LBP Board Members Swap DDA Director Seat

Loveland’s City Council will vote on Tuesday to replace Doug Rutledge, who resigned with 6 months left on his term with the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), with his friend and fellow LBP & LDP board member Harry Devereaux.

Harry Devereaux, like many connected people in Loveland politics, is an heir to his father’s fortune and good reputation but doesn’t really live in Loveland.

See our complete story about longtime Ft. Collins resident Harry Devereaux and his family’s banking history in Loveland.

See story here

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to LBP Board Members Swap DDA Director Seat

  1. Helen Garcia says:

    Has anyone counted the number of inheritors involved in our city government? They must be like one in a thousand in the general population but 1 in 2 in City government.
    Let’s see, Leah Johnson, John Fogle, Dave Clark, Rich Ball, Harry Devereaux, McWhinney brothers, Russ Morgan, Clay Caldwell.
    How about some requirement people who made their own money be recognized as accomplished instead of just the inheritors!

    • Admin says:

      Welcome to the forum Helen but your list isn’t really terribly accurate. In fact, we have had to screen some comments appearing to only promote controversy without informing.

      Russ Morgan is not, to our knowledge, involved in any city decisions but in fact was a critic of how property owners were treated for the South Catalyst now Foundry multi-year to big to fail city boondoggle.

      As for Harry Devereaux, we believe he is marketing for a reputable publicly traded bank with branches throughout Colorado. He should not be given any extra-ordinary consideration regarding city affairs than any other Ft. Collins resident looking to market their employer in Loveland. Quite frankly, there are too many banks providing services in Northern Colorado to list here so we hardly think that is unique.

      • Admin says:

        One more note, we hardly think the humble Jack Devereaux Sr. ever intended, when he migrated to Loveland from South Dakota in 1964, that his family would inherit a perpetual title or right to influence Loveland government in perpetuity.

        Unlike the Monarchy of Great Britain where a title is granted to the heir apparent as a personal honour or dignity, like Prince of Wales, Loveland is supposed to be governed by democratically elected representatives from within the community.

        Unfortunately, there is no evidence the DDA director position vacated by Rutledge was advertised to the public or any Loveland commoner offered the opportunity to apply for his position. Instead, the title will be conferred upon Harry Devereaux as if he were a member of the House of Windsor accepting his title as Prince of Wales even though he doesn’t even live there.

  2. Gary says:

    Looks like the management of the DDA and LDP must always come from the same peer group. Some fresh blood with new ideas would certainly be welcome by many of the merchants affected by DDA decisions. Let Harry Devereaux serve on the board in Ft. Collins if he feels called to serve.

  3. Carol says:

    Can someone please explain to me why people who squander their parent’s fortunes are so anxious to control how our tax money is spent?

    There is nothing wrong with inheriting a 900 acre farm near an important intersection, community bank, car dealership, law practice and house on Lake Loveland, construction firm or even a famous truck stop (Chauncey Taylor). But if all they did was run it out of business or sell to their father’s biggest competitor how does that qualify them to manage our public money?

    The bigger question is whether Loveland would welcome a young Jack Devereaux Sr. today into their inheritors private circle? Why are the few commoners involved so willing to take a back seat to these inheritors?

  4. Commoner says:

    Beware my friend as the Ides of March are upon you. Look twice before crossing any streets downtown.

  5. Insider says:

    Admin-you are being far too kind to the Devereaux boys…their pulling cash out of the bank was one of the primary reasons for Home State’s troubles. You should do a little more research if you can. Now that would be a story!

    • Admin says:

      Here is a link to an architectural site that captured a picture of the old Home State Bank building – a perfect example of the now very valuable and popular Midcentury Modern architecture. Of course, nobody believed it was worth $1.1 million in 2007.

      http://www.roadarch.com/12/7/lovemuseum.jpg

    • Admin says:

      We did avoid those rumors and will not be allowing any posts to that effect which fail to provide verifiable third party conformation of such conclusions. According to the documents we have seen, no depositor ever lost money nor was Home State Bank put under some alternative management by regulators. According to the owners, they were being overwhelmed by increasing regulations and therefore decided to merge with the larger bank. Unless and until someone can provide evidence to the contrary, we are sticking with that narrative which appears confirmed by the record.

  6. eric sutherland says:

    Why does the County Assessor still show the area included in the DDA to be the same as it was when the DDA was first adopted?

    The most recent election was conducted by polling residents and property owners of a much smaller area. There is no way under state law to reduce the area in a DDA, it may only be expanded. Consequently, it appears that the Assessor has now calculated tax increment from within an area that is different than the area that was allowed to vote on City debt. This appears to be another fatal flaw in the November 2017 election. ( The most significant flaw was the failure to submit the question to the electors of the entire City as required by the TABOR amendment.)

    • Admin says:

      Good question. Our understanding is a number of the residential properties were removed because they were believed to be against the DDA formation thus voted to defeat the DDA in previous unsuccessful elections. The assessor should not be including those properties any longer in the DDA.

      • eric sutherland says:

        But the DDA statutes provide for no means for amending the plan area to make it smaller. (URAs can do this, different statute.)

