My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/11/2020
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2020
>
Agenda - Council - 02/11/2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 11:21:46 AM
Creation date
2/26/2020 11:00:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/11/2020
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
808
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5.02: Overview of Framework for Water Efficiency Grant Program <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the City of Ramsey has been <br />awarded $28,000 in grant funds through the Metropolitan Council's 2019-2022 Water Efficiency <br />Grant Program for use in a rebate program. As the name of the program implies, the purpose of <br />the grant is to implement water efficient technologies to reduce the demand on water supply. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that there are two primary financial requirements of the program. <br />First, the municipality must contribute 25 percent of the grant award, which equates to $9,340. <br />Second, that rebate recipients must also have a financial contribution. Other important eligibility <br />requirements include the rebate recipient being a municipal water customer, only applicable to <br />replacement devices, and the rebate is only applicable for the cost of the device and its installation, <br />excluding any owner labor costs. <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if there would be a provision in the application that would require <br />a 30-day waiting period once opened to the public. She stated that in searching smart sense <br />devices, there is a wide range of pricing available. She stated that requiring residents to only pay <br />tax is not a big commitment and asked if it would make more sense to require residents to pay an <br />additional amount (such as $20 or $25) to ensure that they are being smart with their purchases, <br />rather than the resident choosing higher priced items simply because this program is paying the <br />cost. <br />Chairperson Valentine stated that it an interesting question as there is a science to figuring out how <br />big the rebate should be in order to attract participants. He stated that his concern would be that if <br />the rebate is not enough, residents may not choose to participate. <br />Board Member Hiatt stated that he thought he read that there is a maximum rebate per device, <br />which is $200. <br />City Planner Anderson agreed that there is a wide range of prices and staff attempted to make the <br />program as attractive as possible but also creating the opportunity for as many residents to <br />participate as possible. He used the example of toilets, noting that there is a wide variety available <br />for $200 or less, while there is a wide variety available above $200. He stated that there would be <br />a device maximum of $200, with a household maximum of $500. He stated that this could also be <br />used as a pilot for the City to implement its own program in the future, if desired. <br />Board Member Hiatt stated that this money will greatly help with the cost for the devices, but the <br />homeowner would also be responsible for labor costs to install the new devices. He commented <br />that the $500 maximum per household would help to serve the intent desired by Councilmember <br />Musgrove. He noted that half of the City would not be eligible for the program as they are not <br />connected to municipal water services. He hoped that the City could also investigate options for <br />those residents that are not connected to City services in the future. <br />Board Member Fetterley stated that she would suspect that the majority of devices purchased will <br />be irrigation upgrades, which will cost significantly more than $200. She stated that this <br />information will all be distributed to the public and did not see the purpose of a waiting period as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.