Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Assistance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calistoga council hears pilot utility‑assistance update; agrees to consider $150,000 in next budget
Summary
Calistoga’s pilot water‑utility assistance program has helped 49 households with nearly $75,000 in credits. Staff recommended continued funding and guideline changes to address mobile‑home parks and mixed‑status households; council directed staff to include funding in the upcoming budget review.
The Calistoga City Council on March 31 received a status report on a city‑funded pilot program that has provided water‑bill relief to 49 households and distributed nearly $75,000 in bill credits.
UpValley Family Centers executive director Jenny Ocone and program manager Lupia Maldonado told the council the pilot, funded initially with $100,000, has two components: an ongoing monthly subsidy (up to $100–$200 per household depending on income) and one‑time past‑due assistance (up to $1,000). Maldonado said 34 households are receiving recurring monthly assistance, 20 received past‑due support, and six households received both forms of help. Seven applications were declared ineligible for reasons such as the property not being the applicant’s primary residence or incomplete documentation.
"To date, we have distributed almost $75,000; that represents 49 households that have been approved for this program," Maldonado said.
Why it matters: Council members framed the program as a targeted response to rising utility burdens on low‑income residents and seniors on fixed incomes. Councilors noted the pilot draws from Measure D funds and does not affect the general fund.
Council members and presenters flagged two operational hurdles. First, many mobile‑home parks receive a single meter invoiced to park management, complicating how credits reach tenants. Second, mixed‑status households may struggle to provide the required income verification for every adult listed in a household, which has led to denials.
Council reaction and next steps: Mayor Williams said he was “inclined to accede to the request to a $150,000” allocation for the coming year to continue ongoing assistance for the current recipients and serve new households. Several council members asked staff to explore ways to soften eligibility rules for mixed‑status households and to devise a fair way to deliver credits to mobile‑home tenants. One council member asked to delay formal action until Council member Lopez Ortega could participate; staff and council agreed the item was not a formal action item and directed that the program and any proposed increase be included as a line item in the upcoming budget review.
Public response: Tom Meyer, a Lake Street resident, praised the program and urged more outreach to overcome stigma and lack of awareness among residents who might qualify.
What remains unresolved: Council did not authorize a binding appropriation that night; rather, members asked staff to return recommendations and to include a proposed $150,000 allocation in the budget process for council approval.
Provenance: The presentation began with staff and UpValley Family Centers at the council agenda item (introduction SEG 317) and the discussion and direction continued through the budget‑placement decision (conclusion SEG 716).
