Discussions of the distribution of liability for approving new projects when the amount of water available for firefighting does not meet the requirements of the fire code took center stage at the May 22 meeting of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors.
The discussion was multifaceted, covering requests for approvals and variances for projects by the Town of Pagosa Springs and Inter-Mountain Propane and potential changes to how PAWSD approves projects and engages with the Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) about fire flow requirements.
The meeting followed a period of rising tensions and conflicts between PAWSD and the PFPD over the PFPD’s willingness to allow projects where the fire flows available do not meet the standards in the district’s fire code and concerns from PAWSD about if allowing such projects to move forward would expose the district to future lawsuits.
At previous meetings, PAWSD board members raised concerns about how the district not receiving clear waivers of the fire flow requirements from the PFPD for projects with insufficient flows, which PAWSD board members and staff stated that PFPD was not providing, could open the district to liability if a building with insufficient fire flows were to burn.
Following an executive session called by the board to receive legal counsel on issues related to the PFPD and fire flows, public discussion of the topic began with Town of Pagosa Springs Development Director James Dickhoff presenting a request for expedited review of modeling and a mainline extension agreement for expanded fire lines and 13 new fire hydrants in downtown Pagosa Springs.
Dickhoff explained that the addition of the hydrants would address the “limited” number of fire hydrants downtown and would occur in coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) work on U.S. 160.
He explained that the town is investing $7.5 million into various improvements in the area of the project, including improvements to water and sewer lines downtown.
This work is a priority because it will be far more expensive after the construction is done, Dickhoff stated.
He explained that the town worked with the PFPD and PAWSD staff to plan the work and that the improvements would be part of the town’s contract with WW Clyde, who is also the CDOT contractor for the project.
WW Clyde is currently working on improvements and installing sewer lines on the 100 and 200 blocks of U.S. 160, and the paving on these blocks will likely begin in three or four weeks, Dickhoff explained.
The town project will involve installing a loop of water lines from near the bell tower at the junction of U.S. 160 and Lewis Street, along the 400 block of U.S. 160 in front of the businesses there and continuing up 4th Street to connect to a water line in the Lewis Street alley, he stated.
Three hydrants will be added in the area, according to Dickhoff, including one near the bell tower, one midway through the block and one near the 4th Street intersection.
Dickhoff explained that the need for water modeling for the project had only recently come to his attention and that Mike Davis of Davis Engineering, who is doing the engineering for the project, would submit the necessary information to PAWSD’s engineer, Steve Omer at Plummer and Associates.
The project would also add more hydrants in the 100 and 200 blocks, Dickhoff stated, and these would be placed with the goal of having a hydrant approximately every 500 feet, as required by the fire code for areas where hydrants are expected to produce less than 1,750 gallons per minute (gpm).
He indicated that hydrants in this area will likely produce about 1,000 gpm.
The exact placement of the hydrants will be dependent on locating areas where they will not conflict with other utilities being installed as part of the work on U.S. 160, Dickhoff stated.
Dickhoff outlined the approximate placement of the proposed hydrants, including one near the Humane Society Thrift Store, hydrants on the north and south sides of U.S. 160 in the middle of the block between 3rd and 2nd streets, hydrants on the north and south sides of U.S. 160 in the middle of the block between 2nd and 1st streets, and potentially a hydrant on the south side of U.S. 160 near 1st Street.
This project would cost about $1.4 million, Dickhoff explained, including hydrants and fire lines, and the Pagosa Springs Town Council has already approved funding the proposal.
He highlighted that the project would improve the availability of water for firefighting downtown, even if the water pressures at the hydrants do not meet the 1,750 gpm required by the fire code.
Dickhoff closed his presentation by noting that the project would likely be prohibitively expensive if it does not occur in concert with the CDOT project and stating that he had come to answer any questions or concerns the board might have about the proposal.
Davis, who was also at the meeting, then spoke, explaining that the modeling would not be needed in this situation to judge the project’s impact on everyday water demand since it would not alter demand and might actually improve the functioning of the downtown water system.
PFPD Fire Chief Robert Bertram commented that the project would have a “big impact” for the PFPD, increasing its capability to fight fires downtown by increasing its access to water.
He added that the district is “realistic” about the fact that making these hydrants reach the pressure standards of the fire code is likely not feasible.
Davis questioned if modeling would be necessary since the model would only provide information about water flow from the hydrants and the PFPD is likely not requiring that the hydrants meet flow standards.
PAWSD board chair Gene Tautges raised concerns about the fact that, if a fire occurs downtown, “somebody’s going to get sued.”
He commented that he would want the PFPD to waive the requirements for fire flow in writing to insulate PAWSD from liability for approving and serving projects with fire flow levels that do not meet the fire code requirements.
He characterized the issue as a “conundrum,” pointing out that the district must balance its responsibility to its customers to reduce liability and working with other groups in the community.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer echoed Tautges’ concerns about the district being sued for the insufficient fire flows if the requirements are not clearly waived.
