L.A. Offers Formal Secession Response

In their first official response to the San Fernando Valley’s bid to leave Los Angeles, city leaders Wednesday flatly rejected the proposal that the fates of key departments be dealt with after a secession vote.

In a report to the Local Agency Formation Commission, officials said the proposal by secession group Valley VOTE to dismantle the Water and Power, Harbor and Airports departments after the secession vote would be financially reckless.

“The fate of these departments must be addressed in conjunction with the overall study” of the secession’s financial impact, the report says. “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].”

Valley VOTE has suggested shared ownership of those departments through joint powers agreements.

The debt-laden DWP presents perhaps the biggest obstacle for Valley secessionists, who might have to obtain a different source of water or pay a water surcharge to Los Angeles.

Jessica Copen, Mayor Richard Riordan’s spokeswoman, said Riordan wants all potential repercussions to be reviewed ahead of time, so the public can make an informed decision.

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

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, whose district includes part of the Valley, agreed.

“To defer what might be an issue of major impact on the finances of the city doesn’t make sense,” she said. “Let’s put everything on the table.”

Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain declined to comment on the city’s response until his group had a day to review it.

The city report, signed by Riordan and City Council President John Ferraro, comes in the wake of a sweeping blueprint for dismantling Los Angeles submitted last month by Valley VOTE.

The new report, accompanied by an 18-inch stack of documents, also marks the first release of city data for the unprecedented study of the consequences of breaking up 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 for Valley secession to reach voters--most important, that a breakup can occur without hurting the rest of the city economically.

In their report, Los Angeles officials stressed that they plan to cooperate by providing data needed to study secession, which will entail everything from putting a price tag on City Hall to valuing police cruisers and the network of sewer pipes under city streets. But city officials noted their concern about providing so much information at taxpayers expense--and breaking that data down to the Valley’s geographical area, something they have never attempted.

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

“Some of it should be easy” for the city to provide, acting Los Angeles Chief Administrative Officer Paul Cauley said. “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.”

He added: “What we’re saying is, cost is an issue. 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.”

Los Angeles officials also cited concerns over the impact on the city’s 40,000 employees.

Valley secession advocates proposed in their blueprint that workers in the Valley remain there. But city officials say that demand is overly simplistic and ignores the complex working structure of city departments--not to mention the wishes of workers.

“There will be serious employee relations issues that must be considered,” the city report says. “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?”