Sewer Rate Feud Spurs Walkout by 7 on Council

Seven members of the Los Angeles City Council stormed out of the council chambers Friday during a heated debate over a proposed new sewer rate system, breaking up the meeting and postponing a long-awaited vote on the matter until Tuesday.

The seven left just seconds before it appeared they were going to be on the losing end of a vote to adopt a rate system that would increase fees for many of their constituents.

The new rate system would substantially reduce fees for most constituents of the remaining eight council members--a majority of the 15-member panel--who were expected to support the proposal.

Longtime City Hall observers said this was the first time in recent memory that a group protest by council members had broken a quorum.

The action left some on the council who did not participate in the walkout angry.

“This is not how grown men and women are supposed to act,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, who was about to vote for the new fee system. “You tell your children not to act this way, not to just take your marbles and leave.”

Council members who walked out said later they believed council President John Ferraro and the other members who supported the new fees didn’t give opponents enough time to testify against it.

“I was angry that they did not have the decency to let me make my point,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who walked out with council members Mike Hernandez, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Rita Walters, Nate Holden, Richard Alatorre and Rudy Svornich Jr.

Hernandez accused Ferraro of manipulating the council’s rules of debate to benefit supporters of the new fees--a charge Ferraro rejected.

“They were not playing by the rules,” Hernandez said as he left the council chambers to return to his office.

In addition to Wachs, council members who remained were Ferraro, Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Ruth Galanter, Richard Alarcon, Marvin Braude and Hal Bernson.

The new rate system, as proposed by Chick, would reduce sewer fees for most residents in the San Fernando Valley and the Westside while increasing them in other communities.

The change was proposed in response to years of complaints by Valley residents who say the current system for calculating rates is inequitable. Last month, two North Hollywood residents filed a class-action lawsuit against the city contending that the system is unfair.

The city cannot measure the exact amount of sewage generated by each residence and instead relies on a formula that assumes about 60% of the water entering a home ends up in the sewers as waste water.

But Valley residents argue that the assumption is wrong. Because of the larger lots in the Valley, residents there say most of their water is used to irrigate landscaping and does not end up in the sewers.

In response, city sanitation engineers have come up with a new rate system that calculates the fee based on the amount of water used in a residence during the wet, winter months, when little--if any--water is used to irrigate.

During the debate, the battle lines were drawn between council members whose constituents would face higher fees and members whose constituents would get lower rates.

The proposal was especially aggravating for some council members from south and central Los Angeles who were on the losing end of a vote last year to adopt a new water-rate system that benefits Valley residents.

Supporters said the new system would correct an inaccurate system that has long forced residents with large residential lots to subsidize others.

“What we are talking about is making a new fee based on a fair and accurate system,” said Chick, a West Valley lawmaker. Most of her constituents would see their fees drop from $17.51 to $15.68 per month.

Wachs, whose East Valley constituents would also see an overall drop in fees under the new system, vowed to join the North Hollywood class-action suit against the city unless a new system is adopted.

“The present system is blatantly unfair,” he said. “It’s not only unfair, it’s illegal.”

But several opponents charged that the new system would only benefit affluent residents who live on large lots at the expense of poor residents.

“I don’t know how we call it fair when we are going to give a rate reduction to many affluent communities and take it from lower income residents,” said Walters, whose central Los Angeles constituents would face a median fee increase of 91 cents per month.

After nearly 90 minutes of debate, Galanter made a motion to close off further debate and vote on the matter. That’s when the drama began to build.

The vote was 8 to 7 to close the debate. As Ferraro instructed the city clerk to tally the vote on the new fees, Goldberg and Hernandez protested, saying they wanted to continue to debate the matter further.

But Ferraro said each council member had already had two three-minute time allotments to speak. Under the council rules, he said no further debate was allowed.

The seven members who have spoken out against the fees then stood and marched out of the chambers, breaking up the minimum 10-member quorum. Amid the confusion, Ferraro immediately adjourned the meeting.

Afterward, Ferraro rejected charges that he manipulated the rules to favor the proposal supporters, saying he was simply following the council’s bylaws.

“If I bend the rules today, they will be mad at me because I won’t bend the rules again some other day,” he said.

The entire matter was postponed until Tuesday, at which time most members said they expect the new fees will be adopted in an 8-7 vote.

Chick, who has pressed for the new fees for months, said she was “mortified” by the behavior of her colleagues.

“This makes the City Council look very bad,” she said. “I’m embarrassed for them. I’m really disappointed.”