Jump to content
The first election question was in 1997 or 1998, it was a question specific to CR 14 and the reconstruction of that road. In my memory it failed two to one. Understand that the folks in much of the rest of the county were not interested in funding the re-construction of CR 14, many of the folks in STBT, North Routt, and West Routt, and many in South Routt were not interested in funding the reconstruction of that road that maybe they did not have personal benefit.
The second election was in 2007, where the county fronted a ballot question to work on many different roads in the county so that there was potentially more overall support for the question. It was more of a county question to address surfacing of roads, shoulders, safety and citizen service on a multitude of county roads county wide. It also failed by somewhere in a two to one vote. Probably in retrospect, the county question had part of the tax increase sunset and part of the tax increase not sunset, it was quite clear in my mind the non-sunset portion of the increase was not supported. The additional mill was 12.66, that might have been more than the voters could tolerate. Add on to that this was in 2007 when things were going ok, and ready to go into the recession starting in 2008. Doug Monger
Scott, John, and Dan, the project is neither dead nor does the county have the finances to move forward with the reconstruction. The county does own the right of way and the engineering to move forward with the project if some monies sometime become available either in grants or out of the annual budget (project estimated at $13 million +). The county could not continue to wait on grants that do not exist, and probably will not exist in the near future. We could not let the road further deteriorate we need to do what now looks like we should have been doing for eight yeas and that is to do maintenance, resurface culvert repair. We are keeping in our hip pocket the anticipation of doing the total reconstruction potentially in phases. We have directed staff to continue the thought of some construction especially in the most unsafe sections of the road while we put the road back into the maintenance part of our asphalt road system and at least not let the road get any worse. The road continues to be a high priority for the county's road system, but I'll remind all that the voters have told the county twice that it wasn't important enough to raise taxes for the reconstruction. Based on the direction of the voters we will continue to work on the reconstruction through existing revenue streams. Doug Monger Routt County Commissioner
The severance package had a rotten smell when it was first reported. It grows worse as it goes along. I was absolutely astounded by the $$$ when it was first reported (golden parachute), I guess things might be getting a clearer as to what, when, how, and why. As presented it doesn't put a good picture on government and more specifically in this case Higher Education. Then remember who presently is paying for the cost of higher education, students borrowing money. Thanks to the other board members for taking the issue to task. Doug Monger
Yes it will be amazing to see how much private development (hence the URA and Tax Increment Financing) will ensue with the landscaping provided. I want to pick my flower. Can't hardly stand myself on the value of it all. This whole thing is a wish list that was financed by other entities taxes based on the concept of private development. Where is the private development other than what would have happened anyhow. The folly of it all is that the area gets declared a blighted area, and the Ski Time Square fiasco ensures that it truly is blighted. Go figure.
I couldn't agree more about how frustrating this all is. I agree with the comments about the concept that we need to support all activity that is environmentally friendly. Unfortunately the environmentalists don't agree with that concept, we wouldn't want to have any other type of environmentally friendly type of energy compete and or conflict with the environmentalists sacrificial COW of wind and solar energy. It truly reflects on how much subsidy that this cow needs to be fed to be competitive in the world wide energy market (not to even mention the concept of being competitive with the carbon and coal energy). I lobbied at the County Commissioners meeting in Denver on this bill as well as another bill that I will also talk about in a minute. A new commissioner from another county flat out said that if we allow this it will reduce the viability of wind and solar. One has to wonder what the real goal of this all is, is it environmentally friendly or is it only a wind and solar captive market The second bill that was also killed during this whole fiasco was a bill that communities in Southeast Colorado wanted to support in that it created energy off of municipal trash. This bill would simply allow the process to be qualified as green and eligible for the Renewable Energy Credit thereby allowing some form of additional cash flow. Without the additional cash flow, the process does not pencil out, so we continue to put more trash in the ground and no benefit to the community or the environment. This process was some sort of process that did not even require burning or anything yet had the opportunity to reduce our landfill impacts and provide electricity. On top of that the end result/byproduct of the process would be put on Ag fields to provide nutrients/fertilizer. That bill was also killed on a party line vote the same week. I don't disagree that these two products are not Renewable, but maybe we need to change the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) to an Environmentally Sound Energy Credit (ESEC) and reduce the captive position of subsidized energy. Doug Monger
Positively wish Jack (Senator) Taylor the best in his recovery. We did not always agree on issues, but he has been a great public servant and I believe that he always had the values of his citizens in his thoughts and in his votes.
Let the games begin, this should be fun to watch and interesting to decipher all of the applicants association to tourism (or not). I just hope that the final result does indeed do associate with tourism. YEE HAH!!!!!
Wow, what is this. Severance of $500,000 for four years of service, That amounts to a severance of $125,000/year for his sitting in the chair for four years and probably complaining how tough things were. There has got to be a story behind this. As a taxpayer of this entity, I would pleasantly say that this does not make me happy where my CMC dollars go. All of this is probably on top of an annual salary over at least $175,000, probably over $200,000. No wonder why all worry about our hard earned property tax dollars. Nice to have some follow up on this.
This SUP in in fact a quasi-judicial matter. I don't think for a minute that my stating some relevant facts to the matter affects my judgement on the matter. Relative to Pirtlaw paying for the road, I could care less who paid for the road, not an issue to me. I remain unbiased and will approach the hearing as such. I do on the other hand get a little sensitive about the county always shouldering the blame for the delays and problems with the oil and gas permitting. Oil and gas is different than other permitting, but it still needs to go through a similar overall process. I believe that the county and the companies are working towards a good working relationship.
First off a ranch road on this property was not allowed because of the Conservation Easement. The Conservation Easement specifically says that no additional roads would be built on the property other than potential two track roads(I've seen the road, it certainly is not a two track) which would need prior approval by the monitoring Easement Holder. Routt County PDR put $250,000 into that easment, and GOCO put another $1.1million to purchase part of that easement. While Quicksilver would have the right to build the road to an oil well on the property, the property owner did not with out breaking the contractual Conservation Easement. Secondly not all agriculture activity is exempt from Grading and Excavation permits. There is wording that allows for minor disturbance that promotes animal husbandry or crop production is exempt, but not all Ag activity is exempt. The intent of Grading and Exc. permits is to protect water quality, watersheds, and mitigate for erosion. While we would hope that Ag producers would undertake such protections, small scale projects with exempt purposes are exempt from the regulations.
The county offered the same opportunity to Quicksilver as was provided to Shell in that they could sign a contract that would require the reclamation of the well pad and road if they were not granted the SUP. The contract also required a performance bond to insure the reclamation. Approx $25,000 in Shell's case. Quicksilver declined to utilize that option. As was discussed in a prior post, I doubt very seriously that Pirtlaw paid the bill to build the road and pad. Ironic how this all can became so complicated.
It should also be noted that Quicksilver was offered other earlier dates for their county hearing, none of them were utilized. COGCC issued their permit for this well on I believe Oct. 6,12, and it wasn't until 12/4 that we have a scheduled county hearing. The county process allows for dual permit applications. I'm struggling with the always Crisis Mode that has been portrayed on this property. We haven't experienced the Crisis Mode with other properties or operators. All involved knew that they were going to drill a well there in May, why was the application not complete and hearings undertaken months ago, all can blame the county but it was not the county holding up this application. We are furthering the prospect of streamlining applications, but this will require some diligence of the applicants as well. Doug Monger Routt Commissioner
Last login: Friday, November 22, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.