The adage goes, “You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.” 

The adage could have easily been referencing the Sedona City Council and its task ahead of modifying the current  wastewater rate system — one that many have called broken. 

For three hours on Wednesday, Jan. 29, Finance Director Cherie Wright and consultants Kevin Burnett and Pat Walker took the Sedona City Council through a wide range of options when moving forward with a new rate study, which is not to be confused with water rates. The city does not operate its own water company. 

The consultants were asked to update the wastewater study to provide a modi­fied water-based option, a flat rate option and an alternative capacity fee option to be chosen by City Council at a future meeting on a date not yet determined. 

At the end of the evening, council directed staff to expand some of its analyses. On the residential side, they want staff to expand the tiered, capped option to include adjusted or additional tiers between the current maximum tier of 6,000-plus gallons per month and the 18,000 gallon per month cap. On the non-residential side, they want to expand the water-based option with a variety of fixed-base fee options beyond the 40% choice. 

Staff pointed out early in the presenta­tion that no revenue increases are being proposed by the city based on current operations; no new debt is being antici­pated; and sales tax subsidy is proposed to decrease every year until debt is retired in 2026. 

Staff also stated that if a new rate plan is in place, certain segments of the population may see their monthly bills go down while others will see an increase. Just how much — either way — will be determined based upon the strategy chosen by council. 

“If my goal is to encourage conserva­tion, while recognizing this is a sewer usage fee and not a water fee, and I want to minimize the impact on residential customers, equity is a given because it will never be equitable to every user class no matter what it is we do,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. 

The consultants proposed two options for the base charges, a staff report states. The original option is based on a calcula­tion of the system fixed costs at 40% of the total costs. An alternative option is based on a calculation of the system fixed costs at 70% of the total costs. The higher base charge lowers the impact of the variable flow rate based on water usage for those customers who use the most water. Conversely, it increases costs for customers with lower water usage. 

According to the report, some of the concerns with the current structure that a water usage-based rate structure addresses include: 

• Equity of rates for restaurants. As discussed in previous meetings, restau­rant rates vary significantly depending on whether the rate is based on square footage or water usage. In addition, the current square footage rate does not consider hours of operation or types of restaurant such as take-out, sit down, fast food, etc. 
• Commercial properties with shared restrooms. Some commercial buildings are segregated as separate parcels for each unit. Under the current rate structure, each parcel is assessed at least the commercial minimum rate. 
• Equity of rates for residential proper­ties. Currently, residential properties fall into the following categories: Standard, low-flow, low-income and multi-family rate. This does not consider factors such as house size, number of occupants, part-time residents or short-term rental activity. 

In terms of trying to be equitable, Councilman Scott Jablow said he has a concern with the council being perceived as being anti-business if commercial rates were to dramatically increase. 

“If we kept this broken system as we have it now, we just leave it the way it is and do the rate increases in five years across the board,” Jablow said. “It’s abso­lutely not a perfect system at all but we don’t hear that many people complaining about the sewer bill. Yes, it’s broken but to shift the burden that much — I’d rather leave it the way it is.”