Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Safety Backflow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wasilla seeks options after letters to 269 customers about backflow preventer testing
Summary
City staff told council the cross-connection/backflow reporting program exists to meet state and federal requirements; council asked administration to return with cost estimates and options for assistance to affected businesses after concerns about testing costs.
City of Wasilla staff told the council Monday that a recently restarted backflow prevention reporting program identified roughly 269 water customers who may be required to maintain annual backflow-prevention testing. Council members and business owners raised cost concerns and asked the administration to return with cost estimates and options for financial assistance.
Public works director Eric Shaw said the backflow requirement has been in municipal code for decades but the city had not maintained a centralized record of tests. An Environmental Protection Agency inspection highlighted the absence of retained test records; municipal staff sent letters to customers to collect the data the city needs to maintain its public-water-system obligations.
Shaw said about 272 customers remained on the city’s outreach list after initial follow-up and that many fixtures are tested annually as part of fire department inspections. He said contractors certified to test and repair backflow devices are available in the Valley and Anchorage, and that initial data shows some users already meet testing requirements.
Why it matters: Cross-connection and backflow prevention protect the public water supply by preventing contaminants (for example, antifreeze in exterior fire systems or certain industrial fluids) from entering the distribution system. City staff said compliance is necessary to meet state and federal public-water-system regulations and to limit regulatory liability.
Costs and responses: Council members said some business owners reported testing or repair quotes of several hundred to thousands of dollars. Council member Graham said a property owner told him an engineer quoted about $10,000 for a repair if a device failed, and about $1,000 for initial testing. Several council members recommended the city collect concrete contractor quotes and return with options.
Finance and next steps: Cassie Allen, director of finance, confirmed the city could consider options but that the administration needs direction from council. Several council members suggested a one-time assistance program to reimburse or offset initial testing costs. Council member Graham proposed a one-time assistance cap of $250 per device and a budget envelope in the range of $300,000; he asked staff to present concrete cost scenarios. Finance Director Allen and Public Works Director Shaw agreed to return with cost estimates, potential program mechanics (for example, utility-bill credits or direct payment), and operational impact for administration.
Council direction: Rather than immediate enforcement, the council asked staff to return to a future meeting with more data — contractor cost estimates, counts of devices by type, administrative workload for any reimbursement program, and options for how to deliver assistance. Council did not adopt a funding program Monday.
Ending note: Staff said they will prepare a follow-up for the next available agenda with cost estimates and program options. Council members suggested the city consider ways to avoid burdensome one-time costs for businesses that previously received no annual notice.
