HI-DESERT WATER DISCUSSES BILLING FOR SEWER CHARGES

The Hi-Desert Water District board of directors spent more than an hour at its meeting last night discussing whether the monthly sewer service charges for Yucca Valley’s future sewer project should be placed on the property owners’ tax bills or included in the monthly water bill. Residents in the audience were firmly opposed to placing the proposed $36 monthly sewer charge on their property tax bills. Managing editor Tami Roleff was at the meeting, and explains the pros and cons of the policy…
Arguments against putting the sewer service charge on property tax bills included the effect it would have on landlords who would have to raise rents to cover the charge; low-income residents would have a hard time paying both the sewer assessment AND the monthly charge, which would be close to $1200 annually; and the charge would lead to foreclosures for people who couldn’t afford their tax bills. In addition, people who depend on Supplemental Security Income would have a hard time explaining to the government that the money they were budgeting and putting aside was intended for a future bill.
Directors Sarann Graham, Dan Munsey, and Roger Mayes were not fully supportive of the measure, either. Graham thought the water district should survey its customers to see how they wanted to pay their sewer service charges. Munsey said it would be hard on low-income residents. “Low-income residents will have a problem paying this bill, whether it’s monthly or on a property tax bill…. There are alternatives to putting it on a property tax bill.” He also didn’t think that putting it on the tax bill to minimize billing costs and reduce staff time were valid reasons. “If we need to hire more people to achieve customer service, then we should hire more people.”
Mays was on the finance committee that recommended the policy, but was having second thoughts during the meeting. “I’m hearing a lot of things that concern me. SSI is a real issue; putting away $500 to $1000, people might use it for something else; it’s a real temptation…. If they can’t afford $36 a month, they can’t afford yearly, either.”
Arguments in favor of putting the charge on property tax bills were that the water district would be virtually assured of collecting all the sewer charges; it was a more efficient and less expensive way for staff to process billing; the water district would have fewer accounts where it would have to turn off water because of unpaid sewer charges; and that it would be fairer to everyone and would keep the sewer charge low.
General manager Ed Muzik explained one advantage of having the charge on the property tax. “With putting it on the property tax, you have virtually zero write-offs because you’re going to collect through the tax collector.” Director Sheldon Hough liked the idea of putting the charge on the tax bill and thought it was the fairest way to collect the money. “If people don’t pay, then other people have to pay, and that’s not fair. I don’t think it’s fair that other residents pay $36 per month and their bill is going to go up because others aren’t paying this. I would hate to see they have this bill and half the community [for example] is not paying for it…. If they choose not to pay their sewer bill, the rest of the community has to pick up the slack.”
President Bob Stadum was also in favor of the policy. “Out of a sense of fairness, I’m leaning toward the property tax approach. Putting it on the water bill, we’ll have lock-offs and renters walking away, and 10 percent [for example] not paying their bill. Then who pays? Then everyone else in the community subsidizes that cost of doing business. If we come up 10 percent short, and 10 percent of the bills don’t get paid, that’s going to mean a fair increase, and where’s the fairness in that?… Put it on the property tax bills because we can collect 100 percent of the money.”
Commercial properties would receive a monthly sewer charge based on their monthly water usage.
The directors decided that they did not have to make a decision immediately, and asked staff to come back with more information at a future meeting.