Let’s take a look as a community at where we’re at, where we’re going, and how we want to get there.
a) Here’s a song that describes how our community organizations currently interact today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2nfgp3Ga80&feature=related
b) As to how we want to get to where we want to be, here’s a song that embodies the spirit of how things could run if we banded together, albeit a bit differently. This is a song about a big 18 wheeler steaming down the road with a head of steam, the hometown coming into sight. Notice Tom Petty is still the front man, but he’s switched roles and is playing bass instead of rhythm guitar. Mike Campbell is comping in the background to give the arrangement a full sound. A new guy is playing lead guitar. He’s not as good as Mike Campbell, but so what? A new drummer is getting the job done. Same keyboard player, still top shelf. The Heartbreaker’s utility player isn’t in this band. They all sing in harmony on the main themes. It works. It adds new textures. It’s a little toe tapper that sounds pretty good:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/Mudcrutch/track/Six+Days+On+The+Road
c) As to how to get to where we want to be as a community, we need to go through some sort of process to come together. That process can take the form of a crisis, like the bankruptcy, or we can work to figure it out, like our approach to renewable water. Crisis is inevitable if we don’t figure things out. Thus far nothing has worked on the community harmony front because nobody actually wants to work together. Sometimes in life you have to give up on being right in favor of choosing to be happy. In the CPN saga, everybody wants to be right, but nobody is happy. I suggest a dance party! Pick your favorite member of “the other side” (by that I mean the person you love to hate the most) and let’s go dance dance like it’s the last last night of our life life. Let’s build social relationships upon which the necessary community business discussions can take place. Imagine all the combatants letting go of their pet affront, and getting together to celebrate what makes our community special by dancing together to Usher’s song, DJ Got Us Falling in Love Again. (The rap is by Pit Bull, and we should change that hat at 1:26 from The Dodgers to The Rockies.):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-dvTjK_07c&ob=av2n
Any band worth their salt knows how to play all three of these simple songs. It’s just a matter of deciding which one they want to pursue. Somebody is going to win on Ballot Question 300 on Tuesday, and someone is going to lose. While both sides are expending energy for the final votes, I’d like to ask the winners to extend the olive leaf to the losers.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Colorado Congressional Delegation Supports Efforts for Chatfield Study
A study process concerning how water can best be stored at Chatfield Reservoir will soon be moving forward to invite public comment. The effort at Chatfield has brought together farmers in northern Colorado, municipal water users in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties, as well as recreational and environmental users throughout the Metro Denver area. “This sort of cooperation is unprecedented”, said Jeff Shoemaker, Executive Director of The Greenway Foundation, an environmental advocate for Front Range water issues.
Colorado’s federal elected officials have been instrumental in the success of this process. All nine members of the delegation recently pulled together in signing a letter of support for the completion of the study in a timely fashion. Sen. Udall’s staff helped pull together this joint letter effort. Sen. Michael Bennet personally made telephone calls to help facilitate communication with Federal agencies. Congresswoman Betsy Markey directed her staff to attend meetings with the Chatfield supporters to talk out issues with federal agencies. Congressman Ed Perlmutter worked hard to make sure the Chatfield study is completed, not lost in the shuffle with other Federal initiatives. Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Coffman directed their staff to participate in conference calls on important interagency cooperation. Congressman John Salazar and Congressman Doug Lamborn have been untiring in their support for good process and successful completion of the study effort. Without this support and teamwork from our Federal elected officials, this important cooperative study of a Front Range water project may not have been possible.
The state is the local sponsor of the effort. Special thanks to Gov. Ritter for his letters of support.
The study will determine if additional water can be stored at the existing facility, without having to perform any new construction on the existing dam facilities. The study will consider mitigation of environmental impacts as well as recreational modifications that will be required at the facility. “This is a Win-Win-Win situation for the environment, for recreational users, and for water users. It could be water supply for farmers to grow crops, and water for families along the Front Range” said Shoemaker, who also heads the Foundation for Colorado State Parks. The process is being directed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and water users with service areas that stretch from Park County, through the Denver Metro area, to Ft. Morgan. Invitation for public comment on the process is expected early next year.
