More on Utilities costs

This is in response to councilman Keith King’s guest opinion in The Gazette, Nov. 22, concerning the Colorado Springs Utilities. I have only been here for two years and am not very familiar with CSU’s finances. My only interest is that of a citizen and ratepayer. I did spend most of my career working with and advising utilities on their finances, retiring as the director of the water programs division of the Rural Utilities Service. The RUS makes loans and some grants for electric, telephone, water and waste water systems in rural areas.

King tries to make the case that CSU’s rates are not competitive with some other places like Denver. No one I know likes to pay for these services, although most understand they must pay. He offers some statistics that do not prove anything, but they spike some, maybe even considerable, interest by the public. However, in my opinion, at most they would encourage further study of the rates.

Contrary to King’s contention that utility rates must be competitive with comparable places, rates for a particular utility must be set to cover all costs. Unless, of course the local governing board commits other funds, such as taxes to balance the budget. Since costs are different in each community, rates will be different.

One of the functions of the utilities board/City Council is to approve utility rates and CSU’s budget. If the board feels rates are too high or unfair in some way, they have the power to make changes. CSU management should be able to justify all wages and other costs and if the board deems any to be out of line, the board can effect change.

I am especially concerned about King’s statement, “We can and should cut capital costs . ” One of biggest problems with utilities is delaying maintenance and replacement of worn out or obsolete facilities such as water/sewer lines, generation and treatment plants, etc. Just consider how many water main breaks there have been recently. If CSU’s facilities are not properly maintained/replaced/rebuilt when prudent, there will be another “pothole” problem in short order.

If there is waste in CSU, it should be rooted out. If not, the utility rates are what they are!

Laurence Bowman

Colorado Springs

Council should reconsider decision

The arguments for closing Drake by 2035 presented by The Gazette in Sunday’s editorial “Decision on Drake is strong, decisive” failed to consider that they’re replacing one non-renewable energy resource (coal) with another (natural gas). Although natural gas burns cleaner than coal, I haven’t seen data that compares the cost to the consumer of producing electricity by both nor the amount of natural gas verses coal that’s available to produce electricity for future generations.

Also, I’m confident that very little coal is used for home heating while natural gas remains the most efficient and inexpensive source for this critical need. I remember not too long ago when many homes were built using electric heating because of natural gas concerns and how many of them converted to natural gas years later because of cost savings. I also remember the “no burn days” for wood-burning fireplaces because of air-quality concerns.

The Gazette’s main arguments seemed to focus on meeting the mandates imposed by the federal government and satisfying the people that live near the city government. The people that live downtown are important, too, but it’s hard to believe that “aesthetics” and a potential boon to the downtown economy by removing Drake are considered great arguments for the city and county.

Colorado Springs is much bigger than the downtown sector and how many people in eastern and northern Colorado Springs are drawn there to shop?

It’s also hard to believe that converting to natural gas and expanding renewable energy sources will only increase our costs by “1 percent in 20 years.” Data shows that energy provided by the new windmills to the east is more expensive and less reliable than Drake’s and carries an environmental and aesthetic impact, too. Likewise, solar energy is more expensive and less reliable; therefore, wind and solar can only augment a reliable source like Drake.

Are there reliable alternatives to coal besides natural gas if we replace Drake? I didn’t see any in the Gazette editorial. How about nuclear? France has relied on this technology as their primary source of electrical energy production for decades.

Bottomline: The City Council should reconsider its monumental decision and present the alternatives to closing Drake so that the people of Colorado Springs know the true costs and unintended consequences to our homes and businesses.

Mark Smith

Black Forest

South needs more health facilities

I read with interest the article about all the health services building coming to Colorado Springs. Nothing seems to be happening in the southern part of the county. Fountain Valley is home to more than 40,000 residents and yet we have to travel way north for specialized services. This is a hardship for many older folks. It is easier and faster to drive to Pueblo than out to St. Francis or Memorial North.

I can’t help but wonder why our area is not considered important enough to get more health facilities? Please consider our needs for future health care services.

Ruth Archer

Colorado Springs

Opposed to governor’s decision

Open letter to Governor John Hickenlooper:

I strongly disapprove of your decision to admit unvetted Syrian refugees to the state of Colorado.

There are two major problems with your decision: First, you are opening an insecure gate for terrorists exemplified by the recent violence in Paris; second, you are inviting in a population including Muslims who have demonstrated a determination not to assimilate into the American culture, witness the challenges Dearborn, Mich., is facing now. As an absolute minimum, you should have agreed to not accept able-bodied males who should be returned to Syria to fight for their country.

I’m sick and tired of Democratic governors and mayors who embrace the liberal mentality and consequently endanger populations for which they are responsible blindly following the weakest and possibly the worst president the U.S. has ever had.

There are many humane alternatives to the U.S. accepting refugees in this instance. A safe area could be created in Syrian on Iraqi territory where we could provide temporary shelter and food while the Syrian situation is resolved.

Instead, we are going to pollute our society with a population, a portion of which will not assimilate and will eventually want to establish Sharia law, which is antithetical to our Constitution and way of life.

As a taxpayer and voter, I demand that you reconsider your reckless decision to admit unvetted Syrian refugees. Wake up Governor, you are guilty of dereliction of duty if you do not reverse your decision.

Ray O’Mara

Colorado Springs