With the failure of Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 on November 2nd, the contract with Artspace can move forward.  The $550,000 contract with the private company out of Minnesota to investigate and plan for a low-income housing project for artists can now move forward.  Also, with the failure of the three citizen initiatives will be the ‘revitalization’ of the LAEDC – a new, full-time position charged with bringing ‘creative sector’ business to town with the use of incentives and other propoganda.

Over on 3rd, the second phase of the $345,000 temporary parking lots are complete.  The acquisition and demolition being the first two phases.  Crews will likely move on site in the next few weeks to bring the dream of a temporary parking lot costing over 1/3 of a million dollars to reality.

Rialto Bridge is moving forward extremely fast.  Using phrases like, ‘performance based’ lease, it appears that the City has worked out a way to subsidize the rent of the private restaurant that will move in on the first floor.   This definately leaves one to ponder the role of government in light of the continually struggling private sector in Downtown – is the industry booming so much that Henry’s, the Pourhouse, 4th St. Chophouse, Baja Fish Co., Lil Mike’s, the Black Steer can weather the introduction of a competitor that you and I will be subsidizing until they prove they can afford a hard cost that the others are (obviously) forced to pay?

RFP:  TST is wrapping up their end of the deal with the City of provide an ‘RFP’ to promote the City’s properties and cash incentive policies with potential investors.

What’s next on the horizon?  Stay tuned to find out where this fast-moving train is heading next. . .

“The Cultural Services Board meets the fourth Tuesday of each month at 4:30 p.m. at the Loveland Museum/Gallery, 503 North Lincoln Avenue.”

From the City’s Charter:

“All meetings of a quorum of any board, committee, commission, or other policymaking or rulemaking body of any agency or authority of the city, or city council, at which any public business is discussed is declared to be a public meeting open to the public at all times except as otherwise provided in this section.”

As the controversy has obviously become extremely heated and emotional, please keep in mind that respect is the key to attending any meeting and certain commisions have certain rules.  Remember that black and white does not apply to controversial issues and what is right in your mind may be wrong in another’s, so understanding differences is key.  If you plan to attend, please remain respectful of all others present and make sure you are aware of the rules of involvement before you try to get involved!

Rialto Bridge is a ‘private/public partnership’ scheme that City Council has already committed $145,090 to.  A quick glance at the Memorandum from City Staff to City Council for the  Tuesday, October 12th Study Session tells the story.  During a period when other capital projects included in the City’s master plans are funded but on hold due to operation and maintenance cost concerns, Rialto Bridge seems to be moving forward regardless of other priorities citizens have chosen following proper procedure.  Due to current economic conditions, one has to wonder how City Council could consider another project that may put City Staff wage increases in limbo, after being frozen for nearly two years. 

What’s worse, in my opinion, is the extreme lack of following the limits government should stay within.  The short 4 page Memo can be found here, but I’ve picked a few phrases out that should get all concerned, especially those struggling to keep their restaurants profitable:

At the City Council meeting, we will all learn if Artspace is looking for the $550,000 up front or in smaller doses.  Obviously, it’s easier to fly below the radar if it is a smaller amount like $150,000, so bets are on that the request will come in doses. 

Not that giving money to a private developer is ever good, the two major problems with dosing the money are transparency and project committment.  Transparency comes into play as the casual observer of City Council may only catch the smaller amount and not think it is a big deal or part of a bigger scheme, so rather than argue against the spending they may take a position of, “Well, it’s only $150,o00.”  Project committment becomes an issue because ‘dosing’ the money out only requires a committment for that ‘dose”, if the $150,000 for this go-around is for a feasiblity study and $200,000 the next go-around for plans, then that is all we get.  If the project doesn’t move forward, the end result is the taxpayers are out $350,000 with only a study for a project that won’t happen and plans for a project that won’t happen to show for the investment.  The other committment problem arises by the undertermined construction cost requests.  Spending any amount of the $550,000 without knowing what the final request will be, doesn’t seem very prudent – especially in the current ecomony.

 The connection between low-income housing and Downtown Revitalization is one last curious point about Artspace.  Surely, Artspace will be pushed as a piece of the puzzle to bring Downtown back to life, while low-income housing projects are promoted as a ‘hand-up’ type of program.  One would believe that in a successful low-income housing project, the recipients are more interested in improving their own financial situation instead of pouring money into a micro-economy to boost it back to life.  How the two goals can be married together is yet to be seen.

City Council appears to have a problem with understanding original intent of a law and a few members appear to be making a game out of how far they can push the envelope.  Obviously, there is the need for some legal interpretation of law because there will always be unintended consequences that need to get worked out.  But watching from the sidelines, it is hard to realize if some are even taking  the slightest amount of time to consider original intent of the law.  It is also difficult to tell whether they are working for ‘the people’, ‘big government’ or even some third motive that can’t be identified.  The ‘holier than thou’ attitude of a few last night really makes one wonder what that third motive might be. 

You have to respect the fact that they do put their opinions out their to get criticized and most are likely getting pulled in many different directions from people with all sorts of different interests.  But when something seems so obvious to one person, it is hard to believe that at least one of the nine isn’t even willing to bring it up. 