Colorado’s federal elected officials have been instrumental in the success of this process. All nine members of the delegation recently pulled together in signing a letter of support for the completion of the study in a timely fashion. Sen. Udall’s staff helped pull together this joint letter effort. Sen. Michael Bennet personally made telephone calls to help facilitate communication with Federal agencies. Congresswoman Betsy Markey directed her staff to attend meetings with the Chatfield supporters to talk out issues with federal agencies. Congressman Ed Perlmutter worked hard to make sure the Chatfield study is completed, not lost in the shuffle with other Federal initiatives. Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Coffman directed their staff to participate in conference calls on important interagency cooperation. Congressman John Salazar and Congressman Doug Lamborn have been untiring in their support for good process and successful completion of the study effort. Without this support and teamwork from our Federal elected officials, this important cooperative study of a Front Range water project may not have been possible.
The state is the local sponsor of the effort. Special thanks to Gov. Ritter for his letters of support.
The study will determine if additional water can be stored at the existing facility, without having to perform any new construction on the existing dam facilities. The study will consider mitigation of environmental impacts as well as recreational modifications that will be required at the facility. “This is a Win-Win-Win situation for the environment, for recreational users, and for water users. It could be water supply for farmers to grow crops, and water for families along the Front Range” said Shoemaker, who also heads the Foundation for Colorado State Parks. The process is being directed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and water users with service areas that stretch from Park County, through the Denver Metro area, to Ft. Morgan. Invitation for public comment on the process is expected early next year.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Streets of Fire
I attended the 10/12 City Council meeting. The highlight of the work session was a first presentation of a notion for the 2011 budget. Property values are anticipated to decline 14% at the next evaluation, so the City will see a decline in revenue of $100k. (Impacts to the Metro District will be far greater.) For the first year of the valuation, that's OK because the City will not have to repay the Master Association $144,000 for the cost of incorporation. The budget assumes the County will provide the same level of service for a price that is 14% lower. While it never hurts to ask, this assumption is unlikely to become truth.
The budget is largely flattish, save for unbundling of services that will be provided by employees, and maintenance of the surface of the streets. We learned the condition of the streets is currently rated at 69 (on a scale of 100?). While the budget anticipated $200,000 for surface street repairs (which would take the rating to 54), we learned an expenditure of $610,000 is needed just to continue the surface conditions of the streets at the current level. Council advised that letting the condition of the surface of the streets become worse than current levels is unacceptable. An additional $410,000 will need to be added to the budget just to maintain streets at current levels. If we wanted to repair all of the problems with the surface of the streets, the cost would be $7,000,000. The City does not have that kind of money, and is not likely to.
If the next budget includes the true cost of County services and the cost to maintain the surface of the streets at current conditions, we likely to not have enough revenue to fund the budget. We can dip into the annexation fees, but that is one time money. I fully support maintaining the surface of the streets at 69 or better, and support asking residents if they will pay a tax to continue the surface of the streets as-is or better. We did not talk about money for street issues below the surface, or for the maintenance of other assets owned by the City. I asked that $25,000 be put into the budget to understand what our financial obligation is to maintain these assets, as well as looking at the cost of their replacement over time. When you read articles in the paper about how the City is in great financial shape, you might want to ask a couple questions about that claim. Once we get a true number for costs, we can come back to citizens and ask how they want to pay for it.
The highlight of the regular session was a debate over establishing a policy for spending money out of the annexation fee that is over and above budgeted and appropriated dollars. Not to exceed expenditures of around $70,000 were approved for additonal street sealing. I believe this is money well spent, even if we don't have it in the budget. We need to protect our streets, and keep costs from skyrocketing next spring due to neglect.
As to cutting expenses in order to balance the budget, I've sent a note to the manager for consideration in preparation of the next budget draft. We should eliminate the utility consultant because we are not in the water business. We should look at hiring an in-house attorney, or be realistic about billable hours for pursuits that are not going to happen. Our legal expense is way, way too high. We shoudl stop chasing the Metro District, as we have no standing in their issues. Taking on management of a new park is puzzling, but operating a water feature given our water issues and the lack of revenue from the park is imprudent. If that's not enough to balance things, we simply need to ratchet down the City operations until such a time as voters approve taxes to support a higher level of service by the City.
