Valley Secessionists Outline Proposed Breakup of L.A.

The group advocating San Fernando Valley secession from the rest of Los Angeles laid out a sweeping proposal Tuesday for dismantling the city, which, though light on details, clearly delineates the battle lines in the politically charged debate that will go on for years.

In a revealing blueprint submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission, the secession group Valley VOTE proposed a possible wholesale breaking up of many city agencies, including the police and fire departments, but shared control of water and power service.

The Valley VOTE plan is the required first step in a seven-stage process at LAFCO that will later allow secessionists to file a more detailed blueprint for their proposed city, give Los Angeles officials the chance to respond to that proposal, and culminate with preparation of a comprehensive plan that will outline the terms of a possible municipal divorce.

Almost immediately after it was submitted Tuesday, the blueprint sparked criticism from City Hall, especially a proposal that some key issues be decided after an election on the breakup.

Under the split proposed by Valley secessionists:

* The two cities would share operation and ownership of the Department of Water and Power, the nation’s largest municipal utility, through a joint-powers authority. The two cities also would negotiate an agreement to jointly operate the harbor and airport departments. All three agreements would be brokered during the three years after a public vote on secession, and Valley residents would continue paying current utility rates during that time.

* The new Valley city would cede ownership of most other assets south of Mulholland Drive to Los Angeles, and the city would relinquish facilities to the north. In exchange, the new Valley city would receive a reduction in its share of the old city’s debt because most Los Angeles government facilities are outside the Valley.

* Los Angeles would first release a full breakdown of the spending, revenues and operations of most Los Angeles city departments, including police, fire, sanitation, planning, recreation and parks and transportation, so secession advocates could determine whether they should be broken up. Secessionists leave open the possibility of contracting with existing city departments instead of forming independent agencies to serve the Valley, though they concede that is unlikely.

* Los Angeles’ existing city work force would be completely retained, and divided between the proposed Valley city and the remaining Los Angeles. The Valley city would assume responsibility for an equitable share of retirement pensions and other benefits for those employees.

“This is an issue of local control, to make the Valley work better,” said Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE, the main group pushing secession. “But we want to make sure that this benefits everyone, north and south of Mulholland. And we think it will, if it is adopted by voters. The two, or three cities if San Pedro secedes, will have a better quality of life than the current city.”

A secessionist movement also is afoot in San Pedro and Wilmington, where advocates have collected the signatures of more than 25% of registered voters. If all goes as they hope, that proposal could be put to voters in the spring of 2002, at the same time Valley secessionists hope to have their plan on the ballot.

For the Valley, the next step is an analysis of the economic consequences of secession, to be done by a LAFCO panel.

That analysis was triggered earlier this year after one-fourth of registered Valley voters signed petitions to launch the breakup process--an unprecedented display of dissatisfaction with city government.

LAFCO, a state-created panel that usually decides the minor redrawing of municipal boundaries, will now use the Valley VOTE document, formally a request for data, as a basis for asking Los Angeles to turn over reams of information detailing the city’s unwieldy tangle of assets and liabilities.

LAFCO’s nine appointed members will then decide whether to place the issue on the ballot, which could not happen before 2002. It would require a majority vote of both the Valley and the city as a whole.

Criticism of the new Valley VOTE plan primarily was aimed at its proposal to wait until after an election on secession to decide the future of the Department of Water and Power. The utility presents perhaps the most complex obstacle for Valley secessionists, who might have to obtain a different source of water for the new city or possibly pay a water surcharge to Los Angeles.

Los Angeles can unilaterally veto any joint operating agreements and is widely expected to do so, even by some in the secession movement.

“That is a way of saying, ‘Let’s put this aside,’ ” said DWP General Manager S. David Freeman. “If I were a proponent of secession, I would want to brush these issues aside too, but I don’t think you can do that for very long. I know one thing: Secession is not going to be any cheaper.”

City Council members scoffed at the idea of putting off a decision on dividing key city assets until after an election.

Council President John Ferraro said a decision on how to divide DWP assets is an “integral part” of any preelection analysis.

“DWP information would be a crucial portion of any attempt to discern the financial impact of the secession of a significant portion of our city,” Ferraro said.

Councilman Mike Feuer, who represents part of the Valley, agreed that the question of DWP assets should be settled before, not after an election.

“It’s only the appropriate order for people who like to shoot first and ask questions later,” Feuer said. “That proposal suggests that people should make decisions in the dark.”

Mayor Richard Riordan’s office declined to comment on the document, saying that it would wait until the city is formally asked by LAFCO to provide the data.

“The mayor continues to oppose secession because he continues to believe the city is better off staying together and solving its problems, not running from them,” said Riordan spokeswoman Jessica Copen. “The mayor believes secession is not the answer, charter reform is.”

Whether city officials will actually comply with that initial request for information to the satisfaction of secessionists and LAFCO members is becoming a hotly debated question. City officials, including the mayor’s chief of staff, Kelly Martin, have argued that the request is too exhaustive for them to be expected to shoulder financially, saying that much of the information does not exist in the right form, and some not at all.

A county report earlier this year estimated that more than 1,000 properties, several thousand vehicles, nearly 1,000 computers and more than 30,000 public employees would somehow have to be valued and divided to study secession. State law requires that the division be “revenue neutral” to both sides, possibly requiring a form of municipal alimony payments from one side to the other.

“For example, we don’t appraise our property every year, because it’s something we do not have to do,” said Ron Deaton, the city’s chief legislative analyst. “If we’re going to have to do new appraisals, that is going to cost an inordinate amount of money, and I don’t know that that is something we should be doing.”

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, one of nine appointed LAFCO panelists, said Los Angeles has a legal and moral responsibility to comply with the divorce proceedings. The study process should not be manipulated by city officials to prevent a vote on the issue, he said.

“I am going to assume that the city is going to be cooperative in providing all the information that we need to make a decision,” said Yaroslavsky, who says he is neutral on secession. “I think it would be ill-advised of the city to drag its feet and obfuscate the process.”

Another issue is who will pay for LAFCO’s economic analysis, which will require LAFCO to hire additional staff and consultants.

Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) recently proposed that the state pay 80% of the study’s cost, which LAFCO has initially estimated at $2.3 million. But that plan faces stiff opposition from state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles), one of secession’s most ardent foes.

Riordan has advocated that the city pay 10% of the study’s costs, and several county supervisors also have proposed that the county pay a portion of the tab, but the source for the remainder of the study’s funding remains unclear.

*

Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy contributed to this story.