Loading...
Agenda 09/14/2010 Item #10C Agenda Item No. 10C September 14,2010 Page 1 of 24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to rescind the Administrative Stay of the requirement for Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers on fire service lines, and require retroactive implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010. OBJECTIVE: To protect public health, safety, and welfare. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) staff deems a lack of a CCWSD-approved backflow prevention device on fire service lines constitutes a serious health risk and recommends the requirement be reinstated retroactively to the date of the stay. CONSIDERATION: At the June 8, 2010, Board of County Commissioners (BCe) meeting direction for an administrative stay was implemented for the requirements for reduced pressure (RPZ) backflow preventers and line-size water meters on fire service lines. CCWSD staff was directed to have the requirements vetted through the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC). CCWSD staff scheduled to have the requirements placed on the agenda of the July 7, 2010, regularly scheduled DSAC meeting. CCWSD staff was advised on July 6,2010, that the meeting was rescheduled to July 21,2010, since the required public notice was not appropriately provided. At the July 21,2010, DSAC meeting, the Utilities RPZ Development Services Advisory Sub-committee was created. CCWSD staff participated in the Utilities RPZ Development Services Advisory Sub-Committee in its three meetings to date; August 13, 2010, August 19, 2010, and August 27, 2010. The sub-committee presented its recommendations at the full DSAC meeting on September 1, 2010. At the July 27, 2010, BCC meeting, CCWSD staff was directed to bring this item back to the BCe's first meeting in September 2010. Ordinance 2004-31, the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, incorporates the Utilities Standards Manual into the Ordinance. The Utilities Standards Manual requires RPZ backflow preventers on fire service lines. The CCWSD cannot control what a private owner does behind the service connection. Due to the possibility of cross-connections with unknown uses or other sources of potable and non-potable water, the CCWSD has to consider fire service lines high hazard connections. A cross-connection is any connection between the potable (drinking) water supply and any other source of water that has the potential to contaminate the drinking water supply through a process known as backflow. Backflow is a reversal of the flow of water through a cross-connection, pulling undesirable water into the drinking water supply system. There are two types of backflow, backpressure and backsiphonage. Backpressure is when the private property pressure is greater than the public main pressure of the drinking water supply system. The causes of backpressure can be an increase in the private property pressure caused by pumps or a reduction of supply pressure caused by water main flushing, main breaks, or fire fighting. Backsiphonage is when a negative pressure, or vacuum, occurs. The causes can be a stoppage of water supply due to nearby fire fighting or a large break in a water main. CCWSD staff has discovered non-potable water irrigation systems directly connected to dedicated fire lines behind the service connection on private property. To protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, a RPZ backflow preventer is needed. The RPZ backflow preventer protects the potable water Executive Summary Fire Service Lines Page 2 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14,2010 Page 2 of 24 system from the reversal of flow of high hazards on the customer's side of the service connection. The RPZ is the most effective backflow preventer on a pressurized line. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On September 1, 2010, the DSAC reviewed the issue of installation of RPZs on fIre lines and passed a motion to request that the Board of County Commissioners direct the Public Utilities Division to remove all references for the requirement of RPZs (in lieu of Double Check Valve Assemblies) on fIre lines in all existing county ordinances. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient - JBW. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This requirement is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex-officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, · rescind the Administrative Stay of the requirement for Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers on Fire Service Lines; and, · require retroactive implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010. PREPARED BY: Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager, Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Department. Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 Page 3 of 24 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 10C Recommendation to rescind the Administrative Stay of the requirements for Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers on fire service lines, and require retroactive implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator) 9/14/20109:00:00 AM Meeting Date: Prepared By Nathan Beals Project Manager, Associate Date Public Utilities Division Public Utilities Engineering 8/26/201010:16:31 AM Approved By Nathan Beals Project Manager, Associate Date Public Utilities Division Public Utilities Engineering 8/26/201010:18 AM Approved By Aaron Cromer Project Manager, Principal Date Public Utilities Engineering 8/26/20103:20 PM Approved By Thomas Wides Director - Operations Support - PUD Date Public Utilities Division Utilities Finance Operations 8/27/20108:00 AM Approved By Pamela Libby Manager - Operations-WaterlWW Date Public Utilities Division Water 8/27/20108:27 AM Approved By Paul Mattausch Director - Water