At an April 4 special meeting, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors voted to approve a proposal from Distribution System Resources Ltd. to inspect and service fire hydrants in the community.
PAWSD District Engineer/Manager Justin Ramsey opened the discussion of the proposal, explaining that the fire hydrant issue is a “big deal” and that the hydrants have not been tested in at least a decade.
He then outlined five options the district could pursue, including taking no action, which he commented is “probably not a good option based on what the public wants.”
“But, it is an option,” PAWSD board member Bill Hudson said.
Ramsey explained that the cons of this approach included that it would not alleviate the public’s “valid” concerns, but that it would have the benefit of not incurring any costs on the district.
The next option he presented was using existing PAWSD employees to test the hydrants, with the pros of this approach being that it would not cost the district any money and the cons being that “our guys are busy” and work would likely proceed slowly due to staff having large amounts of other tasks, like completing new connections or repairing previously frozen meters.
Ramsey then presented a third option of hiring two employees specifically to test hydrants, which he stated could likely accomplish the task of testing all hydrants in about 15 weeks, although they could not repair all nonfunctional hydrants in that time.
He explained that this would likely cost about $70,000 for salaries, a vehicle and other equipment.
Ramsey stated that he was concerned about if PAWSD could find staff to do this and mentioned a proposal from PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh to hire school teachers looking for summer work to complete the task.
He added that he had asked a contact of his who works in the school system to “ask around” and poll teachers about their interest in this.
However, he added that having staff is still a concern.
The fourth option Ramsey presented was using volunteers from other organizations, such as the Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) or the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA).
He noted that this would have the benefit of incurring no costs, but that he did not believe that the district would make much progress with that approach.
“These are volunteers,” Ramsey said. “Six o’clock in the morning, the alarm goes off and I can go turn on hydrants, for free, or I can go back to bed.”
He noted that he was also concerned about the potential that this approach would have a high likelihood of equipment being damaged due to volunteers being unfamiliar with testing procedures.
Ramsey added that scheduling and coordinating these volunteers would also be difficult.
Walsh asked whether testing done by professionals would also provide higher-quality feedback, which Ramsey confirmed.
Ramsey then presented his fifth and preferred option of hiring a third-party contractor to test the hydrants.
He explained that Distribution System Resources, the contractor PAWSD spoke to, could inspect and service the hydrants for $127,000 and could do it in 12 weeks, faster than the timeline PAWSD expected for a crew it would hire.
He explained that the company is “extremely knowledgeable” and could commit at least a two-man crew with the potential for more staff to work on the testing process, which would shorten the schedule.
He noted that the company is licensed and certified, and has its own vehicles and equipment for testing.
Hudson asked to hear cons other than the price.
Ramsey stated that the price is the only significant con.
Hudson commented that there would also be the con that this would not train anyone locally to perform testing.
Ramsey explained that he would want to have PAWSD staff create a schedule to test the hydrants regularly in the future, testing some portion of the hydrants each year.
He proposed that the schedule should be determined after this round of testing is done since the results would be informative in terms of how many hydrants are damaged and thus how often they would need inspection and repair.
Ramsey added that PAWSD could pursue a sixth option of hiring a contractor and its own crew, with the hydrants tested by PAWSD’s crew reducing the amount of testing the contractor would need to do, and thus the cost.
He stated that the contractor charges $111.25 per hydrant tested and that pursuing this option could help PAWSD determine how viable finding a crew in the future would be.
PAWSD board chairman Jim Smith then asked the board for a motion on one of these options.
Hudson asked to make a statement before a motion was made, which Smith accepted, commenting, “You always do.”
Hudson stated that he had a “really hard time” with PAWSD moving forward with hydrant testing without first meeting with the PFPD board.
He noted that he had already spoken to the fire chief and did not want to speak to him again, but that he did want to speak with the board.
He proposed that PAWSD try to hold a meeting with the PFPD board in the next week.
“I mean, I’m willing to get a no from them, but I don’t want to approve anything and have PAWSD be totally responsible for this when Glenn did research into who normally checks fire hydrants in the United States and it’s usually the fire department checking to make sure they work and the water district maintains them when they’re not working,” Hudson said. “I think that’s a very fair ask of their board and, again, I don’t want to meet with the chief, I want to meet with the board.”
PAWSD board member Gene Tautges commented that testing the hydrants would benefit Archuleta County and the PFPD, and proposed that PAWSD ask these organizations for monetary support to reduce PAWSD’s costs.
Walsh suggested that maintenance of fire hydrants is complex and involves cooperation between water and fire districts, and that both organizations being involved in testing would be reasonable.
Walsh stated that he believes that PAWSD should follow up with the PFPD board, although he noted that the fire chief is “very adamant that he does not want to get involved in this right now.”
He added, “I’m personally pretty adamant that somebody in this community show decisive leadership and I think that needs to be PAWSD, and they know, we know and we know that they know that if they say no, we are still going to do this,”
He added that the district could move both issues forward at once by establishing a hydrant testing program and then asking the PFPD to contribute.
“I completely agree, but I want to sit down with the board first,” Hudson said.
Tautges asked why the fire chief opposed being involved with hydrant testing.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer, who had also spoken with PFPD Chief Robert Bertram, stated that Bertram appeared to be concerned about manpower and to believe that hydrant testing is PAWSD’s responsibility.
Tautges noted that the PFPD just got a new income stream from impact fees, but added that he was unsure about the district’s current budget situation.
Smith proposed that PAWSD could charge the PFPD $500 every time it uses a hydrant if it declines to participate in hydrant testing.
