Laserfiche WebLink
171 for residents on their utility bills to reduce reliance as a whole, serving as a <br />172 sustainability issue. <br />173 <br />174 Chair Cihacek noted an option could be for the city to purchase in bulk number <br />175 water saving showerheads for distribution with a possible credit on customer utility <br />176 bills accordingly. However, Chair Cihacek questioned if the nominal cost of the <br />177 purchase and limited savings along with time for staff to administer such a program <br />178 was worth the effort, even though it addressed education and met multiple points <br />179 in the Plan. <br />180 AL <br />181 Member Seigler suggested getting more bang for the buck by using less water over <br />182 the summer versus shower heads. Member Seigler suggested focusing that effort <br />183 during the spring to address irrigation or lawn/garden watering as an educational <br />184 effort and addressing frequency, etc. opining that would have a much more <br />185 significant impact for the city's water usage. <br />186 <br />187 Mr. Culver referenced a program used by the City of Woodbury last summer, and <br />188 researched further by Mr. Sandstrom, for a pilot program using smarter irrigation <br />189 controllers that monitoredctual soil moisture in the ground and adjusted irrigation <br />190 systems accordingly. Mr. Culver admitted they were expensive to install and <br />191 difficult to maintain, yet could provide a quick benefit. Mr. Culver noted a less <br />192 costly and easier to maintain system would be irrigation sensors or controls that <br />193 could be managed via the Internet as weather forecasts were viewed, including <br />194 future rain projections and a history of rain to-date compared to programmed data <br />195 for yard needs depending on type and amount of lawn, and/or vegetable/flower <br />196 gardens. Mr. Culver advised that the system automatically adjusted how much <br />197 4water the irri tion system received and constantly adjusted the system <br />198 cordingly. <br />199 <br />200 the City oseville considered a similar pilot program, Mr. Culver suggested it <br />201 uld first focus on townhome associations to use controllers and see what kinds of <br />202 savings were realized before moving forward. However, Mr. Culver noted the need <br />203 to determine whether to do so from an educational standpoint or apply for grants <br />204 for res from other agencies interested in reducing water usage across the <br />205 metro' area. <br />206 <br />207 Discussion e sued related to kinds of programs or rebate options available, with <br />208 Mr. Sandstrom providing various examples (e.g. City of Eden Prairie); comparables <br />209 with other metropolitan communities operating their own treatment plants and <br />210 having their own wells and pumping water out of the ground and their more <br />211 significant and direct correlations than the City of Roseville using surface water <br />212 through St. Paul Regional Water Services. However, Mr. Culver noted there was <br />213 the big picture component simply dollars saved, which could provide incentive for <br />214 spending money out of their annual budget. <br />215 <br />Page 5 of 17 <br />