Date Public Utilities Division Water 8/27/20108:59 AM Approved By Jennifer White Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney 8/27/201011:41 AM Approved By James W. Delony Public Utilities Division Administrator Date Public Utilities Division Public Utilities Division 8/30/20108:26 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date 8/31/201010:48 AM Approved By Randy Greenwald Office of Management & Budget Management/Budget Analyst Date Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 Page 4 of 24 Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. County Managers Office Office of Management & Budget 9/2/20108:47 AM County Manager Date County Managers Office 9/7/20104:11 PM Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, fdPf)5 of 24 Item #9B DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISED UTILITIES ORDINANCE 2008-32, SECTION 4, RESOLUTION 2009-224 REGARDING ADDING METERS ON BUILDING FIRE LINES AND THE EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE ON THE INDUSTRY - MOTION PROVIDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY ON FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION, AFTER APPROPRIATE VETTING, STAFF TO PROVIDE A DETAILED REPORT AND BRING ITEM BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING- APPROVED MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9B is an item to discuss the Revised Utilities Ordinance 2008-32, Section 4, Resolution 2009-224 regarding adding meters on building fire lines and the net effect this will have on the industry. This item is placed on the agenda by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, the attached correspondence from Community Development Advisory Committee, and some backup material -- and of course, you did receive some material from Kathleen Curatolo, who's the Executive Director of CBIA, with the cost analysis of implementing the fire sprinkler metered -- a second meter for commercial properties is very expensive, and I would like the board to repeal that legislation, that policy, in an upcoming future agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, however, on the table. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm pretty much thinking -- if I could just ask a question first, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. Page 29 --~----------_. -..--.-----.----.--.---...- -.. Agenda Item No.1 OC September 14, 2010 June 8, fdrtl6 of 24 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Y ou're talking about bringing it back for reconsideration; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Bring it back to repeal that legislation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, reconsideration to repeal it. You can't repeal it at this point in time. We have to have a report. I just want to make sure I understood. I second your motion, because this is coming back for consideration. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- we're bringing it back for repealing it. At that time the board has to vote on it. At that time we'll probably have debate. I think we're saying the same thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we are. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're saying the same thing. If the board wishes, we'll bring back an ordinance basically repealing the change at a future meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Does staffhave any report? MR.OCHS: We would like to make a report at the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let that be the next meeting then if we're going to be reconsidering it. If we have the next meeting, are we obligated to rescind it? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It will be a board vote. I mean, you'll have all the information in a full executive summary. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then bringing it back for reconsideration is the proper thing to do. And if you want to make a report, we can have the DSAC here to make a report, we can have the CBIA here to make a report, and we can make a decision; is that right? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that -- - Page 30 -'-'~.;:"""_---~",__.~", Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, 251~ 7 of 24 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine, hut also in that information, I want a little bit more complete information about loss of water, where the source is, how much has been saved since this new policy's been implemented. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the source of the data, where it's coming from. MR.OCHS: Very good. MR. KLA TZKOW: And just for clarification, what weIll be bringing back is the entire issue before the board, then the board can direct us to advertise the ordinance for a change. I don't have enough time to advertise the completion now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe -- I believe the policy was through a resolution. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it was an ordinance change, too. There's also a resolution you'll have to look at and decide whether or not you want to rescind that resolution as well. But we'll bring -- we'll bring the full issue toward you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a few items. I did want to hear from the speakers, but one of the things I wanted to make sure was that, when we bring it back, it's properly vetted. I got a letter here from CBIA, and they said it had never even been discussed with the industry, fire districts, or DSAC. And so I wanted to make sure that that was carried through before it's brought back to us so we hear their comments and their input, and then -- and with regard to cost versus benefit, that's an important thing as well. And then in the items that I received from staff, it was interesting. It repeated here over and over again that the reason they're doing this is to ensure that all water used for testing or Page 3 1 -' --------.- . '_._,....._------~_._... -""----_...~......'"...._...,-...--.... ...~. ~..___-"O._....... ____. Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, 26f~ 8 of 24 consumed through illegal connections is paid for by the entity benefiting from the usage. Well, if it's -- if they're going to charge the people who are illegally connected, how do they know who it is, you know, to charge them, or does the person who has the connection on their property get to pay for it because somebody else is illegally connected to it? You know, that left me very, very cold. And it mentioned that a couple times, and I wanted to make sure we determine who actually gets paid, the people who are illegally using the -- I mean, who actually pays, the people using the water illegally or the guy who's stuck with the water bill? Then the next thing is, it was a requirement that was disc~ssed at a meeting, and all that -- in attendance. Now, this is -- they were talking about, snuff this requirement under the radar. And it said, all in attendance understood the reasoning. Well, who was in attendance? Many times we see a public information meeting held and two people are there. Is that how many people were all in attendance? I wanted to get more information on that. And let's see. There was one other thing here, and I'm afraid I'm not going to get to it quickly enough. Well, that was the same thing again, the same with the illegal collection. So thank you. As long as we're discussing it, I wanted to make sure that's on the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- there are only two speakers, right? MR. MITCHELL: No, there are five speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five speakers. Who are the five speakers? MR. MITCHELL: There's Jack Pointer, Roy Marchett, David Aldrich, Bill Varian, and Bobby Dimodica. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do any of the five speakers have any objection to the action we're prepared to take right now, which is to - Page 32 -~___'___~~~M"..__'_.',~_,~.__.. . Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, td~'b9 of 24 bring this back and review it in detail with the objective of making sure it's fair or eliminating this requirement entirely, or you all wanted to speak here as well as next time? MR. ALDRICH: I would just have a request to -- if possible. The ordinance and the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please state your name. MR. ALDRICH: Oh. David Aldrich, Collier Industry Association. We would like to see this to be -- have an administrative stay on it until the vetting is completed, if that is at all possible. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney? ' MR. KLATZKOW: Well, with board direction, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm not sure what we're staying though, but CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, staying the enforcement of this particular provision, I would presume. MR. ALDRICH: It would be the portion of the ordinance dealing with RPZs, reduced pressure zones, and the resolution that was passed -- I'm not sure the date on that -- regarding the fire meters. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. ALDRICH: Those are the two issues. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, would your motion provide for staying those two provisions of the ordinance in the resolution? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, I think it's appropriate at this time to make a stay on it but also, more importantly, Commissioner Fiala did make a good point, making sure this is publicly vetted through the fire departments and the building industry . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second agreed. Page 33 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, i(}fdo of 24 CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Now, is there anyone who is registered to speak here who objects to us doing that, or do you want to speak now? I don't see anybody-- MR. VARIAN: If I could. , CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do the others waive? Okay. Jack waives, David waives. Okay. MR. VARIAN: Real quick. For the record, Bill Varian. I'm Chairman of DSAC. As part of this -- I'm glad to see it come back. We are the one who sent one of the letters in. Possibly, if it needs to be vetted or discussed before it comes back to you guys, some sort of staff direction, if it's DSAC that's going to put a small subcommittee together, if you could do that for us, that helps from DSAC point of view. And again, we'll be glad to do whatever you guys would like us, to help this situation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think it's -- yes, you're right, Bill. I think that the commissioners who are supportive of bringing it back understand it should be vetted properly before it comes back to us. There is no reason for it to come back here unless it is vetted through the appropriate advisory committees. MR. VARIAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So with that said, Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything else, or is that from last time? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. He just added the parts that I was concerned about. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have the motion by Commissioner Henning. It's seconded by Commissioner Coletta. MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR.OCHS: Just before you take the vote. A point of clarification then for staff direction, is it appropriate then, or the board's will, that we work through the DSAC, and then the DSAC will collaborate with their other industry partners so we'll have one vetting Page 34 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 June 8, ~t)Jr61 of 24 through the DSAC before we bring this back to the board? CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be acceptable to me. