IGA with Firestone ill-advised

Presentation to Longmont City Council, May 24, 2011:

What's the secret THIS time?

They say that the “devil is in the details.” But sometimes the devil is in statements so broad that you can drive a Mack truck through them. Such is the case with the Intergovernmental Agreement between Longmont and Firestone .

I’m not so naïve as to believe that this isn’t already a done deal. After all, staff is recommending it and it is to appear on Firestone’s Agenda two days from today. This is a prime example of the need for much more transparency in negotiations. While there is certainly time for an Open Records Request between now and the Public Hearing, I can’t help but wonder how many staff emails and notes would be declined public access as “work product.” And while I have no knowledge about the final vote count on this, there is no doubt that there are already four pre-determined “yes” votes or the item would not have been advanced to first reading. Guess which four I’m referring to.

Sections 3.0 and 8.0 set forth notification requirements, but lo and behold there’s no substantive penalty for failure. Both state that failure to comply with notice requirements will not invalidate the subject annexations, zoning or subdividing of any parcel of land located within the Union-St. Vrain Planning Area established by this Agreement. And Section 10.0 states that “each Party expressly waives any right to claim against the other Party any damages for any breach or violation of this Agreement.”

Section 6.0: “Firestone and Longmont agree to cooperate with each other to the extent possible (and
with respective special districts) in planning for construction for future utilities, including
but not limited to water and sewer lines, which are reasonably necessary to serve future
development within their own borders…”

Does the public know that within days of LifeBridge withdrawing its Longmont annexation request that a member of the Water Board asked staff to investigate the possibility of selling Longmont water to LifeBridge, fully expecting some kind of development to still occur? It’s in the record.

And then there’s County Road 26. Longmont was all set to give away a portion of the Hernor Open Space to LifeBridge for the realignment of CR26. Better to forfeit open space than require LifeBridge to align the road using some its property. Let Longmont pay. Socialize losses; privatize profits.

Section 4.3: “Firestone and Longmont agree to cooperate on a road alignment and design necessary to accommodate the reservoir expansion and other land uses adjacent to the roadway alignment.”
Translation = the giveaway is at a minimum “back on the table” if not quietly agreed to out of view of the public.

The foregoing is not exhaustive, but it’s more than enough to 1) send staff back to the drawing board or 2) scrap any IGA with Firestone altogether.



The Intergovernmental Agreement between Longmont and Firestone was advanced to Public Hearing and Second Reading on a 5/2 vote with Council Members Hansen and McCoy dissenting.

  11 comments for “IGA with Firestone ill-advised

  1. Ruby Bowman
    June 1, 2011 at 11:20 am

    5 to 2 vote, with Hansen and McCoy dissenting. Interesting. After reading Ms. Fissinger’s article and her concerns regarding the IGA with Firestone, why in the world did Levinson vote the IGA? Doesn’t seem right.

    June 1, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Firestone knows Longmont’s real-property schemers covet access, ANY form or means, to I-25. I think of how Greeley felt (maybe still does) cheated by the alignment of the interstate so close to Ft. Collins and so far away from the feed lots over on Highway 85. It’s pretty much the same as when the railroad was coming west, and when county seats were being designated. People without any real source of economy get desperate, or consumed by “me-tooism.”

    Hey, regarding Firestone: I’ve been there four times, the first in 1973. Where else are Longmonters going to get a good tattoo anyway?

  3. Paul Sorensen
    June 2, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Mr. Bates, My personal opinion on your off topic comment about the town I love to live in and be a part of is, Longmonters probably go to one of the 14 tattoo parlors in Longmont or one of the 35 in Boulder. Currently I am unaware of a single tattoo parlor in Firestone, but I hope that will change as we continue to grow. I’m not sure of the purpose of your final comment, but my father has a tattoo from serving our country during WWII. I also have a tattoo of a cross with a heart at it’s center as a symbol of my faith. Two of my adult children and many of my adult friends express themselves with tattoos as well. When Firestone does get a tattoo parlor I hope they do have a reputation of giving a good tattoo or better yet a great tattoo.

  4. June 2, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Mr. Sorensen, I’m delighted to see you reading (and commenting civilly!) on FRL. Welcome! Sorry to hear Firestone doesn’t have any tattoo shops. Personally I prefer Tribal Rites in Fort Collins, outstanding artists and excellent prices. Great that your dad has a WWII tattoo – like several million other servicemen and women.

  5. Ruby Bowman
    June 2, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    This IGA is not good for Longmont. Firestone has been the agressor; Longmont, under the current administration, so far has rolled over every time Firestone has re-configured its planning area into Longmont’s planning area. How can one trust Firestone? There must be a reason why Longmont wants to go along with this IGA. Could it be it would benefit a developer?

  6. June 2, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Welcome to Free Range Longmont, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Sorensen of Firestone. I’m pleased to know that you are reading.

  7. June 2, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Absolutely, Ruby. It’s all about “a developer,” and LifeBridge. Our current council majority swore allegiance to Longmont when they took office. Unfortunately, they, too, had their fingers crossed behind their backs at that time. Every transaction, from “settling” the lawsuits against Firestone to the IGA proposed with Firestone, is evidence that these four (Baum, Santos, Witt and Sammoury) are representing Firestone in these matters — not Longmont.

  8. Paul Sorensen
    June 2, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    Kaye, I believe in hearing or reading all sides of an issue. You and I have always been cordial and I feel that is a sign of mutual respect. We may not agree on all issues, but we can both agree on the fact that we both love our respective communities. Keep up the editorials, I enjoy hearing your perspective.

  9. June 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    “…we can both agree on the fact that we both love our respective communities.” Absolutely, Paul.

  10. June 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    I love Longmont too Mr. Sorenson – and I intend to fight for it, regardless of the odds or the tactics used against me. I admire that you’ve at least posted under your own name and followed the commenting rules. I know it can be done, contrary to what some say.

Leave a Reply

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