Bertram commented that his priority is increasing access to water downtown and having the flow levels clearly identified to assist with maintenance.
He added that he would be willing to draft a letter accepting the flow levels at those hydrants.
The group then discussed if modeling would be necessary, with Davis and Bertram expressing that the model would be valuable, but that they were concerned about the modeling taking too long and delaying the work to the point that WW Clyde has already moved forward with paving and can no longer install the lines and hydrants.
Following a discussion of how fire hydrants impact the Insurance Services Office ratings for the community, Bertram stated that he approved the location of the proposed hydrants.
PAWSD Programs Manager Renee Lewis commented that the timeline of the process was the biggest issue for the proposal, and she and PAWSD District Engineer/Manager Justin Ramsey had discussed the issue and determined that the town could avoid the modeling process by maintaining ownership of the new lines and the hydrants connected to them instead of conveying them to PAWSD.
Ramsey added that this approach would also avoid the mainline extension request to PAWSD, which also requires board approval.
Tautges noted that, while it would be a “travesty” to miss the WW Clyde project, until that evening he had only seen a vague drawing from CDOT showing potential hydrant locations.
In response to a question from PAWSD board member Bill Hudson, Ramsey explained that PAWSD would normally do modeling on all the hydrant locations to assess how much water flow a hydrant would produce to ensure that the district can work with the developer on any upgrades needed to increase fire flows.
In the subsequent discussion of the project’s logistics, Davis, Ramsey and Dickhoff explained that WW Clyde would begin paving on the 100 and 200 blocks of U.S. 160 within three to five weeks and that Plummer and Associates would have to do the modeling, but this might be delayed depending on what staff the company has available.
Responding to a question from PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh, Ramsey noted that the district anecdotally believes that the currently existing hydrant in the 400 block of U.S. 160 produces about 1,000 gpm.
He added that he discussed flow testing this hydrant with WW Clyde and CDOT, but they were concerned about that due to the water potentially creating mud in the construction zone.
Davis commented that he believes that all the hydrants will likely flow at 1,000 gpm or more.
Ramsey explained that district staff would want direction from the board on how, if at all, it wishes to diverge from the normal approval process for this project.
He also outlined that the normal process includes modeling and the mainline extension request process being done prior to the project being approved.
After this, he stated, the project construction can move forward and, after it is complete, the developer transfers ownership of the infrastructure to PAWSD.
Walsh asked Ramsey for his recommendation on how to move forward.
He stated that, if the PFPD is willing to waive the fire flow requirements, he would be willing to forgo modeling, although the project would still need engineered plans.
He added that foregoing the mainline extension request process would be a board decision.
Davis commented that the engineered plans could likely be completed in the next week.
Hudson asked Bertram how quickly the PFPD could provide a letter releasing PAWSD from legal risk of approving a project that does not meet the fire code.
Bertram stated that he would have to speak with PFPD legal counsel Dino Ross to draw up a letter, which could likely be done in a week.
Ramsey noted that Ross knows PAWSD’s attorney, Marcus Lock, and suggested that the two attorneys could work together to expedite the process.
Walsh highlighted that this case could be a valuable test case for the process of addressing approvals with insufficient fire flows and clearly establishing lines of responsibility between the PFPD, PAWSD and other local governments.
Hudson proposed that the board could move to waive the modeling requirement contingent upon a letter from the PFPD approving the lower flow levels and immunizing PAWSD from responsibility for the flows.
Lewis noted that no letter would fully absolve PAWSD of liability.
She added that she would also have concerns about PAWSD being blamed for slowing down the CDOT project.
Lewis then reiterated that the town retaining ownership of the lines and hydrants would be the fastest way to move the project forward.
Dickhoff commented that this would be “complicated,” that portions of this project would benefit PAWSD and that the town is “not in the water business.”
Walsh proposed that the agreement between PAWSD, the PFPD and the town could use anecdotal evidence and tests of relevant currently existing hydrants to assess flow levels downtown in addition to the PFPD providing a statement of what flow levels it would find acceptable.
He added that the town could agree to upgrade the hydrants if the flows are lower than what the PFPD deems acceptable.
Dickhoff replied that the town would mark the hydrants as not meeting specifications and would not spend more money upgrading infrastructure for the hydrants in this case.
He added that the town is contributing $1.4 million to the project and that it also frequently accepts liability for new infrastructure, just as the PAWSD board was concerned about doing.
Walsh responded that he was not suggesting that the town retain ownership of the hydrant infrastructure.
He added that the town is “extremely meticulous” about how it accepts infrastructure and “it isn’t done the way we’re perhaps doing it today.”
He added that he would want assurances from the town that, if the hydrants produce water at an unacceptably low level once the project is completed, it would pay for the improvements in exchange for waiving the modeling and mainline extension requirements.