The City of Loveland, for the most part, does a very good job fiscally speaking.  Most of the  projects the City does are paid for with cash, as opposed to other cities that may need a bond issue to pay for street improvements.  There are even City projects that have funding, but are on hold because of the uncertainity of how future operation and maintenance expenses will be paid for.  Because of this, Amendments 60 and 61 won’t hurt Loveland nearly as bad as they will hurt other municipalities.  Many believe that Loveland is in such a good position fiscally because of talented, caring staff and because they have followed the law.  It appears that when they try to interpret the law in ways that benefit their pet projects they get burned.  vNet (giving money to an individual entity) and the 402 land deal (using money intended for one use on something else) are the obvious examples.

Amendment 61 will essentially make it illegal for intergovernmental loans.  For instance, if Loveland collects Capital Expansion Fees for a new park, it can’t use that money to buy land for a future development with that money – even if it intends to pay it back and ultimately spend the money on a park.  Simple enough right?  Except for the fact that this is pretty much what happened in the 402 land deal.  This City Council has vowed to do whatever they can legally to keep their ability to make such deals. 

City Council needs to be challenged to make this a Loveland issue.  Keep on fighting Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101 at the State level, but identify what parts of those amendments do make sense and get them approved the at City level.  Intergovermental loans shouldn’t be allowed and enterprise zones should be looked at in case a competitor does want to move into town.  Right now there is no other golf courses or theaters to compete against, but if private enterprise wants to bring them here in the future, is it a fair playing field if  one competitor doesn’t have to pay property tax and the other does?

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”?

Tomorrow night, Loveland City Council will receive a presentation about the Loveland Arts Economic Development Center.  This appears to be a $300,000 economic incentive program, but this one will focus on “creative sector jobs”(?).

In a rambling of what it will and won’t cost the city, the study session Cover Letter vaguely gets to the point:

“TITLE: THE LOVELAND ARTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER (LAEDC)

DESCRIPTION: This is a follow up item from two Economic Development Subcommittee meetings to discuss the funding and formation of the Loveland Arts Economic Development Center in partnership with Aims Community College-Loveland.

BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 annually for 3 years (2011-2013). The current balance in the Economic Development Incentive Fund is $736,595.00. Funding this program would not reduce the current balance, assuming funding continues at the current annual level of $350,000.

Council will be discussing the redirection of $100,000 from the annual appropriation to the City Council Economic Development Incentive Fund. The funds will be used to provide financial support for staff and programs at the LAEDC not to exceed $300,000 over three years. Council’s annual contribution to the Incentive Fund will be reduced to $250,000 annually for three years. This item is dependent upon the outcome of the November election and ballot questions 60, 61 and 101.

SUMMARY: City Council will be asked to consider financial support for the formation of the Loveland Arts Economic Development Center. The LAEDC will be responsible for developing and carrying out strategies and activities which will create, retain, and attract creative sector jobs in Loveland. Support for the Center is consistent with Objective 13.5.1 of the City of Loveland comprehensive plan adopted in 2006.”

The presentation will move way beyond the debate of the City picking financial winners and losers, but will put the debate of picking ‘artsy’ financial winners ahead of others in the City’s game of economic incentive roulette.

On the surface, the three initiatives aim to close legal loopholes in TABOR, but there are many reports that the initiatives will have dire unintended consequences. Calling a ‘tax’ a ‘fee’, intergovernmental loans and unfair competition by public entities are the apparent catalysts for the initiatives.

Loveland City Council has been very vocal in directing City Staff to look into the law and make sure that they are legally doing whatever they can to fight these initiatives without crossing the line. This is proven by the City Manager’s  direction to City departments to come up with ideas for a 20% budget reduction for next year, even though Proposition 101 will not fully take effect for 4 years, meaning the projected 20% reductions won’t be required until 2014.  These potential ‘budgets’ will surely be released in the coming months as a scare tactic, but if reports are correct – the warnings should be taken seriously.

“Darned if they do, darned if they don’t.”
Whether City Council directs City Staff to use taxpayer money to fight these initiatives in the name of not cutting City service levels, or letting these initiatives fail in the name of following the original intent of the written law – City Council will surely make some from both sides of the aisle mad. Unfortunately, as vocal as they have been for fighting these initiatives, they haven’t been as vocal about  finding out what can be done at the local level to follow the intent of the law and still keep service levels at an expected level.

In the end, there will hopefully be some common ground between service levels and being good stewards to the voter, but with a single mindset on the issue, we may all end up losing more than we should.

The City of Loveland has a pretty good model going on of giving individuals taxpayer money.  While, it appears that doing such is illegal, per the Colorado State Constitution (Article XI, Section 2), the City continuously finds ways around the apparent goal of the stated law via legal precedent.  In this instance, the City is getting around what many perceive as the original intent of the law by purchasing an easement on the facade of the building:

“WHEREAS, LURA has agreed to the payment of certain monies to the Owner for LURA’s purchase and acquisition of an easement from the Owner on, over, under and across the façade of the Property in exchange for certain commitments from the Owner in connection with the design, construction, maintenance and use of such improvements which exceed normal development requirements and create a strong pedestrian orientation . . .”

The intent of Downtown Revitalization is a good one, but the City is so accustomed to giving out cash, it is a regularity these days that hardly any taxpaying resident of this community even argues with anymore.  It’s easy to see why the City is picking winners in Downtown and leaving those struggling in other parts of the City to fend for themselves, but that still does not make it right.  It is not the City’s job to pick winners and losers in such instances.