Oxnard Council to consider wastewater rate increase at 3-7-17 meeting

By George Miller
At the 3-7-17 meeting, the Oxnard City Council will consider 5 1/4% annual rate increases for the next five years. This totals 74% compounded, when last year’s increase is considered.  
The increases are controversial, since they involve substantial capital investment, which some claim could be deferred and taking on large new debt in direct violation of city policies, The “infrastructure” fee is also disputed, with dissenter and rate panel member Aaron Starr challenging its legality.
City staff and consultants all say that this plan is the most acceptable, in spite of the trade-offs.  Read our previous articles on the Oxnard Wastewater Utility Ratepayers Advisory Panel for details.
From 3-7-17 meeting agenda
1. SUBJECT: Proposed Wastewater Rate Increase (30/30/45)
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the City wastewater rate structure for a five-year period (July 2017-2022);
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the Proposition 218 public notification process; and
3. Set a public hearing on the wastewater rate increase for May 16, 2017.
Legislative Body: CC Contact: Daniel Rydberg Phone: 385-8055
Also on the agenda are:
  • $150,000 for an RFP for ERP business systems procurement specifications
  • LMD (Landscape maintenance Disyricts) =-removal of improvements and Engineers report
  • $375,000 contract for water backflow assemblies
  • Automated Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system support services for the water, wastewater, and recycled water systems for a three year term in an amount not to exceed $800,000 
Full 3-7-17 Council meeting agenda

George Miller is Publisher of CitizensJournal.us and a “retired” operations management consultant residing in Oxnard

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How can anyone believe any numbers from Oxnard that involve a calculation? Scenario 2.2B, the one chosen to implement, is an example.

Year 1 cost should be $41.77 * 1.0525 = $43.96 not the $43.98 shown in the table.

Year 2 cost should be $46.27 not $46.34
Year 3 cost should be $48.70 not $48.78
Year 4 cost should be $51.26 not $51.39
Year 5 cost should be $53.95 not $54.15

The differences are small, but how did they do their calculations?