2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

126 the city talk about water conservation and how it was promoting it, Mr. Culver 127 advised that staff would be seeking feedback from the City Council on what they 128 would be comfortable pursuing or committing to and directing staff on what options 129 they should explore, such as those outlined by Mr. Sandstrom. Mr. Culver stated 130 that staff was seeking feedback from the PWETC to present or recommend to the 131 City Council for possible implementation. As an example, Mr. Culver asked if the 132 city should focus on education or explore a rebate program, funded either through 133 grant or through the water utility rate structure to promote conservation. 134 135 Further discussion included identifying the target residential household or 136 commercial user; focus on residential users if appliance rebates; focus on 137 commercial or higher density residential users; restrictions on lawn watering or 138 rebates for water sense technology for irrigation systems. 139 140 Specific to commercial water users, Chair Cihacek opined they could and would do 141 a much better job in using their irrigation systems if there was a cost for them not 142 using an irrigation management plan, including taking weather and precipitation 143 into consideration. However, Chair Cihacek noted the need to review their 144 management plans before fering any subsidization. 145 IW 146 Specific to residential users, Chair Cihacek expressed his interest in a rebate 147 program once the cost was better defined; opining it was hard to consider a 148 recommendation without knowing what specific rebate was considered and its 149 long-term impact to the city's asset management program. 150 151 From an infrastructure standpoint, Mr. Culver responded that it was difficult to 152 realistically correlate water conservation and the use of less water with 153 infrastructure savings. With the exception of less wear and tear on the pumps in 154 booster stations or use of smaller pumps with reduced water usage, Mr. Culver 155 reported it would require a signAWt reduction in water use to make any 156 significant impacts to the cost of the city's infrastructure and its ongoing 157 maintenance. Mr. Culver n d the city was still required to distribute water to 158 every household and business within the community, with all pipes already in the 159 ground and sized for a certain amount of use. Mr. Culver noted the only 160 infrastructure savings would therefore be at the booster stations if the city wasn't 161 pumping as much water daily, also impacting energy savings realized by the city 162 for pumping a certain amount of water. 163 qW 164 Mr. Culver suggested while there may be some potential usage savings for residents 165 long-term, the overall cost of water would only continue going up as it becomes a 166 more valuable resource in the future and exponentially more restrictions are 167 mandated on groundwater pumping. Obviously, Mr. Culver noted the less water a 168 community used, the less money was spent, but with the current pricing structure, 169 the city paid for the water it used and that cost was passed on by the city to its 170 customers. However, Mr. Culver noted the interest in promoting long-term savings Page 4 of 17