Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Safety Cross Connection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village of Saint Charles adopts cross‑connection control program, hires vendor to handle testing
Summary
The Village Council approved a three‑year cross‑connection control program and accepted a proposal to contract testing and inspection services after staff said state rules require backflow device testing and the village lacks licensed plumbers to perform it.
The Village of Saint Charles Council voted to adopt a cross‑connection control program and accept a vendor proposal to carry out required backflow testing and inspections.
Council members approved the program after staff described the state'level requirements driving the change and explained that the village cannot itself perform the required backflow tests because those tests must be done by licensed plumbers. Village staff presented a three‑year program proposal that staff said would inventory, inspect and ensure testing of backflow prevention devices across the village.
The program presentation identified about 90 testable locations in the village and said the vendor would test roughly 30 devices per year under the proposed schedule. Staff said the testing interval varies by risk category: some high‑hazard accounts are tested annually while other devices are on a three‑year cycle. The presentation noted that many residential devices (for example, certain irrigation or pool hose connections) are not testable but would still be inspected for the presence of a device.
Thurston, a village staff member who led the item, described the village's constraint: "We can't be a percent compliant. We can halfway compliant because we're not licensed plumber. And we can't test backflow preventers." He also told the council the vendor helps with paperwork to meet state reporting requirements and that testing costs for businesses are typically about $100 per test, but the overall contract cost and the program total were not specified on the record.
Council members asked about residential inclusion, frequency and whether the vendor would bring its own technicians. The record shows staff saying the vendor (identified in meeting materials as H2O Compliance) prefers to work with local licensed plumbers and does not simply import an entire crew to perform all tests.
Council approved the cross‑connection control proposal by roll call vote. The action directs implementation according to the vendor proposal and local code language presented at the meeting.
The program was discussed alongside other water system work the village is planning for 2025, including lead/service line verification and Safe Routes to School sidewalk work; staff said the new program helps the village comply with state testing and reporting obligations.
Council and staff did not provide a single line‑item total for the three‑year contract during the discussion; the presentation referenced more detailed cost information in the proposal packet ("total cost on page 12") but the meeting transcript did not include that dollar amount.
