SEDONA, AZ — By Tommy Acosta…
Chapel area residents concerned over ever increasing sewer connection costs will have to wait at least another two months to find out if the city will grant them exemptions.

At the Feb. 11 special City Council meeting, members voted 5-2 to direct city staff to focus on the city’s sewer connection agreement and develop average connection costs for typical and difficult sewer connections within two months, so that the council could make a decision on how to or whether to grant hardship extensions for mandated sewer connections.

At the council’s Oct 28, 2008 meeting, staff was directed to revise the current Sedona City Chapter 13 “Wastewater” Code with an emphasis on provisions regarding exemptions from immediate connection and the capacity fee ($5,100) for Accessory Dwelling Units (private homes), as a way of alleviating financial hardship for those facing abnormal connection fees in difficult economic times.

At the Feb. 11 meeting, Sedona Director of Public Works Charles Mosley presented the council with a revision that would defer the capacity fee and allow a 10-year exemption for connections costing more than twice the capacity fee.

Where the capacity fee remains constant and has not significantly changed over time, the cost of connecting a home to a sewer line rose exponentially. In the Chapel area, where the inclines are steep and the ground is rocky, a complicated connection requiring trenching, grinding, laying lateral pipes, pumping, decommissioning the old septic system and replacing landscaping, can exceed $20,000.

Sedona City Attorney Mike Goimarac cautioned the council to bear in mind the city’s responsibility to maintain the safety and welfare of its citizens; and in making changes to allow exemptions, there had to be a “reasonable and rational” basis for doing so.

He also told the council any decision made to change the current code had to be fair to those hooking up to a sewer system.

“Rates are required to be just and reasonable,” he said. “The city may not discriminate between customers similarly situated.”

Chapel area residents pleaded with the council at the start of the meeting to stay the course on allowing exemptions for expensive connections that place undue financial hardship on those thus affected.

“Having to connect should be put on hold until the current economic situation improves,” Pat Howser said.

“It couldn’t be a worse time for people having to spend money to connect to a sewer system,” said Karen Schmitt, who purchased her home in the Chapel area in 1988 and will have to run a trench more than 100 feet to connect to the sewer line. “It’s terrible timing. It is the worst time you could have picked.”

Community activist Cole Greenberg, also a Chapel area resident, perceived a mandatory sewer connection as a cash cow for the city and no action would be forthcoming from the council to allow exemptions.

“The revenue is needed to feed the insatiable maw of the city,” he said. “I’m sad to say I am going to give up. There is no hope. No chance. It will be a mark on the City of Sedona. The city will not do the right thing.”

Sedona Mayor Rob Adams quantified the council’s dilemma.

“The issue is should we make exceptions or not,” he said. “How can we deal with it legally? Can a committee be set up to consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis?”

Mr. Goimarac suggested employing a hearing officer to do so who would consider only the cost of the connection as basis for granting exemptions.

His recommendation failed to gain traction, as questions as to who that person would be; and if the city could face legal repercussions should a homeowner disagree with a hearing officer’s decision, arose.

“We are talking about a hearing officer,” said Councilwoman Pud Colquitt. “Are we talking about a professional? An engineer? A staff person? Would there be an appeal process? Is the hearing officer representing the city?”

With the possibility this could cause the city legal expense, discussion on using a hearing officer to rule on exemptions was dropped.

Additional discussion was had on the city granting sewer connection loans to people experiencing financial hardships but that avenue was also abandoned when it became clear the city would be making loans for people to pay contractors. The present loan program for people to pay capacity fees remains viable because the city is, in essence, loaning people money to pay itself back.

Focusing on financial parameters for granting an exemption, the city attorney questioned the validity and legality of establishing a connection cost base of twice the capacity fee for an extension to be granted.

“If you have this ten year provision and the capacity fee is $5,100, twice the cost is $10,200” Mr. Goimarac said. “A typical connection costs between 10 and 15 thousand dollars. We are then allowing exceptions for typical connections.”

Councilman Cliff Hamilton asked staff what a typical connection cost is.

“Is $15,000 a high or low end connection cost,” he asked.

“We would have to look at it,” Mr. Mosley replied.

Councilman John Bradshaw suggested a study needed to be made to determine what low end, middle and high end connection costs are and to establish an average.

“A lot of time has been spent by staff re-writing the ordinance,” he said. “The problem is we are not sure what a typical connection cost is. We need to find a mid range — an average, and we can address Mike’s (city attorney) concerns on that. As long as we have this information we can make an educated decision.”

Councilwoman Nancy Scagnelli stressed the danger aging septic tanks can pose to the environment.

“An assumption we are making is hooking up to the sewer system is not beneficial to the health of the community,” she said.

Councilman Hamilton countered, stating technology for septic tanks has improved vastly over the years. He stressed the importance of providing exemption for those who cannot afford high connection fees.

“ADEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) gave us the flexibility and rationale for exemptions already,” he said. “We don’t have to force them to connect when we have on-site septic systems that are much better now. We did the right thing at the October 28 council meeting. We set up a clear and concise objective. We are talking about a lot of people who simply cannot afford that. To have this imposed on them with no reason to do it when we have flexibility, is not right.”

The motion to instruct city staff to bring back figures on average connection costs to the council in two months and revising the city’s connection agreement, was made by Councilman Hamilton and seconded by Councilman Bradshaw.

The motion passed 5-2, with Councilwomen Scagnelli and Colquitt voting against it.