Archive for the ‘Larimer County’ Category

Developer Caught in Crossfire Between City Staff and Residents

Monday, January 24th, 2011

Following-up on our January 4, report of a legal appeal by Namaqua Hills resident Mike Thompson to Loveland’s City Council, LovelandPolitics posted a story last night describing the a crash & burn meeting between Loveland planning staff and residents who reside near the proposed Namaqua Central development in a newly annexed area of west Loveland.

Loveland’s City Council was very near agreement with residents in early January when they discovered during the quasi-judicial hearing considering the appeal that residents protesting a Planning Commission decision to approve Namaqua Central development had valid arguments against the traffic plan as proposed. Council than directed staff to “work” with residents to find an agreeable solution while postponing a decision on the appeal by one month.

Read what happened at the meeting when Loveland’s planning staff presented only two possible scenarios to residents both implying 22nd St. will need to be opened to Morning Drive regardless of whether the new development in fact connects to Morning Drive. read story

We believe the developer’s traffic engineer, Matt Delich, may have crossed the line by inserting himself into the audience and having his wife comment as a member of the public without disclosing their interest in the project. In addition, the fact the couple lobbied Loveland’s Planning Commission years ago to keep their own residential street, Glen Haven in Loveland, barricaded with an “emergency only” access on the south end where it could connect to 37th Street (thus preventing needed east-west access between Wilson Blvd. and Taft Ave.) made their testimony even more suspect by those who have long followed Loveland politics.

Posted in Larimer County, Namaqua Central Development | 7 Comments »

County Manager Seeks New Job

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

LovelandPolitics was first to report today that Pitkin County has selected Larimer County Manager, Frank Lancaster, as a finalist to run Pitkin County as their new manager.

Lancaster is among the longest serving and most respected county managers in the state. He started his career in 1981 as a Larimer County forester than later moved up the ranks to become head of the county’s landfill and finally as the top staff position in the county. Loveland is the second largest city in Larimer County.

While Pitkin County is much smaller in population than Larimer, it is home to some of the nation’s wealthiest residents most of whom reside in or around the Aspen ski area. Pitkin County residents have been ranked as having the fourth highest per-capita income in the United States.

Hilary Fletcher, who recently left her position as Pitkin County manager to take a job in the private sector, as compensated at $177,257.86 per year. Contrary to her recommendation, Pitkin County Commissioners advertised the position at $135,000 per year but were told they would need to offer between $150,000 to $175,000 to attract a credible replacement by the outgoing manager.

Lancaster, who makes approximately $150,000 per year in Larimer County, may have to take a pay cut while also moving to a much higher cost of living area of Aspen, Colorado to accept an offer. Therefore, it is likely the Pitkin County Commissioners will need to adjust their salary expectations to attract a candidate of Lancaster’s caliber and experience.

According to a source in the Aspen media, the other candidates are of lesser qualifications and therefore unlikely to have the same leverage as Lancaster in negotiating up the anticipated salary. Nonetheless, Pitkin County was forced to reduce their staff by three last year and anticipate more lay-offs this year to reduce the $15 million payroll for the county.

Any comments?

Tags:
Posted in Larimer County | 6 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 »

Loveland Considers Law Suit Against Larimer County

Monday, June 8th, 2009

The Loveland City Council will be asked Tuesday night during a special meeting whether or not the city can go forward with a lawsuit staff is preparing against Larimer County. The discussion has been scheduled for the closed door portion of the meeting so the public will not be able to watch the discussion.

According to a source inside Loveland’s city hall, management has been asked to take action against the county to recover taxes and/or fees the city believes are owed for mitigation of the costs associated with the development of The Ranch (Larimer County Fairground Complex). According to the same sources, Loveland developer McWhinney has long complained the development should have paid more fees and was directing Loveland’s City Manager, Don Williams, to take more formal actions to enforce their agreement with the county.

So far, we have not heard the county’s side of the dispute. According to one attorney familiar with the issue it is largely a “technical” argument where the decision is not political or policy related but instead a difference on how the two sides interpret both the law and their agreements.

Curiously, Don Williams moved this item in the agenda from the June 2, 2009 meeting when the McWhinney’s request to have the council reduce their future CEF (Capital Expansion Fees) by 25% was also moved ahead to a special meeting. While there doesn’t appear to be any obvious connection between the two items (one agendized for public and the other private discussions) the City Manager has grouped them together. Perhaps, he wants to have McWhinney’s staff available when the lawsuit with the county is discussed so they can answer any questions that come up like – “why is the city doing this?”

Posted in Larimer County, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »