The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0103 CC REG ITEM 11FOFFICE 4F THE MAYOR ITEM! L_E. City of Port Hueneme Mayor Paul Lawrason, Jr. City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mayor Lawrason: December 13, 1989 We are writing to request a few minutes of your time at an up- coming City Council meeting to make a presentation concerning the future of the Oxnard Harbor District. Presently, your City is not included within the boundaries of the District but the Oxnard Harbor Board of Commissioners has petitioned LAFCO for their inclusion. Because your Council is concerned with more pressing local issues, that is precisely the reason why the City Councils of Oxnard and Port Hueneme have both voted unanimously to petition LAFCO to reduce the boundaries of the Oxnard Harbor District to match those of our two cities. While the Port has not been an important issue within your City, it has been one of the most pressing issues facing the residents of our cities for many years. We hope you will take a moment to read this letter to fully understand our dilemma and to schedule a presentation before your City Council. The present boundaries of the District (established in 1937) do not relate to the activities, nor the impacts, of the Port. Fifty -two years ago the prc-sent boundaries were chosen for two reasons: First, to generate sufficient assessed valuation to sup- port the financing necessary to create the Port, a large land area was needed. Second, in an effort to find a readily available legal de- scription of boundaries (to reduce formation cost) the 1937 boundaries of tre Oxnard Union High School District were chosen. 250 North Ventura Road •Port Hueneme, California 93041 • Phone (805)488.3625 f December 13, 1989 Page Two The Oxnard Harbor District has very little impact upon the day -to -day life of the residents of your City, yet the ac- tivities of the District does have a very large impact upon the quality of life of the residents of our two communities every singe day of the year. That is why we need your help and support in our effort to re- duce the boundaries of the tort. Representative government calls for special districts to in- clude geographic areas representing only those truly impacted by those districts. If this was not the case, then every spe- cial district in Ventura County would be countywide. Recently, the financial consulting firm of Natelson, Levander and Whitney, Inc. conducted a study of the economic impacts of the Port of Hueneme in Ventura County. The results of the study confirmed what we have realized for years; the major eco- nomic impacts of the Port are felt within the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme. For example: o Value Added: Eighty -five percent of the Port's eco- nomic impacts on local communities occurs in the Cit- ies of Oxnard and Port Hueneme. 0 Jobs: Eighty -three percent (1,047 of 1,256) of those employed by the Port reside in our two cities. o Payroll: Seventy -three percent of the payroll cre- ated by the Port s spent in our two cities. We are sorry to report that in reaction to our petition to LAFCO on September 20, 1989, the Board of Directors of the Oxnard Harbor District also petitioned LA.FCO. The Harbor Board requested the boundaries of the District be expanded to equal that of the entire county. Prior to our re- cent actions, in 1985, near y the same Board rejected this con- cept. While we can understand the Board's resistance to change, and the dedication by Board Members who have served many years, we don't feel that these are adequate justifications for preserv- ing antiquated boundaries. We don't have to tell you that a great number of things hav- changed in our communities during the past 52 years. December 13, 1989 Page Three The population of the Harbor District (from about 8,000 to ap- proximately 300,000 people), the assessed valuation of land, the activities (from export of agricultural products to the im- port of cars), the environmental impacts of the Port and even the boundaries of the Oxnard Union High School District have all changed. There are numerous reasons why we have petitioned LAFCO to re- duce the Oxnard Harbor District boundaries, the most important are: 1. Governing bodies should always seek to maximize repre- sentation by making their boundaries areas which share significant and common interest. our two cities share a significant and common interest related to the Port that are not shared by other cit- ies within the county. 2. The Harbor District is located completely within the City of Port Hueneme, which in turn is completely sur- rounded by the City of Oxnard. Nearly all of the economic and environmental impacts of the Harbor District are felt by the residents of our two cities. 3. The Port and its clients are serviced primarily by the infrastructure and services paid for by the residents of our two cities Port related traftic utilizes our streets and roads as they move towards our State highways. 4. The Port directors should answer to those most af- fected and impacted by their actions. For many years only one director has lived within the area most affected by the actions of the Port. This lack of local control has resulted in "inverse representation." That is representation where the ma- jority of voters and a super- majority of Board Members live in areas not iffected by the Port. It would be as it those eligible to vote in Ventura County elections included all voters in Los Angeles county and, that resulted in four out of five of our County Superviso?s being residents of Los Angeles County. December 13, 1989 Page Four We welcome the four out of five members of the Board who live outside the areas most affected by the Port to move to either of our two cities and continue to serve. We have no argument with them personally. And, in closing we would like to agree with a statement made recently by Anthony Taormina, Executive Director of the Harbor District, in a newspaper article. He stated, "I can't deny we have more impact here (Port Hueneme and Oxnard), but we have a rippling impact throughout the County, the state and western region of the United States. There is no geographic boundary for the influence of the Port." We agree. Therefore, there seems to be only two choices: to expand the district to include the entire western region of the United States or to reduce the district to the area most af- fected, the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme. We feel the later is the only logical and fair choice. We have enclosed a copy of the economic impact report for your review. Also, we have enclosed a sample resolution if your council chooses to support car position. Thank you for your considera - ion. any questions. truly yours, NAO TAKASUGI, Mayor City of Oxnard , cc: City council Enclosures Please call us if you have DORILL B. WRIGHT, Mayor City of Port Hueneme a Pt i nu les of t hr c: i t.v t :� „•n�. i t t1oorpark, Cnl i fm ni.l l.,nu ;r }• ;, 1`!