Council introduces sewer rate increases; residents press staff for ADU and flow analysis

The City Council held the first reading and public hearing on proposed sewer service charges on May 6, introducing an ordinance that would adjust rates across customer classes to address rising MetroJPA and capital costs. Staff and the rate consultant said the proposal uses standard EDU classes and a proportional allocation based on Sweetwater Authority water data; staff noted reserves are currently used to limit near‑term increases.

Residents and experts pressed the council on methodology. Mitchell Thompson, a former Otay Water Board member, said the EDU assumptions and lack of validation make the study hard for readers to verify. ADU owners and builders, including Danielle Kish, warned the proposal treats permitted ADUs like separate units and could impose steep additional costs: "If these proposed rates are approved, I will have to pay an additional $493 on top of the single family rate of $633 per year," Kish said during public comment.

Staff explained key points of the methodology: residential classes are billed on a flat rate with commercial customers charged on a flow basis using prior‑year water data; the study assumes about 90% return of water consumption to sewer for most customers and uses Sweetwater consumption patterns to set proration factors. Staff also said ADU capacity fees are not being charged (noting state law restrictions) and that sewer service charges differ from capacity or connection fees.

Council members pressed staff for more targeted analysis. Several asked that staff prepare an ADU‑specific flow sample or comparative flow analysis before the second reading so the council can weigh equity concerns and whether alternatives (flow‑based billing or bedroom counts) are feasible. Staff said a full city‑wide flow conversion is costly and takes time but that targeted field samples for ADUs or additional data clarifications could be gathered and presented before adoption. The council voted 4–1 to introduce the ordinance (first reading) and directed staff and the consultant to return with additional explanatory materials and any feasible analyses before the adoption vote.

The tabulation of written protests was five mailed protests plus one submitted during the meeting — manifestly less than a majority under the city's protest rules — so the council proceeded with introduction. The second reading and adoption will come later, after staff provides the requested clarifications.