City Hall Leaders Reject Secessionists’ Proposal

In their first official response to the San Fernando Valley’s bid to leave Los Angeles, city leaders Wednesday flatly rejected a proposal by the group advocating secession to put off decisions on the future of key city departments until after an election, and expressed concerns about the fate of the city’s 40,000 employees.

Signed by Mayor Richard Riordan and City Council President John Ferraro, the document follows a sweeping blueprint for dismantling Los Angeles submitted last month by the secession group Valley VOTE. It also marks the first release of city data for an unprecedented study on the consequences of deconstructing America’s second largest city.

The politically charged study, which will be conducted by the Local Agency Formation Commission, is required by state law and must arrive at certain findings before the Valley secession issue is submitted to voters--most importantly, that a breakup could occur without hurting the rest of the city economically.

The study was triggered earlier this year after more than one-fourth of the Valley’s registered voters showed their discontent with city government by signing petitions to pursue a municipal divorce. Secession would require a majority vote from the Valley as well as the entire city.

Los Angeles’ 15-page report to LAFCO, which was accompanied by an 18-inch stack of city documents, did not address the merits of secession, stating only that city officials reserved the right to do so later.

Instead, it stressed from the outset that city officials plan to cooperate with LAFCO in providing data needed to study the proposed breakup, which would entail everything from putting a price tag on City Hall to valuing police cruisers and the network of sewer pipes under city streets.

But the city noted it is concerned about providing so much information at taxpayer expense--and breaking that data down to the Valley’s geographical area, something city officials say they have never before attempted.

For instance, city officials said they will provide all “existing, readily available” lists of city properties, but said they do not keep detailed legal descriptions of their holdings, so LAFCO would have to ask the county recorder for those--at its own expense.

“Some of it should be easy to do,” Paul Cauley, acting Los Angeles chief administrative officer, said of providing the information. “Some of it, we have no idea how to do it. What is the market value of a Reseda park, or Ventura Boulevard? We have no idea.”

“What we’re saying is, cost is an issue,” he added. “There are some significant issues here that, depending on the level of detail that they want from us, this could be very costly. If you want to know how many shovels the city owns, this is going to be an expensive process.”

The city opposed a proposal by Valley VOTE to wait until after a secession vote to decide the future of the Department of Water and Power, along with the city’s airport and harbor departments, saying a delay would be financially reckless. The debt-laden utility presents perhaps the most difficult obstacle for Valley secessionists, who may have to obtain a different source of water or pay a water surcharge to Los Angeles if they opt to leave the city.

Valley VOTE proposed shared ownership of those departments through joint powers agreements, but would like LAFCO to develop a formula to split them if no agreement could be reached within three years.

“The fate of these departments must be addressed in conjunction with the overall study,” according to the city document. “Much of city government is connected in one way or another with these departments. . . . These departments profoundly affect the very question of the proposed [secession].”

Jessica Copen, Riordan’s spokeswoman, echoed those remarks Wednesday, saying the mayor wanted all potential repercussions to be reviewed so the public could make an informed decision.

“The mayor believes the debate on secession should be based on solid facts,” Copen said. “We don’t think you can wait to discuss those departments. They are an integral part of the city’s operations and infrastructure.”

Valley Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski agreed.

“To defer what might be an issue of major impact on the finances of the city doesn’t make sense,” Miscikowski said. “Let’s put everything on the table.” Valley VOTE president Jeff Brain declined to comment immediately on the city’s response.

“There are a lot of things here that we will need to respond to,” Brain said. “It’s going to take some time.”

City officials also cited concerns over the impact on employees.

Valley secession advocates proposed in their blueprint that workers in the Valley remain in the area, but city officials contend that demand is overly simplistic and ignores the complex working structure of city departments--not to mention, they said, the wishes of workers.

“There will be serious employee relations issues that must be considered,” the city report states. “Will employees have a choice of what city they want to work for, or will they be forced to work for another city? How will seniority issues be resolved?”

The release of the response, which was drafted by Riordan’s and Pauley’s offices, instantly sparked criticism from some City Council members, who complained they should have been included in putting it together.

Although the report was signed by Ferraro, several council members said they had not seen it until it was released to the public Wednesday afternoon. The officials included members of a new council subcommittee created to help steer the secession study.

“When I’m one of the five people on a committee in charge, and I haven’t even seen it, that makes me very, very worried and skeptical and cynical,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, one of the subcommittee’s five members.

Miscikowski, the ad hoc panel’s chairwoman, downplayed the lack of committee oversight of the report, saying she was out of town and couldn’t get back in time to call a meeting to review the report. Unlike other members, Miscikowski had been provided a draft copy Tuesday.

“Deferring at this time to meet the LAFCO deadline made sense,” she said. “We’ll use this report as the baseline for our work.”

LAFCO had asked the city to submit a response by the end of June.