Floating solar on Campfield Reservoir

Said she came with misconceptions and learned a lot; asked what happens to wildlife in the water and whether panels must be replaced in 25 years.

Supported the project, arguing contamination and safety risks have been addressed by food-grade HDPE floats, sealed panels, a binding removal obligation and a stopgate, and said the bigger risk is doing nothing amid coming cuts to safety-net programs.

Strongly opposed; argued microplastics and forever chemicals could contaminate drinking water, called the $2.8 million benefit just $4.50 per person per year, and urged installing solar on roofs and parking lots instead.

Passionately opposed; compared the risk to a water bottle left in a hot car, questioned whether treatment removes PFAS, and suggested siting on the Hudson instead.

Asked why residents didn't know about the project, saying she checks the city website regularly and never saw it, and that none of the seven people she told had heard of it.

Read a statement saying risks outweigh benefits: corrosion, aquatic impacts, fire risk, liability if the companies fold in 25 years, and wildlife displacement.

Questioned the open-water figure for both reservoirs, worried covering water would kill fish and algae, and asked whether the project could be moved to a roof instead.

Longtime resident opposed; noted outreach skipped ordinary residents, cited her husband's 9/11 illness as a cautionary tale, and noted Con Edison already offers low-income rebates.

Raised concerns about runoff from the reservoirs into a freshwater stream toward his property, especially with 30 townhouses planned nearby at Peekskill Views.

Asked about short-term construction runoff risks and how many households the 1.68 MW system would power.

A licensed journeyman plumber who strongly questioned why the city would risk its most precious commodity before exhausting rooftops and parking lots, and asked about cost overruns, bonds and small-reservoir capacity.