        The real downside here is the Supreme Court’s decision in the Landmark Towers v. UMB bank case. According to the Supreme Court, no result of any election may be contested on the basis of choice of electorate unless the contest is brought within 10 days of certifying the results of the election. This exclusion allows fraud, intentional manipulation, etc. It applies to nearly every election. It is the worst decision I have ever seen.

        In this regard, the DDA election might come in handy as a test case.

        see https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8772367128437270594&q=landmark+towers&hl=en&as_sdt=4,6

  7. Daryle Klassen says:

    Dear Administrator,
    Today’s history lesson will explain why and how the city paid $1.1 million for the Home State Bank Building. Your quote earlier here said….
    “of course, nobody believed it was worth $1.1 million in 2007 .” Here’s how that price came about. The downtown revitalization frenzy is underway within city council. There is great need to put together “land assimilation.” A sidetrack desire is for museum expansion (guess where that came from) and the only way to expand is to the north on the Home State Bank property. So, we must have that property.
    The city gets an appraisal. It comes in at $900,000. HSB gets an appraisal. It comes in at $1.3 million. So…….the two sides agree on hiring a third appraisal. And you’ll never guess what price it came in at !!! $1.1 million. Wow ! Surprise ! Surprise !! The way is now cleared for the Museum expansion. Only problem, Brinkman came in and wanted the property acquired for the museum expansion, for their own ideas. Brinkman gets the property.
    In all of these dealings, one must always remember the following axiom. When downtown revitalization is at stake……..Price is NO object.
    Daryle Klassen
    councilman present when happening

    • Jack Benjamin says:

      Daryle, Am I remembering a correct set of facts? I seem to remember that between the time the city bought the HSB building and sold it that Doug Erion presented plans he had done for the museum/gallery expansion. Those plans showed the gallery expansion bridging over Fifth Street, not utilizing the old HSB building.

      That is the end of my question about facts. The rest of this is supposition…if one wanted to have a building named for oneself, and wanted it to be so spectacular that all art publications would use an image of that gallery when referencing the city of Loveland, one would not want to use an existing building with interesting but dated architecture. Wrong optics. But if one had already used one’s influence to have the city purchase the existing building, one would have a problem. However, a few cocktail parties later and the promise of an astronomical reduction in the cost of a city owned property would be all that is necessary to convince a builder to approach the city and generously offer their kind services. All it takes to make this happen is for one to essentially control city staff, city council, and the local media. And who cares if every man, woman, and child in Loveland pays $15 (the lost $900k) to support a multi-millionaire’s dreams.

      • Gary says:

        The $15.00 a head cost is only the beginning of the ripoff of Loveland’s “commoners”. After the great deal the City Manager’s staff arranged for Brinkman, there were reduced building permit fees, waivers of sales tax, lowered property taxes that carry on for several years afterwards.

  8. Daryle Klassen says:

    Some answer to Jack and others about the cost of the HSB building. One little point I failed to mention. At the time Loveland was so desperate to buy the Home State Bank building, the Larimer county Assessor had the building valued for taxation purposes listed at somewhere around $450,000. So, how does that $1,100,000 purchase price sound now ? I know this for fact, because I looked it up when we were so anxious to acquire it. Remember my little axiom listed above…..”When downtown revitalization is at stake…..price is NO object.
    About your point about the museum being expanded over 5th street and onto the parking lot, this point came up when Brinkman choose the now city owned former HSB for their initial development efforts. To his generous credit, Erion had pledged $200,000 for museum expansion onto the now vacated HSB property. This is when the “rumblings”started that since museum expansion could no longer go North…..and the Lehmans would not sell their mostly vacated newspaper building to the West, that the solution would be to go South, up over 5th street, and onto the parking lot. Never mind that parking was already at premium in downtown Loveland. Erion had to give permission for his $200,000 gift for expansion to be placed at a different location. Permission was granted. It wasn’t necessarily Erion’s idea, but he would go along with it.
    These scenarios were beyond laughable. The prices Loveland has paid for land accumulation in downtown Loveland defy the imagination. Remember the axiom !

    • Gary says:

      Thanks for supplying us with these details Daryle, I was in the process of researching the history of the HSB property. The reckless use of public money in these schemes and the willingness of the council to sacrifice the property at a pittance to pet developers is appalling.

  9. Both Sides says:

    So how come no follow up on this story after the wonderful new mayor berated city staff and the Assessor on Tuesday night and they had to go into Executive Session based on her actions? If you all are going to claim to be independent news then you need to report both sides where this amazing mayor that has been in Loveland for all of 6 years acts inappropriately as well.

    • Admin says:

      What specifically are you referring to on the agenda? The only closed session we were aware of was the decision to advertise the property state law requires be disposed of by competitive bid. It isn’t clear to us why that would need to be discussed in secret. Are you asserting closed sessions are necessary to avoid embarrassing staff?

  10. Gary says:

    A decision to comply with the laws applying to the LURA selling property didn’t need to be discussed in executive session. Mayor Marsh did try to address the subject in the public aired portion of the meeting, others insisted on the executive session.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *