Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Re: “AFP donates to committee opposing Colorado Springs' stormwater ballot measure

coke whore bro's are helping keep the rich developers, their buddies, rich!! they don't give a rats rear about you poor folks. even if the city gets sued, it doesn't cost the developers anything.

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by happyfew on 10/31/2017 at 8:19 AM

Re: “Routon honored by Mayor John Suthers with Spirit of the Springs Award

I'm surprised Ralph would let himself be used by a politician. Way to cosy.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gopher on 10/30/2017 at 10:42 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

Vote NO if you want Pueblo and Pueblo County to take COS to court, as they should, for not living up to COS' obligations to address stormwater problems that affect Fountain Creek from COS to Pueblo.

We in the Arkansas Valley are tired of Springs voters who continually vote to shortchange themselves and everyone downstream on the stormwater problem.

I shouldn't say "We" however. I live in COS now, and I voted YES!! Freeloaders be gone!!

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Russ Johnson on 10/30/2017 at 6:06 PM

Re: “AFP donates to committee opposing Colorado Springs' stormwater ballot measure

Does anyone think the Koch Bros. and American for Prosperity give a Tinkers damn about our storm water issues?

7 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Gary Casimir on 10/30/2017 at 5:44 PM

Re: “Regional Building Department gives away nearly $1 million in donations

It is frustrating that individuals are drawing a false relationship between Regional Building Department funds, and the excess amounts that have been accumulated there, and the City's revenue stream, with a particular emphasis on Stormwater.

The Regional Building Department IS NOT a department of the City of Colorado Springs and does not fall under the City's leadership or direction. City funds and Regional Building Department funds are not tied together in any way - excess revenue at the Regional Building Department cannot be shared with the City's General Fund and the opposite is also true.

I get it: some people will oppose 2A. But to base that opposition on the assumption that the Regional Building Department's excess funds could be used by the City for any purpose, to include Stormwater, is a misunderstanding of how funds are allocated and used by different agencies within the Pikes Peak Region.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Scott Hente on 10/30/2017 at 4:34 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

The focus of the EPA and CO Dept of Health lawsuit is on the Citys failure to follow its own rules when approving and overseeing developer stormwater infrastructure. In one case, the lawsuit details an $11.4 million shortcut provided to developers (see entire lawsuit complaint):
The Cottonwood Creek DBPS estimated [a] total cost reduction of approximately $11.4 million (January 1992 dollars) by eliminating the proposed detention ponds and associated fees, and reducing the Cottonwood Creek Drainage and Bridge Fees. [charged to developers]

Much more at

9 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 3:43 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

Thank you, Mr Rusinak.

9 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 3:40 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

oh ya um big fat NO!!!!

10 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Jay Whynotaskme on 10/30/2017 at 1:52 PM

Re: “Regional Building Department gives away nearly $1 million in donations

And they wonder why they can't get a stormwater fee passed .... duh!!

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Lynne Bliss on 10/30/2017 at 10:37 AM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

An except from 2015 EPA report cited in the EPA lawsuit that speaks to how seriously the City takes stormwater issues:

"Of the 105 projects on the CIP [Capital Improvement Program] list, it appeared that four stormwater oriented projects were included and slated for funding in 2015:
Companion Drainage Projects $412,000
Drainage Basin Planning Studies $150,000
Emergency Drainage Repairs High Priority $500,000
Infrastructure Damage Repair $80,000."

Though the City couldn't seem to find a high enough priority for much stormwater spending in 2015's Capital Improvement Budget, here's what the City DID find funding for on that list (taken from 2015 Budget):

Downtown Streetscape Project $864,000
Museum Exterior Renovation $299,550
Museum HVAC Upgrades $200,000
On-Street Bikeway Improvements $411,970
Summit House Design $1,500,000
Fire Station Bathroom Remodel: $517,625 (2019)

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 12:07 AM

Re: “One class of landowner would get special treatment under city’s stormwater fees

I have been saying for years the city has been approaching the legal issues all wrong. With the challenges the city has been facing with water availability this issue should be coupled with a fight to reinterpret the Water Law of the West.

Certainly first users have claim to the natural runoff. But any excess runoff should be claimed by the creators of that runoff. The City should claim its right to use that excess for its own purposes. That water should be captured and purified into the city water system or traded as irrigation water to downstream users in exchange for upstream water.

Such would provide a couple of benefits. It would help to alleviate water crises we have experienced. It also would tactically redirect the legal fight to being between downstream users and Pueblo, who is wishing to restrict that flow.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Keith Hamburger on 10/29/2017 at 11:41 AM

Re: “Where the hell is Kekistan?

While leftist Antifa babies and righty confederates get salty when their precious flags are burned, it takes a whole lot more than just burning the Kekistan flag to make Kekistanis salty ;)

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Kekistan Ambassador on 10/28/2017 at 11:29 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

With ten days to go (as of this posting date) and with only 9% of the ballots returned as of the 19th - - do you think the stormwater measure will PASS or FAIL with the voters in a low turnout election with multiple tax measures on the ballot?

Posted by Robert Gentry on 10/28/2017 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

issued needs to be addressed but charging $5 to large and small is not right, fee doesnt have to be
exact proportion, but some fairness , set Tier levels of property , such as small $2, medium $4, large $6, huge 8
small - apts, medium lot size to 5000, large lot size to 10,000, huge over 10,000 .

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by apathetic on 10/28/2017 at 10:54 AM

Re: “Reader: Manitou needs an explination

Keep Manitou Weird Again! Also most elections are run this way, not really that crazy.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Matt 1 on 10/28/2017 at 9:51 AM

Re: “Twelve false claims about 2A

Man Suthers sure loves fees. I noticed he also must love him some Anschutz, odd his buddy at the Broadmoor doesnt get a big tax increase? You mean all of his land is exempt form our big city tax or fee or whatever they are trying to call it. So we get a rain tax and the Broadmoor and developers who owe huge portions of this city get nothing!!! Wake up people, odd the Gazette and the editorial staff is all for this tax ( oh yea they are owned by Anschutz/ Broadmoor) duh!

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by el jef'e on 10/28/2017 at 7:58 AM

Re: “Routon honored by Mayor John Suthers with Spirit of the Springs Award

In a small town where gratuitous awards are handed out like halloween candy - this is one award that has been a long time coming and one richly deserved. Thank you Ralph!

11 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by R Wehner on 10/28/2017 at 2:52 AM

Re: “Reader: Manitou needs an explination

Explanation can't anyone spell anymore?

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Shannon Simmons on 10/28/2017 at 12:34 AM

Re: “Regional Building Department gives away nearly $1 million in donations

Thank you Pam for this report on the OUTRAGEOUS misuse of City govt excess revenue by the Pikes Peak Regional Building Dept. Govt and its agencies are not a Sugar Daddy that disburses excess profits to various non-profits considered by them to be deserving of public largess. Govt has no business participating in charitable projects because doing so is the responsibility of the citizenry. Any excess RBD profits should be returned to the City and used solely for stormwater and/or road maintenance both legitimate govt functions. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of new taxes the City asks the voters to pay. And, of course, the RBD fees for the next year should be reduced. And WHY are RBD employees being charitable with OUR not THEIR own personal money and not doing what is called for by the IGA? Is our City governed by laws or by the feel good whims of its bureaucrats? The citizens of COS are generous and can be depended upon to be charitable. The Indy Give and Gazette year-end annual campaigns together collect more than $2M from the citizenry for our local non-profits. Govt participation will only result in less participation by the citizens because govt has taken from the citizens the money they would otherwise have had available to donate and, more importantly, because the citizenry now view charitable giving as the responsibility of govt.

Learning that Utilities also wants to be a Sugar Daddy and is seeking Councils permission to donate to charitable causes is OUTRAGEOUS. Utilities responsibility is to its customers. Using utility revenue to disburse funds to its pet charities is OBSCENE. Instead, Utilities should reduce utility charges to its customers, which will make it possible for the citizens to afford to pay their utility bills as well as to donate to whatever charity THEY want to support.

And THANK YOU to our Council representatives Pico, Knight, and Murray, members of the Finance Committee, who understand the duties of govt and are attempting to repel the onslaughts by the spenders of other peoples money by progressives/socialists on the Council and within City govt.

On a related issue the Mayor and his allies lie to us and instead of being truthful, deceive us - VOTE NO on 2A.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/27/2017 at 2:33 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

Issue 300 passed by the votes of Colorado Springs citizens. Issue 300 did not preclude collecting stormwater "fees." What it prevented was collecting those "fees" for stormwater and letting the stormwater enterprise use those "fees" to write big fat checks to the City to be used for whatever it wanted.

After the passage of Issue 300, City Council at that time was faced with two options:

1) "Keep the fees within the stormwater enterprise to do stormwater work (instead of collecting the fees for stormwater and passing the money on to be used for whatever the City government wanted); or

2) Disband the enterprise.

Ultimately, Council disbanded the enterprise because...what's the point of collecting taxes diguised as fees if you can't put them into a city slush fund and use them how you want?

Issue 2A is openly creating a slush fund. The mayor, Skorman and others are saying, "give us stormwater money and we'll shell game the money for whatever we feel like using it for."

14 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/27/2017 at 2:31 PM

Today | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat
Accidental Death of an Anarchist

Accidental Death of an Anarchist @ Millibo Art Theatre

Thursdays-Saturdays, 7:30 p.m. and Sundays, 2 p.m. Continues through Nov. 26

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation