Boulder City Council approves major flood mitigation plan

May 18—Boulder City Council on Thursday evening voted to approve a major plan to mitigate flood risks at Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (UGT).

The UGT area has 759 buildings located in a 100-year floodplain, and the UGT Flood Mitigation Plan would remove 527 buildings from that floodplain through strategies such as encouraging stream connectivity, maintaining and enhancing natural drainageways.

According to a city memo, the flood mitigation plan was developed over several years with "extensive" community input and was assessed for its economic, environmental and social sustainability. Flood mapping for the plan was approved by City Council in 2015 and by FEMA in 2016. Community engagement on the project began in 2017. City staff presented the UGT Mitigation Plan to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on March 1, and the five board members unanimously recommended approving the plan.

Three fourth-grade students from Columbine Elementary gave a presentation on why they hoped Council would approve the proposal.

"I'm here ... to encourage you to vote yes for the city's new flood mitigation plan on Upper Goose Creek," said Gavin, the first speaker. "We know climate change is real and it's very important that we prepare for severe weather events in the city."

Another student, Angel, gave his remarks in Spanish, and an interpreter translated them. "This plan represents putting the community first," Angel said through the interpreter. "The communities that live in trailer parks, such as myself and other families, could be affected if we don't undertake the flood mitigations to protect us from floods."

But during a public hearing on the matter, numerous community members expressed frustration over the city's community outreach on this project and concerns about possible impacts on private property. Several said they and their neighbors didn't learn about the project until very recently.

"Plainly, the community engagement by the WRAB board and related utilities are perfunctory at best, and negligent at worst. This is not how it's done," said Devin Riker, a resident of the area.

Another resident, Aria Roth, said she and her husband moved into their home on Edgewood Drive in 2021 because of the home's backyard and natural surroundings, and said the plan would directly impact her property. She urged "clear and timely communication" about the next steps of the project and said property owners should be included in the project's design process.

Noting the number of complaints about a lack of communication from the city, Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wallach asked Joe Taddeucci, director of utilities, to speak about community engagement that had been done on the project. Taddeucci said that while the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the team's ability to do community engagement on projects across the city, community engagement on this project has been similar to other past projects in the city.

"I believe the team has provided opportunity" for the community to participate, Taddeucci said, adding that there had been mailings and other attempts at communication about the project. "These things can be easy to miss." A few community members in the audience shook their heads as he spoke.

Multiple residents also expressed concerns about possible harm to the environment. Dennis Bashline said, "You're talking about 200 trees that are gonna get chopped down that are huge. They could live 400 years. You're going to replace them with little twigs? What about the great horned owls that nest there? ... You guys need to really think about this."

Council members also had a number of questions on the project before the public hearing started. A city memo stated that funding for the project, if it passes, would come from fees collected for utility bills on behalf of the city's Stormwater and Flood Utility, but Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wallach questioned whether the project was a good use of money.

"Is there anything that might be more cost-efficient between $43 million plus the cost of easements and zero?" Wallach asked.

Taddeucci replied that he and his team had discussed doing 50-year or 25-year flood mitigation projects instead as a "potential compromise" to reduce impacts, but that work would still require the same equipment and level of ground disturbance.

"I don't see a partway solution that still gets us some benefit," Taddeucci said.

Nevertheless, council members voted 8-1 to move the project forward to its next phase: the design phase, which Taddeucci emphasized will provide more opportunities for public engagement. Only Wallach voted "no" on the project, purely because of community members' concerns about the lack of public communication.

"We're at such high risk of flooding, and we can't make the floodwater go elsewhere," said Council member Nicole Speer.

Council member Rachel Friend expressed a similar sentiment, saying, "This is about safety and protecting people from dying in the next flood."

In addition, Council discussed the possible rehabilitation of the former nurses' dormitory at the Academy of Mapleton Hill, but continued the hearing to a later date.

Council was also set to discuss the nonprofit grant program for the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Tax, but that item has been postponed until June 8.