Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boulder Farmstead Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones action on Boulder Farmstead water contract pending review
Summary
Councilors tabled consideration of a contract with Boulder Farmstead Water Company after public comment and internal questions about fee amounts, missing prior signed language from 2018, and whether the company's obligations were being paid for services the company already provides. The motion to accept the presented contract was withdrawn and staff were asked to return with the April draft for review.
The Boulder Town Council postponed action on a proposed service agreement with Boulder Farmstead Water Company after public commenters and council members raised questions about the document's provenance, payment terms and whether a multiyear term was appropriate.
Public commenters and town staff flagged several concerns. An online commenter said the contract signed on Oct. 20, 2025 might be invalid because the council had not had an opportunity to review it; the commenter noted earlier attorney advice that recommended annual renewals rather than a five-year obligation. Corey Johnston, the town's fire chief and maintenance person, said, "I do not think we should pay the water company to do a job that I believe is already their job to do," and described the town's prior experience with paying for hydrant records that did not materially improve the town's ISO insurance rating.
Steve Cox, who said he was mayor when the last agreement was signed, told the council it was reviewing a first draft rather than the final contract that had been executed in 2018 and urged postponement until the final signed contract and attorney input could be reviewed. During council discussion, Josh criticized apparent ex parte communications between council members and the water company, saying that the company had not engaged the council publicly about the matter.
A motion to accept the contract as presented was made and seconded, but the mover withdrew the motion to allow for further discussion. Councilmember John moved that the town disapprove the current draft and table the item until the January meetings; council members agreed to table the item and to restart discussions using the April draft that staff previously circulated as the basis for negotiations. Staff were asked to bring the most recent redline and the April draft to the next meeting so the incoming council can review and take action in January.
