Laserfiche WebLink
�A 9 <br /> • 44% of office buildings are empty, so they aren't paying anything now <br /> Approach 3 <br /> • Would be attractive except that it is a disincentive to do business in RWC <br /> • Could be a disincentive for condos too <br /> • Punishes water wasters with high rates — helps with conservation at the high end <br /> • This would not have families paying substantially higher rates <br /> Other issues <br /> • Need a P12 approach <br /> • Punish water wasters <br /> • Get together with other cities to renegotiate with SFPUC .� <br /> • Have we s�ent time trying to cut costs? <br /> • Ask for help from govemor to audit the books of the provider agency <br /> • Multiple requests at public meetings that public health concerns are more <br /> important than infrastructure concems. People are paying for water that they <br /> don't want and perceive to be unhealthy. It is frustrating to pay for water that <br /> you believe to be substandard <br /> Summary <br /> • Differentiate residential inside use and residential outside use. Put a suxcharge <br /> on residential outdoor usage <br /> • We believe number 1 is the most equitable — otherwise small businesses are hit <br /> too hard or the small users too hard. Number 2 is out. <br /> GROUP C <br /> Approach 1 <br /> • We can live with a 3% increase across the board on basic service fee. <br /> • 25 o seems unfair to the first 10 — every bit makes a difference <br /> • After lifeline, 25% is livable <br /> • We would spread out the costs with other non-residential customers <br /> Approach 2 <br /> • Businesses will like this approach <br /> • This approach does not encourage conservation <br /> Approach 3 <br /> • Creative landscapes look nice <br /> • This is a more ethical and reasonable approach <br /> • Large users might let their landscaping die or change it <br /> • Businesses might pass their costs on to customers <br /> • We need to educate customers on conservation and recycled water <br /> Summary <br /> • We think number 1 is feasible — and that it strongly promotes equity (9 / 10) <br /> • We would reject option 2. <br /> • We think number 3 is accessible — it gets a score of 5/ 10 on equity, 8 on <br /> conservation, and 6 on economic developmei�t. <br /> GROUP D <br /> Approack� 1 <br /> • 25% sounds a bit high <br /> • Building more vs. conflict for example Glenborough <br />