Utility Break for Camarillo Seniors Is in Jeopardy

CAMARILLO — Low-income senior citizens may soon be paying up to twice as much for monthly water and sewer bills because of a statewide tax-cutting measure approved in the fall.

Proposition 218 prohibits cities from charging higher utility rates to customers in order to subsidize low-income senior citizens, City Atty. Robert Flandrick said.

“The problem under Proposition 218 is that you have to treat everybody equally,” he said. “And until legislation gives us the authority to do something to the contrary, we have to live with the guidelines of that proposition.”

Since 1977, low-income seniors have received reduced sewer and water rates if they used less than 10 units of water or 7,480 gallons a month.

About $30,000 in subsidies were provided to 159 senior citizens through the program, said Anita Bingham, city finance director. The money came from regular rates charged to other customers as well as interest earnings on the money collected.

After a public hearing June 30, the City Council will decide whether to discontinue the low-income senior rate.

“Obviously, if these are seniors on fixed incomes, it will be very difficult,” Mayor Stanley Daily said. “But Proposition 218 passed and I think we have to abide by the requirements of it, and that’s why we initiated this action. We do want to hear input from the seniors before the council takes final action.”

If the subsidized rate is discontinued, sewer service rates will double from $10.92 per month to $21.08 for low-income seniors living in a single-family home. For those living in a condominium, however, rates will increase 58 cents; for those in duplex or triplex units, the increase will be $4.16.

Water will also be sold at the standard rate, which is $10.75 for the first 10 units and $1.16 for each additional unit.

“If they use only one to three units, then their bills will increase only about $3,” Bingham said. “But if they’re using up toward eight units of water, the bill could double.”

The letter Bingham sent to senior citizens last week announcing the probable rate increase has prompted numerous calls.

“Some have mentioned that they’re upset about us taking away the rate,” Bingham said. “We’ve just patiently tried to explain it’s not something we want to do, but are being encouraged to do by the city attorney because of Proposition 218.”

Reid Johnson, 71, is one of the people who called Bingham.

“I called because I wanted to get to the bottom of this and why the city would do this,” said Johnson, who plans to attend the June 30 hearing to voice his opposition. “They said something about Proposition 218, but I still griped and moaned and so forth. It’s going to affect us because we are low income.”

Johnson said his bill will be $23 more without the subsidies.

“We’ll have to cut something out,” he said. “It kinda hurts--we could use the $23.”

As the City Council and staff worked their way through the city’s budget earlier this month, it became apparent to the city attorney that the subsidized services were prohibited in Proposition 218, City Manager Bill Little said.

“Unfortunately, these propositions have a way of having unintended consequences,” he said.

The city could subsidize water and sewer bills by dipping into its general fund, Little said.

“But then if we start subsidizing water rates, what’s to stop another group from coming in and asking us to subsidize something else?”

But at least two council members say there are other alternatives that could be considered, including placing the issue on the ballot.

“If we want to continue subsidizing, then we’d have to have a vote of the ratepayers,” Councilman Kevin Kildee said. “Potentially, we may be able to put it on the next ballot in 1998 so that we wouldn’t have to have a special election. But this, of course, would have to be discussed.”

Councilman Bill Liebmann takes this proposal a step further.

“If the idea is to provide a subsidy for the low-income citizens of our city, we should address it based on the income level and not the age of the citizen,” Liebmann said. “If that is an expenditure of general funds that is legally permissible, I’d certainly be willing to look at it.”

TAX STUDIED

Moorpark voters may decide on new taxes for services. B7