AgdaPkt 2005-06-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�,�. �� • City not looking at the big picture . • Generally a good approach — dcesn't promote further conservation � • People will use no matter what — differenriate heavy wasters and stretch tiers Approach 2 • Good for city financially — just spreads the costs. Is not equitable , • This may reduce incentives for conservation and that could drive costs up even more • This would be favored by big users • Pro rate based on basic costs — positive for economic growth Approach 3 • Adjustable base rates — higher rate for summer time • Idea good, but maybe combine with approach 1 • Shouldn't limit to upper 5, and don't mess with the lifeline charges • Helps conservation but may burden business Summary • Use approaches 1 and 3leave lifeline alone but start increases in all above tiers. Consider water rates when new developments are built GROUP E Approach 1 • Feels pretty equitable • The increase (25%) is too big • Businesses might pass their costs on to eustomers • People using more should pay more • Create an incentive to use less water (rebates, reduce fees) • Perhaps put a higher rate on remodels or new construction? Approach 2 • Don't like this approach • The increase is too large for lifeline customers � • There is no cost reduction for saving water • It does not support conservation • Not an equitable approach • Concerned that people on fixed income will not be able to afford Approach 3 • We could live with this approach • It is not entirely equitable — everyone should pay something . • Worst offenders pay more • Why isn't average user paying anything? • Large family households may be impacted Other comments • We would like to hear that there might be a rate increase rather than being told there would be one. Summary We would like to merge numbers 1 and 3 so that lifeline users pay a 1.6% increase, average user pays 8% increase and large lot pays 20% increase.