Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Water Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident voices concerns about water quality and priorities as council refers public water access plan to committee
Summary
A resident told the council R40‑25, the equitable public water access plan, is premature because many of the 120 proposed projects lack realistic short‑term feasibility and some access points suffer from water‑quality problems. The council later referred the plan to the Environmental Matters Committee for further review.
At the start of the general public comment period, Heidi Rothenhaus told the council she opposed adoption of the city’s equitable public water access plan (R40‑25) as drafted, saying staff had not adequately prioritized projects and that some proposed access sites have water‑quality or depth problems that make short‑term use unsafe or infeasible.
Rothenhaus said the plan lists more than 120 projects and assigns many to short‑term timelines despite what she described as incomplete evaluation of existing conditions. She cited Spa Creek testing and health‑department coliform measures, and noted the Truxton Park/children’s museum paddle access can be unsafe “about half the days as measured by the Spa Creek Conservancy.” She said stray current and depth issues at specific locations make immediate paddler access unrealistic without remediation and that staff had already applied for a DNR permit for a dock in places that, she argued, are not ready.
“Putting disadvantaged residents into dirty, unsafe water in the name of equity is not responsible or kind,” Rothenhaus said. She urged the council to delay adoption and to require prioritization tied to feasible remediation and clearer cost and grant strategies, given other maintenance needs across the park system and fiscal pressures related to the City Dock project.
Council action later in the meeting: the council voted to refer R40‑25, the equitable public water access plan, to the Environmental Matters Committee for further review (referral announced by Alderman Savage at first‑reader referrals). The referral moves technical review and prioritization back to committee before any final council adoption.
What’s next: Environmental Matters Committee will review staff analyses, water‑quality data, remediation needs and project prioritization. Commenters asked the city to include clear funding and timelines and to connect access planning with transportation options to nearby higher‑quality sites such as Quiet Waters Park for underserved neighborhoods.