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I guess the others. MR.OCHS: Very good, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we need to get the questions answered that Commissioner Fiala has brought up and Commissioner Henning has brought up. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And it must be properly vetted. MR.OCHS: Yes. But she mentioned CBIA and the fire groups. If they can work in collaboration through DSAC then, that would, I think, -make it more expeditious for us to get this back to the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Very well. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. That brings us to 9C. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2010-117: APPOINTING RONALD GILMER GILBERT TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9C, sir. It's an appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. Page 35 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27_2R:e210fb24 signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's done. Now we have one more time certain. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's a time certain for what, 3:30? MR. OCHS: It's a four o'clock time certain. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four o'clock, okay. MR.OCHS: So we're losing ground. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're early. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, we're early. It's only 3:30. Item #lOE RECOMMENDATION TO RESCIND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTERS ON FIRE SERVICE LINES, AND REQUIRE RETROACTIVE IMPLEMENT A TION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO JUNE 8, 20l0-MOTION TO CONTINUE UNTIL AFTER DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND BY THE FIRST BCC MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, 2010 - APPROVED MR. OCHS: This is Item 10E. It's a recommendation to rescind the administrative stay of the requirement for reduced pressure backflow preventers on fire service lines and required a retroactive Page 219 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-tg;2b1'624 implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, before we get into a big presentation on this one, these seem to be very lengthy, these presentations. I would like DSAC's recommendations prior to the , board making this decision. That's what we had directed. We don't have their recommendations, so I'm going to make a motion to continue this item. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a problem with this. I'd like to hear staffs side of the story on this. I believe when this came before the commission-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, can we take that conversation outside back here? I can't hear Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that came before the Board of County Commissioners on July -- or June 8th or 9th, whatever it was. And I don't believe staff got their fair time to go __ give us a presentation on what we -- what has been found in the community, and I believe that we need to give staff equal time to come forward and give a quick presentation on some of the problems that have been found in the community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe they are due their ample time after we get DSAC's recommendation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- and I tend to agree. And let me __ let me ask staff. There are two issues here. One is the metering of the fire water supply and the other is the backtlow preventers. MR. MATTAUSCH: You understand that absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, do we have -- we've got-- we've got some people represented here. Do we have someone who can speak for the DSAC? Okay. And your name? MR. HURST: David Hurst. CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, could you come up to the Page 220 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27 -2g;2bY624 microphone, please? MR. HURST: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to -- want to ask you -- well, first I want to ask Paul Mattausch. Have you agreed to postpone the metering of the fire water? Fire water. That sounds like something you drink, right? MR.OCHS: That's right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need some about now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I need some fire water. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. For the record, Paul Mattausch, the director of the Water Department. . CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you've agreed to postpone that issue? MR. MATTAUSCH: We have agreed to postpone the fire water. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So your issue is only with the backflow preventers. MR. MATTAUSCH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is your concern about backflow preventers? MR. HURST: For the record, David Hurst, WilsonMiller, stand (sic) tech, representing DSAC. DSAC's contention is that we didn't have enough time to review this, this latest report. Essentially -- and I can give you a quick timeline. On July 21st, approximately four hours prior to our three o'clock meeting, we received a report from public utilities dated July 6th in which it supported their request to rescind the Board of County Commissioners' administrative stay of the reduced pressure assembly. And it gave us four hours to review the report before we met with public utilities at the DSAC meeting. At the meeting we didn't feel -- trying to kick it around, we didn't feel like we had enough discussion to where we felt like this item had been properly vetted, not only with DSAC, but with local fire districts Page 221 Agenda Item No.1 OC September 14, 2010 July 27 -2S;~1d f(i4 as well as the industry. To that end, I was requested to propose a motion to the board from DSAC with the recommendation. And if you'd like to hear it, I can go ahead and read that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's all right. I understand. You were -- you just were looking for some more time -- MR. HURST: Yes, sir 90 days. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to do the evaluation? MR. HURST: And to set up a subcommittee, which we have already established. And I think the first date is August 13th. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, our Water Department's concern is that backflow preventers are a safety measure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Health, safety. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's sort of critical that we make some decisions with respect to that. And if we improperly extend that decision and something happens and somebody gets sick as a result of unintended -- or backflow, then we could be liable. So, now, what I don't understand is, why does it take 90 days for you to develop a position on backflow preventers? MR. HURST: Well, if I might be clear. There seems to be an impression that there is no backflow prevention in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, well -- MR. HURST: The current standard that Collier County uses is compliant with A WW A requirements as well as Florida Administrative Code. It's a double detector check assembly on dedicated fire lines. That's the standard. It's working. The other fact I'd like to point out is, if we have a problem tomorrow and this gets approved today, the current ruling would not affect the existing system because it's in the future. It's not retroactive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, yeah. MR. HURST: So what we're talking about is asking for a specific period of time to evaluate it with the industry and the fire Page 222 Agenda Item No.1 OC September 14, 2010 July 27-2~e2By(f4 districts, who are supportive, I might add. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who -- why can't you get it done in less than 90 days though? MR. HURST: Ninety days was just the amount of time that we agreed on. You know, if the board were to direct us to do it sooner, you know, we'd do everything in our power to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would -- I would think we should be able to get this resolved and back to the board the first meeting in September for us. MR. HURST: Okay. CHAIRMAN CO~E: I don't know why it would take longer (, than that. MR. HURST: Well, currently what we're looking at is a subcommittee of approximately 11 people, and that consists of people from the industry as well as county staft: as well as DSAC as well as the fire district. So in some sense it's herding cats. But, again, we would do everything we can to expedite that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that at one time DSAC had a subcommittee for this, and they said, well, this is not really in our purview. We're just going to drop it. And I believe the water department tried to get some stimulation from DSAC to help them in regards to addressing this particular issue. And it's my understanding that you haven't been forthright in making sure that those problems were addressed as -- am I pretty much on the paper here? MR. HURST: I'm not quite sure I follow you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Paul, haven't you made some gestures for -- to get DSAC to make some -- to get together to come up with some proposals? MR. MATTAUSCH: DSAC, back in 2006, decided to disband the subcommittee that was -- the utility code subcommittee because Page 223 Agenda Item No. 1 DC September 14, 2010 July 27-28;~{)flt4 the members of the DSAC didn't have time to do that. We requested that they continue that subcommittee, and it was determined at the following meeting that they would disband the committee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have you made any overtures to them in regards to trying to get someone to work with you in regards to addressing this issue? MR. MATT A USCH: We -- we prepare a report to them on a monthly basis, and so a lot of these issues do get reported to them. A couple of the members of the DSAC have been on and off a quasi-subcommittee that we have continued because the utilities felt that was important. So at times there have been one or two members of DSAC on that committee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My final question is, this is a health, safety problem; is that correct? MR. MATTAUSCH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we (sic) need to do is get some clarification and get some agreement by the first meeting in September. Can that be done? MR. HURST: I will do everything I can. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got to make sure that we get this taken care of because backflow preventers are -- in regards to -- where people tap in, whether it's irrigation or whatever else, and that's into the drinking water supply, and that's the biggest problem I think that we're concerned about is making sure that we do not have a health, safety, welfare problem here with the water system, okay. MR. HURST: If I might expound on that a little bit. I don't think that we don't have a system in place to address that, and that's the concern is that we're leapfrogging into a requirement that's going to have other implications, cost implications down the road, and they haven't been properly vetted. There has been some discussion on it. There's some disagreement as to whether or not the county views Page 224 Agenda Item NO.1 OC September 14, 2010 July 27-2~e2aftf4 it as a no-impact proposal, and the truth is that to the industry there is an impact associated with it, and that's another reason why the fire districts are interested. And so that's why we feel it's properly vetted. As far as health, safety, welfare goes, this is, again, standard of the industries, A WW A approved, and also Florida Administrative Code approved, what is currently in place, not the RPZ requirement, which is also approved by those agencies but is also considered an upgrade. