Staff Appropriates More Ongoing Funding for Foundry 

Last Tuesday several members of Loveland’s City Council yawned as city staff described their surprise to find the proposed underground parking for the Foundry (formerly South Catalyst) is going to be located inside a contaminated natural artesian well.  Even less interesting to the elected representatives is the fact the Foundry will now cost an additional $100,000 annually in perpetuity to prevent cars in the garage from being flooded with toxic affluent.

See article
Loveland taxpayers will need to shoulder the additional estimated $240,000 capital costs and the additional estimated annual expenditure of $100,000 to pump up to 350 gallons per minute through filters and into the city’s storm water drain system from under the subterranean parking structure.  Engineers working for the city (and presumably not terminated) estimated the underground water flow to be around 130 gallons per minute.

Staff is implementing an increase in the property taxes, sales taxes and hotel occupancy taxes to offset approximately 75% of the additional annual operational cost for the parking garage for the yet to be approved DDA (Downtown Develooment Authority).  The balance will fall to the rest of Loveland taxpayers if not all of the annual cost depending on the success of the DDA approval vote on this November’s ballot.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Staff Appropriates More Ongoing Funding for Foundry 

  1. Jacki Marsh says:

    Perhaps we need to slow down and re-evaluate the particulars involving the parking garage in the Foundry. Most people agree that we need additional parking in Downtown Loveland. But given that going underground with some of the parking in the Foundry appears to pose significant problems; maybe we need to look at two above ground parking garages? One in the Foundry, not to exceed the height of the Mad Wire building, and one near or behind the Pulliam building. Dividing the parking into two parking garages would benefit more businesses in Downtown Loveland. And it would be a start in providing parking for concert goers attending events at the Pulliam. As the City is paying for the parking garage in the Foundry, we should look at all options.

  2. Carol says:

    What are the chances of the DDA this time? You know it’s crazy the city buys 1/3 of downtown and still doesn’t have enough votes to pass it!

  3. As a new small business owner in downtown Loveland who’s market is across the street from the Pulliam building I see first hand the need for additional parking behind the Pulliam and a parking garage would be ideal for those customers who want to shop on Cleveland corner and dine at Slate Restaurant then stroll around our downtown district. I have been a witness far to many times of the community who are coming to the new redeveloped downtown historic district on 4th. Street and park on Cleveland in front of my store or the old Reporter Harold building and walk to 4th. Street knowing there will most likely be no parking available two blocks up. So with that already happening and the Pulliam building scheduled to open for music venues and other activities in 2018 I’m not sure why the plan for more parking was not incorporated in the restoration plan for the Pulliam building in the first place. The citizens through out Loveland are starting to come back to the downtown area and see what is new. I must hear this on a daily bases at my artisan market; ” I haven’t been downtown for a while, wow things are really changing and all the new businesses, how nice”, they say, and I know they will be back and word will spread of the fabulous shopping and dinning in our beautiful downtown district and in turn more parking will differently be needed. So I and the 25 other small retail businesses that are part of the market would be thrilled for more parking off of 6th. Street and Cleveland. Building a parking garage off of rail road would be very beneficial for everyone and this would get my vote along with a lot of other citizens who I know would also agree with this proposal. Thank you

  4. John Fogle says:

    Linda,
    The lot behind the Pulliam building is owned by the county and tied to their existing building on 6th for employee parking.
    As for additional parking garages — the DDA passing will be the best chance of this happening. An additional parking garage is one of the projects envisioned under the proposed DDA plan.

    • Jacki Marsh says:

      John & Linda – The County and the City of Loveland are currently in negotiations to have the City of Loveland purchase those properties from the County. The public would be more aware of the status of those negotiations if the City did not run into secret Executive Session at the drop of a hat. Transparency is a joke.

      • Thank you Jackie for letting me know that. You would think that some of our city counsel representatives who where voted into office by the citizens of Loveland would tell the whole story and not leave out important pending information. Yes I agree, transparency would be a nice change. I know our community would appreciate it.

      • Tony Benjamin says:

        Right on, Jacki. Here we have two public (elected) bodies conducting business (in the guise of real estate negotiations) behind closed doors. Both the city and county should have the public’s best interest in mind. Why this should be conducted in secrecy is a puzzlement. As are most of the council’s executive sessions. Letting in more sunshine on the public’s business might just reduce a lot of confusion. tb

  5. Greg Snyder says:

    I am interested in how the artesian well flowing at 350GPM is carrying contamination from the surface. At that flow rate any surface contamination source would be depleted within a few weeks. Artesian wells are supplied either from deep ground water (which usually has good purity, I remember as a child stopping and drinking from an artesian well at a farmer owned produce stand in north central Iowa) or it is surface water that is forced into an underground aquifer that resurfaces at some distance and is usually somewhat purified. It appears that our city leaders are as stupid as they act…..

    • Admin says:

      Greg, your question hints at the conflict of interest problem of the city relying on the contractor to determine what is wrong and what they need to fix it. Brinkman is now saying the 30-year life cycle cost is $4.9 million. Below is a link to the report provided to council that quotes contractors as staff’s primary source of data.

      https://cilovelandco.civicweb.net/document/14388/Att%201%20Staff%20Memo%20Dated%20June%2013,%202017%20Foundry.pdf?handle=B229B7B53769431DAB229E26DF4AA9FC

      • Admin says:

        If even 5% of the water is contaminated than the entire flow needs to be filtered before dumping it into storm water drains.

        • Jacki Marsh says:

          Does anyone know the capacity of our storm water drains??? During heavy rains, water already appears to exceed capacity as water overflows and floods the sidewalks on 4th Street. If we pump water from an Artesian well into our storm drains, isn’t that going to worsen the problem? Could the buildings on 4th Street be subject to flooding due to the increased volume of water?

