Group Unveils Its View of a Valley City

San Fernando Valley activists Tuesday released their concept of a new city in the Valley--preliminary, incomplete, yet a distinct vision of what could be the nation’s sixth-largest city.

Valley VOTE, the group leading the secession drive, called for a “frugal,” bare-bones city government at the outset. The plan calls for use of existing city facilities and employees until a new government--and a full-time mayor and part-time city council of up to 13 members--can make permanent changes.

The plan, while vague on many details, clearly asserts the need for independent Valley police and fire departments.

The new city also would start out replicating all other city departments and services.

The ultimate goal is to create a new Valley city with a more responsive city government providing improved basic services while lowering taxes and fees, according to the document.

“We intend to make a Camelot out of it,” Valley VOTE president Jeff Brain said.

Some officials predicted opposition to Valley VOTE’s proposal to give the Valley a share of major city assets--such as Los Angeles International Airport and Department of Water and Power systems--outside the Valley.

“They want a lot,” Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said. “I don’t see any reason to give them anything. This [secession] is a great temper tantrum.”

The draft of the so-called vision statement distributed Tuesday to Valley VOTE board members may be revised, based on suggestions from the public, before it’s turned in to the Local Agency Formation Commission by Friday’s deadline.

LAFCO will use the statement as the basis of a study to determine whether the split would be financially neutral for the old and new cities.

Valley VOTE said it reserves the right to change the plan based on data to be generated by the LAFCO study on revenue sources and the location of assets and liabilities.

In spelling out the proposed terms of a municipal divorce, the secessionists said the new Valley city should be allowed to keep all city buildings, equipment and other assets situated in the Valley.

The new city should receive 36.25% of the value of most Los Angeles regional and central assets--such as City Hall and Parker Center--using a prorated share based on the percentage of the city’s population that lives in the Valley, the statement said. The value of those assets should be credited against the Valley’s share of Los Angeles’ liabilities, the statement said.

For the far more difficult job of dividing harbor, airport and Department of Water and Power assets and operations, the plan suggests the same prorating basis if negotiations to create joint powers authorities fail.

Joint management of those so-called “proprietary” departments set up by the city charter to be semiautonomous and financially self-sufficient would be the “least disruptive” way of handling the breakup, said Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE.

If Los Angeles refuses to accept joint management, Close said, LAFCO can split the agencies between the two cities and award “credits”--a form of alimony payments--if either side winds up shortchanged. The statement also suggested some services, such as water and power, could be privatized and put out for competitive bidding.

The secessionists proposed LAFCO determine how to divide the proprietary departments before an election, with implementation held off for three years to allow the new city to negotiate joint powers agreements.

Valley VOTE, the vision statement states, “seeks to divide the city’s municipal services in such a way as to have a smooth and equitable transition, with minimal impact upon city operations, departments, employees and residents.”

While city employee unions complimented the pledge to retain all of the approximately 34,000 current city workers, many Los Angeles officials called the plan simplistic, and said Valley VOTE underestimates the difficulty of dividing city assets and liabilities.

Mayor Richard Riordan, who also opposes secession, reserved comment on details of the vision statement until he has had a chance to review the document.

Riordan, however, believes the city would be better off not having to go through such a complicated divorce proceeding, involving the difficult dividing of shared assets, spokeswoman Jessica Copen said.

“Given how the mayor has improved city services and is continuing to improve city services, this is unnecessary,” Copen said.

The head of the city’s largest union for blue collar workers also said it is better to improve Los Angeles’ city services than break the city up.

Julie Butcher, general manager of the Service Employees International Union, Local 347, welcomed Valley VOTE’s assurances to existing city workers.

“If what they are trying to do is assuage the concerns about job security, I appreciate that effort,” Butcher said. But she added, “We will very closely watch to make sure they follow the law.”

While some assets should be divided based on the Valley’s share of the population, Valley VOTE said other assets might be better divided based on the percentage of square miles in the Valley.

Geographically, the Valley makes up 47.74% of the city’s land.

The vision statement said other assets, such as street miles, could be divided based on the percentage of those facilities in the Valley in comparison with the rest of the city.

The new city would be governed by a full-time mayor elected citywide and part-time council members who would receive “nominal” pay so as not to attract “career politicians.”

The current Los Angeles City Council is full time and the highest paid in the country. Valley VOTE is seeking legislation to allow a 13-member panel.

Larry J. Calemine, LAFCO executive officer, said the agency will use the report--and a similar one from Harbor area secessionists--to draft its formal request for data from the city of Los Angeles.

LAFCO will use the reams of data to prepare its own fiscal analysis of the proposed breakup. Close said he expects Los Angeles to try to obstruct the study by hiding information and stalling the process.

Close said Valley VOTE has not proposed wholesale changes in services to be provided by a new city government. “We don’t view it as our role to eliminate departments or make substantial changes,” he said. “That would be done by the first city council and the first mayor.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Secession Proposal

San Fernando Valley secessionists released their concept of a proposed Valley city Tuesday, preliminary, incomplete, yet a distinct vision. Valley VOTE, called for a “frugal,” bare-bones city government at the outset, mostly utilizing existing city facilities, and continuing all current services, and pledging to retain all 34,5000 current city workers.

The 24-page document begins a multiyear process of fact-finding and negotiation before voters would be allowed to make their decision on the issue.

HIGHLIGHTS

Plan calls for a city council of nonprofessional, part-time politicians, with 15 members, providing much closer representation than the existing council.

*

It would establish independent Valley police and fire departments. According to the document, it is secessionists’ “particular intent” that any new Valley city have its own public safety services.

*

Principle of revenue neutrality would be enforced, ensuring that “existing residents of the City of Los Angeles are not financially harmed or deprived.”

*

Assets and liabilities would either be operated jointly by both cities or be divided on a prorated basis. Facilities would remain with the jurisdiction in which they now exist.