From the Denver Post:

LifeBridge church project OK’d by Firestone voters

From the Longmont Daily Times-Call.

Firestone welcomes Union
Nearly 60 percent of voters approve LifeBridge development

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — Firestone voters want Union to be part of their town.

Nearly 60 percent of voters in Tuesday’s special election wanted the town to annex LifeBridge Christian Church’s 350-acre planned development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

The results uphold the Firestone Town Board of Trustees’ vote to annex the site this spring.

Martin Dickey — chief operating officer of 4C, LifeBridge’s business organization — said 4C and church officials were optimistic about the election and excited about the results.

“Once all the facts got out, certainly people would be able to make fully informed decisions, and tonight was the validation of that,” Dickey said.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone, the group that petitioned to overturn Firestone’s approval and put Union to the voters, said he and other volunteers were disappointed.

But, Sanger added, InformFirestone members respect the will of the voters and were pleased with how many people turned out to vote.

“We tried to make our case to people, but we were vastly outspent,” Sanger said of the $14,000 that 4C spent in support of its development. “As (another volunteer) said, ‘Not every David and Goliath story ends with the little guy winning.’”

Sanger said InformFirestone volunteers will continue to follow the Union project as it moves forward.

Dickey said 4C officials will work to move Union forward as soon as possible. In fact, 4C officials will meet Thursday with a possible “mixed-use development partner,” he said.

Firestone Town Clerk Judy Hegwood said the election had “a pretty big turnout.”

With 868 people casting ballots Tuesday, nearly as many people voted in the Union special election as did so in April to elect a new mayor and three new trustees.

A steady stream of people passed through Firestone Town Hall until the polls closed at 7 p.m. As they left, residents cited a long and varied list of reasons for casting their votes one way or the other.

“It’s too far away, and with the economy the way it is, I think (Firestone) would be biting off more than they can chew,” Stan Miyasaki said after casting his ballot against the annexation.

Both Rhoda Elrod and her daughter Phoebe Elrod voted to annex Union for several reasons, including tax revenue and proactive growth.

“We think it’s an opportunity for Firestone, and we think the Union development is a positive thing,” Rhoda Elrod said. “It’s not like it’s an X-rated store; a Christian-based endeavor is a good thing.”

Kathy Spradling voted against Union because she didn’t think Firestone officials were forthcoming with information about the project. Stacy Adams voted no on the annexation because — with a boyfriend who is a firefighter — she worried the town would not be able to provide police and fire protection to a development so far away.

Tracy Keeney voted to annex the property because he wants Firestone to have a strong presence on the Colo. 119 corridor.

“That’s going to be a huge area of growth, and I want Firestone to have a good foothold there,” he said.

Greg Small also believes Union will be a boon to the town, but his vote came down to a freedom-of-religion issue.

“I’m tired of churches getting kicked around,” he said.

From the Longmont Daily Times-Call.

4C funds pro-Union campaign
Church developer has spent $14,000

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — The only contributor to the pro-Union campaign is the Union developer: Corporation for Community Christian Connection, or 4C, the business organization of LifeBridge Christian Church.

 Citizens for Firestone’s Future collected $14,152.87 in campaign contributions — and 4C donated all of it.

The campaign group has been urging Firestone voters in Tuesday’s election to allow the town to annex the church’s 350-acre planned Union development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

“I think (Union) is an incredibly important issue for this town, and when you put things into perspective of what’s at stake, I think it’s reasonable,” Tom Cooper of Citizens for Firestone’s Future said of the dollar amount.

InformFirestone, the group that landed the Union annexation on the special election ballot and has been campaigning against it, reported that it collected and spent $68.08.

The campaign finance reports were turned into the Firestone town clerk Friday.

Citizens for Firestone’s Future reported that it spent $3,800 to make phones calls to voters and another $3,631 to mail fliers to residents.

The group also spent about $1,780 on yard signs and $4,031 on campaign consultants. The rest went to Web site costs,
legal fees and a newspaper ad.

Martin Dickey, 4C chief operating officer, said the company gave the money to Citizens for Firestone’s Future because “it is certainly important that the truth be out there.”

Dickey said organizers started the campaign group because they have an obligation to inform voters, and 4C donated because it has a duty to be good stewards of Life-Bridge’s resources and rights.

“We unapologetically will defend our property rights against people who are misrepresenting the facts as it relates to our business or our property,” Dickey said.

