Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Water Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community member raises water-diversion and retrofit concerns; staff corrects project cost and notes litigation
Summary
During public comment, a resident criticized a proposed groundwater diversion at CU South and later described problems with a city-provided air-source heat-pump water heater. Staff clarified a public figure for the South Boulder Creek flood project and said bonding is on hold while litigation continues.
A community member identified in the record as Lynn Segal used the meeting’s public-comment period to criticize a proposed groundwater-diversion project at CU South and to express broader concerns about water affordability and development. Segal said the diversion project was “$94,000,000” and warned it would deplete adjacent grassland groundwater and increase flood risk.
Segal’s remarks were followed later in the meeting during the CIP public-comment segment by additional remarks attributed to the same speaker about a city-provided energy retrofit (an air-source heat-pump hot-water heater). Segal said the device produced very cold hot water, was noisy and was unaffordable to maintain; she described the situation for herself as an affordability hardship.
Staff responded to the public-cost claim during the CIP discussion. Joe Tediichi, director of the Utilities Department, said the figure cited by the commenter was incorrect: in staff materials the South Boulder Creek flood project is shown at about $66,000,000, not $94,000,000, and he added that the project is currently the subject of litigation. Tediichi said that because litigation is unresolved, planned bonding for that project is on hold.
Meeting staff reminded speakers of the virtual-meeting rules and the three-minute public-comment limit; the technical host, Joanna Bloom, provided contact information for connectivity issues and the Q&A function was available for technical problems.
No formal board action was taken in response to the public comments; staff incorporated correction of the project-cost number into the CIP discussion and noted the litigation status as a constraint on bond timing.