“I’m not in favor of charging anybody anything,” Hudson said. “I would like to have a discussion.”
Smith asked Hudson to make a motion about his proposal to hold a joint meeting with the PFPD board prior to making a decision about hydrant testing.
Hudson did so, noting that PAWSD would likely move forward with testing even if the PFPD refuses to meet with PAWSD or to participate.
Walsh seconded the motion.
Tautges asked if Hudson would accept an amendment to also invite Archuleta County to this meeting.
“I can invite them, but if Archuleta County can’t come to it, I want the district to say no to us,” Hudson said.
Tautges seconded Hudson’s revised motion.
Walsh commented that he did not see why PAWSD could not move forward with hydrant testing and use this momentum when going to other districts to ask for their participation.
He added that he also did not want to delay testing since other communities are concerned about drought conditions and fire hydrant testing and all crews may already be taken if PAWSD delayed taking action.
“So, if we’re going to do it anyway, let’s simply demonstrate the leadership and then challenge the other districts, particularly the fire district,” Walsh said, adding that he does not see a natural fit with Archuleta County or the Town of Pagosa Springs in terms of encouraging them to contribute to the program.
He noted how impressed he was with the meeting with Distribution System Resources and wanted to hire it and potentially move forward its start date for hydrant testing.
Ramsey stated that he would not want to lose the opportunity to hire a contractor and that PAWSD could pursue hiring its own crew simultaneously.
Smith returned discussion back to Hudson’s motion, saying, “I will not vote for your motion.”
“Would you wait a week?” Hudson asked.
“No,” Smith replied. “No, no week. We can kick this down the road …”
Boehmer commented that he would also not support waiting a week as he feels that PAWSD would get the work done regardless of the PFPD’s cooperation and he did not see that “putting them under pressure before we make a vote on it is necessarily going to change the minds of any of those board members.”
He added that, while he likes Hudson’s idea of using local resources, he supports using professionals at this time since the hydrants have not been tested in 10 years and professionals will know how to test them without accidents occurring.
He added that he would support using local resources in the future.
Tautges asked whether the per-hydrant price for testing would change if the district reduced the number of hydrants tested, to which Ramsey replied that he believed it would not.
Tautges also noted that the isolation valves for the hydrants may not have been tested in more than 10 years since the PFPD only tested the hydrants and not the valves the last time it performed testing.
Ramsey noted that Distribution System Resources would test the isolation valves and upload information on testing into the PAWSD tracking system.
Hudson noted that Ramsey previously stated at an Archuleta County and Town of Pagosa Springs joint meeting that testing could not begin until May 1 due to the chance of water freezing and causing accidents.
“To say that you don’t want to wait one week at the beginning of April to ask the fire department when we’re gonna put out $130,000 that’s not in our budget and to say that we can’t wait one week to find out if we have to pay that whole $130,000 to me is bad fiscal policy,” Hudson said.
Boehmer noted that the district is going to “do it either way.”
“We’re going to do it either way,” Hudson said, “but saying you won’t wait a week to find out if we have to pay the whole $130,000 that we don’t have in our budget and we’re not going to start it until May, I have a really hard time understanding. Maybe you want to be heroes and show up as the heroes of the community, but that’s not what I want to do.”
Walsh interjected, asking Hudson to not “cartoon other board members.”
“I respect your position and I’m not turning you into some sort of cartoon character,” Walsh said. “I’m accepting what you’re saying and respecting it, so just show the same respect for other board members.”
Smith then called for a vote on Hudson’s motion, which garnered a vote from Hudson and subsequently failed.
He then called for another motion, with Boehmer moving to hire Distribution System Resources to test hydrants while continuing to work on using PAWSD employees to test hydrants when they are available prior to the contractor starting.
He noted that this would reduce the cost and that he felt testing should start on hydrants in the most-used areas.
Smith seconded the motion.
Hudson then asked if Boehmer would amend his motion to include having a meeting with the PFPD Board of Directors.
Following a brief discussion of whether to invite Archuleta County where Boehmer suggested that the county is willing to have its fire crews assist with hydrant testing if they are not needed for other tasks and the discussion would primarily be with the PFPD, the district voted to approve the amendment to the motion to ask to meet with the PFPD.
Tautges commented that he feels that it is in the district’s best interest to ensure that hydrant testing is done by professionals and that the district could ask others for financial support if they could not provide staff.
Boehmer pointed out that the Archuleta County fire crew has to address both wildland fires and any county business it is ordered to attend to before doing hydrant testing.
Hudson commented that he agreed with Tautges about wanting testing crews to be trained and about asking other districts for financial support.
In response to a question from Walsh, board members clarified that the motion up for consideration would include hiring Distribution System Resources for testing, directing staff to use staff or hire a local contractor to do additional testing and to hold a meeting with the PFPD board.
Ramsey raised the issue that, due to the cost being more than $100,000, hiring a hydrant testing contractor would likely have to go through a bidding process under Colorado statute.
However, he proposed that, working from consultation with the PAWSD attorney, the board should vote to declare the issue an emergency, which would allow the district to avoid the bidding process and move forward with hiring Distribution System Resources.
The board then unanimously voted to approve the motion from Boehmer to hire Distribution System Resources and take other actions related to hydrant testing.
Following this, Tautges moved to declare the hydrant testing issue an emergency.
The board unanimously approved Tautges’ motion.
Walsh concluded the discussion by noting the possibility of the cost being reduced by PAWSD staff also testing hydrants and reducing the number Distribution System Resources would have to test.
josh@pagosasun.com