 According to state campaign finance laws, InformFirestone did not have to file a report because the group collected and spent less than $200, which is the reporting trigger point.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone said the group chose to file a report to clear up any misconceptions about the group — and prevent any new misconceptions from forming.

“We filed because we’ve obviously had the charges of being well-funded and being outsiders,” he said. “We felt it was in the best interest of the people to know what are we funding.”

InformFirestone did not itemize their contributions or expenditures, but Sanger said the money came from volunteers buying reams of paper or Sanger picking up the cost of the Web site.

Sanger pointed out that 4C money is not Firestone money, and he described the pro-Union campaigning in recent weeks as a “blitz.”

“It’s in the developer’s interest to get the side of the story that looks the best out there,” Sanger said. “I’m not criticizing; they’re going to do what they need to do. But you can’t expect to see 100 percent truth or both sides of the issue in a campaign like that.”

Sanger added, “I think it really illustrates the David versus Goliath thing that is actually going on here.”

Cooper, who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission and started Citizens for Firestone’s Future, said he contacted 4C as soon as he found out Union was going to voters in a special election.

“I reached out to 4C, and I’m very glad there’s an organization willing to help get the information that is critical out to the people,” Cooper said.

From the Longmont Daily Times-Call

Citizens for Firestone’s Future, InformFirestone have not had to report campaign finances — yet

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — Voters won’t know where the money is coming from in Firestone’s upcoming special election until Friday.

Two groups — Citizens for Firestone’s Future and InformFirestone — are campaigning for and against the Union annexation in the Sept. 30 election, but neither has had to report their campaign finances.

If either group has collected or spent more than $200, Friday will be the next deadline for the groups to turn in finance reports.

Tom Cooper, who started Citizens for Firestone’s Future, said he is not sure what the group has spent in its efforts to get voters to pass the Union annexation.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone also doesn’t know exactly how much the group has spent, but said its members’ version of fundraising is “scratching together a few dollars” among themselves.

He estimated InformFirestone has spent less than $100 on its campaign efforts. The group has a $20 limit on donations, Sanger said, and he usually asks people to buy a ream of paper or toner for the group instead of taking the money.

“If I don’t know what I’m going to spend it on, I’m not going to take it,” Sanger said.

Cooper, a resident who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission, said he contacted Martin Dickey, chief operating officer of 4C, LifeBridge Christian Church’s business arm, to coordinate resources.

Citizens for Firestone’s Future two weeks ago mailed a full-color, cardstock glossy flier to many Firestone households.

When asked who helped fund the mailing and the group’s other campaign efforts, Cooper said: “I’m working very closely with Martin (Dickey), so the resources are being used as appropriate and as allowed.”

Cooper could not provide estimates on how much Citizens for Firestone’s Future has collected or spent so far.

“Things are moving fast and furious right now,” he said last week. “But I can say we’ll meet all the deadlines for filing.”

Because Firestone is a town, not a home-rule city, many aspects of town government — including campaign finance reporting requirements — fall under state law.

State law defines an issue committee as two or more people who oppose or support a ballot item, said Wayne Munster, acting director of the Colorado Secretary of State elections division.

Issues committees do not have to file finance reports if they have collected or spent less than $200, Munster said.

Neither InformFirestone nor Citizens for Firestone’s Future filed a campaign finance report by Sept. 9, which was the first deadline before the election, Firestone town clerk Judy Hegwood said.

She spoke with representatives from both groups, and both said they had not spent or collected money before the first deadline.

The next reporting deadline is Friday, and the final deadline is Oct. 30.

From the Longmont Daily Times-Call

Firestone to vote on LifeBridge
Residents will decide on 350-acre church development

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

FIRESTONE — One week from today, Firestone voters will decide whether Union will be part of their town.

The Sept. 30 election will determine whether Firestone can annex LifeBridge Christian Church’s 350-acre planned development at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3 1/2.

And both Citizens for Firestone’s Future and InformFirestone have been campaigning to sway voters in the upcoming election.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone said the group did not originally intend to campaign against the development. Sanger, Tom Ward and Tom Mason simply thought town leaders rushed into the project, so they put together InformFirestone and collected enough signatures to force the annexation to a special election.

The group, which now has about 15 volunteers, wanted to get more information about how Union would affect the town.

But, Sanger said, when Firestone trustees set the election for Sept. 30 instead of Nov. 4 — and when InformFirestone was unable to get more information about costs, infrastructure and public improvements — the group started urging people to vote against the annexation.

The group printed and passed out fliers and posted information on its Web site, www.informfirestone.com, but mostly it’s relying on word of mouth, Sanger said.

