Laserfiche WebLink
the city talk about water conservation and how it was promoting it, Mr. Culver <br /> advised that staff would be seeking feedback from the City Council on what they <br /> would be comfortable pursuing or committing to and directing staff on what options <br /> they should explore, such as those outlined by Mr. Sandstrom. Mr. Culver stated <br /> that staff was seeking feedback from the PWETC to present or recommend to the <br /> City Council for possible implementation. As an example, Mr. Culver asked if the <br /> city should focus on education or explore a rebate program, funded either through <br /> grant or through the water utility rate structure to promote conservation. <br /> Further discussion included identifying the target residential household or <br /> commercial user; focus on residential users if appliance rebates; focus on <br /> commercial or higher density residential users; restrictions on lawn watering or <br /> rebates for water sense technology for irrigation systems. <br /> Specific to commercial water users, Chair Cihacek opined they could and would do <br /> a much better job in using their irrigation systems if there was a cost for them not <br /> using an irrigation management plan, including taking weather and precipitation <br /> into consideration. However, Chair Cihacek noted the need to review their <br /> management plans before offering any subsidization. <br /> Specific to residential users, Chair Cihacek expressed his interest in a rebate <br /> program once the cost was better defined; opining it was hard to consider a <br /> recommendation without knowing what specific rebate was considered and its <br /> long-term impact to the city's asset management program. <br /> From an infrastructure standpoint, Mr. Culver responded that it was difficult to <br /> realistically correlate water conservation and the use of less water with <br /> infrastructure savings. With the exception of less wear and tear on the pumps in <br /> booster stations or use of smaller pumps with reduced water usage, Mr. Culver <br /> reported it would require a significant reduction in water use to make any <br /> significant impacts to the cost of the city's infrastructure and its ongoing <br /> maintenance. Mr. Culver noted the city was still required to distribute water to <br /> every household and business within the community, with all pipes already in the <br /> ground and sized for a certain amount of use. Mr. Culver noted the only <br /> infrastructure savings would therefore be at the booster stations if the city wasn't <br /> pumping as much water daily, also impacting energy savings realized by the city <br /> for pumping a certain amount of water. <br /> Mr. Culver suggested while there may be some potential usage savings for residents <br /> long-term, the overall cost of water would only continue going up as it becomes a <br /> more valuable resource in the future and exponentially more restrictions are <br /> mandated on groundwater pumping. Obviously, Mr. Culver noted the less water a <br /> community used, the less money was spent, but with the current pricing structure, <br /> the city paid for the water it used and that cost was passed on by the city to its <br /> customers. However, Mr. Culver noted the interest in promoting long-term savings <br /> Page 4 of 17 <br />