Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 02/10/2020

Home

Councilmember Musgrove stated that she does have questions but will wait until the studies are completed, as that information will most likely answer her questions. She asked if the City is looking to drill one additional well, or two, based on the City' s rate of growth. City Engineer Westby stated that in the latest update of the City's Comprehensive Water Systems Study, two wells are identified; one in 2023 and a second in 2028 or 2030. He stated that staff will talk with the consultant that completes the well siting study for the 2023 well to determine if additional work could be done in advance for the second well. Chairperson Valentine expressed appreciation to City Engineer Westby for attending the meeting and provided an update tonight. 5.02: Overview of Framework for Water Efficiency Grant Program City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the City of Ramsey has been awarded $28,000 in grant funds through the Metropolitan Council's 2019-2022 Water Efficiency Grant Program for use in a rebate program. As the name of the program implies, the purpose of the grant is to implement water efficient technologies to reduce the demand on water supply. City Planner Anderson stated that there are two primary financial requirements of the program. First, the municipality must contribute 25 percent of the grant award, which equates to $9,340. Second, that rebate recipients must also have a financial contribution. Other important eligibility requirements include the rebate recipient being a municipal water customer, only applicable to replacement devices, and the rebate is only applicable for the cost of the device and its installation, excluding any owner labor costs. Councilmember Musgrove asked if there would be a provision in the application that would require a 30-day waiting period once opened to the public. She stated that in searching smart devices, there is a wide range of pricing available. She stated that requiring residents to only pay tax is not a big commitment and asked if it would make more sense to require residents to pay an additional amount (such as $20 or $25) to ensure that they are being smart with their purchases, rather than the resident choosing higher priced items simply because this program is paying the cost. Chairperson Valentine stated that it is an interesting question as there is a science to figuring out how big the rebate should be in order to attract participants. He stated that his concern would be that if the rebate is not enough, residents may not choose to participate. Board Member Hiatt stated that he thought he read that there is a maximum rebate per device, which is $200. City Planner Anderson agreed that there is a wide range of prices and staff attempted to make the program as attractive as possible but also wanted to create the opportunity for as many residents to participate as possible. He used the example of toilets, noting that there is a wide variety available for $200 or less, while there is a wide variety available above $200. He stated that there would be a device maximum of $200, with a household maximum of $500. He stated that this could also be used as a pilot for the City to implement its own program in the future, if desired. Environmental Policy Board / January 13, 2020 Page 4 of 7