Bob Berwyn (@bberwyn) August 26, 2012
Good luck. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District followed up on a suggestion by board member Richard Skorman and voted unanimously Friday to ask the Trust for Pueblo Land for technical advice on how to set up a funding mechanism for the district.
El Paso County Commissioner Sallie Clark brought up the possibility that the district could be the funding mechanism for stormwater efforts in that county, if different mill levies could be assessed for the two counties. She acknowledged that Pueblo County does not want to, and should not have to, pay for projects that are El Paso County responsibilities.
Executive Director Larry Small said those types of questions are what the district would ask the land trust to sort out.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
This week, the Waldo Canyon Burned Area Emergency Response team began aerial mulching with straw and shredded wood, which is expected to reduce runoff and sediment by 20 percent on about 3,000 acres in the most badly burnt areas. “This treatment should reduce the immediate response following a storm to give people time to safely get to higher ground in areas that could be impacted by increased water and sediment flows,” said hydrologist Mary Moore.
The team, which includes the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Springs, El Paso County and other agencies, is also working on long-term restoration efforts, Mark Shea of Colorado Springs Utilities told the Fountain Creek board.
From the Loveland Reporter-Herald (Tom Hacker):
Whether it’s 13 percent, the smallest bump among options that city councilors will hear about Tuesday, or 71 percent will depend on whether Loveland is willing to assume some long-term bonded debt. If the city tries to pay for water system improvements on its traditional pay-as-you-go basis, rates will rise by nearly three-quarters…
Even the staunchest advocates for pay-as-you-go financing have opened their thinking to issuing bonds and taking on debt, given the historically low interest rates that the bonds carry.
“The last figure we got, the one that we’ve been basing these discussions on, is 1.82 percent,” said councilor Daryle Klassen, the council’s liaison to the Loveland Utilities Commission, a group that takes its recommendation for long-term bonding to the council on Tuesday…”When we measure that against what the inflation rate is going to be over the course of the bond, you’d be foolish not to borrow the money.”[…]
Miles of old water lines under Loveland streets are springing leaks twice weekly on average this year, compared to twice monthly seven years ago. The average cost to repair each leak in that time has risen from just over $3,500 to more than $5,000. Meanwhile, the city’s treatment plant is also nudging close to its capacity, and needs expensive short-term expansion to keep it in line with the city’s projected growth. Utilities commissioners at a meeting earlier this month found that a plan to issue $16 million worth of bonds with a 30-year maturity would fund the needed projects and spread the cost to ratepayers in a more bearable way…
The average monthly residential water bill in Loveland, under the long-term debt plan, would rise from the current $19.69 to $24.25 in 2013.
More infrastructure coverage here.