Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Agreements Convoy Trucks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses port and staff for answers on convoy fees, truck routing and revenue; requests city attorney and manager to research agreements and costs
Summary
After a lengthy exchange with Port counsel and staff, the council directed staff to research whether gross operating‑revenue payments cover truck‑related impacts and to compile litigation and arbitration records tied to 2015 settlement language.
A prolonged council discussion April 21 examined long‑standing agreements between Port Hueneme and the Oxnard Harbor District, focusing on how “convoy” fees and gross operating‑revenue payments apply to cars and trucks moving off port property.
City staff presented port responses to council questions about the history and formulas used in multiple underlying agreements (1983, 1987, 1995) and the 2015 settlement agreement that resolved prior litigation. Port counsel Christopher Pisano—who said he drafted the 2015 settlement—told the council the 2015 agreement and the underlying agreements resolved disputes about vehicle convoy fees and included broad releases; he emphasized that the parties intentionally included a waiver of Civil Code section 1542 in the settlement language.
Port representatives and counsel said, in their view, the term “convoy” as implemented historically applied to automobiles driven from the port to processing facilities, and that trucks carrying cars have been treated differently in practice. The port’s written responses included the statement that trucks exit the port via Navy gates under the Navy’s control and do not use Hueneme Road; council members and members of the public challenged that assertion and said they regularly observe vehicle‑transport trucks on Ventura Road and Waimea Road.
Council members pressed for clarity on several questions: whether vehicles transported on trucks are included in any revenue calculation, how the convoy fee formulas were derived, whether the city is receiving appropriate cost compensation for increased heavy truck and electric vehicle traffic, and how broadly the 2015 release and Civil Code §1542 waiver apply.
After port counsel offered to work with the city to clarify historical materials, the council voted unanimously to direct the city manager and city attorney to assemble documents and analysis. The staff directive called for: a memo describing what items are included in gross operating revenue and vehicle‑related revenues; copies of past litigation and arbitration pleadings and the 2015 settlement language for legal review; a historical accounting of port‑related payments to the city and how those funds were spent on road maintenance; and an estimate of annual road‑maintenance costs on affected corridors. The city manager said he would work with the city attorney and report back.
