Loveland settles lawsuit for $42K over muted public comment

LOVELAND — In a settlement agreement, the City of Loveland will pay $42,500 to resolve a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a citizen who sued the city after the mayor interrupted her during a City Council meeting.

Terms of the settlement were approved by Larimer District Court Monday and the Loveland City Council during its Tuesday meeting.

Gail Randall filed her complaint after participating remotely in the public-comment portion of a City Council meeting on Feb. 17. During her comments on the city’s economic-incentive deal to encourage the location of a Costco retailer in Loveland, she was asked to stay on topic and then was muted by Mayor Patrick McFall.

Her comments came before the council approved an agreement with Centerra developer Realberry LLC, the new name for McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc., that will bring approximately 400,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage businesses to a tract on the east side of Loveland. The development will be anchored by a store operated by Costco Wholesale Corp. (Nasdaq: COST), the world’s third-largest retailer. Opening is anticipated by 2028.

Under the agreement, for the next 25 years, Loveland will give Realberry a 1.25% sales-tax rebate out of the 3% the city will collect in new revenue from the site. The 1.25% “shareback” is tied to public infrastructure, dry utilities and city fees capped at 25 years or $25 million, whichever comes first.

Randall was attempting to include comments about a public audit of a previous deal with developer McWhinney because, her lawsuit said, the comments “addressed fiscal responsibility, developer credibility, and the prudence of approving the proposed Business Assistance Agreement.”

McFall, however, ruled that the comments about the audit and previous business relationships with the developer were not germane to the Costco development issue. 

McFall told BizWest then that he “did what I thought was right based on the charter.” He said the charter permits comments on proposed ordinances and during a general-comment period. The Costco deal was adopted as a resolution, not an ordinance.

Still, the council did permit limited-time public comment on the resolution. Randall alleged that other speakers were permitted to continue even when their comments addressed the audit and other issues. “Plaintiff was the only speaker whose comments were terminated,” her attorney, former City Council member Troy Krenning, wrote in the complaint.

“When I came on (as mayor), I said I intended to steer the council in a different direction, and that I would make mistakes,” McFall told BizWest after the lawsuit was filed. “I don’t want to step on anyone’s rights.” He added, however, that his reading of the charter permitted him to keep speakers on topic.

He also said people speaking during the general-comment period at the beginning of the meeting could comment on anything that they wanted but during discussion of the resolution, he wanted comments to stay on the subject of the deal.

Randall claimed violation of her First Amendment rights and alleged that the council acted contrary to a settlement agreement in a previous court case. In that case, in which resident Steve Lynn challenged the council when it restricted his presence at meetings, the council “expressly acknowledged” that “restrictions must be reasonable, viewpoint neutral and non-arbitrary,” Randall’s lawsuit said.

“This case was never simply about money,” Troy Krenning said Wednesday in a prepared statement. “The right of citizens to criticize their government is at the very heart of the First Amendment. Public officials do not get to decide that supportive speech may be heard while critical speech may be silenced.

“City Council meetings belong to the public,” Krenning said. “When government creates a forum for citizens to speak, the First Amendment requires officials to apply the rules fairly and without discriminating against a speaker because of her viewpoint. Gail was willing to stand up for that principle.”

Randall had regularly participated in Loveland civic affairs before the incident. Her lawsuit alleged that the city’s actions not only prevented her from completing her comments but also had a chilling effect on her willingness to participate in subsequent city meetings.

Reached Wednesday, McFall said he still felt he had applied the rules correctly but added that “our attorneys said a court may interpret it differently, so they felt the settlement was a better way to do this.”

McFall recused himself when the council voted to accept the settlement.

“The best thing that came out of it is that we found we had a rule that needed to be fixed,” McFall said. “So the council is going to clarify our rules to make them better. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.”

The case was Gail Randall v. City of Loveland, Pat McFall, Mayor, Case No. 2026cv30164, filed Feb. 17, 2026, in Larimer County District Court.

Share on Facebook on LinkedIn