“Our initial purpose was to inform the public, to get answers and get them out there,” Sanger said. “We didn’t get those answers, so we felt like all that was left to do was say, ‘Vote no.’”

But Citizens for Firestone’s Future is urging voters to say “yes” next week.

Tom Cooper, who serves on the Firestone Planning Commission, started the group to campaign in support of the planned development.

Cooper said he reached out to Martin Dickey, chief operating officer of 4C — LifeBridge Christian Church’s business organization — to help get Union approved.

“I’ll do anything I can to help get this through,” Cooper said.  <emphasis ours>

Citizens for Firestone’s Future mailed fliers to residents earlier this month and its members have been calling voters, Cooper said. The group also is sending e-mails and pointing people to its Web site, www.citizensforfire stonesfuture.com.

Cooper argues that growth along Colo. 119 is inevitable, and that development should happen in a municipality, not in Weld County. Annexing Union will allow Firestone to control how the highway corridor builds out, he said.

“I have tremendous confidence in the Firestone planning department, and I think managing growth on that corridor is something Firestone will do successfully,” he said.

Annexation also doesn’t equal building permits, Cooper added. The Union project has to clear more steps before crews start building, and those steps require more public hearings in front of the town’s planning commission and board of trustees, he said.

He also points to the town’s financial analysis that estimates the project will generate more than $8 million in one-time revenue for the town in development fees and use taxes.

The town’s analysis also estimates that Union will bring in nearly $1.4 million annually for the town in property and sales tax revenue at build-out.

However, Sanger pointed out, that is gross — not net — revenue. Firestone’s financial analysis doesn’t factor in how much it will cost the town to provide infrastructure and services, such as police and fire protection, to the development.

Sanger said a project the size of Union needs careful and deliberate examination. But Firestone leaders did not have — and still may not know — all the information about the how Union will affect the town and its residents, he said.

For example, the town did not have a signed annexation agreement when Firestone trustees voted to annex the land, he said.

For Sanger and others with InformFirestone, the issue comes down to one question: “Do you feel like you should support (an issue) when you don’t have all the information you need to have?” he asked.

Rachel Carter can be reached at 303-684-5216 or rcarter@times-call.com.

Most Firestone residents received last week a nice glossy mailer detailing how “outsiders” were trying to overturn our Trustees’ vote on the Union annexation.

We at InformFirestone were not surprised by the ‘outsiders’ claim, as we had already seen that in the editorial co-written by former Firestone Mayor Mike SImone and current Firestone Mayor Chad Auer (as a private citizen of course), to which InformFirestone responded with a guest editorial found here.

What we did find curious was the cost incurred by CFFF in preparing and sending out this mailer.  As a group that was accused of being backed by “well-funded special interest groups based outside Firestone”, we were surprised that CFFF would be able to raise so much money so quickly inside Firestone.  This mailer alone truly did dwarf InformFirestone’s entire budget.

Later last week, a post on tri-town.com provided a explanation to this question.  CFFF is indeed being funded by groups outside of Firestone.  For confirmation, people need to look no further than the CFFF website, which now has no mention of ‘outsiders’.

Fortunately, we still have the mailers, which bear proof of CFFF’s hypocrisy and the trick it was trying to pull on the voters of Firestone.

In late spring, a group of Firestone residents got together and discussed their feelings about how things were going in our town.  Together we saw that there was a disconnect between the Town government and its residents.  We formed the group InformFirestone as a way to try to bridge that group, hopefully to the benefit of all members of the community. 

Something that immediately came up was a sense of surprise and shock that so quickly after the induction of a new Board of Trustees, annexations as large and as complex as the Union annexations were approved.  Surely, we thought, with a new Mayor and 2/3s of the Board of Trustees being new, less than a month in office is not enough time to take any action on such an issue, and as such, most of us had not had the opportunity to ask a wide variety of questions having to do with these annexations.

Democracy should not be a “you snooze, you lose” proposition.  This is why the rights to petition and referendum are in Colorado law.  We started two referendum petitions, and collected more than enough signatures to send the Union annexation ordinances to a vote of the people, despite only having a week and a half to do so.  The petitions were validated in July.

Along the way, InformFirestone, to the dismay of reporters and members of the public at large, stayed neutral, and tried to fill our role as information-seekers.  This did not stop others in the public from trying to characterize us and hurling slurs at us, demeaning our efforts, and the democratic process as a whole.  At first we had a great many of our questions answered, however, as time went on, those answers raised more questions.