Walsh questioned how much risk the town wants PAWSD to assume.
Davis commented that he would focus on the PFPD and, if it is willing to accept the flow levels as is, he would accept that.
Walsh questioned what would happen if the PFPD changes its mind once the project is completed and the results are available.
Bertram commented that the modeling would have the advantage of ensuring that there is sufficient flow at all the proposed hydrants, but that he did not expect the flow levels to be too low at any of the hydrants.
Davis proposed that they could test the flow levels by testing flow at nearby hydrants, as Walsh had previously suggested.
Ramsey commented that he would have PAWSD staff go out and test relevant hydrants as a substitute for modeling.
Walsh summarized the discussion, stating that, if the district could do hydrant flow testing to give the PFPD assurances about the likely flow levels and the PFPD and PAWSD’s attorney could draft an agreement protecting PAWSD from liability, then the group would likely have a deal.
Hudson proposed that the PAWSD board should schedule a meeting to approve waiving the modeling and mainline extension processes as soon as PAWSD receives the plans from Davis and an agreement that both attorneys approve from the PFPD.
Walsh expressed approval for this idea, noting that the district would likely be dealing with many projects that do not meet fire code standards and that PAWSD, the PFPD and others would have to “work out a way to come to some agreements that protect everybody.”
Lewis thanked Dickhoff, Davis and Bertram for coming to the meeting and commented that the project is an “incredible opportunity.”
Dickhoff expressed his appreciation for PAWSD’s assistance and support with the project.
Lewis commented that she would work with Bertram to help put Ross and Lock in contact.
She added that Lock and the district also have concerns about the PFPD setting requirements for fire flow at the beginning of projects and being willing to accept lower flow levels later in a project without clear documentation.
Lewis noted that this issue was discussed in the executive session at the beginning of the meeting and that addressing it is a goal of PAWSD.
She commented that cooperating on addressing such issues with the PFPD would be ideal.
“Working together is much better,” she said.
Discussion of fire flows continued during a discussion of a petition for inclusion for a property owned by Inter-Mountain Propane located at 1061 Cloman Blvd.
As part of this inclusion, Tautges explained that the PFPD is requiring the company to install a new fire hydrant at the property with a flow rate of 1,750 gpm.
According to testing, flows at the nearest fire hydrant are 1,339 gpm, he added.
He also referenced a “kinda weird” letter from the PFPD fire marshal concerning the project, which states that the PFPD would accept the 1,339 gpm flows for the time being and would re-evaluate the project once the new hydrant is installed at the property.
Lewis explained that staff had concerns about the installation of the hydrants and about how the project would meet the flow requirements from the PFPD.
Ramsey added that PAWSD knows that the new hydrants will not meet the requirements the PFPD laid out and that the meaning of the letter from the fire marshal is unclear.
Walsh commented that he would be willing to follow the lead of the PFPD, “but the fire department has to give us the marching orders and not a kind of complicated, self contradictory, kind of gobbledygook letter.”
He added that, if the PFPD would issue a clear waiver of its requirements, then PAWSD could rely on its recommendations.
However, he commented that he would not be willing to vote for the inclusion of the property until the PFPD waives its standards.
Tautges expressed agreement with Walsh, adding that he would find it difficult to believe that the PFPD would not be willing to accept this level of flow.
Boehmer, Hudson and Walsh stated that they would want to see a letter from the PFPD prior to moving forward with the inclusion.
Lewis suggested that the issue was similar to the previous issues with the town’s hydrant project and that the issues could potentially be grouped as part of an effort to move forward with creating an acceptable process for the PFPD approving variances to the fire code.
Lewis asked if the board would be willing to consider approving the inclusion at the meeting to consider the town’s project if PAWSD receives a letter by that point.
Tautges asked if a delay in the inclusion process would significantly damage the project, with the Inter-Mountain Propane representative stating it would not.
Tautges emphasized that PAWSD needs to get written approval for variances from the PFPD, and Lewis stated that she felt that she had received the necessary staff direction from the board.
Boehmer commented that “Chief Bertram made it clear tonight that he wants to work together” and that he “could see this working out.”
Lewis added that she was “pleasantly surprised” about how the discussion went.
The discussion of fire flows closed with the PAWSD board approving a change to its operating procedures and a letter stating the need for approvals of variances to fire flow standards to come from the PFPD.
Prior to the unanimous vote to approve the changes, board members noted that these documents would be a valuable accompaniment to the increased cooperation with the PFPD and would supplement the efforts to create a standardized letter from the PFPD approving variances to fire flows.
On May 28, PAWSD announced that a meeting including consideration of the town hydrant project and Inter-Mountain Propane inclusion is scheduled for 5 p.m. on May 29.
The meeting will occur at the PAWSD administrative offices at 100 Lyn Ave. and virtually on Zoom.
More information is available at https://www.pawsd.org/district-business/public-meetings/.
josh@pagosasun.com