In the "Man Bites Dog" category, our communications committee suggested we hire CH2MHill to be out communications provider. This is really weird. We're trying to unbundlge and move away from CH2MHill. The search for a communciations provider began with the CH2MHill communciations consultant saying their costs are too high, and we should hire a small local firm to help us out, as our needs are modest. Instead there's a request to increase the budget form the low $60,000's to $70,000 to pay for this notion. This is really dumbfounding. Someone isn't getting the memo.
We did have some voluneteers come forward to serve on the finance and public works committees. They sounded qualified, and it was good to see fresh faces wanting to help out the volunteers already serving on Council.
The budget is largely flattish, save for unbundling of services that will be provided by employees, and maintenance of the surface of the streets. We learned the condition of the streets is currently rated at 69 (on a scale of 100?). While the budget anticipated $200,000 for surface street repairs (which would take the rating to 54), we learned an expenditure of $610,000 is needed just to continue the surface conditions of the streets at the current level. Council advised that letting the condition of the surface of the streets become worse than current levels is unacceptable. An additional $410,000 will need to be added to the budget just to maintain streets at current levels. If we wanted to repair all of the problems with the surface of the streets, the cost would be $7,000,000. The City does not have that kind of money, and is not likely to.
If the next budget includes the true cost of County services and the cost to maintain the surface of the streets at current conditions, we likely to not have enough revenue to fund the budget. We can dip into the annexation fees, but that is one time money. I fully support maintaining the surface of the streets at 69 or better, and support asking residents if they will pay a tax to continue the surface of the streets as-is or better. We did not talk about money for street issues below the surface, or for the maintenance of other assets owned by the City. I asked that $25,000 be put into the budget to understand what our financial obligation is to maintain these assets, as well as looking at the cost of their replacement over time. When you read articles in the paper about how the City is in great financial shape, you might want to ask a couple questions about that claim. Once we get a true number for costs, we can come back to citizens and ask how they want to pay for it.
The highlight of the regular session was a debate over establishing a policy for spending money out of the annexation fee that is over and above budgeted and appropriated dollars. Not to exceed expenditures of around $70,000 were approved for additonal street sealing. I believe this is money well spent, even if we don't have it in the budget. We need to protect our streets, and keep costs from skyrocketing next spring due to neglect.
As to cutting expenses in order to balance the budget, I've sent a note to the manager for consideration in preparation of the next budget draft. We should eliminate the utility consultant because we are not in the water business. We should look at hiring an in-house attorney, or be realistic about billable hours for pursuits that are not going to happen. Our legal expense is way, way too high. We shoudl stop chasing the Metro District, as we have no standing in their issues. Taking on management of a new park is puzzling, but operating a water feature given our water issues and the lack of revenue from the park is imprudent. If that's not enough to balance things, we simply need to ratchet down the City operations until such a time as voters approve taxes to support a higher level of service by the City.
In the "Man Bites Dog" category, our communications committee suggested we hire CH2MHill to be out communications provider. This is really weird. We're trying to unbundlge and move away from CH2MHill. The search for a communciations provider began with the CH2MHill communciations consultant saying their costs are too high, and we should hire a small local firm to help us out, as our needs are modest. Instead there's a request to increase the budget form the low $60,000's to $70,000 to pay for this notion. This is really dumbfounding. Someone isn't getting the memo.
We did have some voluneteers come forward to serve on the finance and public works committees. They sounded qualified, and it was good to see fresh faces wanting to help out the volunteers already serving on Council.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Risks of an Aging Water Infrastructure
Every day, nearly 1500 water mains break across the country. Most occur without any noticeable impact. But there's a greater impact than just the inconvenience of going without water for a few hours. These breaks are cause for alarm and pose a significant threat.
Last month, a burst water pipe shut down a plant in Fort Worth, Texas that produces F-16 and F-35 fighter jets. According to the Star-Telegram, the plant uses over 300 million gallons of water per year and the pipes that provide the necessary water for its operations are over 20 years old. Going without water brings the plant to a screeching halt and causes delays and additional expense for our military production.