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MATT AUSCH: Addressing the first meeting in September, if you would place an administrative stay on the approval of any plans that would be submitted between now and then, in fact, from June 8th through that date that we can come back to you, we would be willing to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a part of my motion. Here we are in an economic crisis, and you want to make it worse? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How can -- explain how this could make it worse, Paul, or somebody, or maybe you could tell us how it would make it worse. MR. HURST: In general terms -- I think each project needs to be evaluated on its own merits. But in general terms the reduced pressure device has an additional pressure loss across the device that's not typically in place with the double detector check, which is currently a requirement. That additional pressure loss requires you to upsize the water main to get adequate pressure to the building. And potentially, depending on the length of the water main or the losses between point A and point B, you might require a fire pump where you normally wouldn't need one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. I'm under the -- I'm under -- the staff has briefed me on this that -- saying that we presently provide 40 PSI in the line. And my understanding, by Page 225 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-~~e28f(f4 researching this device, that the most that we would probably lose would be 5 PSI. MR. HURST: That's incorrect. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's incorrect? Okay. MR. HURST: It's 12 to 14 typically for an RPC. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that the state requirement is only 20 PSI. So what we've already done is double it. Now, I've -- maybe the information I got about the backflow valve was that it was only going to acquire (sic) an additional 5 PSI, which would take you down to 35. You're saying it takes us down to what, 14? MR. HURST: Yes. Well, let me back up. I think what you -- what your understanding is, it's 5 additional PSI to a double detector check, which is pretty much the case. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe provide 40 PSI and the state requirement is 20 -- MR. HURST: At the building. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- at the building. So what's -- MR. HURST: Right. You've -- you're now at 28, right out of the bat -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're still above the state requirement. MR. HURST: And you still -- you have 8 PSI to get from your backflow preventer to the building. And if you don't achieve that, then you have to put in a fire pump. I did a quick calculation based on, if we have 20 PSI at the building, assuming -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you've got 40 PSI to start with without a backflow. MR. HURST: That's at the tie-in point. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. HURST: You need 20 PSI at the building. If you have 20 PSI at the building and you need 7 PSI delivery for the sprinklers, Page 226 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-2rf,eiBftt4 what you end up with is -- I did the math. I think it was two stories. You get two stories without a fire pump. And then after that you need a fire pump with the current scenario, current system. One of the fire sprinklers that I spoke of, I think it was about four stories is what's required -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: What am I missing here? I thought we have the 40 PSI to start with. Can someone straighten me out on this? MR. MATT AUSCH: That's correct. There's 40 PSI -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did they lose 14-- MR. MATTAUSCH: -- minimum pressure by ordinance. The total head loss can be 14 to 15 PSI; however, the difference is, the difference is, we require right now a double-check detector assembly that has a head loss. We add, with the reduced pressure assembly, an additional three to 5 PSI depending on the size of the line and the flow required, yes, sir. So we still -- we still have more than the minimum 20 PSI. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So he's telling me we're dropping 14 PSI. You're telling me we're dropping how much? MR. MATTAUSCH: Fourteen to 15 total PSI. The difference, as I explained, the difference between what we currently require and the reduced pressure device that we are recommending that we put in, is 3 to 5 PSI additional beyond the detector check assembly. But we're still above -- because we provide 40 PSI, we're still well above the 20 PSI minimum pressure at the main that we have to maintain. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if there's no urgency, then why can't we give them time to discuss this, and -'- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? Page 227 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-2~~ ftt4 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I've been sitting here for a little while just -- just trying to put this all together. As far as it goes, you're saying it will require an additional pump to be able to hold the pressure where it is over and above the cost of the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's for fire. MR. HURST: It's based on some rough calculations, and that's assuming the additional 5 PSI drop. You convert that to feet; we're talking roughly 13 feet. That's one story of a building. So normally if you had the sprinkler requirement with a pump at three stories, you would now be down to two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you -- eventually you might have to add another pump to the whole thing, which is quite an expense, correct? MR. HURST: Well, effectively a building that wouldn't require a pump in the current sc.enario might require a pump in the future . scenarIO. