1
October 8, 2014 VOLU M E 53 | I S S UE 40 | 7 5 ¢
PikesPeakCourier.net
LOOK FOR IT NEXT WEEK
T E L L E R C O U N T Y, C O L O R A D O
A publication of
Council supports aquatic center ballot question Passes resolution, talks about benefits, fields concerns from opposition By Norma Engelberg Contributing writer
The present rendition of the Pikes Peak summit house has stood against the elements for half a century. Plans for an upgrade of the facility and two others operated by Colorado Springs City Utilities and the U.S. Army are moving forward. Photos by Dave Smith
Summit upgrade moving along
By Dave Smith
Contributing writer For all her towering wonder and purple majesty America’s Mountain – Pikes Peak – is missing the one thing by which all royalty is recognized, a proper crown. But that is about to change. Spurred by more than $1 million left over from a 1999
The U.S. Army high altitude medical research facility occupies the eastern edge of the Pikes Peak summit grounds. The corrugated metal structure will be updated as part of the makeover project slated to begin sometime in 2016.
POSTAL ADDRESS
The present entrance to the Pikes Peak summit house is not too inviting for the hundreds of visitors arriving at the site via the cog railway.
PIKES PEAK COURIER (USPS 654-460)
OFFICE: 1200 E. Highway 24 Woodland Park, CO 80863 PHONE: 719-687-3006 A legal newspaper of general circulation in Teller County, Colorado, the Pikes Peak Courier is published weekly on Wednesday by Colorado Community Media, 1200 E. Highway 24, Woodland Park, CO 80863. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT WOODLAND PARK, COLORADO and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address change to: 9137 S. Ridgeline Blvd., Suite 210 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 DEADLINES: Display: Thurs. 11 a.m. Legal: Thurs. 11 a.m. | Classified: Mon. 10 a.m. G ET SOCIAL WITH US
P L EA SE R ECYC L E T H I S C OPY
plan and designated for the planning and design of a new summit house atop Pike’s Peak, a project to remake the famed summit is moving ahead. The project is a bit overdue. In 1999 the money for design and planning was designated in a Pikes Peak Master Plan and attributed to efforts of then-Congressman Joel Hefley. He felt the summit house had outlasted its usefulness and needed to be upgraded or redone. “I am glad they are (moving ahead),” Hefley said, “I have thought for a long time what we had was not adequate for one of America’s greatest parks.” The summit house is now 50 years old and with more than a half million people annually driving, hiking and riding the cog railway to the top of the mountain now is the time to press on. “We are looking forward to it now. We think it is time to address the summit house, to address it for the visitors,” said Jack Glavan, manager of Pikes Peak America’s Mountain, whose agency is acting as lead permitee for the project. “A lot of people are really looking forward to tackling the chal-
lenges.” Those challenges included paving the Pikes Peak Highway as part of an erosion and sanitary control project as part of a settlement in a 1998 Sierra Club law suit, getting agreement from the summit stakeholders – U.S. Army, Colorado Springs Utilities, concessionaire Aramark Parks and Destinations, U.S. Forest Service and PPAM – and then final approval from the USFS. According to Glavan, the total project will come with a price tag of about $20 million covering the summit house visitor center, the city utilities systems and communications hut and the Army’s high altitude medical research facility. A number of issues are still being ironed out in preparation for releasing the design RFP (request for proposal) in the near future Glavan said. One of the primary considerations is accounting for the number of people visiting the summit. “The function of the visitor’s center has to account for people,” he said. “The cog can bring 300 or more people a day and the highway another 200 to 300 so that will be part of the discussion. Also the exact location on the mountain
will be discussed.” Whether the summit project takes on a horizontal or vertical footprint, interpretive components of the plan and specific needs of various agencies are significant too, Glavan added. Besides the million dollars left over from the late ’90s, Glavan noted another significant part of the early move for improvements on top of Pikes Peak that is still important: Public input. Citizen engagement will come as the plans go through the environmental approval and design processes, in addition to other means. “We had some in the ’90s and we want to renew that,” he said. Some public engagement has already come through organizations like the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and the Pikes Peak Ascent and Marathon. Glavan said those groups, and others, were contacted about what they would need at the top of the mountain, especially where it is related to safety and parking. Those items are to be considered as design planning continues. These groups are positive about the plans and about being contacted about the future complex. “Overall the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb is very excited about a potential new summit house on Pikes Peak. We have been working with the city of Colorado Springs and PPAM on the project and layout. We felt very privileged to have our ideas and plans considered ... we are absolutely in support of it,” said PPIHC Executive Director of Operations Megan Leatham. “We are excited about the future of Pikes Peak and look forward to working with our partners to enhance the guest experience with increased offerings and new amenities,” said David Freireich, spokesman for Aramark. The estimated $20 million cost from the project will come from a number of sources. There is the $1 million plus a little interest remaining from Hefley’s designation of course. Then figure in about $3 million PPAM has available, another $3 million from Summit continues on Page 15
According to state election laws, a governing body can only legally take an official position on a ballot question when passing a resolution expressing support or opposition. In August, Woodland Park City Council approved sending a bond question to the November General Election ballot, requesting approval for spending city revenues on an aquatic center without raising taxes. At the Oct. 2 council meeting, councilmembers voted unanimously to support that question now known as Ballot Question 2A. “The only time I can advocate for this question is at tonight’s meeting,” Councilmember Bob Carlsen said. “You all know the benefits of having an aquatic center so I want to address the concerns of those people who say they won’t vote for the bond issue.” A few of these have asked why the city hasn’t listened to the results of previous votes, including the one in 2010 that decisively turned down a sales-tax increase to build a YMCA recreation center. “We did listen and we learned,” Carlsen said. “In 2010, the scope of that project was much bigger and higher priced. It would have required a tax increase and it would have competed with local fitness businesses. This project is only an aquatic center. It’s small enough to be funded with existing revenue without raising taxes and without competing with local businesses.” Another objection was “let’s use our revenue to pay off existing bonds so we can lower taxes.” In answer, Carlsen compared Woodland Park’s sales tax rates with other non-ski resort mountain towns. “The average sales tax among these was 8 percent,” he said. “Woodland Park’s is only 6.9 percent, one of the lowest.” Finally, people have asked: “Why should I pay for a pool that I’m not going to use?” “We’re a community,” Carlsen said. “The city can’t please everyone but as a community we have to think beyond just ourselves. We need to think about how we can help our neighbors.” Councilmember Noel Sawyer said a lot
Center continues on Page 15
A rendering of the proposed Woodland Aquatic Center. Courtesy graphic