Questions on data center

I’d like to register my opposition to the data center proposal, Project Taurus and here are a few reasons and unanswered questions that inform my opposition;

1. Jason Green said this will provide 300 jobs–How many are actual long term jobs and how many are short term for the construction of the center? If his company, (which is a real estate company) will be leasing the facility out, how can he predict the jobs number reliably?
2. Closed water/glycol systems use less water but need to be topped off, so how often will topping off happen? The downside to this method is that it will require more electricity from the utilities to cool the data center. Is there any data on how effective this system actually is and how it will affect city utilities customers rates? Where are the other centers that use this glycol system successfully, and how long have they been up and running?
3. Colorado Springs has many microclimates. Has this proposal done an impact study specifically for this wildland fire interface, microclimate area to be affected? Heat exchange is expected. If we continue to have extreme drought and high temps, how is this calculated into the proposal long term affects for people, wildlife, and needed vegetation?
4. As a proposed large load customer, Colorado Springs Utilities has said Raeden promised to pay for 10 years at half the large load capacity, 50-55 Megawatts of power. Is that the most they will pay for? And they only guarantee that for 36 months? Who pays after that?

I’m a long-time resident of the Springs, and I remember the last project that came in on time (and under budget) was our current airport, in 1994.

If you can get answers that affirm the citizens of the Springs will not suffer higher costs, less water access and true employment numbers, I would change my opposition to support.

Norma Hollister

Colorado Springs

Suppression by exhaustion

On June 17, 2025, Colorado Springs voters rejected the Karman Line annexation by 82 percent after forcing a historic special election. On February 4, 2026, Buc-ee’s withdrew its annexation of Palmer Lake rather than face a vote it knew it would lose.

Both projects are now expected before the El Paso County Commissioners. Same developers. Same locations. Same scale. Same documented concerns. The prior record does not carry forward. The process begins as though none of it ever happened.

Here is the reality: the people most affected by these projects have not changed. The Tri-Lakes families who fought Buc-ee’s in Palmer Lake and the residents who fought Karman Line in Colorado Springs are all El Paso County citizens. They are the commissioners’ constituents. They have already spoken through hearings, expert testimony, petition drives, and votes. The jurisdiction changed. The constituents did not.

Karman Line developer Doug Quimby told a Denver newspaper in April 2025 that even if his project failed, his company “would still try to build in unincorporated El Paso County or create a new municipality.” Developers have found a gap in the process that lets them declare “mulligan” and take a second shot. The only required change is the jurisdiction itself. Colorado Springs to El Paso County, Palmer Lake to El Paso County. Nothing about the project has to change. It is called jurisdiction shopping, and it is how developers exploit the process so that citizens lose even when they win.

Hundreds of El Paso County residents have set aside their
lives for over a year to defend a place they love. To tell those constituents they must do it all again, because the developer simply changed jurisdictions, is not process. It is suppression by exhaustion.
The commissioners have the authority to honor what their constituents have already said. Persistence is not compatibility. Changing jurisdictions does not change the facts.

Laurel Schow

Monument

Dismantling the Forest Service

In the past three weeks alone, El Paso County has faced repeated wildfire emergencies: homes in Falcon near Curtis and Garrett Road were evacuated today, another grass fire near Outback View triggered evacuations last week, and the week prior a blaze along Highway 115 burned 7,385 acres and shut down the roadway. These incidents underscore what many scientists and land managers have been warning: Colorado is entering a historic drought and a potentially catastrophic fire season.

At the same time, the Trump administration is restructuring the U.S. Forest Service in ways that critics say could weaken the agency’s ability to respond to these escalating threats. According to these reports, the restructuring would close 57 of 77 research facilities and nine regional offices across 31 states. Nearly 6,000 employees left the agency in early 2025 due to job cuts and early retirements, and organizations such as The Wilderness Society have warned that the changes could trigger further loss of experienced personnel. Scientists have also raised concerns about shutting down research centers that support long term studies on wildfire behavior, drought, climate change, and endangered species.

El Paso County’s representative, Jeff Crank, has stated support for preserving public lands, yet he has not publicly addressed these reported cuts to the Forest Service.

Congress should fully fund a robust, year-round wildland firefighting workforce and block any funding for office closures or restructuring. These unprecedented wildfire conditions cannot be met with reduced staffing or the loss of critical scientific research. Firefighters and the communities they protect depend on accurate fire behavior models, long-term studies, and experienced personnel.

Those who share these concerns are urging Representative Crank to vote against dismantling the U.S. Forest Service.

Deana Kamm

Colorado Springs