As of late, the answers to our most pertinent questions have not been answered, or have not been answered adequately.  We have no answers on water, just a vague response that the “developer will bring the water.”  We have not been able to see a Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA), without which all approximations of this project’s financial feasibility are called into question.  We have asked for those answers, and they have not been given.

What has been given, unfortunately, is rhetoric and name-calling.  It was with wonder and disbelief that we read a recent opinion piece written by both former Firestone Mayor Mike Simone and current Mayor Chad Auer.  We have to admit, we are not sure if the “opposition” that their Honors speak of is coming from InformFirestone.  However, if it is, we cannot even call their charges against us a distortion, rather, it is an out-and-out lie.  If there are “generously funded special interests… integral to the opposition’s efforts,” we have seen no trace of them. 

If there are “special interest groups… rooted outside our region” that are working against the annexation of Union into Firestone, we have not heard about that, either.  As the group that started the referendum petition process, we would think we would know.  It is ironic that after being accused of not doing our homework, two people who have been integral to the annexation of Union into Firestone would be caught spreading such blatant misinformation.  It is disappointing to see, and makes one wonder what other information Mr. Simone and Auer have been wrong about.

Sadly, the rise of rhetoric and electioneering makes us understand that no more answers will be given, only more rhetoric.  The Town has made their choice, and so we must urge the citizens of Firestone to vote NO on September 30^th.

Tom Mason, Tom Ward, and Dan Sanger are the founders of InformFirestone.

From the Carbon Valley Herald

Firestone board sets special election
Residents to vote on Union annexation Sept. 30

By Jen Reeder jenr@carbonvalleyherald.com

FIRESTONE — Firestone residents will decide the fate of the Union annexation in a special election on Sept. 30. The Firestone Board of Trustees voted unanimously to continue with annexation plans, despite public petitions protesting the annexation, at a board meeting Aug. 14. Members of the grassroots organization InformFirestone collected signatures for two petitions essentially calling for a referendum in an attempt to allow more public input into the process. The Union development plans call for construction of 300 to 700 homes, and 680,000 square feet of commercial development. “It’s the culmination of what we worked for, so in that sense, we’re very happy,” said Dan Sanger, cofounder of InformFirestone. “But I was very disappointed in the board’s decision (not to abandon annexation plans) yesterday.” Sanger and other members InformFirestone collected signatures by door-to-door canvassing, and talking to people in Firestone at King Soopers and the post office.

They needed to have two petitions signed because the Union development was annexed by Firestone last April in two parts, Ordinances 678 and 679. The town clerk certified the petitions as valid with a statement of sufficiency on July 11. The Firestone Board of Trustees has also faced obstacles to the Union annexation from the city of Longmont, which responded by voting to annex an overlapping area of land on the Interstate 119 corridor known as Sandstone Ranch on June 24. Sanger said that in the rush to annex the land, Firestone did not take the time to resolve logistics questions, such as whether there will be enough water, fire, police and other resources to support the Union development. “It’s like the entire town was caught up in this race with Longmont, so none of this was fully examined,” Sanger said. “It isn’t necessarily that it’s inherently bad, we just haven’t spent much time actually discussing the issues.” After voting to continue with the annexation, the board was required to set a date for the special election not less that 60 days or more than 150 days from July 11, when the clerk certified the petitions. Additionally, a special election can’t be held 32 days before or after a primary or general election, so the only dates available were Sept. 16, 23, 30, and Nov. 4, the day of the general election.

If held Nov. 4, the issue would be part of the entire ballot for the general election. At the meeting, Firestone Town Manager Cheri Andersen said a special election would cost around $10,000, and that the city could save around $2,000 if it were part of the general election on Nov. 4. The election will be paid for with money from the town’s general fund. But the general consensus of the trustees was that though voter turnout is higher for general elections, the annexation issue would be buried among other issues, such as voting for U.S. President. “This November’s ballot is going to be enormous,” said Mayor Chad Auer. “We need to focus on Firestone,” said Trustee Butch Walb. Trustee Matt Holcomb was the sole dissenter, suggesting: “Let’s save a couple of bucks.” Though he didn’t vote to repeal the ordinances, as the petitioners had hoped, Holcomb praised the efforts of the members of InformFirestone. “I think this is a very exciting time for Firestone. It shows a group organized itself and got in front of other citizens and got this to us,” Holcomb said. “It’s government in action.”

