Oxnard, County Square Off Over Waterway Plan

Oxnard’s thirst for growth has manifested itself many times since the city’s birth at the turn of the century.

So it should have surprised no one when the cash-parched city turned to the water.

Oxnard’s proposal to annex the Channel Islands Harbor waterway, now a part of Ventura County--pits Oxnard against the county in a tussle over less than $200,000 in property taxes.

Oxnard leaders say they are only claiming what is rightfully theirs: a Y-shaped waterway bordered entirely by the city, reachable solely by city roads, and which for years has benefited from city police and fire services.

County leaders say they seek only to protect a valuable investment they have always owned and operated: a small-craft marina that cost them $1 million to dig and $7 million to renovate.

County Supervisor John K. Flynn, whose district includes the harbor, has slammed Oxnard’s plan, calling it an act of gluttony and betrayal. The city has done little to maintain the marina, he said, yet has profited greatly from it--taking in about $600,000 a year in bed and sales taxes.

Flynn has vowed to stop Oxnard’s power ploy, and has countered with a stratagem of his own: a proposal to de-annex the land surrounding the waterway, which is within the city’s boundaries.

“A parasite never kills the host,” Flynn said. “Oxnard, the parasite, is doing several things to try and kill the host, in this case the county. But it won’t work.”

Councilman Tom Holden defended the city’s plan.

“This isn’t about county versus the city,” Holden said. “I would hope that we’d look at what is best for people who use the harbor. John Flynn is supposed to represent the people of Oxnard.”

Opened in 1965, Channel Islands Harbor covers more than 300 acres of land and water. The county leases most of the surrounding land to developers, who have built restaurants, condominiums and about 3,600 boat slips.

Leases and taxes at the marina generate about $2 million for the county each year.

Earlier this month, the Oxnard City Council decided to move forward with a plan to annex the harbor water.

City leaders argue that the popular waterway is within the city’s sphere of influence as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission--a state agency that deals with jurisdictional matters--and is therefore their oyster.

But LAFCO still has to approve the annexation, and a heated political showdown between Oxnard and the county is widely expected at an upcoming LAFCO meeting, probably in October.

Flynn, who is chairman of LAFCO, said he usually does not lobby against proposals that come before the LAFCO board, but may make an exception in the case of Oxnard’s proposal.

“I just don’t know what the city is up to other than looking for revenues,” he said. “The money generated by the harbor that’s left over after the maintenance costs of the harbor goes to parks and into the (county’s) general fund. We need those revenues.”

Other LAFCO members include Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, Thousand Oaks Mayor Alex Fiore, Ojai City Councilman Robert McKinney, and Janis McCormick, a member of the public who holds no elected office.

“There is a potential inequity if the county has done all that work over the years to keep that harbor up, and then the city takes it over and profits from it,” McKinney said. “That would be something I would be looking at. But I don’t know if that is LAFCO’s responsibility.”

Perhaps anticipating a clash, Oxnard has enlisted consultant Bob Braitman, who served as LAFCO’s executive director from 1974 to 1991, to prepare the city’s annexation application and steer the plan through.

Flynn charged that the hiring of Braitman--who drafted the current boundaries surrounding the harbor--constitutes a conflict of interest.

“The public is concerned about these kind of relationships,” Flynn said. “It would be like me quitting my job and bringing county projects before the Planning Commission.”

Braitman, in turn, has accused Flynn of bias, questioning his ability to serve on the board. He cited a comment by Flynn that the annexation would happen “over my dead body.”

“If a member of a board that is supposed to make a decision only after a public hearing says beforehand that only ‘over his dead body’ will the annexation happen, should he be allowed to sit on that board?” Braitman asked. “His mind is made up.”

Others have criticized Braitman’s deal with the city, which would pay him 10% of the city’s first-year revenues from the waterway--or about $10,000--if the annexation takes place, but would only cover his expenses if it fails.

“Who would have ever thought that Bob Braitman, the ultimate bureaucrat, would be working as a bounty hunter for the city of Oxnard?” said Gerard Kapuscik, general manager of the Channel Islands Beach Community Services District, after a recent Oxnard council meeting. “I have never heard of an agreement like this.”

Beach district officials contend that a different kind of water--drinking water--may be the true motive behind the annexation.

The district, which includes the harbor water, Silver Strand, Hollywood-by-the-Sea and Hollywood beaches, provides potable water to the harbor. It has invested between $2 million and $3 million in pipes and infrastructure, and takes in about $500,000 a year from the service, Kapuscik said.

Oxnard, Kapuscik said, may be looking to take over those services--a move that could bring the annual water revenues to the city.

Beach district officials say they will not give up the profitable waterway without a fight.

“The city needs to understand that the district is going to seek recompense for that money,” Kapuscik said. “It is not just going to sit and let this happen.”

District leaders, who still have unsettling memories of attempts by Oxnard to annex their community in the late 1970s, say they are also worried that the plan is the beginning of another scheme by the city to take them over.

“Their attitude is ugly,” said Patrick Forrest, one of the district’s five directors. “They think that because they are bigger than us that they can bully us. We’re small, but we’re very patriotic, and we know we don’t have anything to gain by joining Oxnard. What would we get from joining them other than their debt?”

Frank Anderson, Channel Islands harbor master for the past 25 years, said if Oxnard’s plan becomes reality, the city would then shoulder the burden of dredging and maintaining the waterway--a toilsome task that costs the county about $500,000 annually.

Since Oxnard would only receive about $100,000 a year from the harbor--20% of the property tax revenue collected from boats in the marina--the plan intended in part to boost city revenues would end up costing the city money.

“I don’t know if the city has really looked at those responsibilities, which are not only significant but quite costly,” Anderson said. “But I haven’t heard anything that leads me to believe that the city has a plan to take over the maintenance of the harbor.”

Oxnard leaders say they have not formulated a plan to keep up the harbor water simply because they do not think it will be their duty.

Proposed Water Annexation

Oxnard is attempting to annex the water area of the Channel Islands Harbor, currently an unincorporated part of Ventura County. Oxnard leaders say their plan is intended to reduce confusion over police and fire services in the area. Critics contend money is the motive.

Source: City of Oxnard