⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F01
The City attracts scrutiny for having the highest water cost per 15 HCF of any governmental agency in the County and for the process in which the Proposition 218 election was conducted and certified. (FA-01-16) (Att-01, 04)
No recommendations for this finding
F02
There were multiple efforts from 2009-2010 to prove that the amount charged by the City for the “Utility Users Tax” is unsupportable. (FA-16) (Att-02)
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The City failed to make a good faith effort to resolve the tax issue following years of meetings, telephonic contacts, and correspondence. (FA-16) Port Hueneme Water Rates 3
No recommendations for this finding
F04
The tax calculation employed starting in October 2009 is not transparent because the old “water service charge” appears to remain as part of the bill without an identifying line item. (FA-03, 04)
No recommendations for this finding
F05
The 73% increase of the “Utility Users Tax” beginning on the City’s billings of October 2009 is evidence of a new tax. (FA-03, 04)
No recommendations for this finding
F06
The City’s inclusion of the amount of the old “water service charge” in calculating their 4% “Utility Users Tax” requires an administrative hearing to determine the validity of a new tax, as required by Proposition 218. (FA-03, 04, 17)
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The City’s Proposition 218 election was invalid, particularly by failing to notify owners of a new tax in City’s “Notice to Property Owners of Public Hearing on Proposed Water Rate Adjustments” and the subsequent certification of that vote. (FA-01, 02, 17) (Att-03, 04) Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The City of Santa Paula water users pay $59.52 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The City of Oxnard water users pay $58.20 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The City of Simi Valley water users pay $56.86 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The City of Camarillo water users pay $44.79 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The City of Ventura water users pay $37.82 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The City of Moorpark water users pay $37.51 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The City of Ojai water users of Casitas Municipal Water District pay $34.47 for 15 HCF for governmental supplied water. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The City of Ojai water users of Golden State Water Company pay $99.80 for 15 HCF. Golden State Water, a privately-held company that operates to maximize profit for shareholders, charges the highest rates in Southern California. [Ref.-05]
No recommendations for this finding
F16
In the past the City refused to accept proof via meetings, telephonic contacts, and correspondence of the water ratepayers’ tax increase.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
A neutral third party administrative hearing could resolve the tax and ballot issues. Findings
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Port Hueneme
City