`))) �� I,H n<I t; <:nl� l ng 1.I t't': I ,•cf f•,•' Ir �; l) I eandvI tll nrld west s ides; ,If i . I' I nvgrouiici equipment c en aped 6 CUnc:t(,tt' sidewalk .Ij)� x I. ;it . 980 1ine,lr f,•c'', 7. C ()ncrett• c:urhing /pi+i%-, 00 linear f,",t ; 8. Six (G) security 1 if;h 9. Pnrk sign to he remov, -Td nc relocated; 10. Two (2) sand volle•jh, c it, t MOTION: Councilmember liarper loved an(i Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to approve Staff's 1, ommendnt.ion, as amended. The voice vote was unanimous. 11.E. Consider Report on Community llevelopment Block Grant Funding for 1990/91. Staff Recommendation Determine general priorities for allocation of 1990/91 funding and direct staff to process requests for proposals. Management Analyst Don Re\,nolr.s r, -viewed the staff report dated December 28, 1989. MOTION: Councilmember Harper m,vecf and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to approve the Staff recommendation to publicize the availability of funds, includiri,; staff's funding recommendations, and receive requests for proposal from qualified eligible non - profit groups for Affordable Housing : ,.rid Public Service consistent with the time frame contained in Attachmt•nt A; and to develop possible uses for the staff proposed $74,000 npropriation for Affordable Housing Programs. After discussion concerninf, th4 possible misconception that might be created by publicizing Staff's funding recommendations, City Manager suggested that he advertisement reflect the total estimated CDBG Funds aviiilable; the three objectives of the program (to benefit low an,i moderate income persons; to eliminate slum and blighted conditi"nsI- and to address health and safety needs posed by an urgent iivation); and ghat. up to 15% of the total funding is availnb1, fcr puh i services. MOTION AMENDMENT: Councilmember )lnrpe moved and Councilmember Brown seconded nn amendment to the m :i,lr 'o incorporate the City Manager's recommendation on the publ it at it , f n,• ii lnhle CDBG funds. The voice vote was unanimous. 11.F. Consider Supporting the Cities_ of Oxnard and Port Hueneme in their Application to LAF_CO to Reduce the Boundaries_ of the Oxnard Harbor District. Staff 1• •commpndnt: ion: Direct Staff as deemed npproprinte. - - -- The Council expressed opi,aioll: ;, 1,ro and con, regarding District expansion, including: t.tat any city along the transportation corridor should be part Aie District; that the inclusion of the entire County was ' <„ aril 1 • i,. I!-; and that Commissioners for Mi111.1Los of 1 h4' ( C .,)1,11,.:1 I ?(mi-pn rk , C;1 1 i 1 1 it i .1 1 ;lnunr�` 3, 1990 Lho (1`;!111) d Harbor 1)is t t "11' .l oU b`. i 1';1 r i t,l illld 11oL A - I I! y ".` MOTION: Counci Imornber 11 rown im), �i nrif, t , u e i lmorniler IInrper seconded a motion to ri i rect that the Mayc r ;end ! el i er to I.AVCO :supporting the expansion of the Oxnard I 1r1:o1 i::tric:t; ro,cornmending that Commissioners of the Oxnard Hnr1,,r Ui�tr,ct. be elected by division and not at- large; and that a copy <, th -' letter be sent to all the cities in Ventura County. The motion lriied with Mayor Lawrason dissenting. 11.G. Consider Contract f_o> Ae_ria_1 Photography Services. Staff recommendation: Approve Contract and Authorize Mayor to execute. Director of Public Works ►en ,ilb(,rt reviewed the staff report dated December 26, 1989 Councilmember Brown expressed reluctance to approve this $50,000 expenditure which will likely not be credited toward matching funds on the Highway 118 ..xtension project. She requested the Council consider postponing action on this item until she could talk to the Ventura County Transportation Commission regarding the possibility of recording this expenditure in 1990 dollars for consideration of matching 'in & in the future. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to approve ';taff's recommendation to approve the increase in the scope of work t 1 include topographic mapping required C;.. for Arroyo Vista Park; to approve the attached Agreement for Aerial Photographic Services and auth)rize. the Mayor to execute same; to approve a ten percent (10X) pro ect contingency and authorize the City Manager to approve up to ten p('rcent (10X) above the contract amount in the event changes are found to be necessary during implementation of the contract; and to appropriate $9,100 from the Park Improvement Fund (Fund 05) for the aerial t pographic mapping of Arroyo Vista Park and direct staff to establish line item in the capital improvement budget for this work. The M loji :r ried by roll call vote with Councilmember Brown dissentirip 11.H. Consider Modification o Kitc!en Equ moment for Senior Center Project -- - -- - - — - -- - Director of Community Sei ices Piil Newhouse advised that the Senior Center contractor ns reviewed a portion of the kitchen equipment purchased by the City, nud discovered that some of the equipment may not meet th, County health Codes, particularly the- flood over the stove. It ti estimated that in order to retrofit the hood to meet County ')de ;, i' will cost $5,000 to $7,000. The State, however, may h, ovr-r- stmt -i.ng what equipment is needed based on use, and it is utf-.ipated that the Health Department may allow the elimination I t i(� r mmercial oven. Staff is requesting autho)• 1z,lt ilrn to investigate the elimination of the commercial oven I1 i hood, and to purchase a residential stove; and that if in -h- rpil it n )' the contractor, the cost to