The Reno City Council on Oct. 8 declined to adopt the proposed multi-year sewer user-fee increases and sent the item back to staff for further detail, after debate about construction-cost inflation, alternatives that would spread increases over different schedules, and outstanding cost and design work for the Advanced Purified Water Project.

Council and staff framed the discussion as a choice between covering a projected long-term gap in the sewer enterprise fund and delaying cost increases while staff completes final design and pricing work for APWF. John Flansberg, regional infrastructure administrator, told the council that without changes the sewer fund was projected to spend more than it receives and that the city faces near-term capital obligations totaling roughly $180 million over two to three years.

Flansberg said the city's standard approach — indexing rates to inflation — no longer alone covered rising construction and operations costs. He illustrated household impact, saying, “it's about $2 a day for your single-family home” and breaking that down: “When you flush the toilet, it's 2¢. A 10-minute shower is about 30¢. Dishwasher: 10¢ a load. Laundry: 21¢ a load.” He explained the main drivers of the gap were higher-than-expected construction inflation and large upcoming projects including dewatering building work and APWF.

Staff presented four rate alternatives: (1) a shorter, higher increase schedule (presented initially as two years of larger increases), (2) a simpler dollar-per-month increase across three years (for example, roughly $4/month in year one and cumulatively thereafter), (3) a four‑year spread with lower early-year increases, and (4) a scenario that removed APWF from the capital plan (a sensitivity test) and relied only on CPI increases. Flansberg said the sensitivity test still left the fund short about $9 million a year and would “spend down our cash reserves, and we don't get a project.”

Council members pressed staff on timing and risk. Councilwoman Taylor asked whether the council had a GMP for APWF; staff replied that design was at about 90% and that a GMP was likely “five or six months” away. Councilman Reese said he preferred an approach that did not defer costs indefinitely and indicated support for one of the near-term options that staff recommended. Several council members asked for ways to reduce rate shock for residents, including switching billing from quarterly to monthly and studying usage‑based billing rather than a flat charge; staff said those administrative changes would require further analysis and would take time to implement.

Outcome and next steps: After extended discussion and an attempt to move forward, a motion to adopt a specific multi‑year increase was withdrawn. The council voted unanimously to continue the item and asked staff to return with additional information and the GMP timeline; staff and council also agreed to explore monthly billing and usage-based models and to provide a clearer schedule for when APWF design and final pricing would be available. The item will return to council within two weeks for additional discussion and to set next procedural steps.

Council members emphasized the need to balance fiscal stewardship of the sewer enterprise with avoiding sudden bill shock for lower-income residents; staff said the city will present refined alternatives and updated cash‑flow projections once APWF pricing is finalized.