Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that this item was requested during the October <br />meeting to summarize the regulations for in ground irrigation systems. He advised that a permit <br />is required, regardless of whether it is for single family, multi-family or commercial/industrial, <br />and that the permit fee is $47.50 for a single family home and $60.50 for multi-family and <br />commercial/industrial properties. He explained that the permit covers the cost of one round-trip <br />inspection, along with the issuance of the permit and administrative costs that go along with it. <br />He advised that as of July 1, 2003, all new irrigation systems need to be equipped with rain <br />sensors per MN Statute 103G.298. He advised that newer technology is now available, such as <br />moisture sensors and that retrofitting a system with either rain sensors or moisture sensors would <br />not require a permit. He advised that during the inspection process the City checks to make sure <br />that the irrigation system is fitted with a back-flow prevention device. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that this item was on the agenda at the request of the <br />Board but also explained that Staff was hoping that this may lead into a broader discussion of <br />water conservation. He explained that the Board could look further into this item and <br />recommend items to the City Council, such as methods for conserving water. He thought this <br />item could be discussed further during Case # 3. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda advised that he would save his water conservation ideas for the Case # 3. <br /> <br />Case #2 <br /> <br />Citizen Group Summary Report on Open Space Referendum Research <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski stated that the feasibility study results were fairly favorable, outlining <br />several potential funding options. He advised that Embrace Open Space then conducted a public <br />opinion survey in the City in July and August of 2008. He advised that there was interest in <br />protecting certain areas in the City but that the sentiment was that due to current economic <br />conditions, now was not an appropriate time to consider any tax increase. He explained that <br />Embrace Open Space was not willing to publish the results of the survey at this time and stated <br />that that was their right to do so because they funded the project. He advised that the City may <br />choose to move forward on this when or at least reconsider this once the economy improves. <br /> <br />Board Member Max thought that the survey results could have been more favorable had it been <br />conducted sooner rather than later, but agreed that it may have been a blessing in disguise <br />because with the current economy the referendum probably would not have passed this past <br />November. <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />2009 Work Plan Discussion <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson advised that with the year coming to an end, the Board <br />should start to discuss items for inclusion in their 2009 work plan. He stated that the current year <br />had been a fairly active year for the Board, including the tree planting in Riverdale Park, the <br />revamped Environmental Expo and Tree Sale, and exploring open space referendum <br />possibilities. He advised of a few possible ideas for the Board to explore in 2009. He stated that <br />the Public Works Committee had requested that the EPB explore water conservation ideas and <br />advised that item would be added to the work plan. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda thought that it would be very beneficial to get the input of the newly <br />elected City Council in regard to the 2009 proposed work plan, once completed. He thought that <br />the tree planting should be added to the work plan as an annual item, as he enjoyed that project <br />Environmental Policy Board / December 1, 2008 <br />Page 2 of7 <br />