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how many things -- how many items are standing out there right now that you -- that want approval to be able to go forward between now and when it would come back to us? Do you have any idea? MR. MATT AUSCH: We have been told that there is one that has currently been approved under these conditions, and I believe that there are two additional that have been submitted. That's the number that we got. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the cost of the backflow preventative item is like about $5,000; is that what I understood? MR. MATTAUSCH: The cost -- the cost of the current device that is that -- that is required is around $11,400. That's the current requirement under the old ordinance. The new ordinance adds -- adds somewhere around $700 to that. Page 228 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-2~eiofb24 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, they're already paying 5,000 for what? MR. MATT AUSCH: No. They're paying -- for the device currently, it's about 11,400. And for the reduced pressure device that we're asking them to insert -- and again, this is eight inch. This is __ you know, the prices are different. You have to make the comparison. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. MATT AUSCH: Currently, 11,400 for the current ordinance, and our recommendation, the cost is 12,400, so the cost is an additional $700. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Paul, the. reason we're doing this for health, safety, and welfare, I understand, so you don't get a back tlush going into the water lines that people drink. MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The water that might have been sitting stagnant for a long time. Is that a fairly common occurrence? Just trying to put this together in my mind. MR. MATT AUSCH: Every time we have a water main break __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. MATTAUSCH: -- we have a potential for backtlow. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But every time you have a water main break, you always put out a notice to boil water. MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct, that's correct. We put out a notice to boil water. But the potential is there to impact public health. We had, in the last 54 months, we've had 194 main breaks. We've had to issue 227 boil-water notices. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if every building had these devices on it, you wouldn't have to issue the boil-water notice if a main breaks? MR. MATTAUSCH: No, that's not correct. We would not create a backflow into the system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know something, it must be Page 229 Agenda Item No. 1 DC September 14, 2010 July 27-2ff,eidfb24 getting late because I'm having a hard time following this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why we said let's get them together and work it out, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: State the motion again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, state the motion again. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there were two other -- there were speakers representing the CBIA and also the fire sprinkler industry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're going to tell us to get together to work it out, right? You going to tell us anything more than that? Okay. Then you waive, right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So would you restate the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue until we get DSAC's recommendation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we want it back here for a decision by the board no later than the first meeting in September. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what you want. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll put that in my motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But can they do it by the first of __ CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who cares? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, no. They do it. If they don't do it, we'll do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. As long as -- that's why I asked if there was any urgency because __ COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he said they were going to Page 230 Agenda Item No. 10C September 14, 2010 July 27-2S;etd f{f4 work on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: He promised they were going to try to do what they could to get this thing moving. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. HURST: Our first meeting is scheduled for August 13th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's just a couple of weeks away. All right. So you can do a lot of work in that time. You can have a report for that meeting, and hopefully that meeting you could resolve it. Okay? . MR. HURST: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- one thing, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to catch a ride so I can fly. So thanks for your indulgence. I'll try to participate tomorrow. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We're -- how much more to -- well, we've got nine minutes. What do you want to do from that point in time? MR. OCHS : You want to do some of your appointments, get those out of the way, or are those controversial? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can probably do a lot of those Page 231