Laserfiche WebLink
�.�- �� <br /> GROUP F <br /> Approach 1 <br /> • This is equitable every shares some pain. <br /> • Are lifeline customers adequately protected? <br /> • This approach promotes conservation in theory <br /> Approach 2 <br /> • Discourages conservation ' <br /> • Not equitable because the % impact differs so greatly <br /> • Is equitable because all pat the same <br /> • Bigger users are already penalized with the tier system. Don't want to penalize <br /> twice <br /> Approach 3 <br /> • Discourages gardening and landscaping. This shouldn't be penalized. <br /> • Many people will not receive any benefits of recycled water but will pay for the <br /> costs. <br /> Sumimary <br /> Our group favors option #2 because it is simple, straightforward, and easier to sell. <br /> There are some concems about the impact on life-line customers: offer waivers of the fee. <br /> Also, offer rebates for consumers who meet of go under their voluntary water targets (to <br /> promote conservation). #3 is our least favorite because it targe`ts only some users. The <br /> option would discourage landscaping and many people live in Redwood City so that <br /> they can have nice lawns. <br /> . Meeting facilitated and notes corrtpiled by the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Cente�. <br />