Exemptions Will Mute Some Criticism of Calleguas Water Levy : Utilities: The district agrees to cancel or defer the $5-per-lot charge for property owners who do not benefit from the service.

Some of the most vocal opponents of the $5-per-lot levy by the Calleguas Municipal Water District will have the levy exempted or deferred because their property doesn’t benefit from the service, Calleguas officials said Thursday.

But other critics are out of luck, such as the Camarillo couple who wrote this scathing, hand-written message on their exemption request:

“Learn to manage with less and get off property owners’ backs! We will not benefit from this assessment. You prove to me that I will. Employee position list & salaries requested.”

Calleguas, Ventura County’s largest water wholesaler, will levy the charge on more than 150,000 Ventura County parcels on the next property tax bills. A parcel is defined as a dwelling unit, an acre of land or any lot smaller than an acre.

The levy will raise about $1 million for Calleguas, which serves 21 public and private water companies in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard and the unincorporated communities of Oak Park, Somis, Bell Canyon and Lake Sherwood. Nearly 500,000 county residents receive part or all of their water from Calleguas.

Calleguas has been in financial difficulties since last year, when Gov. Pete Wilson and the state Legislature diverted $1.5 million of property tax revenues from Calleguas to other state programs.

Fearing even worse budget cuts this year, Calleguas officials had first proposed a $10 levy, but reduced it to $5 when the new state budget was approved.

Most of the opposition came from farmers who have large landholdings, yet use little or no Calleguas water.

One critic, John Lamb of Camarillo, said General Manager Don Kendall has agreed to exempt or defer the tax on 340 of his 523 acres, at a savings of nearly $1,700. Much of the land is not developable and too steep for agriculture.

“Obviously, I would prefer that there be no parcel tax,” said Lamb, a fourth-generation farmer in the Santa Rosa Valley. “But based on what Calleguas has done in my personal case, what we’ve come to is not an unreasonable charge.”

But Lamb said exemption requirements should be standardized. Kendall now considers each request on a case-by-case basis and has wide leeway to determine whether to grant it. Property owners dissatisfied with Kendall’s decision can appeal to the Calleguas board.

“If the policy is set, and not left to the discretion of one person, I think it’s to the benefit of everyone,” Lamb said.

Kendall said residents of Balcom Canyon, who are far from existing water lines and get their water from private wells, also will be eligible for exemptions or deferrals.

But Balcom Canyon resident Larry Fuller said he has received no official word from Calleguas as yet. Fuller said he is concerned because Calleguas officials have sole authority to approve exemptions.

“They’re the judge, the jury, and the cop all rolled up into one,” Fuller said. “There’s no impartial person deciding on any of this.”

“We’ve probably been more fair than any other public agency I can think of,” Kendall said.

Calleguas has received 173 requests for exemptions. But officials apparently caused some confusion initially by declaring an arbitrary deadline for submitting requests.

The district’s exemption form states that the deadline for submitting a request was June 1. But the Calleguas board did not formally approve the levy until June 30. The ordinance it adopted states that requests for exemptions and deferrals will be accepted for two years.

Kendall said he set the June 1 deadline so that exemptions could be processed in time for upcoming property tax bills.

All public lands are exempt from the charge. Also exempt is private property that is permanently committed to open space or land that receives no benefit from Calleguas water.

To qualify, property owners have to sign an agreement with Calleguas stating they will not seek to use Calleguas water in the future.

Under the ordinance, low income is not a reason for exemption. Neither is indignation.

“With all the corruption in the various water districts, I’m sure the property owners’ $10 charge will be used in a frivolous manner,” a Newbury Park woman wrote on her form. “I’m sure my request will be denied.”