4 ms·
> I think the billing needs to be a flat rate for everyone that is high enough to cover all water delivery costs, based on size of property, and then you get a
by TimTheTinker 8y ago
> I think the billing needs to be a flat rate for everyone that is high enough to cover all water delivery costs, based on size of property, and then you get a credit if your usage is below median for similar families/farms/industries and you get an equal surcharge if you're above that.
Based on your anecdote, it sounds like it also ought to factor in (i.e. raise/lower the threshold based on) the number of residents at the property. Of course, that would introduce extra complexity in calculating the median, but I’m sure the formula’s derivation is straightforward given property, residence, and usage data.
Great ideas!
- jedberg 8y agoThe system would have to account for both property size and number of people. Maybe only count non-built land plus people, so folks who have townhouses with no yards pay less than a SFH with a huge lawn.
- maxerickson 8y agoWhat's the logic of giving a discount for a big lawn?
- jedberg 8y agoOther way around. You pay more in the flat rate if you have a big lawn.
- hanniabu 8y agoProperty size should be irrelevant. It should just be based off usage.
- jedberg 8y agoSo you’re saying you want to give discounts to people who choose small houses with no years just because they have no yard? I can get behind that. That would encourage people to buy small properties which solves both the water and real estate problems.
- hanniabu 8y agoProperty type is irrelevant too, no reason to over complicated it. Just pay for his much water you're using, doesn't matter the purpose, use, location, property code, etc.