Those citizens will continue to raise questions in the six weeks leading up to the special election, said Tom Ward, co-founder of InformFirestone. In particular, Ward said he wants more details about whether or not the Union project has a Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement in place, which he said needs to be completed for the annexation to occur. According to Firestone City Attorney Sam Light, a PIRA for the Union project has not yet been completed. “One is under negotiation,” Light said. Ward said that though he is frustrated that the board decided to hold the special election so soon, InformFirestone will do its best to inform the public about the issues surrounding the Union annexation before Sept. 30, possibly through a meeting, as well as the group’s website. “It’s a challenge to meet their timeframe, especially as a grassroots organization, but we’ll find a way,” Ward said. He added that he is encouraged by the democratic process that led to the scheduling of the special election. “I’m really glad the board took our petitions for a real voice of the citizens and left it up to us. That’s why we elected these people: they said they would listen to us. I’m grateful for that,” Ward said. 

NOTE:  InformFirestone member Dan Sanger is misquoted in the preceding article, stating his disappointment with the Board of Trustees’ decision to refer the ordinances in question to a special election.  In fact, while Sanger did express his disappointment, it was Board’s choice of dates for the election, not the fact that the Trustees did not outright repeal the ordinances, that he was disappointed in.  A letter has been supplied to the editor of the Carbon Valley Herald, clarifying InformFirestone’s position on the ordinances and the special election.

From the Times-Call

LifeBridge prepares for vote
Longmont officials will wait to see outcome

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call

LONGMONT — Twice, LifeBridge Christian Church’s Union project has been approved by a municipality: once in Longmont and once in Firestone.

Twice, residents have overturned those approvals.

Twice, the project has been set for an election.

But this time, church officials plan to let Union go to the ballot.

“We are excited about continuing to move this project forward and being part of Firestone for a long time to come,” Martin Dickey, chief operating officer of 4C, LifeBridge’s business organization, said Friday.

The Firestone Town Board of Trustees unanimously voted Thursday night to hold an election Sept. 30 to let Firestone voters decide whether to bring the 350-acre planned development into town.

The town board approved the annexation in May, but a referendum petition soon afterward by the group InformFirestone required the trustees to either kill the annexation or send it to the voters.

Longmont residents did the same thing last fall. A group collected enough signatures to pass a referendum that overturned the Longmont City Council’s vote to annex the site at Colo. Highway 119 and Weld County Road 31/2.

The council set a Jan. 29 special election date, but 4C withdrew its application to annex into Longmont before the election.

Within three months, 4C applied to annex into Firestone.

The decision to go to Firestone was not because Union was headed to the ballot in Longmont, Dickey said.

Instead, 4C and church officials left Longmont because they did not believe they had the support of the new City Council, he said.

“Firestone is a pro-business, smart-growth community,” Dickey said. “When we began the process in Longmont, Longmont was a pro-business, smart-growth community. After the election in Longmont (last November), that direction changed. When you have four people run on an anti-Union platform, it tells you that you’re not welcome.”

Karen Benker, the sole Longmont City Council member to vote against the Union project in August 2007, thinks the fact that more than 6,000 residents signed referendum petitions influenced LifeBridge’s decision to leave the city.

Regardless, Firestone residents now have a decision to make, and Benker on Friday urged them to educate themselves before they vote.

“I would ask Firestone voters to take into consideration that this development is so far away from their town’s center and right up next to Longmont’s border,” she said. “I would hope they think about that when they go to the voting booth.”

She added, “Ironically, if this goes forward, it will affect the city of Longmont more than than it will affect the town of Firestone. So it’s important for Longmont.”

Longmont Mayor Roger Lange — who was a councilman when he voted to approve the Union project — said he would have liked to see how the Longmont vote turned out.

Although that didn’t happen in Longmont, it will in Firestone.

“It’s something that has to take place before any other decisions can be made, so I would say, ‘Hey, let’s see what happens,’” Lange said. “They either want it or don’t want it.”

Dickey said it’s too early to know how 4C and LifeBridge officials will approach the upcoming election, including any campaign plans. But he’s encouraged by the phone calls he said have been coming in from Firestone residents who want to learn more about the Union development.

“It will probably take a couple days to better understand what this means and how it might play out,” Dickey said.

Dan Sanger of InformFirestone said Friday that the group will be working to get answers and information about the Union project and get those facts to voters before the Sept. 30 election.

Although he would have preferred the town to put the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot, Sanger said InformFirestone members will do what they can to educate residents.

“(We’re) going to be doing what we can in the time that we’re given,” he said.

Rachel Carter can be reached at 303-684-5216 or rcarter@times-call.com.