My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01-06-2020 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1996
>
01-06-2020 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2021 1:23:24 PM
Creation date
1/31/2020 4:11:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
01/06/2020
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />APPROVED <br /> 3 <br />Council Member Stoesz asked about water reuse, such as with developments that plan to 78 take irrigation water from surface water sources. Is that monitored? Mr. Johnson 79 <br />confirmed that the State Department of Health monitors that water as well. Council 80 <br />Member Stoesz asked if animal consumption (on farms) is monitored also and Mr. 81 <br />Johnson wasn’t familiar with that. 82 <br /> 83 Mayor Rafferty said that the Council will continue this discussion after the public 84 meeting at the end of the month. 85 <br />2. Irrigation Controller Grant (Regular Agenda Item) – Community 86 <br />Development Director Grochala and City Engineer Hankee noted their written report. 87 <br />Mr. Grochala remarked that the matter was postponed at the last Council meeting. Last 88 year the City received a grant from the Rice Creek Watershed District to replace irrigation 89 monitors/sensors in City parks. The sensors would work to reduce water consumption by 90 <br />50% annually. This project would assist in reducing consumption of water coming from 91 <br />the ground, serve as a good example of the City being proactive, and provide a modern 92 <br />system of monitoring certain elements of use. The grant provides up to 51% of the cost 93 <br />of a system up to the cost of $41,000. Staff has been working toward implementation 94 since last year. Funding for the City share of the cost (one half of $76,500) would come 95 from the City’s water utility. 96 <br />Council Member Stoesz said he has been following this project and he expected the cost 97 <br />would come in much lower. He has done more review and sees the costs are pretty clear; 98 <br />but he still has sticker shock. He asked if funding this cost would impact funds available 99 <br />for a treatment plant if that were a project in the future. Staff explained that this would 100 be funded from an operating account while the other (a treatment facility) would be trunk 101 funds. 102 <br />Council Member Ruhland asked about the cost of the water saved? Mr. Grochala said the 103 <br />savings would be about $16,000 annually assuming the fifty percent reduction. The 104 <br />payoff considering the cost of the system would be about 4.6 years. 105 <br />Council Member Stoesz said he still questions the need considering the cost. He noted 106 <br />that the City does have staff that could manually turn off irrigation when appropriate. 107 <br />Community Development Director Grochala added that the concept is something that 108 could be a model for the future and the community. 109 <br />The council and staff discussed the status of surface water reuse as part of addressing 110 <br />future water needs. 111 <br />Council Member Lyden noted that staff has pointed out the costs savings that cover the 112 <br />cost in 4.6 years; he wonders if cost savings go past that time? Staff said yes. 113
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.