top of page
Screenshot (579).png

City of Loveland Litigation

Ball,, v. City of Loveland

Gazlay v. City of Loveland

     Sinnett Law Office has been engaged to pursue two cases against the City of Loveland.  On January 18, 2024, the Verified Complaint in Ball, v. City of Loveland was filed in the Municipal Court of Loveland.

     On February 18, 2024, this office filed a second case, Gazlay v. City of Loveland, also in the Municipal Court of Loveland.

     Since the November 7, 2023, re-election of Mayor Jacki Marsh and three new City Council members, Loveland has been plagued with internal strife as eight top-level city executive staff members have resigned.  City executive staff failed in their duties to enforce candidate rules before the election which contributed to the ongoing problems.  The policies of the current Council majority have been pursued through willful and illegal means.  Both of these issues gave rise to the Ball and Gazlay cases.


     The results if the Ball and the Gazlay cases, if successful, are an enforcement of the Loveland City Charter, the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and state law.  These cases are not related to McWhinney Real Estate Serv., Inc. v. City of Loveland, Larimer County District Court case number 2023CV30956.

     These cases were refiled in the District Court for the 8th Judicial District (Fort Collins, Larimer County) on June 4, 2024.

Ball, v. City of Loveland

In the 2023 election, voters approved Ballot Measure 301 which essentially requires that actions taken by the City Council involving Urban Renewal Projects be approved by the voters.  301 was an amendment to the City Charter that took immediate effect on November 7, 2023.

Prior to the Council meeting scheduled for November 21, Mayor Marsh added two "new business" items to the agenda involving the Centerra South project.  A "new business" item is not allowed public comment, and total Council explanation time and comment is limited to ten minutes.


In approximately 23 minutes, Mayor Marsh made two motions: one to rescind the Centerra South contract with the City and approved by the Council earlier in 2023; the other motion to effectively cancel the City's participation in a Master Financing Agreement, which were both passed with the votes of Mayor Marsh, and Councilors Black, Light Kovacs, Krenning, and Mallo.  The result of the November 21, 2023, Council meeting was to abolish the continued development of areas near Interstate 25 that had $1.2 billion in committed development.

The motion and the actions taken by the Council failed to follow the newly amended charter, the changes from Ballot Measure 301.  The Amended Verified Complaint in this action alleges that Mayor Marsh used improper and irregular methods and procedures to bring a vote to cancel Centerra South.  The action alleges the Mayor and certain Council member's actions are void as a matter of law, that the Council's actions violated the 14th Amendment Rights of the citizens of Loveland, and that they breached their fiduciary duties to the citizens of Loveland.

The action also alleges that Mayor Marsh and Councilors Black, Light Kovacs, Krenning, and Mallo willfully violated the City Charter, particularly the amendment from Ballot Measure 301.

The Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages from the City.  Plaintiffs seek the remedy set forth in the City Charter that having willfully violated the Loveland City Charter, those who willfully voted to rescind Centerra South should be declared ineligible for office, and ineligible to run as an elected official in Loveland in the future.


DOWNLOAD the Verified Complaint *HERE*

Gazlay v. City of Loveland

The basis for the action involves the eligibility of Troy Krenning for the office of City Councilor on election day, November 7, 2023.  Specifically, the Plaintiff in this matter seeks a legal determination that pursuant to the requirements of the Loveland City Charter, as well as the rules, policies, and procedures of the City of Loveland, that Troy Krenning, now a City Councilor, was ineligible as a candidate on November 7, 2023, when he received the greatest number of votes and was eventually sworn in as a City Councilor.

The Loveland City Charter requires that candidates cannot have been convicted of certain enumerated criminal offenses or have willfully violated the Charter to be an eligible candidate, and that the City’s policies to ensure compliance with the Charter requirements included that a background check will be conducted for each candidate by a third party vendor hired by the City.  Candidate Krenning refused to complete the background check prior to November 7, 2023, stating, among several reasons, that his personal information obtained from a background check would not remain secure, and that the terms of use by the third party vendor for conducting the background check were overly broad in their scope where only limited information was necessary.

Prior to November 7, 2023, Candidate Krenning did not pursue a finding in a court of law or pursue any administrative appeals available to him regarding his issues with the background check.  Instead, Candidate Krenning refused to provide his consent to a background check and informed the City Clerk, Delynn Coldiron, “I look forward to seeing how this plays out.”

The City’s failure to require Candidate Krenning to complete the same background check as other candidates prior to the election was a violation of his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution as a voter because candidates were treated differently in an arbitrary, capricious, and variant manner so as to deny Plaintiff, citizens of Loveland, and the other candidates the fair, uniform, and consistent treatment of all candidates required by due process and equal protection.  Voters were left with candidate choices that included a candidate who may not be eligible for office under the Charter.

The violation of Plaintiff’s rights was further compounded when, after the election and Mr. Krenning was certified as the winning candidate, the City conducted a background check without Krenning’s permission and used a different vendor to conduct the background check and provided limited inquiry information as to Mr. Krenning which differed from the background checks completed voluntarily by other candidates in conformity with the election and candidate rules.

The alternate background check of Mr. Krenning used by the City was a further violation of his due process and equal protection rights.  Plaintiff also alleges that the City violated its fiduciary duties in failing to enforce its own rules intended to ensure candidates are eligible to be elected on election day.

Plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages against the City, but only legal rulings which result in the enforcement of the City Charter as written.  Plaintiff specifically seeks a declaration that Mr. Krenning was an invalid candidate on November 7, 2023, for failure to complete the candidate requirements and that candidate Dan Anderson should be declared the winner of the election.

DOWNLOAD the Verified Complaint *HERE*


Watch Krenning admit that he did not submit to a background check.

bottom of page