      • Greg Snyder says:

        Not to be rude but if the plan was to be 4′ beneath the water table is anyone surprised that water would enter the excavation???? Also, I would not refer to water flowing from an excavation below the water table as being an artesion well, but just a well. Again, I have to question the intellectual thought processes of those in leadership positions in this city….

  6. Daryle Klassen says:

    Oh, the price that present day Lovelanders are paying for a parking deck, which will pale in comparison to the price that future Loveland taxpayers will have to pony up. All this to pay for the unquenchable John Fogle and Cecil Gutierrez thirst for a downtown parking deck. The deck is now going underground into toxic waters, which will require a forever $200,000 annual cost to keep dry and breathable
    The surface parking which could have been purchased with the multitude of millions being spent on a parking deck beguiles the imagination. And the worst is yet to come .
    Eternal millions are being pledged and promised and obligated by the city, which will all come from future city budgets. And just wait until the eternal maintenance and operational tabs come in to roost for the underground bunker, not to mention the fear that all women will have entering/leaving these halls of cement after dark.
    There is no end to this folly. At least the forbidden downtown bums will have a place to bed down, beg, and defile.
    Daryle Klassen
    PS: How’s the search for a movie mogul going ? Or is the $200,000 forever gift subsidy enough to lure one in. ?

  7. Troy Krenning says:

    “nobody on the council had a question and without even batting an eye over these significant changes said nothing”

    Have you watched the video? I had plenty of questions but of course was drowned out by the chips of the crickets. I asked for others to join me in releasing the secret memo authored by the City Attorney; not one other councilor supported the request.

    It was disclosed that the bank, now holding the title to City Hall, Fire Headquarters and the City Service Center is getting nervous over their investment and may not follow through with the property swap once the garage is complete. Shouldn’t this serve as a warning light to council? Hell no, full steam ahead! City staff tells council, ah-don’t worry, there are other banks and interest rates haven’t gone up that much. Really? A qtr point on $15m +/- and no need for concern? Because the parking structure now has to put in a pumping station, spaces set aside for parking are lost. Do you think the movie theatre, the hotel or the apartment dwellers will lose those spaces? No, the loss will be those spaces being promoted to the existing owners who believe that a $20m garage, a block away from their “Main Street,” will be the losers.

    Klassen was and remains correct; the amount of surface parking that could have been acquired for half the money we are pumping into this structure would have been a much more responsible approach. But of course we have an image to think about. What two cow town would we be if we couldn’t brag to other communities that we too have a parking garage!

    The grand vision of downtown is now out of control with no limit to the money or stretch of common sense that it will take to “succeed.” Every aspect of this illusion has been fraught with incorrect information from the handful of staff who are engaged, cost overrruns and secrecy. But the general public doesn’t care, the majority of council doesn’t care and in the end, Loveland gets a $200,000 a year taxpayer funded movie theatre, a $200,000 a year pumping station in the new garage and bragging rights that we are now on the map as a big league player with a parking garage!

    Shameful.

    Troy Krenning

    • Jack Benjamin says:

      Troy,
      The reason the public doesn’t care is the RH
      had failed their civic duty. Yes, we are thankful
      for LovelandPolitics coverage and explanations
      of these fiascos. But with the only large
      scale press we have in Loveland colluding
      with city staff and council members to hide
      all this crony spending nonsense, it can’t be
      fought. Thank you for trying.

      • Tony Benjamin says:

        Jack (not a relative that I’ve been able to peg down, but generally of like minds so maybe). When folks are candidates for council, they most always say they want more open government. Few executive sessions; more “transparency” when it comes to the public’s business. After they get elected, most (with some exceptions) conveniently forget that pledge. Thinking back over the past 15 years, there are more executive sessions now than ever. They are routine ‘most every meeting. It can be fought, at election time. By making open government the important issue it remains. And holding office-holders accountable. tb

        • Troy Krenning says:

          It will get worse. The interim city attorney has issued more “confidential” memos than can be counted. Everything he issues is “confidential” and the non sense that occurs in the secret meetings defies logic, and it fen the law. I rarely attend anymore if you have noticed. I put the blame square on the shoulders of the mayor who has no clue about running a productive meeting and who allows executive sessions to drift way out of bounds. With very few exceptions have I heard something discussed in a secret meeting that could not/should not have been discussed in public.

          TK

          • Tony Benjamin says:

            The points you raise, Troy, are important. They go directly to the heart of open government. My argument is simple: I (or any other citizen) can’t judge how well (or how poorly) my/our elected representatives are handling public business if it’s conducted behind closed doors. The discussion is as important — maybe even more so — than the outcome. I’d also argue that City Council’s growing penchant for secrecy has led to a great deal of confusion, obfuscation and misinformation on a bevy of important issues. Why would any public official want that? Back in the ’70s. Colorado led the nation with its Government in the Sunshine laws. That leadership has sadly been eroded by the Legislature and local governing bodies that pushed for more secrecy. Public confidence in our elected officials is the consequence. I’d urge council members to consider that with each vote to scurry behind closed doors to conduct the business of those they represent. tb

  8. Someone else says:

    I see the newspaper formerly known as “The Loveland Reporter-Herald”, now a weak derivative of the newspaper formerly known as “The Denver Post”, finally got around to reporting on the sink hole the City of Loveland is building and calling a parking garage. Based on my knowledge of such things that structure will be condemned within a decade because of foundation issues, and the taxpayers will have to carry the cost between now and then.

Comments are closed.