Bill Murray served on the Colorado Springs City Council from 2015-2023. This opinion piece is in response to the Colorado Springs Utilities Board’s unanimous vote on May 20 to raise CEO Travas Deal’s pay from about $550,000 to $700,000 by next year.
This City Council, which is also the Colorado Springs Utilities Board, should be ashamed of how they treat ratepayers’ money.
The ratepayers are already facing multi‑year rate hikes, and cost‑of‑living pressures. There are delays with the roll out of the advanced metering system, a $5.35 million settlement against Springs Utilities related to its fiber buildout, and the potential expensive relocation of the Horizon power plant. And, a large executive raise during rising utility costs is tone‑deaf, fuels skepticism and erodes trust.
In addition, $700,000 is far above typical public‑sector salaries in Colorado Springs. Funds allocated to executive compensation would be better spent on infrastructure, wildfire mitigation, undergrounding, or customer‑facing improvements. I feel that the process moved too quickly and lacked broad public engagement. A phased, higher performance‑tied approach would have been more appropriate.
The Springs Utilities Board has unanimously approved a $150,000 raise for CEO Travas Deal, bringing his salary to $700,000 by 2027. The Board’s stated rationale is clear: they believe his pay was below market for comparable public‑power utility CEOs and that aligning it is necessary to retain leadership.
The Utilities Board approved the raise in two steps: May 2026: Salary increases from $550,014 to $625,000. December 2026: Salary increases again to $700,000 for 2027.
The raise also includes a six-month guaranteed severance if fired without cause (previously it was 3-6 months), and an annual adjustment starting in 2028 tied to general employee raises (so, if employees get a 3% raise, the CEO gets an additional $21,000).
The Board and CSU leadership offered several justifications:
- Market Alignment. Deal’s pay was ~20% below the 2025 median for CEOs of Large Public Power Council (LPPC) utilities, many of which oversee fewer services than CSU.
- Retention and stability. Competitive compensation prevents costly leadership turnover and maintains stability in a $2 billion, 2,000‑employee organization.
- Performance and strategic wins. Board members cited Deal’s work on extending the Ray Nixon coal plant closure to 2032, which they say will save millions of dollars.
- Minimal ratepayer impact. Board President Dave Donelson said the CEO’s salary accounts for $0.11/month on a typical bill, rising to $0.14/month after the raise – already budgeted, with no additional rate impact.
In real terms, it reduces the likelihood of new leadership because the cost of transferring power now starts at $350,000 – that’s the cost of Deal’s guaranteed six-months severance after his raise.
What exactly was the role of the CEO in extending the Ray Nixon plant? Why are there no performance-tied activities related to sustaining this pay increase? All the CEO has got to do is not get fired. A performance review is not a performance-tied activity. A performance review is on past performance. Deal ought to have to achieve more to get paid more.
It also takes resources that could be allocated to other areas within the utilities and transfers it to one salary. It will clearly build dissent and dissatisfaction within the workforce of the Utilities. After all, it is the workers who do the work!
The City Council has a unique role in balancing the requirements of our community as well as the welfare of Springs Utilities. I believe they failed both. There is no cost to Council for this decision. The cost will be borne by us, the rate payers, in current and future dollars.
Would a separately elected Utilities Board have performed better? I have reached a point where the answer is “yes.”
Opinion pieces reflect the opinions of the writer only.