What happened in Fort Worth should be eye-opening. While it turned out to be a minor disruption for only a few days, we face significant risks across the country as our aging water infrastructure begins to crumble. And in some areas, the water infrastructure is over 200 years old. Industry relies on water and so do we.
Beyond the economic consequences, there are also environmental impacts when the pipes carry waste water. Billions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped every year as these old pipes burst. The sewage ends up in our groundwater, our streams and rivers, and requires us to exhaust additional energy and resources to clean it to drinking standards.
In a 1941 article titled “Water Supply Facilities and National Defense” in the American Water Works Association Journal, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover noted that our water infrastructure is imperative for security because of the “strategic position they occupy in keeping the wheels of industry turning and in preserving the health and morale of the American populace.”
Old pipes are not the only infrastructure that need help – over 15,000 dams are rated “potentially high hazard” by the Army Corps of Engineers and need to be repaired. Remember the consequences of the broken dam in Lake Delhi, Iowa when hundreds of homes and businesses flooded in July and factor that by thousands across the country.
The cost of repairing and replacing our water infrastructure is billions of dollars. But the cost of waiting is even greater.
We must invest heavily in our infrastructure as part of our national security strategy in the 21st Century. As J. Edgar Hoover said 60 years ago, “In this great undertaking, water supply facilities occupy a key position, and, therefore, it is essential that they operate without interruption.”
We don't have to wait for the federal government to act – we can act locally. You can invest in water saving devices for your home to use less water on a daily basis – look for EPA Water Sense appliances like toilets and faucets, and replace your sprinklers with more efficient rotary nozzles. Check with your water provider for rebates when doing so. And support your water provider as they seek additional funding to make the necessary upgrades to your system. For the cost today is far less than what consequences of inaction will be in the future.
Douglas Campbell is the Education Coordinator for the Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.dcwater.org) and a fellow for the Truman National Security Project.
Last month, a burst water pipe shut down a plant in Fort Worth, Texas that produces F-16 and F-35 fighter jets. According to the Star-Telegram, the plant uses over 300 million gallons of water per year and the pipes that provide the necessary water for its operations are over 20 years old. Going without water brings the plant to a screeching halt and causes delays and additional expense for our military production.
What happened in Fort Worth should be eye-opening. While it turned out to be a minor disruption for only a few days, we face significant risks across the country as our aging water infrastructure begins to crumble. And in some areas, the water infrastructure is over 200 years old. Industry relies on water and so do we.
Beyond the economic consequences, there are also environmental impacts when the pipes carry waste water. Billions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped every year as these old pipes burst. The sewage ends up in our groundwater, our streams and rivers, and requires us to exhaust additional energy and resources to clean it to drinking standards.
In a 1941 article titled “Water Supply Facilities and National Defense” in the American Water Works Association Journal, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover noted that our water infrastructure is imperative for security because of the “strategic position they occupy in keeping the wheels of industry turning and in preserving the health and morale of the American populace.”
Old pipes are not the only infrastructure that need help – over 15,000 dams are rated “potentially high hazard” by the Army Corps of Engineers and need to be repaired. Remember the consequences of the broken dam in Lake Delhi, Iowa when hundreds of homes and businesses flooded in July and factor that by thousands across the country.
The cost of repairing and replacing our water infrastructure is billions of dollars. But the cost of waiting is even greater.
We must invest heavily in our infrastructure as part of our national security strategy in the 21st Century. As J. Edgar Hoover said 60 years ago, “In this great undertaking, water supply facilities occupy a key position, and, therefore, it is essential that they operate without interruption.”
We don't have to wait for the federal government to act – we can act locally. You can invest in water saving devices for your home to use less water on a daily basis – look for EPA Water Sense appliances like toilets and faucets, and replace your sprinklers with more efficient rotary nozzles. Check with your water provider for rebates when doing so. And support your water provider as they seek additional funding to make the necessary upgrades to your system. For the cost today is far less than what consequences of inaction will be in the future.
Douglas Campbell is the Education Coordinator for the Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.dcwater.org) and a fellow for the Truman National Security Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
