Loveland taxpayers does not seem prudent right now. During this recession, the private sector has cut positions and increased productivity and efficiency from existing employees. Cannot the City Manager and other current city employees pitch in to assist in this area?
Respectfully,
Richard McFadden